scholarly journals Study of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in criminal law matters

2007 ◽  
Vol 79 (9) ◽  
pp. 371-395
Author(s):  
Momčilo Grubač
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Inadmissible Evidence ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Case Files ◽  
The Right

This study includes certain number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that relate to the criminal procedural matters, primarily those constituting the right to a fair trial provided in Article 6 of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. These decisions were analyzed and interpreted in order to establish the practice of the Court in these procedural matters and to enable us to evaluate whether domestic criminal procedural law and its application are in line with this practice. The author dealt with the issues of prohibition to institute legal action twice for the same cause of action (ne bis in idem), immunities and privileges, right to court access, exclusion of inadmissible evidence from the criminal case files, right to the impartial court and right of defense to call and interrogate witnesses.

scholarly journals Reflection of Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on Impartiality and Independence of National Courts in Context of the Right to a Fair Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-90
Author(s):  
Alla Demyda
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
The Right

The article focuses on the principle of impartiality and independence of judiciary as a part of the right to a fair trial according to Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In particular, an account will be taken of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in matters of applications from national judges. The article considers the reflection of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the amendment of national legislations and the amendment of the provisions of the national constitutions regarding the principles of justice.

scholarly journals Od predmeta Mccann do predmeta F.J.M.

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-132
Author(s):  
Gabrijela Mihelčić ◽  
Maša Marochini Zrinski ◽  
Renata Šantek
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
The Right ◽  
Analyse Case

The authors discuss and analyse case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the right to respect for home under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with respect the issue of proportionality. In the paper, the proportionality category was viewed as a criterion for securing protection and as a material precondition for deciding whether the State party's interference with the right to respect for home was proportionate. The cases in which the applicant's eviction occurred after national proceedings for the enforcement of mortgages were addressed. In this context, the genesis of the proportionality category was analysed, from the cases where the Court found it necessary to examine the proportionality to the cases where the Court did not consider the proportionality test necessary.

The Right to a Public Trial under Maltese Criminal Law

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-147
Author(s):  
Kevin Aquilina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

This paper attempts to answer whether section 24(2) of the Maltese Official Secrets Act conforms, or is in conflict, with the right to a public hearing under section 39(3) of the Constitution of Malta and Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It reviews case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to a public hearing and concludes that Strasbourg case law has developed to allow restrictions upon this right even if they are not written down in this Convention. On the other hand, from a comparative exercise carried out with seven similar laws to the Maltese Official Secrets Act, it transpires that the Maltese provision is unique, does not find any counterpart in these seven laws surveyed and, worse still, appears to conflict with Article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention.

scholarly journals Ustavno i konvencijsko jemstvo prava svojine

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 443-467
Author(s):  
Hamdija Šarkinović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Human Right ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
And Control

The paper deals with property, which is guaranteed by Article 58 of the Constitution of Montenegro and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The constitutional-law concept of the right to property in Montenegro is broader than the traditional civil law concept, as it includes all real rights, as the European Court under the notion of property, in addition to the usual, includes all acquired rights of a person. The autonomous concept of property and possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was separately covered, consisting of three rules: principle of peaceful enjoyment of possessions, deprivation of possessions, and control of the use of property. The application of the text of justification of interference with property in the case law of the European Court is explained, which includes the text of legality, the text of a legitimate aim in the general or public interest and the text of proportionality. However, the case law of the ordinary courts in the field of guarantees of property rights, constitutional and convention’s is not harmonized with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and represents one of the main tasks of the Constitutional Court in the coming period. The Constitutional Court of Montenegro follows the concept of property enshrined in the Constitution and gives the property meaning as the constitutional and convention human right guaranteed by the Constitution, and its inviolability as one of the fundamental values of the constitutional order, although the case law of the Constitutional Court has not fully and always been coherent with the aforementioned principles.

scholarly journals SOME PROBLEMS OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL IN THE DECISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Rozhina ◽  
T. Reshetneva
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Body ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is applicable to any dispute between people in the field of civil law, however, the supervisory bodies of the Council of Europe had to resolve many complex issues arising from the application of this article in the field of public law, when any disciplinary the body was empowered by law to take actions affecting the rights or interests of individuals. To a large extent, the Court's case-law is developed in just such cases.

scholarly journals European Court of Human Rights Case Law on Genetic Information in the Scope of International Biomedical Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 119-137
Author(s):  
Paweł Kwiatkowski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Genetic Information ◽  
Genetic Data ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

The aim of the study is to analyze the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on genetic information in the scope of international biomedical law, as expressed in the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data and the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Human Dignity in the Field of Application of Biology and Medicine. The Court held that the genetic information is protected under the law of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The model of the right to respect for private life is reflected in its shape, as the Court noted in the Van der Velden v. The Netherlands and S. and Marper v. The United Kingdom cases. It leads to the conclusion that the provision of Article 8 of the Convention provides the protection of genetic information, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. Such conclusion is in compliance with art. 12, art. 17 (b) art. 21 (c) of the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data, and art. 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine.

The right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya Samovich
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Educational Organizations ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Procedure ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

The manual is devoted to making individual complaints to the European Court of human rights: peculiarities of realization of the right to appeal, conditions of admissibility and the judicial procedure of the European Court of Human Rights. The author analyses some “autonomous concepts” used in the court's case law and touches upon the possibility of limiting the right to judicial protection. The article deals with the formation and development of the individual's rights to international judicial protection, as well as the protection of human rights in universal quasi-judicial international bodies and regional judicial institutions of the European Union and the Organization of American States. This publication includes a material containing an analysis of recent changes in the legal regulation of the Institute of individual complaints. The manual is recommended for students of educational organizations of higher education, studying in the areas of bachelor's and master's degree “Jurisprudence”.

Battles Over Symbols: The “Religion” of the Minority Versus the “Culture” of the Majority

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori G. Beaman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Symbol ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
European Tradition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

Moreover, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to identify in the constant central core of Christian faith, despite the inquisition, despite anti-Semitism and despite the crusades, the principles of human dignity, tolerance and freedom, including religious freedom, and therefore, in the last analysis, the foundations of the secular State.A European court should not be called upon to bankrupt centuries of European tradition. No court, certainly not this Court, should rob the Italians of part of their cultural personality.In March, 2011, after five years of working its way through various levels of national and European courts, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided that a crucifix hanging at the front of a classroom did not violate the right to religious freedom under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Specifically, Ms. Soile Lautsi had complained that the presence of the crucifix violated her and her children's right to religious freedom and that its presence amounted to an enforced religious regime. The Grand Chamber, reversing the lower Chamber's decision, held that while admittedly a religious symbol, the crucifix also represented the cultural heritage of Italians.

scholarly journals NE BIS IN IDEM PRINCIPLE IN THE CRIMINAL LEGISLATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND COURTS’ JURISPRUDENCE

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 1439-1444
Author(s):  
Miodrag N. Simović ◽  
Marina M. Simović ◽  
Vladimir M. Simović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
International Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

The paper is dedicated to ne bis in idem principle, which is a fundamental human right safeguarded by Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This principle is sometimes also referred to as double jeopardy.The principle implies that no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which s/he has already been finally convicted or acquitted (internal ne bis in idem principle), and that in some other State or before the International Court (ne bis in idem principle in respect of the relations between the states or the State and the International Court) the procedure may not be conducted if the person has already been sentenced or acquitted. The identity of the indictable act (idem), the other component of this principle, is more complex and more difficult to be determined than the first one (ne bis).The objective of this principle is to secure the legal certainty of citizens who must be liberated of uncertainty or fear that they would be tried again for the same criminal offence that has already been decided by a final and binding decision. This principle is specific for the accusative and modern system of criminal procedure but not for the investigative criminal procedure, where the possibility for the bindingly finalised criminal procedure to be repeated on the basis of same evidence and regarding the same criminal issue existed. In its legal nature, a circumstance that the proceedings are pending on the same criminal offence against the same accused, represents a negative procedural presumption and, therefore, an obstacle for the further course of proceedings, i.e. it represents the procedural obstacle which prevents an initiation of new criminal procedure for the same criminal case in which the final and binding condemning or acquitting judgement has been passed (exceptio rei iudicatae).The right not to be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which s/he has already been finally convicted or acquitted is provided for, primarily, by the International Documents (Article 14, paragraph 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). The International framework has also been given to ne bis in idem principle through three Conventions adopted by the Council of Europe and those are the European Convention on Extradition and Additional Protocols thereto, the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, and the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments.Ne bis in idem principle is traditionally associated with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Likewise, no derogation from Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention at the time of war or other state of emergency which is threatening the survival of the nation (Article 4, paragraph 3 of Protocol No. 7). Thereby it is categorised as the irrevocable conventional right together with the right to life, prohibition of torture, prohibition of slavery, and the legality principle. Similarly, ne bis in idem principle does not apply in the case of the renewed trials by the International criminal courts where the first trial was conducted in some State, while the principle is applicable in the reversed situation. The International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia could have conducted a trial even if a person had already been adjudicated in some State, in the cases provided for by its Statute and in the interest of justice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document