Chapter V. The functioning of the European Convention. The executive organs and the rules of procedure

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Convention ◽  
Rules Of Procedure

Urgent Relief in Italian Civil Procedure

1985 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 456-461
Author(s):  
Federico Carpi
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Speedy Trial

Urgent relief imposes two basic requirements which influence both the procedure and the structure of the trial in which it is applied: avoiding prejudice and, in order to avoid prejudice, deviating from the general rules of procedure.As Calamandrei rightly noted in his fundamental work of 1936 (recently reprinted), the duration of the ordinary suit can lead to the danger that measures taken will be both useless and tardy. This is not a new viewpoint: it was a valid dictum in the Roman trial that “Si periculum est in mora, receditur a regulis iuris communis”.The thing which is new in our times is the consciousness in democratic legal systems that the judicial protection of rights and legitimate interests is not effective unless it is quickly obtainable. This observation applies to ordinary commercial rights, but above all it applies to non-commercial ones, for example rights of the person and his liberty. In other words, the time factor has become a vital one in guaranteeing and effecting access to justice.It is well known that the United States Constitution establishes the right to a speedy trial. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights similarly states that everyone has the right to have his case decided “dans un d61ai raisonable”.

Council of Europe

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 811-813
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Right ◽  
Schuman Plan ◽  
Church Schools

At a meeting in Strasbourg during the first week of August 1951, the Committee of Ministers made the following decisions: 1) referred back to a committee of experts the problem of refugees; 2) approved the addition of clauses guaranteeing the right to hold property, the right of parents to send their children to church schools and the right to participate in free elections, to the European Convention on Human Rights; 3) agreed to a change in the rules of procedure permitting the ministers, by unanimous decision, to allow those states having no interest in a particular action to abstain from voting on it. This last change would permit such projects as the Schuman Plan to be approved by ministers of the interested countries without involving others.

The Request for Mutual Assistance and the European Investigation Order – Is the Modern Legal Assistance Instrument Better than its Predecessor

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-216
Author(s):  
Georgia Papucharova
Keyword(s):  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Mutual Legal Assistance ◽  
Mutual Assistance ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
International Response ◽  
Criminal Matters

AbstractEuropean evidence law is a quite sensitive topic and has always been the cause of much debate by practitioners and academics. Theoretical and physical borders do not matter for transnational crime. The intensive mobility of people and the evolution of world trade with goods and services create favorable conditions for the cross-border crime to develop. Therefore, it is of a great importance to take far-reaching steps to an upgraded mechanism for obtaining evidence in and from the Member States. This article examines the application of two mutual legal assistance instruments – the request for mutual assistance, which was established by the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959, the EU Mutual Legal Assistance Convention of2000 with its 2001 Protocol, and Arts. 48 to 53 of the Schengen Agreement, and the European Investigation Order introduced by the Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters. The main objective of this research is to emphasize the advantages and disadvantages of both judicial cooperation mechanisms. A comparative analysis of both operational tools is an appropriate way to assess which one is related to more procedural savings and how both of them deal with the protection of human rights. Thus, the modern instruments for judicial cooperation in the area of transnational evidence-gathering as an international response to crimes with cross-border dimensions can be adequately valued.

A Call for Public Participation in the Treaty-making Process in South Africa: What can South Africa Learn from the Kingdom of Thailand?

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Retselisitsoe Phooko
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Future Situation ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

On 2 August 2002 South Africa signed the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Tribunal and the Rules of Procedure Thereof, thus effectively recognising and accepting the jurisdiction of the SADC Tribunal. Among the cases received by the SADC Tribunal was a complaint involving allegations of human rights violations by the government of Zimbabwe. It ruled that the government of Zimbabwe had violated human rights. Consequently, Zimbabwe mounted a politico-legal challenge against the existence of the Tribunal. This resulted in the review of the role and functions of the Tribunal in 2011 which resulted in the Tribunal being barred from receiving new cases or proceeding with the cases that were already before it. Furthermore, on 18 August 2014, the SADC Summit adopted and signed the 2014 Protocol on the Tribunal in the SADC which disturbingly limits personal jurisdiction by denying individual access to the envisaged Tribunal, thus reducing it to an inter-state judicial forum. This article critically looks at the decision of 18 August 2014, specifically the legal implications of the Republic of South Africa’s signing of the 2014 Protocol outside the permissible procedure contained in article 37 of the SADC Protocol on the Tribunal. It proposes that South Africa should correct this democratic deficit by introducing public participation in treaty-making processes in order to prevent a future situation where the executive unilaterally withdraws from an international treaty that is meant to protect human rights at a regional level. To achieve this, this article makes a comparative study between South Africa and the Kingdom of Thailand to learn of any best practices from the latter.

Prawne regulacje pobierania i transplantacji narządów oraz tkanek w ujęciu europejskiej konwencji bioetycznej

2016 ◽  
pp. 52-65
Author(s):  
Patryk Kołodyński ◽  
Paulina Drab
Keyword(s):  
Ex Vivo ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Public ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
The Past ◽  
Reliable Source ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Source Of Information

Over the past several years, transplantology has become one of the fastest developing areas of medicine. The reason is, first and foremost, a significant improvement of the results of successful transplants. However, much controversy arouse among the public, on both medical and ethical grounds. The article presents the most important concepts and regulations relating to the collection and transplantation of organs and tissues in the context of the European Convention on Bioethics. It analyses the convention and its additional protocol. The article provides the definition of transplantation and distinguishes its types, taking into account the medical criteria for organ transplants. Moreover, authors explained the issue of organ donation ex vivo and ex mortuo. The European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine clearly regulates the legal aspects concerning the transplantation and related basic concepts, and therefore provides a reliable source of information about organ transplantation and tissue. This act is a part of the international legal order, which includes the established codification of bioethical standards.

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document