scholarly journals The right of the defense to request an explanation of the accusation during the criminal investigation phase

2021 ◽  
pp. 7-14
Author(s):  
Tatiana Vizdoaga ◽  
◽  
Adriana Esanu ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Investigation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Republic Of Moldova ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

Pursuant to Article 66 paragraph (2) point 1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has the right to know for what deed he is accused […], i.e. to be informed on the nature and cause of the accusation brought against him. If the person is not properly informed about the accusation, he is deprived of the right to ensure the possibility of preparing and exercising his defense, being seriously affected by the principles of a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Although the principle governing the exercise of rights by the accused in criminal proceedings guarantees the use of any means and procedures of defense, except those expressly prohibited by law, some prosecutors are reluctant to defenders’ requests to explain the accusation in criminal proceedings, context in which, in most cases, either declares them inadmissible or considers them unfounded. Such an approach does not reconcile the right to a fair trial; or, the clarity of what is set out in the indictment is also linked to the right of the accused to defend himself – as an indispensable element of the protection of the person against arbitrariness. Therefore, in this study, the authors will come up with pertinent arguments to annihilate the vicious practice of prosecutors to disregard the importance of predictability of the accusation in order to ensure the right to defense, as well as avoiding the conviction of the Republic of Moldova by the European Court for European Convention.

The European Court of Human Rights: Sabeh El Leil v. France

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Gilles Cuniberti
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Wrongful Dismissal

In Sabeh el Leil v. France, the European Court of Human Rights (‘‘ECtHR’’ or ‘‘the Court’’) ruled for the second time that a contracting state had violated the right to a fair trial afforded by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘‘Convention’’) by denying access to its courts to an embassy employee suing for wrongful dismissal on the grounds that the employer enjoyed sovereign immunity. The ECtHR had first ruled so a year earlier in Cudak v. Lithuania, where the plaintiff was also an embassy employee.

scholarly journals НЕКИ АСПЕКТИ ПРАВА НА СУДСКУ ЗАШТИТУ ЛИЦА СА МЕНТАЛНИМ СМЕТЊАМА У ПОСТУПКУ ЛИШЕЊА ПОСЛОВНЕ СПОСОБНОСТИ - ПРАКСА ЕВРОПСКОГ СУДА ЗА ЉУДСКА ПРАВА

TEME ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 581
Author(s):  
Dušica Palačković ◽  
Sanda Ćorac
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Capacity ◽  
Mental Disabilities ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
European Court ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

The paper analyzes certain important aspects of the procedural position of persons with mental disabilities in the procedures for deprivation of legal capacity. Regardless of the normative framework, both international and national, which largely protects the rights of this sensitive group of people, a significant number of cases before the European Court of Human Rights and decisions in which Contracting States are declared responsible indicate that there is a problem of their procedural position that is principally conditioned by applying (or not applying) the procedural safeguards provided by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, or the right to a fair trial. Although this right is guaranteed for all civil and criminal procedures and for all persons, the special features of persons with mental disabilities also determine the particularities in the application of the right to a fair trial in the court procedures in which these persons are involved. Therefore, we could talk about formulated specific standards that essentially elaborate one of the key concepts of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - "reasonable adaptation", as well as a direct link to the need for a specific application of the already mentioned Article 6 of the European Convention. The standards that follow from the application of Article 6 are numerous and the analysis of all from the aspect of protecting the rights of persons with mental disabilities is not possible in the paper of this volume, and therefore, special attention was given to the right of these persons to initiate and conduct the procedures for deprivation of legal capacity, personal participation and representation in that procedures.

ANONIMNI SVEDOCI I ZAŠTITA LjUDSKIH PRAVA

2021 ◽  
pp. 277-296
Author(s):  
Veljko Turanjanin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Step Test ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Insufficient Knowledge

Тhe author deals with the problem of anonymous witnesses in the context of the right to a fair trial in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. One of the problems in the application of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is related to the testimonies of anonymous witnesses in criminal proceedings. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights has developed certain criteria that must be followed in national legislation, but it is obvious that there is insufficient knowledge regarding this problem, as well as the reluctance to apply the mentioned rules. The standards developed by the ECtHR are very important for national laws and jurisprudence. The author explains the development of a three-step test that needs to be examined when assessing a violation of the right to a fair trial, through an analysis of a multitude of judgments, in order to provide guidance on the application of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the European Convention on Human Rights. After introductory considerations, the author explains who can be a witness under the Convention, since this question is raised independently of national legislation, and then explains the right to examine witnesses, the admissibility of testimonies by anonymous witnesses and the examination of the three-stage test, and gives concluding remarks.

scholarly journals ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: LEGAL STANCES OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 56-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Yu. Vilkova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

The article is devoted to the analysis of the stances developed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the content, scope, general principles of ensuring the right of access to justice, and permissible limits applied to restrict the right in question. The author has substantiated the conclusion that the European Court of Human Rights associates access to justice with Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Thus, the concept of access to justice includes a number of elements: the right to have recourse to court; the right to have a case heard and resolved in compliance with the requirements of a fair trial; the right to have the judgment enforced; the set of safeguards that allow the person to exercise the rights under consideration effectively. According to the European Court of Human Rights, access to justice should be ensured at all stages including pre-trial (criminal) proceedings and reviewing of court decisions by higher courts. However, the right of access to justice is not absolute. The restrictions imposed must have a legitimate purpose and reasonable proportionality must be obtained between the means used and the goal determined. In view of the requirement mentioned above, the national legislation may provide for the particularities of application of Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention to proceedings in different types of courts and at different stages, for example, by establishing a certain procedure for the court to grant individuals the right to appeal to a higher court. The author has demonstrated the main directions of applying the legal stances of the European Court of Human Rights regarding access to justice to improve the Russian criminal procedural legislation and law enforcement practices, as well as for further scientific research.

scholarly journals The value of the ECtHR practice for making procedural decisions when conducting covert investigative (search) actions

2020 ◽  
pp. 158-169
Author(s):  
Olena Bilichak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Decisions

Based on the analysis of the provisions of domestic law, the practice of pre-trial investigation and court, the scientific article develops recommendations on how to take into account the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in covert investigative (search) actions and use the results obtained in evidence. It is established that the current legislation provides for the possibility of conducting pre-trial investigation of serious and especially serious crimes of covert investigative (investigative) actions, which in most cases is related to intrusion into privacy and correspondence of a person protected by Art. 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Therefore, knowledge of the content and consideration of the case law of the ECtHR in making procedural decisions on the conduct of pre-trial investigation by certain NSDCs and the use of the results obtained by them in court evidence is a strong guarantee of the legality of court decisions. When making certain procedural decisions regarding the materials of covert investigative (investigative) actions at the pre-trial and court stages of criminal proceedings, it should be taken into account that the right to secrecy of correspondence guaranteed by Art. 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ensures the inviolability of all forms of communication between persons, both by means of communication and without them. All covert investigative (search) actions should be carried out only in accordance with the law. Audio and video materials submitted by private individuals and produced «with the help» of law enforcement officers cannot be considered admissible evidence. Carrying out NSRD to control the commission of a crime (Article 271 of the CPC of Ukraine) should exclude the possibility of provocation by the pre-trial investigation authorities. If their intelligence staff was involved in such a special operation, in the initial stages of its conduct the conduct of the pre-trial investigation body should be exclusively passive and limited to observation. In any case, the evidence in the criminal proceedings in which the relevant special operation took place should not be based only on its materials, and the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Key words: criminal proceedings, European Court of Human Rights, covert investigative actions.

scholarly journals Criteria for Assessing the Violation of the Right to a Trial Within a Reasonable Time

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miodrag Simović ◽  
Marina Simović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Charges ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

The well-known sentence in English Justice delayed is justice denied confirms historical awareness of the value of a speedy court decision. The right to a fair trial within a reasonable time applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. In a criminal trial, the issue of adjournment may also be regulated under Article 5 paragraph 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms when a person is detained. The rationale for the principle, in criminal proceedings, is “based on the need to allow the accused not to remain for too long in a state of uncertainty as to the outcome of criminal charges against him” (Kart v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, 2009). Furthermore, the variability of criminal proceedings that take too long - generally damages the reputation of the alleged offender. The European Court of Human Rights explained that “the reason for the verdict in so many lenghty proceedings is that certain contracting parties have not complied with the ‘reasonable time’ requirement under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention and have not prescribed a domestic remedy for this type of appeal” (Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], 2006-V).

scholarly journals Slepenu izmeklēšanas metožu lietošanas principu attiecināmība uz likumā “Par policiju” paredzētā kontrolpirkuma izpildi

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (17) ◽  
pp. 89-107
Author(s):  
Mārcis Grinciuns
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
Investigation Methods ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Secret Investigation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Police Control

Rakstā tiek pētīta Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesas (ECT) pausto slepeno izmeklēšanas metožu (undercover operations) izpildes principu attiecināmība uz likumā “Par policiju” noteiktā kontrolpirkuma (turpmāk rakstā – policijas kontrolpirkums) izpildi. Policijas kontrolpirkums galvenokārt tiek veikts, lai atklātu administratīvos pārkāpumus, kuru izskatīšana nav piekritīga ECT, jo Cilvēka tiesību un pamatbrīvību aizsardzības konvencijas (turpmāk rakstā – Konvencija) 6. pantā noteiktās tiesības uz taisnīgu tiesu paredzētas apsūdzētajiem krimināllietās [1, angļu valodas versija]. Taču atsevišķos gadījumos arī administratīvais pārkāpums (vai disciplinārpārkāpums) var būt piekritīgs ECT kompetencei – tas atkarīgs no tā, kāda rakstura pārkāpums tiek izmeklēts un kāds sods par tā izdarīšanu paredzēts. ECT ir definējusi trīs kritērijus, pēc kuriem tā vērtē, vai pārkāpums atbilst krimināla pārkāpuma būtībai un ir piekritīgs Konvencijas 6. pantam. Aktuāls ir jautājums, vai likumpārkāpumi, kuru izmeklēšanā ir paredzēts izmantot policijas kontrolpirkumu, ir piekritīgi Konvencijas 6. pantam, un, ja tā, vai policijas kontrolpirkuma normatīvais regulējums ir atbilstošs ECT paustajiem slepenu izmeklēšanas metožu lietojuma principiem (nosacījumiem). The article examines the relevance of the principles of the use of secret investigation methods (undercover operations) expressed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to the test-purchase measure set out in the Law “On police” (police test-purchase). The police test-purchase mainly is used to detect administrative offences which are not subject to review by the ECHR, since the right to a fair trial provided in Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention) is reserved for defendants in criminal proceedings. The question is whether the offences, where police test-purchase is used as part of investigation, are subject to Article 6 of the Convention, and if so, whether the regulatory framework for police control is in line with the principles (conditions) of the use of secret investigative methods expressed by the ECHR.

scholarly journals The Right to a Fair Trial before The European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. p133
Author(s):  
Alaa Mohamed Ismail Abdrabo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
New Work ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Charges ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantees the right to a fair trial, applies to disputes relating to civil rights and obligations as well as to criminal charges. The right to a fair trial includes, inter alia, the right of access to a court, the right to be heard and the equality of arms between the parties. This challenging new work elucidates the meaning of the fair trial and looks at the fair trials jurisprudence of the ECHR.Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights has become the defining standard within Europe for determining the fairness of criminal proceedings. Its success has been attributed to the fact that it is not based on a particular model of criminal procedure.

scholarly journals Ensuring the Right to a Fair Trial Pre-Trial Stage Criminal Process

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 133-141
Author(s):  
A A Tymoshenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

The article considers the problem of respect for the right to a fair trial at the pre-trial stage of the criminal process. It is pro- posed to take into account the secondary role of pre-trial activity, whose task is to prepare materials for trial. This competitiveness for the prosecution is not allowed. Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights indicates sufficient blurring boundaries that separate statement of the facts of the presence or absence of a violation of Art. 6 of the European Convention «On Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms» (the right to a fair trial). But in any case the decision is motivated by the observance of guarantees of access to justice. Hence, any infringement of the possibi

scholarly journals Oral public hearing in an administrative dispute

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 487-502
Author(s):  
Renata Bjelica
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

The right to an oral public hearing is covered by the right to a fair trial as a right guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as by the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. In this sense, the Law on Administrative Disputes prescribes a rule for the court to establish the facts at an oral public hearing. This law prescribes exceptions to the rule, as well as cases in which the court will "always" and in which it is "obliged" to hold an oral public hearing. Analyzing the legal provisions, with reference to the relevant administrative and constitutional caselaw, and considering the present organization and capacity of the administrative judiciary, the author pointed to certain shortcomings of legislative solutions and administrative judicial decisions, and based on the conclusions drawn, tried to offer possible solutions so that, when it comes to holding a hearing before a court, a higher degree of fairness of trial could be achieved.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document