scholarly journals La prueba ilícita por violación de Derechos Fundamentales y sus excepciones

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
María Cinta Costa Torné
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Illegal Evidence ◽  
Legal Consequences

En este artículo se pretende hacer un breve estudio de la ilicitud de la prueba y de las consecuencias jurídicas que ello conlleva, así como de las excepciones a dicha ilicitud. La sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional 114/1984, de 29 de noviembre, introdujo en nuestro sistema legal la prohibición de utilizar pruebas obtenidas vulnerando derechos fundamentales. Consecuencia de esta sentencia fue el artículo 11.1 Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial que prohíbe expresamente la valoración de dichas pruebas, que puedan surtir efectos en el proceso y sirvan para basar en ellas una sentencia condenatoria. No obstante esta regla de exclusión de la prueba ilícita, el riesgo de admitir una prueba obtenida habiéndose vulnerado derechos fundamentales está presente en nuestro proceso a través de las cada vez más frecuentes excepciones, apreciadas por los Tribunales, tanto por el Tribunal Supremo como por el Tribunal Constitucional, que permiten que una prueba ilícitamente obtenida, se llegue a valorarse para que determinados delitos no queden impunes.This repot is a brief study of the illegality of the evidence and its legal consequences, as well as the exceptions to that illegality. The sentence of the Constitutional Court 114/1984, 29th November, introduced in our legal system the prohibition on using evidence obtained violating fundamental rights. According to that sentence Article 11.1 LOPJ prohibit expressly assessment of such evidence that can have an impact on the process and serve them to base a conviction. However this rule of exclusion of illegal evidence, the risk of admitting obtained evidence having violated fundamental rights is present in our laws, through increasingly frequent exceptions, appreciated by both the Spreme Court and the Constitutional Court, which allow that an illegally obtained evidence, could be valuable for certain crimes not to go unpunished.

Hungarian Constitutional Court: The Limits of EU Law in the Hungarian Legal System

ICL Journal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-151
Author(s):  
Tímea Drinóczi
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Self Identity ◽  
Identity Based ◽  
Fundamental Law

Abstract The Constitutional Court declared in its ruling 22/2016 (XII 5) that by exercising its competences, it can examine whether the joint exercise of competences under Article E) (2) of the Fundamental Law of Hungary infringes human dignity, other fundamental rights, the sovereignty of Hungary, or Hungary’s self-identity based on its historical constitution.

scholarly journals ADMISSIBILIDADE E LIMITES DAS SENTENÇAS ADITIVAS: JURISDIÇÃO CONSTITUCIONAL PARA ALÉM DO LEGISLADOR NEGATIVO - DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5216/rfd.v40i1.37655

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 122
Author(s):  
MÁRIO CESAR DA SILVA ANDRADE ◽  
WALESKA MARCY ROSA
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Operative Technique ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Alternative Decision ◽  
Federal Supreme

 RESUMO:O presente artigo analisa as sentenças aditivas como técnica alternativa de decisão no controle de constitucionalidade de omissões legislativas inconstitucionais. Investigou-se a compatibilidade das sentenças aditivas com a separação de poderes e os limites da utilização dessa controversa técnica decisória, bem como sua aplicação pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). A constatação da insuficiência das técnicas decisórias tradicionalmente utilizadas evidencia a necessidade de alternativas que superem as omissões inconstitucionais, garantindo a efetividade dos direitos fundamentais. Nesse cenário, as sentenças aditivas podem ser um útil instrumento de superação das eventuais omissões inconstitucionais do legislador. Porém, esse expediente é recorrentemente considerado incompatível com a concepção do tribunal constitucional como legislador negativo. Como referencial teórico adotou-se a conceituação das sentenças aditivas como técnicas decisórias do controle de constitucionalidade, conforme trabalhada pelo constitucionalista italiano Gustavo Zagrebelsky. O presente estudo concluiu pela compatibilidade das sentenças aditivas com a ordem constitucional brasileira, desde que respeitados determinados limites, como os impostos ao próprio legislador e a necessidade de prévia e suficiente orientação pelo ordenamento jurídico para a adição normativa. ABSTRACT:This article analyzes the additive judgments as an alternative decision technique in the judicial review of unconstitutional legislative omissions. It is investigated the compatibility of the additive sentences with the separation of powers and the limits of using such controversial operative technique and its application by the Federal Supreme Court (STF). The insufficiency of traditional decision-making techniques highlights the need for alternatives to overcome the unconstitutional omissions, ensuring the effectiveness of fundamental rights. In this scenario, the additive sentences can be a useful tool to overcome any unconstitutional legislative omissions. However, this expedient is recurrently considered incompatible with the concept of the constitutional court as a negative legislator. As a theoretical framework it is adopted the concept of the additive judgments as decision-making techniques of judicial review, as crafted by the Italian constitutionalist Gustavo Zagrebelsky. This study concluded that there is a compatibility of the additive sentences with the Brazilian constitutional order, since certain limits are respected, as in the case of taxes applied to the legislature itself and the need for prior and sufficient guidance by the legal system for normative addition.

Rethinking the relationship between international and national law at the turn

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
IGOR N. BARTSITS ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
National Courts ◽  
National Legal System ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article is devoted to revealing the specifics of the implementation of such areas of constitutional law as the constitutionalization of international law and the internationalization of constitutional law by the example of additions to Article 79 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as the practices of the Italian Constitutional Court, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, etc. The author examined in sufficient detail the procedures for extending the effect of international law and international treaties of Russia to the national legal system, analyzed the concept of counter-limits in European and national judicial practice, presented the basic principles of interaction between European and national courts (the principle of subsidiarity, the principle of proportionality, the principle of ‘sincere cooperation’, method of ‘dialogue of judges’). There is a need for an updated understanding of the term ‘constitutional sovereignty of the state’, which is based on domestic norms on fundamental rights and norms on the foundations of the constitutional system, which presupposes the inadmissibility of any foreign or international influence that violates the requirement of priority of the norms and principles of the national Constitution in the national legal system. The article substantiates the expediency of using the doctrine of counter-limits in the Russian Federation as an instrument of constitutional self-defense, ensuring constitutional sovereignty and preserving constitutional identity.

The Kelsenian Model of Constitutional Review in Times of European Integration – Reconsidering the Basic Features

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-37
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Kustra-Rogatka
Keyword(s):  
European Integration ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Centralized Control ◽  
Constitutional Treaty ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Basic Features ◽  
The Eu

Summary The paper deals with the changes in the centralized (Kelsenian) model of constitutional review resulting from a state’s membership of the EU, which unequivocally demonstrates the decomposition of the classic paradigm of constitutional judiciary. The main point raised in the paper is that European integration has fundamentally influenced on the four above-mentioned basic elements of the Kelsenian model of constitutional review of legislation, which are the following: the assumption of the hierarchical construction of a legal system; the assumption of the supreme legal force of the constitution as the primary normative act of a given system; a centralised model of reviewing hierarchical conformity of legal norms; coherence of the system guaranteed by a constitutional court’s power to declare defectiveness of a norm and the latter’s derogation. All its fundamental elements have evolved, i.e. the hierarchy of the legal system, the overriding power of the constitution, centralized control of constitutionality, and the erga omnes effect of the ruling on the hierarchical non-conformity of the norms. It should be noted that over the last decade the dynamics of these changes have definitely gained momentum. This has been influenced by several factors, including the “great accession” of 2004, the pursuit of formal constitutionalization of the EU through the Constitutional Treaty, the compromise solutions adopted in the Treaty of Lisbon, the entry into force of the Charter, and the prospect of EU accession to the ECHR. The CJEU has used these factors to deepen the tendencies towards decentralization of constitutional control, by atomising national judicial systems and relativizing the effects of constitutional court rulings within national legal systems. The end result is the observed phenomenon, if not of marginalisation, then at least of a systemic shift in the position of constitutional courts, which have lost their uniqueness and have become “only ones of many” national courts.

Dieter Grimm

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Grimm
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Intellectual ◽  
Law School ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Democracy ◽  
Humboldt University ◽  
Post War ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication

Dieter Grimm is one of Germany’s foremost scholars of constitutional law and theory with a high international reputation and an exceptional career. He teaches constitutional law at Humboldt University Berlin and did so simultaneously at the Yale Law School until 2017. He was one of the most influential justices of the German Constitutional Court where he served from 1987 to 1999 and left his marks on the jurisprudence of the Court, especially in the field of fundamental rights. He directed one of the finest academic institutions worldwide, the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin (Institute for Advanced Study). He is also well known as a public intellectual who speaks up in questions of German politics and European integration. This book contains a conversation that three scholars of constitutional law led with Dieter Grimm on his background, his childhood under the Nazi regime and in destroyed post-war Germany, his education in Germany, France, and the United States, his academic achievement, the main subjects of his research, his experience as a member of a leading constitutional court, especially in the time of seminal changes in the world after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and his views on actual challenges for law and society. The book is an invaluable source of information on an outstanding career and the functioning of constitutional adjudication, which one would not find in legal textbooks or treatises. Oxford University Press previously published his books on Constitutionalism. Past, Present, and Future (2016) and The Constitution of European Democracy (2017).

Grundrechtsbindung Privater

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maximilian Seyderhelm
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Public Forum ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Existing Data

The effect of fundamental rights among private individuals is breaking away from the usual patterns as a result of recent decisions by the Federal Constitutional Court. The work not only provides terminological clarity, but also elaborates the criteria that directly bind private individuals to fundamental rights. The author then looks at emerging constellations and examines the binding nature of fundamental rights there. The operator of Facebook fulfils both criteria described in more detail. These are the opening of a "public forum" and a predominant position of power. It is thus bound by fundamental rights. SCHUFA is not bound by this obligation, also because it is kept in check by existing (data protection) provisions of the legislator.

El derecho a ser informado como elemento esencial del derecho a la protección de datos. Una visión crítica de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional y de su cambio de doctrina en la STC 39/2016

2016 ◽  
pp. 191-216
Author(s):  
Miguel Ángel CABELLOS ESPIÉRREZ
Keyword(s):  
Video Surveillance ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Surveillance Systems ◽  
Control Technology ◽  
Specific Regulation ◽  
The Right

LABURPENA: Lan eremuan bideozaintzaren erabilerak ondorio garrantzitsuak dakartza funtsezko eskubideei dagokienez, esate baterako intimitateari eta datu pertsonalen babesari dagokienez. Hala eta guztiz ere, oraindik ez daukagu araudi zehatz eta espezifikorik kontrol-teknika hori lan eremuan erabiltzeari buruz. Horrek behartuta, errealitate horri araudi-esparru anitz eta generikoa aplikatzeko modua auzitegiek zehaztu behar dute, kontuan hartuta, gainera, Espainiako Konstituzioaren 18.4 artikulua alde horretatik lausoa dela. Konstituzio Auzitegiak, datuen babeserako funtsezko eskubidea aztertzean, datuen titularraren adostasuna eta titular horri eman beharreko informazioa eskubide horretan berebizikoak zirela ezarri zuen; hortik ondorioztatzen da titularraren adostasuna eta hari emandako informazioa mugatuz gero behar bezala justifikatu beharko dela. Hala ere, Konstituzio Auzitegiak, duela gutxiko jurisprudentzian, bere doktrina aldatu du. Aldaketa horrek, lan eremuan, argi eta garbi langileak informazioa jasotzeko duen eskubidea debaluatzea dakar, bere datuetatik zein lortzen ari diren jakiteari dagokionez. RESUMEN: La utilización de la videovigilancia en el ámbito laboral posee importantes implicaciones en relación con derechos fundamentales como los relativos a la intimidad y a la protección de datos personales. Pese a ello, carecemos aún de una normativa detallada y específica en relación con el uso de dicha técnica de control en el ámbito laboral, lo que obliga a que sean los tribunales los que vayan concretando la aplicación de un marco normativo plural y genérico a esa realidad, dada además la vaguedad del art. 18.4 CE. El TC, al analizar el derecho fundamental a la protección de datos, había establecido el carácter central en él del consentimiento del titular de los datos y de la información que debe dársele a éste, de donde se sigue que cualquier limitación del papel de ambos deberá estar debidamente justificada. Sin embargo, en su más reciente jurisprudencia el TC ha realizado un cambio de doctrina que supone, en el ámbito laboral, una clara devaluación del derecho a la información por parte del trabajador en relación con qué datos suyos se están obteniendo. ABSTRACT : T he use of video surveillance systems within the work sphere has major implications for fundamental rights such as privacy and data protection. Nonetheless, we still lack of a detailed and specific regulation regarding the use of that control technology within the work sphere, which obliges courts to define the application of a plural and generic normative framework to that issue, given the vagueness of art. 18.4 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court, when analyzing the fundamental right to data protection, had settled the centralityof the consent of the data rightholder and of the information to be provided to the latter, and from this it followed that any restriction on the role of both rights should be duly justified. However, in its most recent case law the Constitutional Court has changed its doctrine which means, within the work sphere, a clear devaluation of the right of information by the employee regarding the obtained data of him/her.

Is it time to understand Russia rationally? Test of suitability in constitutional adjudication

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 79-114
Author(s):  
Aleksei Dolzhikov
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Scientific Validity ◽  
Regulatory Decision ◽  
Unequal Treatment ◽  
Regulatory Impact ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication

The author discusses the application of the suitability test in constitutional adjudication. Then he puts forward a thesis that in comparison with the essentially philosophical categories of reasonableness and rationality, this prong of proportionality principle has practical value in judicial review of legislation. The political system has to meet the minimum standards of a deliberative democracy in order courts could use the doctrine of rationality. Among such standards are: recognition of the diversity of ideologies, real competition between political parties and other groups, a serious attitude towards discussion in society, etc. High courts, even in countries with long democratic traditions, usually use the self-restraint technique in reviewing the reasonableness of statutes. In illiberal and populist regimes, due to the unification of public discourse and the imitation of democratic institutions, the challenging of reasonableness of majority decisions can be dangerous. The argument on absurdity of legislation is relatively rare in the case-law of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. It can be found in the dissenting opinions of constitutional judges. In regard with the recent legislative ban on the publication of these opinions, the reasoning ad absurdum has rather theoretical significance for constitutional adjudication in Russia. Moreover, criticism of the reasonableness of legislation can now create additional obstacles for the difficult dialogue of the Russian Constitutional Court with the parliament and other “political” branches. An alternative to critically reviewing the unreasonableness of parliamentary decisions in constitutional adjudication are both the borrowing of economic methodology and certain principles of Legisprudence. The author puts forward the argument on utility of these principles on the judicial review of the ability of legislative means to achieve public goals. Suitability has an empirical nature and requires scientific validity of statutes. Selection of regulatory measures should be evidence-based and grounded on outcomes of research. Usually, constitutional judges do not have special knowledge of complex issues of socio-economic policy. More often than not, the absence of such an expertise means deference to the parliamentary and administrative fact-finding, which predetermined the normative decision. The intensity of the review of the suitability of legislation can be increased in those areas where constitutional judges have the necessary expertise or practical background. Constitutional tribunals recognize the broad discretion of representative bodies in forecasting the social, economic and other consequences. Otherwise, the intervention of judges in the goal-setting of regulatory policy is inevitable. Forecasting can be inaccurate and even erroneous due to the targeting of the regulatory decision for the future. A second-guess of the legislative forecast in constitutional adjudication is an exception to the general rule. It is possible due to newly discovered circumstances, changes taking place in society or progress in science. The implementation of regulatory impact assessment in law-making does not replace, but supplements the judicial review of the principle of proportionality. Consistency test in constitutional adjudication is closely related to the principle of legal certainty, which in turn excludes inconsistency and contradictions of legislative measures with public aims. The consistency approach obliges the members of parliament to be logical in the implementation of the legislative intent. Otherwise, citizens’ legitimate expectations in the governmental policy are undermined. The suitability test has an applied meaning in discrimination cases. If unequal treatment affects the fundamental rights of truly vulnerable social groups, constitutional judges could increase the intensity of judicial review of unreasonable laws.

scholarly journals The Concept of Conspiring to Corrupt in Criminal Law as Ius Contituendum

Yuridika ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 429
Author(s):  
Yulianto Yulianto
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Uncertainty

The term conspiring to commit criminal acts in Article 15 of PTPK Act cannot refer to existing norms under Article 88 of the KUHP. The criminal act which is to conspire to commit such acts within PTPK Act has been regulated within the Indonesian legal system and recognized by law enforcers. However, the lack of elaboration and clarity towards this type of criminal act in the PTPK Law has hindered law enforcers from utilizing Article 15 of the PTPK Act to combat corruption. The Constitutional Court has attempted to resolve the legal uncertainty of Article 15 of the PTPK Act, however this has been proven to become burdensome for law enforcers in applying the criminal justifications of conspiracy under the scope of Article 15 of the PTPK Act. The criminal act which is to conspire to commit such acts within PTPK Act has been regulated within the Indonesian legal system and recognized by law enforcers.

scholarly journals General Confiscation Versus Criminal Confiscation in Regard to Curators’ Authority and Responsibility in Bankruptcy Settlement Process

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-116
Author(s):  
Elli Ruslina ◽  
Siti Rodiah ◽  
Benny Wulur
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Qualitative Approach ◽  
Creative Economy ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
Legal Consequences

The process of bankruptcy general confiscation sometimes clashes with criminal confiscation process. The present study aims to look at curators’ authority and responsibility to sell bankrupt properties, which have been confiscated by investigating officers in a case of criminal confiscation. It also delves into the legal ramifications that may occur and into the concepts of bankruptcy settlement. This study employs a juridical normative method and the necessary legal material are collected through literature study. The legal material are analyzed in juridical qualitative approach, using a comparison between bankruptcy laws in several countries. Based on the result of this study, it is concluded that curators’ authority and responsibility are still applicable even though they are subject to appeal. The legal consequences in the case that bankrupt estate is being confiscated by investigating officers due to the conflict between criminal confiscation and general confiscation require the court to prioritize the criminal confiscation. Once it is resolved, bankruptcy assets/estate are returned to the curator. This study recommends that there should be an effort to legally synchronize and harmonize Article 39 Point (2) of KUHAP (Indonesian Law of Criminal Procedure) with Article 31 Point (2) of Law No. 37 Year 2004 Concerning Bankruptcy and PKPU (Suspension of Payment/Debt Moratorium). One of the solutions offered in this study is by implementing E-Court, as is the case in Indonesia’s Constitutional Court, especially in Commercial Court whose habitat is digital and that handles legal problems pertaining to creative economy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document