Human Rights and Hand-Rolling Tobacco: The Right to a Fair Hearing

2014 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
The Right

scholarly journals Inconsistent Adjudication – A Violation of the Right to Fair Trial Under the European Convention on Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-338
Author(s):  
Dragoljub Popović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National Courts ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Case

The ECtHR does not review decisions of national courts of the States Parties to the European Convention. However, it has developed a pattern in its case law to find a violation of the Convention on the grounds that the fair hearing lacked if there was a case law inconsistency at the level of national jurisdiction. The ECtHR case law was settled in a Grand Chamber case against Turkey in 2011. To find a violation under Article 6 of the Convention the ECtHR requires two tests. Firstly, it must establish the existence of a profound and long-standing inconsistency in the domestic case law, and secondly, the ECtHR raises the issue of a mechanism aimed at removing the inconsistency. If the mechanism does not exist, or if it applied ineffectively, the ECtHR finds a violation of human rights. The author suggests the ECtHR should revisit its jurisprudence.

What's Happening to the Right to a Fair Hearing

2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 522-544
Author(s):  
Arthur Chaskalson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
The Right ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Attitudes And Behavior ◽  
The Impact

The policies of the U.S.—developed in response to the threat of terroism have been criticized. This is of importance, not only because of the harm it does to the United States own reputation, but because of the influence such measures have on other countries with less commitment to the protection of human rights than the United States has historically had. It is, however, a crucial issue because of the impact that such policies can have on the political will of the international community to respect and promote half a century of endeavor to build an international human rights culture, and on attitudes and behavior in countries affected by such measures. The exception becomes the rule; the temporary becomes permanent; and fairness and due process cease to have the meaning they once had. This Article's remarks are directed to the right to a fair hearing which must be seen, however, in a broader context as a concern about a discourse which, whilst retaining the label, seeks to change the content of established principles of human rights.

scholarly journals A return to the manifest justice principle: a critical examination of the "reasonable suspicion/apprehension of bias" and "real possibility of bias" tests for judicial bias in South Africa and England

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
ES Nwauche
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
South African ◽  
Fish Processing ◽  
Real Possibility ◽  
The Real ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Real Danger

The impartiality of judges often expressed in the Latin maxim nemo iudex in propria causa interpreted to mean that no man should be a judge in his own cause together with the right of fair hearing make up the right to natural justice. This principle is recognized by a number of provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Section 165 (4) provides that the organs of state shall through legislative and other measures assist and protect the courts to ensure their independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness. Furthermore, section 34 of the same Constitution provides that everyone has the right to have any dispute resolved by the application of law by a court or, where appropriate another independent and impartial tribunal or forum. Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 as incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1988, applicable in England since 2000 provides that: "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair hearing … by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law." The independence of courts and impartiality of judges are closely related in that they operate to sustain public confidence in the administration of justice.This article advocates a return to the use of the manifest justice principle enshrined as the proper contextfor the application of the tests of "reasonable apprehension of bias" adopted by South African courtsand "real possibility of bias" adopted by English courtsin the consideration of allegation of apparent bias. This paper argues that the tests are differentand that while the English test is a move of English courts from the real danger/likelihoodtest in consonance with an overwhelming global jurisprudence the South African test is a move away from this global jurisprudence and arguably back to the real danger/likelihood test. This paper also argues that the reasonable apprehension test as applied by the minority in SACCAWU v Irvin & Johnson Ltd (Seafoods Division Fish Processing)is a more acceptable interpretation of the reasonable apprehension test than the test laid down in President of the Republic of South Africa v South Africa Rugby Football Union (2) and its interpretation by the majority in SACCAWU v Irvin & Johnson Ltd (Seafoods Division Fish Processing). More importantly there is an examination of cases where the tests have been applied which hopefully shows that there are considerable problems and inconsistency in their application and argue that the manifest justice principle provides the proper context for the tests to be properly applied.

12. The Right to a Fair Trial in Civil and Criminal Cases

2020 ◽  
pp. 277-312
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey ◽  
Pamela McCormick ◽  
Clare Ovey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

This chapter examines the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the right to a fair trial in criminal and civil cases, explaining that Article 6 of ECHR holds that the Strasbourg Court has no jurisdiction to reopen national legal proceedings or to substitute its own findings of fact for the conclusions of national courts. The chapter examines the interpretation by the Strasbourg Court of the protections provided by Article 6 in the extensive jurisprudence on this Article and discusses issues concerning the overall requirements of a fair hearing, right of access to court, and the extraterritorial effect of Article 6.

12. The Right to a Fair Trial in Civil and Criminal Cases

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey ◽  
Elizabeth Wicks ◽  
Andclare Ovey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

This chapter examines the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the right to a fair trial in criminal and civil cases, explaining that Article 6 of ECHR holds that the Strasbourg Court has no jurisdiction to reopen national legal proceedings or to substitute its own findings of fact for the conclusions of national courts. It discusses issues concerning the overall requirements of a fair hearing, right of access to court, and the extraterritorial effect of Article 6.

The Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses – Case Law under the European Convention on Human Rights

2002 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-106
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
General Terms ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe subject of this article is the right to cross-examine witnesses as laid down in Article 6 paragraph 3(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Case law of the European Court and Commission of Human Rights shows that general principles are applied by the Convention organs. Thus, it is practicable – in more general terms – to outline some acceptable possibilities of using statements made to the police or in court before the beginning of the hearing without violating the fair hearing requirement in Article 6.

Two Landmark Decisions of the Albanian Constitutional Court: The Individual, the Employee, and the State

2004 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-245
Author(s):  
Agron Alibali
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Procedural Due Process ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
Rare Opportunity

AbstractThe present article focuses on two important decisions of the Albanian Constitutional Court that have clarified the right to a fair hearing in circumstances in which removal proceedings against top government officials are at the center of an administrative dispute. In interpreting the Constitution and following its established jurisprudence, the Court held that the right to a fair hearing exists in every administrative proceeding that has a "punishing character". The dispute arising from the removal of Albania's General Prosecutor in the spring of 2002 has provided a rare opportunity to debate important issues of constitutional law and human rights in what was a previously closed and oppressed society. The article outlines the circumstances surrounding the case, highlights related Albanian law and jurisprudence, discusses the role in such cases of the Parliament and President, set forth the pleadings before the Court, and analyzes the Court's rulings. The Court's rulings are also framed in a comparative context against the landmark case of Pellegrin v. France, as decided by the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the doctrine of procedural due process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document