European Court of Human Rights and the Bulgarian Judicial System

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 535-544
Author(s):  
Aleksandur Kirkov ◽  
◽  
Ana Andonova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court

Bulgaria ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 1992, as such this European act has become part of our domestic legislation. Explaining in detail the differences and similarities between the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the Bulgarian judicial system, we will actually see how much they are similar. This is the purpose of the present study - comparative analysis in all aspects: territorial jurisdiction, legal jurisdiction, including procedurally legitimate persons to file complaints, procedural issues, stages of the process, court decisions and appeals. The first and most important task of the study is to get acquainted in detail with our European rights, as well as their judicial protection. On the other hand, the knowledge of the European judicial mechanisms leads to the expansion of our national horizons in a supranational perspective, to opportunities for professional realization outside the borders of the country, on a European and global scale. The research method used in the present scientific work is the comparative analysis. The methodology we refer to in preparing the analysis is based on a predetermined methodological approach and structure in conducting the analysis. The methodological approach itself includes a general overview of the legal framework, regulating the administration of justice in national courts and at European level. An essential feature of the approach used is to compare the two established legal systems, at home and in Strasbourg, at all levels, to explore links and interdependencies possible differences. Expected results: acquainting the Bulgarians with their European rights, as in case of violation of these rights, learning about the mechanisms for their protection in court. Conclusions and summaries: Bulgaria is part of the common European framework. As such, its citizens are Bulgarians, but also Europeans. Namely, as Europeans, they have rights that are guaranteed to them by Europe and that should be respected in Bulgaria. Failure to respect these European rights creates conflicts that should be resolved by both national courts and the European Court of Human Rights.

scholarly journals “Tatprovokation” – The Legal Issue of Entrapment in Germany and Possible Solutions

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 496-509
Author(s):  
Franziska Görlitz ◽  
Juliane Hubert ◽  
Jasmin Kucher ◽  
Moritz Scheffer ◽  
Patrick Wieser
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Legal Issue ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Federal Court Of Justice ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Procedural Rights

AbstractIncitement by police officers is a well-known and often utilized police measure in the German investigation process. Yet, when it comes to prosecuting the perpetrators, a moral conflict arises. Should a State, bound by its own constitution and committed to protect its citizens, be allowed to incite or support a possible offender and afterwards judge on his or her wrongful actions? After Germany’s higher courts had to deal with multiple cases of entrapped perpetrators, there has been a strong debate about the admissibility, requirements, and consequences of entrapment within the German legal system. International and national courts as well as scholars represent different legal standpoints in this regard. In particular, the approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the German Federal Court of Justice differ significantly in their results. As Germany ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore has to adhere to the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling, an additional legal conflict arises. This article depicts and discusses the most relevant approaches to resolve this moral and legal conflict and satisfy both the need for effective prosecution and the procedural rights of the individual person subject to the act of entrapment. Additionally, recent legislative ambitions are presented.

scholarly journals General and Particular Approaches to Implementation of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 248-292
Author(s):  
VLADIMÍRA PEJCHALOVÁ GRÜNWALDOVÁ
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Level ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court

AbstractThis article deals with the implementation, at the national level, of European human rights protection standards as enshrined in theEuropean Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) and interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It discusses the principles of interpretation of theECHRby the ECtHR, the interaction and mutual dialogue between the ECtHR and national courts, and the approach of the latter to interpretation and application of the case law of the ECtHR. Using the concrete examples of France and the Czech Republic as case studies, it is shown to what extent and how European constitutional courts take into account and apply the letter of the Convention and its interpretation by the ECtHR.

Advisory jurisdiction and the European Court of Human Rights: a magic bullet for dialogue and docket-control?

Legal Studies ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 444-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou ◽  
Noreen O'Meara
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Magic Bullet ◽  
Reform Initiative ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Constructive Dialogue ◽  
European Court ◽  
Advisory Opinions

Protocol 16 ECHR will provide for an extension of the advisory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), enabling highest national courts to request advisory opinions on questions of principle concerning the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or its protocols. This extension of the ECtHR's advisory jurisdiction aims to achieve two goals: a reduction in the ECtHR's excessive docket, and the enhancement of dialogue between the ECtHR and (highest) national courts. While the aims of this reform initiative are laudable, we argue that Protocol 16 is likely to fail to achieve its objectives. Our analysis suggests that rather than facilitating the Court's adjudicatory function, extended advisory jurisdiction has the potential to impact on the Court's constitutionalist function in a manner that can be better achieved through the Court's contentious cases. The burden that this procedure will place on the Court's already overstretched resources would risk delays to contentious cases and potentially undermine judicial comity should requests for advisory opinions be declined. Furthermore, evidence of ‘constructive’ dialogue between highest national courts and the ECtHR is emerging in contentious cases without the need for a reformed advisory opinions mechanism. Rather than achieving its objectives, Protocol 16 risks exacerbating the Court's backlog and nullifying the positive effects of advisory opinions on dialogue.

‘A Risk of Irreparable Damage’: Interim Measures in Proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 313-336
Author(s):  
Pamela McCormick
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
European Court ◽  
To Come ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Interim Measures ◽  
Irreparable Damage

Abstract Interim measures can be indicated by most international decision-making bodies which monitor compliance with human rights norms to the parties involved in the proceedings before them, in order to prevent the commission of any irreversible actions which would either preclude the proper examination of a complaint or render the final judgment meaningless. The availability of interim measures is an essential feature of any effective judicial system, particularly where fundamental rights are at stake. They play a particularly important role in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’). The volume of requests for an indication of interim measures received by the Court each year is substantial and increasing. This presents the Court with a number of legal and practical problems. This chapter examines the circumstances in which an indication of interim measures may be made, as well as the consequences of non-compliance with such an indication, although it is acknowledged that the incidence of non-compliance is low. With its recent case law, the Court has brought the existence of interim measures to the attention of a wider audience, which is desirable as only such an awareness will render the protection of Convention rights practical and effective rather than theoretical and illusory, a stated goal of the Court. However, such a wider awareness will in turn increase the volume of requests again, making it likely that the Court will in years to come have to make significant changes to the scope of requests for interim measures, as well as to its practices and procedures for considering such requests.

scholarly journals Case-law of the European court of human rights and its value to administrative justice

2019 ◽  
pp. 17-20
Author(s):  
Kristina NIKONOROVA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
European Court ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
Administrative Justice

More than twenty years have passed since Ukraine ratified the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 1997 and recognized the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). On September 16, 2014 the European Parliament ratified the Association Agreement with the EU synchronously with the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. European integration processes have once again begun to play a leading role in the implementation of legal reform in Ukraine aimed at introducing the fundamental provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). First and foremost, the implementation of the rule of law principle based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. In connection with this starting point, the ECtHR's case-law is considered to be a source of law, in particular in administrative proceedings. The main findings are based on the fact that the ECtHR's practice is inextricably linked to the Convention, which the ECtHR interprets in its decisions when dealing with specific cases. Some attention has been paid to the analysis of the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the enforcement of decisions and the application of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights”. Article 17 of this Law provides for the courts using the ECHR and practicing the case-law of the ECtHR's as a source of law. Article 18 of the aforementioned Law defines the order of reference in national courts’ decisions to the ECHR and ECtHR's practice. It is emphasized that according to Article 1 of the above Law, it is necessary to talk about the ECtHR’s practice in a broad aspect, and not only about decisions regarding Ukraine. It is revealed that the main discussion is on the precedental nature of ECtHR’s decisions. As scientists understand the precedental nature of EctHR’s decisions, this question has taken the appropriate place in the study. As a result, it is concluded that the practice of the ECtHR has a precedent form the content of which is based on the legal position of the official interpretation of the provisions of the ECHR. It is in this form that it is appropriate to apply the case-law of the ECtHR's in the area of administrative justice.

Climate Change Litigation and the European Court of Human Rights - A Strategic Next Step?

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-342
Author(s):  
Therese Karlsson Niska
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Climate Protection ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Senior Women ◽  
Combat Climate Change

Abstract The purpose of the article is to analyse if bringing a case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) could be impactful in forcing greater climate change action. Part of this analysis is built upon the review of two climate change cases brought before national courts, since they have different outcomes even though both use the fundamental human rights of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as their legal bases. The cases are the Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Union of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v. Swiss Federal Council and Others. The Urgenda case establishes a link between the rights in article 2 and 8 ECHR, and climate change, which creates a positive obligation for a state to protect these rights by acting to combat climate change. The Swiss Climate Protection case, however, is dismissed. Both cases highlight some of the challenges regarding climate change in relation to the fundamental human rights of the ECHR. Judgments by the ECtHR are final, and the formally and informally binding nature of case law from the court is argued to indicate the possibility of a powerful tool in relation to climate change action since 47 states will be affected by the court’s decisions. However, if a case brought before the ECtHR has an unfavourable outcome in relation to forcing greater governmental action in combating climate change, this may also have greater consequences than such an outcome of a domestic challenge, since it will set a minimum standard of care, or completely exclude climate change in relation to human rights. The article argues that it should be considered worth the identified risks to bring a claim before the ECtHR even though it is uncertain if the evolving nature of the charter is ready to establish obligations in relation to climate change, due to the unprecedented and severe threat that climate change constitutes.

Free Life after Life Imprisonment as a Human Right under the European Convention: European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Judgment of 9 July 2013, Vinter and Others v. The United Kingdom

2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 501-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marek Szydło
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Court ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Right ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Life Sentence ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Life Sentences

The recent judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (‘the ECtHR’ or ‘the Court’) in Vinter and Others reflects a very significant change in the Court's attitude to those actions of the states parties to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the Convention’ or ‘the ECHR’) that consist in the imposition and further execution of whole life sentences. In this judgment, the Court concluded that Article 3 of the Convention – which prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading punishment – requires the reducibility of all whole life sentences as imposed by national courts, in the sense of a review mechanism which allows domestic authorities to conclude whether in the course of a life sentence the legitimate peno-logical grounds justifying the further incarceration of a life prisoner still exist. Moreover, such a mechanism or possibility for review of a whole life sentence must be provided for by a national law and, consequently, must be known to a life prisoner already at the moment of imposition of the whole life sentence. What is also important, a life prisoner, at the outset of his/her sentence, must know when (i.e. after how many years) and under what conditions a review of his/her sentence will take place or may be sought, and what he/she must do to be considered for release. Otherwise, the very imposition of a life sentence by a national court infringes Article 3 of the Convention.

The Long Walk to Strasbourg: About the Insufficient Judicial Protection in Some Areas of the Common Foreign and Security Policy before the European Union’s Accession to the ECHR

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 393-414
Author(s):  
José M. Cortés-Martín
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Judicial Remedies ◽  
The Eu

Abstract It is likely that the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) objection in Opinion 2/13 regarding the absence of judicial remedies in certain Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) areas can hardly be accommodated in a future revised Accession Project to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is basically due to obstacles to proceeding with reform of the EU Treaties or establishing an ECHR reservation clause. However, as a matter of fact, the exact dimension of this problem seems to be quite relative. First of all, this is because recent ECJ case-law is gradually eroding the Court’s lack of competence, in particular, after Rosneft. Next, this is because, in those cases where there is still an absence of effective judicial protection, national courts – as EU ordinary courts – could fill this gap. Finally, this gap could also be filled by creating accountability mechanisms in the area of human rights within the framework of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions.

THE COURTS AND THE ECHR: A PRINCIPLED APPROACH TO THE STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE

2013 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
EIRIK BJORGE
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
The Way

AbstractThe way in which the courts in the United Kingdom have interpreted and applied the Ullah principle has created problems in the national application of the European Convention on Human Rights. As is evident particularly in Ambrose, this is partly because Lord Bingham's approach in Ullah has been misunderstood. The article analyses these issues in relation to the notion of binding precedent, finding that judicial authority belongs to principles. The national courts ought not, though that is what the Ullah–Ambrose approach enjoins, to expend their energies seeking to align the case before them with the least dissimilar of the reported cases. Rather they should stand back from the case law of the European Court, and apply the broad principles upon which the jurisprudence is founded.

scholarly journals Decisões da Corte Europeia de Direitos Humanos como base para Revisão de Julgamentos de Tribunais Nacionais

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia A. Тerekhova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
National Level ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
Evolutionary Interpretation

DECISÕES DA CORTE EUROPEIA DE DIREITOS HUMANOS COMO BASE PARA REVISÃO DE JULGAMENTOS DE TRIBUNAIS NACIONAIS *  EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGEMENT AS A BASIS FOR REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL COURTS' JUDGEMENT  Lydia A. Тerekhova**  RESUMO: A autora considera o procedimento de execução das decisões da Corte Europeia de Direitos Humanos através da possibilidade de rever a decisão do tribunal russo sob novas circunstâncias. Como nova circunstância, o reconhecimento pelo Tribunal Europeu de Direitos Humanos da violação das cláusulas da Convenção a respeito da Proteção dos Direitos Humanos e das Liberdades Fundamentais é considerado um caso particular pelo tribunal, em conexão com a decisão sobre a qual o requerente solicitou à TEDH. O Tribunal Constitucional da Federação Russa acredita que os tribunais da Federação Russa são obrigados a solicitar ao Tribunal Constitucional sempre que ao rever um caso sobre novas circunstâncias, eles chegam à conclusão de que a questão da possibilidade de aplicar a lei relevante só pode acontecer depois de confirmar a sua conformidade com a Constituição da Federação Russa. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Revisão de Atos Judiciais. Corte Europeia de Direitos Humanos. Supremacia Constituição da Federação Russa. Interpretação Evolutiva. Prática de Cooperação. Princípio da Subsidiariedade. ABSTRACT***: The purpose of the article – a critical analysis of the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the justification, through the analysis of the ECtHR practice and scientific work on execution of the ECtHR judgments, about the coordination of positions of national courts and the supranational body. The methodological basis for the study: general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, comparison); private and academic (interpretation, comparative legal, formal-legal). Problems and basic scientific results: The issue of implementation of the Human Rights Court decisions at the national level occurs when the compensation is not enough to eliminate the revealed violations. Russian legislator opted for the situation of Human Rights by the European Court finding a violation of the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the consideration by the court of a particular case, in connection with the decision by which the applicant applied to the ECtHR mechanism for review of the decision on the new circumstances. Supreme Court puts forward three conditions for the implementation of the revision of the judicial act on a national level, which should be available at the same time: 1) the continuous nature of the adverse effects; 2) the existence of violations of the Convention or gross procedural violations; 3) a causal link between the breach and the consequences. The author point out that the regulation of possible conflicts between the Convention and national legislation is based on cooperation (not confrontation) States and the European Court of Human Rights. Such practice of cooperation based on the principles of subsidiarity (addition to national rights protection system); evolutionary interpretation of the Convention (which implies flexibility, and accounting for changes in public relations); Judges dialogue and to develop advisory opinions. Consequently, the task of the Constitutional Court can not be default search options, on the contrary, its task – to determine exactly how, taking into account the differences in the legislation, the decision will be enforced. Failure, as well as the improper execution of judgments of the ECtHR may involve the establishment of a new violation of the provisions of the Convention and sanctions against violators. KEYWORDS: Review of Effectual Judgments. European Court of Human Rights. Supremacy of RF Constitution. Evolutionary Interpretation. Cooperation Practices. Principle of Subsidiarity.* Artigo originalmente pulicado em língua russa, sob o título Постановление Европейского Суда по Правам Человека как Основание для Пересмотра Решения Национального Суда, no periódico Правоприменение (Direito Aplicado), v. 1, n. 1, 2017, p. 173-183. Agradecemos a editora da Universidade Estatal Dostoevsky de Omsk, Rússia, pela autorização e suporte na publicação desta edição em português. Tradução de Olga Alyokhina Alves e revisão de Fernando César Costa Xavier, professor adjunto do Instituto de Ciências Jurídias da Universidade Federal de Roraima (UFRR). ** Doutora em Direito. Docente e Chefe do Departamento de Direito Processual Civil e Arbitral da Universidade Estatal Dostoevsky de Omsk, Rússia.  *** Esse é o abstract do artigo original; conforme se vê, mais abrangente do que o resumo na língua máter, provavelmente buscando a autora com isso ser mais didática e específica para os eventuais leitores estrangeiros. Optou-se por se manter esse abstract ampliado feito pela própria autora (N. do R.).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document