The Convergence of the Basis of Responsibility for a Crime (an Offense) and for an Administrative Delict and the Ne Bis In Idem Principle in the Polish Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. 328-342
Author(s):  
Anna Zientara
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
Administrative Responsibility

This study presents the case law of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal referring to the ne bis in idem principle and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights issued on the basis of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The work also includes the discussion of solutions adopted in Polish law in the case when a person meets both the signs of a crime/offense and the premises of administrative responsibility of a punitive (repressive) nature in a single unlawful act. For many years, a system-wide solution to this type of convergence was missing in Polish law. The situation changed last year with the introduction of Article 189f to the Code of Administrative Procedure. However, as indicated in the study, this provision does not fully implement the ne bis in idem standard developed by the European Court of Human Rights.

‘Unionisation’ of the European Court of Human Rights’ ne bis in idem jurisprudence: the Case of Mihalache v Romania

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-239
Author(s):  
Cedric Serneels
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Relevant Case

This article analyses the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Mihalache v Romania. In the judgment, the Court, dealing with the application of the ne bis in idem principle, further elaborates on the different components of the concept ‘final acquittal or conviction’ under Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The author studies this aspect of the ruling through the lens of judicial dialogue and examines in particular the influence of relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the ECtHR’s reasoning.

Strict liability Regime in Poland

2020 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. 294-308
Author(s):  
Emil Śliwiński
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Force Majeure ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
Administrative Courts

The article focuses on administrative violations, which are considered to be based on strict (or objective) liability model. Due to the lack of in-depth scholarly analysis of administrative liability, its principles had to be developed in the case-law of the Constitutional Tribunal, which influences the decisions of administrative courts. The recently introduced provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure concerning administrative monetary penalties are also analysed. The conformity of this model with the guarantees provided by the European Convention on Human Rights is examined, as well. The analysis leads to the conclusion that three exculpatory circumstances are recognized in this regime: force majeure, necessity and ensuring the standard of diligence established by the Constitutional Tribunal.

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.

Does the Injunction Gap Violate Implementers’ Fair Trial Rights Under the ECHR?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léon E Dijkman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Validity Of A Patent

Abstract Germany is one of few jurisdictions with a bifurcated patent system, under which infringement and validity of a patent are established in separate proceedings. Because validity proceedings normally take longer to conclude, it can occur that remedies for infringement are imposed before a decision on the patent’s validity is available. This phenomenon is colloquially known as the ‘injunction gap’ and has been the subject of increasing criticism over the past years. In this article, I examine the injunction gap from the perspective of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I find that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting this provision supports criticism of the injunction gap, because imposing infringement remedies with potentially far-reaching consequences before the validity of a patent has been established by a court of law arguably violates defendants’ right to be heard. Such reliance on the patent office’s grant decision is no longer warranted in the light of contemporary invalidation rates. I conclude that the proliferation of the injunction gap should be curbed by an approach to a stay of proceedings which is in line with the test for stays as formulated by Germany’s Federal Supreme Court. Under this test, courts should stay infringement proceedings until the Federal Patent Court or the EPO’s Board of Appeal have ruled on the validity of a patent whenever it is more likely than not that it will be invalidated.

The Debate about Soviet Genocide in Lithuania in the Case Law of The European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Dovilė Sagatienė
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Legal Instrument ◽  
Soviet Occupation ◽  
European Court

Abstract Since 1990 Lithuania has been claiming that what happened there during Soviet occupation is genocide, as per the 1948 Genocide Convention, which embodies universal justice for suppressed nations and other groups. Due to Soviet actions in Lithuania throughout the periods of 1940-1941 and 1944-1990, the country lost almost one fifth of its population. The application of Lithuanian national legal regulations regarding this issue has been recently discussed in the framework of another postwar international legal instrument – the European Convention of Human Rights (1950). The goal of this article is to examine the main debates, which were revealed by the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania (2015) and Drėlingas v. Lithuania (2019), regarding the killings of Lithuanian partisans, including the recognition of the significance of partisans for the Lithuanian nation, the foreseeability of genocide “in part,” as well as the punishment for complicity in killing Lithuanian partisans.

The European Convention on Human Rights and International Law

2007 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luzius Wildhaber
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Mutual Relationship ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Special Character ◽  
British Institute

AbstractThis article is an expanded and footnoted version of the lectur given at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on Tuesday 21 March 2006, entitled ‘International Law in the European Court of Human Rights’.The article begins with some comparative comments on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights in monistic and dualistic systems It then discusses in detail the European Court's case law which confirms that the Convention, despite its special character as a human rights treaty, is indeed part of public international law. It concludes that the Convention and international law find themselves in a kind of interactive mutual relationship. checking and buildine on each other.

Is the assessment under Article 8 ECHR for migrants justifiable?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110614
Author(s):  
Jennie Edlund ◽  
Václav Stehlík
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Way

The paper analyses the protection granted under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights for different immigration cases. The way the European Court of Human Rights determines compliance with Article 8 for settled migrants differs from the way the Court determines compliance for foreign nationals seeking entry or requesting to regularize their irregular migration status. The paper argues that the European Court of Human Rights application of different principles when determining a States’ positive and negative obligations is contradicting its own case law. It also argues that the absence of justification grounds for the refusal of foreign nationals who are seeking entry lacks legitimacy. By treating all immigration cases under Article 8(2) the paper suggests that the differentiation between cases should be based on how a refusal of entry or an expulsion would impact on the family life. The paper also suggests that more consideration should be given towards the insiders interests when balancing the individual rights against the state's interests. These changes would lead to a more consistent and fair case law and generate a more convergent practice by the states which will increase the precedent value of the Court's judgements.

Fragmentation of International Law Revisited: Insights, Good Practices, and Lessons to be Learned from the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 863-885 ◽  
Author(s):  
ADAMANTIA RACHOVITSA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
European Court ◽  
Interpretation Process ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law

AbstractThis article discusses the contribution of the European Court of Human Rights to mitigating difficulties arising from the fragmentation of international law. It argues that the Court's case law provides insights and good practices to be followed. First, the article furnishes evidence that the Court has developed an autonomous and distinct interpretative principle to construe the European Convention on Human Rights by taking other norms of international law into account. Second, it offers a blueprint of the methodology that the Court employs when engaging with external norms in the interpretation process. It analyses the Court's approach to subtle contextual differences between similar or identical international norms and its position towards the requirements of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). It concludes that international courts are developing innovative interpretative practices, which may not be strictly based on the letter of the VCLT.

Risk and the European Convention on Human Rights: Towards a New Approach

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 353-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Hilson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Nuclear Radiation ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Public Concern ◽  
Initial Attempt ◽  
Liberal Conception ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

Abstract The aim of this chapter is to provide an initial attempt at analysis of the place of risk within the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and, where appropriate, the Commission, focusing on the related issues of public concern and perception of risk and how the ECHR dispute bodies have addressed these. It will argue that, for quite some time, the Court has tended to adopt a particular, liberal conception of risk in which it stresses the right of applicants to be provided with information on risk to enable them to make effective choices. Historically, where public concerns in relation to particular risks are greater than those of scientific experts—nuclear radiation being the prime example in the case law—the Court has adopted a particularly restrictive approach, stressing the need for risk to be ‘imminent’ in order to engage the relevant Convention protections. However, more recently, there have been emerging but as yet still rather undeveloped signs of the Court adopting a more sensitive approach to risk. One possible explanation for this lies in the Court’s growing awareness of and reference to the Aarhus Convention. What we have yet to see—because there has not yet been a recent, post-Aarhus example involving such facts—is a case where no imminent risk is evident. Nevertheless, the chapter concludes that the Court’s old-style approach to public concern in such cases, in which it rode roughshod over rights to judicial review, is out of line with the third, access to justice limb of Aarhus.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document