Ensuring the exercise of the right to access to justice as a mandatory attribute of a constitutional state

Y. Sverba
{"title":"Ensuring the exercise of the right to access to justice as a mandatory attribute of a constitutional state","authors":"Y. Sverba","doi":"10.33663/2524-017x-2021-12-52","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes both the positive and negative obligations of the state regarding the right to access to justice. Based on the principle of separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial, emphasis on the need for real justice in constitutional state, as well as ensuring its accessibility, is made.\n\nSome aspects of the European Court of Human Rights case-law in the field of access to justice are considered. It is also hypothesized that the ECtHR case-law ensures the dynamic development of the European Convention on Human Rights provisions. In particular, the article analyses several ECtHR decisions which explicitly state that the Convention is intended to guarantee not theoretical and illusory, but practical and effective rights («Matthews v. The United Kingdom», «Bellet v. France and others»).\n\nThe decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is studied, which, inter alia, reveals the special role of constitutional and administrative proceedings in ensuring the rule of law. The obligation of the state to ensure equal access to justice is stated, since the purpose of justice is to protect violated, disputed rights, freedoms that belong directly to the person applying to the court for their protection. Therefore, the exercise of the right guaranteed by part two of Article 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine to appeal court decisions, actions or omissions of subjects of power must be ensured in accordance with the stated purpose of justice. At the same time, this right connects to the opportunity of every person to justify before the court conviction in the illegality of interference by the subjects of power in rights and freedoms concerned.\n\nThe article analyses the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which reveals the legal nature of ensuring access to justice in criminal, or administrative offenses. \n\nIt is stated that the attributes of the rule of law are not limited to the justice and access to it, and their autonomous existence is impossible in a society where other democratic institutions do not work.\n\nKeywords: the rule of law, justice, access to justice, constitutional state, human rights, legal aid.","PeriodicalId":359905,"journal":{"name":"THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW: FROM THE THEORY TO THE PRACTICE","volume":"123 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW: FROM THE THEORY TO THE PRACTICE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33663/2524-017x-2021-12-52","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article analyzes both the positive and negative obligations of the state regarding the right to access to justice. Based on the principle of separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial, emphasis on the need for real justice in constitutional state, as well as ensuring its accessibility, is made. Some aspects of the European Court of Human Rights case-law in the field of access to justice are considered. It is also hypothesized that the ECtHR case-law ensures the dynamic development of the European Convention on Human Rights provisions. In particular, the article analyses several ECtHR decisions which explicitly state that the Convention is intended to guarantee not theoretical and illusory, but practical and effective rights («Matthews v. The United Kingdom», «Bellet v. France and others»). The decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is studied, which, inter alia, reveals the special role of constitutional and administrative proceedings in ensuring the rule of law. The obligation of the state to ensure equal access to justice is stated, since the purpose of justice is to protect violated, disputed rights, freedoms that belong directly to the person applying to the court for their protection. Therefore, the exercise of the right guaranteed by part two of Article 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine to appeal court decisions, actions or omissions of subjects of power must be ensured in accordance with the stated purpose of justice. At the same time, this right connects to the opportunity of every person to justify before the court conviction in the illegality of interference by the subjects of power in rights and freedoms concerned. The article analyses the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which reveals the legal nature of ensuring access to justice in criminal, or administrative offenses. It is stated that the attributes of the rule of law are not limited to the justice and access to it, and their autonomous existence is impossible in a society where other democratic institutions do not work. Keywords: the rule of law, justice, access to justice, constitutional state, human rights, legal aid.
确保行使诉诸司法的权利,作为宪政国家的一项强制性属性
文章分析了国家在司法救助权方面的积极义务和消极义务。在立法、行政和司法三权分立的原则基础上,强调宪政国家需要真正的正义,并确保其可及性。审议了欧洲人权法院在诉诸司法方面的判例法的某些方面。还有一种假设是,欧洲人权法院的判例法确保了《欧洲人权公约》条款的动态发展。特别是,本文分析了欧洲人权法院的几项决定,这些决定明确指出,《公约》旨在保障的不是理论和虚幻的权利,而是实际和有效的权利(“Matthews诉联合王国”,“Bellet诉法国和其他国家”)。我们研究了乌克兰宪法法院的决定,该决定除其他外揭示了宪法和行政程序在确保法治方面的特殊作用。国家有义务确保平等诉诸司法,因为司法的目的是保护被侵犯的、有争议的权利和自由,这些权利和自由直接属于向法院申请保护的人。因此,乌克兰宪法第55条第二部分所保障的对法院的判决、行动或权力主体的不作为提出上诉的权利的行使,必须按照所阐明的司法目的予以保证。同时,这项权利与每个人都有机会在法庭上就权力主体干涉有关权利和自由的非法行为的定罪进行辩护联系在一起。本文分析了最高法院大分庭的判决,揭示了在刑事或行政犯罪中确保诉诸司法的法律性质。它指出,法治的属性并不局限于正义和获得正义的机会,在其他民主制度不起作用的社会中,法治的自主存在是不可能的。关键词:法治、司法、司法救助、宪政国家、人权、法律援助
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信