scholarly journals The restrictions of the right to inspect the case file in Bosnia and Herzegovina in light of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 463-479
Author(s):  
Faruk Avdić
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Case File ◽  
European Court ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedure Codes

This paper aims to assess the compliance of the provisions of the criminal procedural legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina dealing with the restrictions of the right to inspect the case file with the standards developed in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The working hypothesis laid out in this paper is that the right of the prosecutor to unilaterally restrict the defense right to access the case file during the investigation and to unilaterally decide which evidence he will use as the basis for the indictment does not satisfy the requirements stemming from the right to a fair trial. The starting point of this paper is the analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Afterward, the paper turns to the consideration of the provisions of the criminal procedural legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina dealing with the restrictions of the right to inspect the case file. In that purpose, this paper employs normative and formal dogmatic legal methods in analyzing the particulars of its subject. The conclusion of the paper is that the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina when it comes to the restrictions of the right to inspect the case file is not in line with the standards of the European Court of Human Rights. For this reason, there is a need for the amending of the Criminal Procedure Codes in force in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the aim of making these Codes compliant with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in that respect.

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.

Extradition of a Person: The National Law of Ukraine and the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatiana H. Fomina ◽  
Volodymyr I. Galagan ◽  
Zhаnnа V. Udovenko ◽  
Serhii Ye. Ablamskyi ◽  
Yana Yu. Koniushenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
The Right

This article aims at establishing and emulating the relevant issues surrounding the detention of person presumed of committing a criminal offense outside the territory of Ukraine in respect with the provisions adumbrated by the European Court of Human Rights. The study was conducted through the prism of national legislation and the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The issues of realization of the detainee's rights, including the right to protection, were considered separately. According to the results of the study, certain ways to improve the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine have been formulated.

Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in juvenile cases. Selected cases

2019 ◽  
Vol 584 (9) ◽  
pp. 18-32
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Czyż
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Young Person ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Countries ◽  
European Court ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
Entire Procedure

The right to a fair trial, rules on deprivation of liberty are important standards in the entire procedure of dealing with juveniles, from detention to the end of court proceedings. The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights cited in the article illustrate what are the problems with complying with this standard in practice in several European countries, including Poland. It seems that one of the reasons may be declarative, apparent treatment of the rights of child/juvenile, especially when it concerns procedural rights. Teaching a young person respect for the law and responsibility for his behaviour requires subjective treatment so that he can feel, on his own example, the operation of a system based on clear, predictable, understandable rules.

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.

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.

The European Court of Human Rights Case Law and Its Impact on Parliamentary Removal of a Judge in Malta

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 248-275
Author(s):  
Kevin Aquilina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right

This article analyses the case law of the European Court of Human Rights relating to Parliamentary removal of a judge. The Court’s earlier approach did not extend the right to a fair trial to judicial removal motions before the Maltese unicameral House of Representatives. The Court’s latest case law has reversed its earlier interpretation with all the attendant consequential implications brought about for Malta which now has to amend its Constitution on the subject. This novel landmark interpretation implies that should Parliament attempt to remove a judge, that constitutional procedure will fall foul of the right to a fair trial.

scholarly journals ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krešimir Kamber ◽  
Lana Kovačić Markić
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
World Health ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

On 11 March 2020 the World Health Organization announced the Covid-19 (coronavirus) to be a pandemic. To combat the pandemic, many countries had to adopt emergency measures and some of these measures have affected the judicial system, especially the functioning of courts. The pandemic has been characterised as far as the judiciary is concerned by complete or partial closure of court buildings for the parties and for the public. It is clear that the functioning of national judicial systems has been severely disrupted. This limited functioning of courts impacted the individuals’ right to a fair trial guaranteed, in particular, under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The aim of this article is to examine the manner of the administration of justice during the Covid pandemic and its impact on the due process guarantees. Focus is put on the extent to which different Covid measures, in particular remote access to justice and online hearings have impacted the guarantees of the right to a fair trial and the due process guarantees in general, notably in detention cases. In this connection, the article provides a comparative overview of the functioning of the European legal systems during the pandemic. It also looks into the way in which the two European courts – the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union functioned, as well as the way in which the Croatian courts, including the Constitutional Court, organised their work during the pandemic. The article then provides an insight into the issue of online/remote hearings in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and in the Croatian Constitutional Court’s case-law. On the basis of this assessment, the article identifies the differences in the use of remote/online hearings between and within jurisdictions. In conclusion, the article points to some critical considerations that should be taken into account when devising the manner in which any Covid pandemic experience with the administration of justice (notably with regard to remote/online hearings) can be taken forward.

scholarly journals Predictive analytics in crime prevention and the European Convention on Human Rights: tackling risks in privacy and fair trial frameworks

2021 ◽  
pp. 225-250
Author(s):  
Donatas Murauskas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Crime Prevention ◽  
Predictive Analytics ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Conceptual Issue ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

In this paper, I discuss whether the European Convention on Human Rights provides safeguards to individuals affected by predictive analytics in crime prevention. I start with depicting a conceptual issue that worries legal scholars – the trend of law-enforcement authorities to increase their attention to crime prevention rather than traditional criminal investigations. Then, I dive into the right to privacy case-law of the European Court of Human Rights looking for the Court’s references to the threats of data processing. Lastly, I select concrete cases of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to a fair trial to show that the human rights safeguards are not yet developed to frame predictive analytics in crime prevention.

scholarly journals To Remain or Not to Remain Silent: The Evolution of The Privilege against Self-incrimination Ten Years After Marttinen v. Finland

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-151
Author(s):  
Tuomas Hupli
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Coercive Power ◽  
Inappropriate Use ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Debt Enforcement

According to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Marttinen v. Finland, a debtor has the right to remain silent in a debt enforcement enquiry given that the following conditions are met: first, that the inquiry is held concurrently with a criminal procedure; and second, that the same questions of evidence are investigated in both of the concurrent proceedings. Under these circumstances, the debtor enjoys the privilege against self-incrimination in the enforcement enquiry. The scope of this article is to examine whether the debtor has not only the right to remain silent, but also the right to give false statements. The assessment of this problem is built on the moral grounds of the privilege itself, but also on the law reforms and changes in case law after the judgment in the Marttinen case. As a conclusion of this article, the problem of false statements should not be evaluated by equating silence with false statements, but by considering two basic questions. First, would the right to remain silent suffice to protect the privilege against self-incrimination; and second, whether the motives for providing false statements express the aim to achieve something else than protection against inappropriate use of coercive power.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document