Standards of implementation of the right to appeal and review of interlocutory decisions rendered at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
Polina O. Gertsen, Tatyana V. Trubnikova
{"title":"Standards of implementation of the right to appeal and review of interlocutory decisions rendered at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings","authors":"Polina O. Gertsen, Tatyana V. Trubnikova","doi":"10.17223/22253513/44/4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Under Article 46 of the Russian Constitution, everyone is guaranteed judicial protection of his or her rights and freedoms. This right must also be realised in criminal proceedings, including during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. At the same time, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has not formulated in sufficient detail how the right to judicial protection should be realised in the course of the court's interlocutory ruling and its review. In searching for standards for the implementation of the right to appeal and review of interlocutory decisions rendered at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings, the authors refer to the provisions of the European Convention as interpreted by the ECHR as legal provisions correlating with the human rights enshrined in the Russian Constitution. For this purpose, more than 50 ECHR judgments and the positions of contemporary domestic and foreign legal scholars have been studied. The authors identified a list of standards of the Convention applicable in case of violation of the right to appeal and interlocutory review, which include the standards guaranteeing protection of fundamental individual rights: Article 5 (right to liberty and security of person), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Art. 1 Protocol No. 1 (right to protection of and respect for property) as well as the rules laying down the minimum requirements for appeal or review procedures: Article 5(4), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). An analysis of the ECHR legal positions laid down the requirements for an appeal or review procedure against a court decision on \"deprivation of liberty\" (remand in custody, house arrest, prohibition of certain actions, placing a person in a hospital for forensic medical or forensic psychiatric examination). Such a procedure must meet minimum fair trial standards and be urgent and effective. The authors also substantiate the identification of general and specific standards of effective remedy in relation to the procedure of appeal and review of interlocutory decisions rendered at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings. Thus, the procedure will be effective if it is accessible, sufficient and expeditious and if the appeal and review of the interlocutory decision can result in the reversal of the appealed decision and the \"rectification of the disputed situation\". Private standards apply to cases of appeal and review of specific interlocutory decisions that are made in secret, e.g. an order to monitor and record telephone conversations, obtain information on connections between subscribers and subscriber devices, etc. In such cases, the moment the right to an effective remedy arises is linked to the moment when the person becomes aware (is notified) of the procedural actions taken. On the basis of the analysis of the ECHR legal positions, proposals for improving the criminal procedure legislation were formulated. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.","PeriodicalId":41435,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law","volume":"71 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17223/22253513/44/4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Under Article 46 of the Russian Constitution, everyone is guaranteed judicial protection of his or her rights and freedoms. This right must also be realised in criminal proceedings, including during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. At the same time, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has not formulated in sufficient detail how the right to judicial protection should be realised in the course of the court's interlocutory ruling and its review. In searching for standards for the implementation of the right to appeal and review of interlocutory decisions rendered at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings, the authors refer to the provisions of the European Convention as interpreted by the ECHR as legal provisions correlating with the human rights enshrined in the Russian Constitution. For this purpose, more than 50 ECHR judgments and the positions of contemporary domestic and foreign legal scholars have been studied. The authors identified a list of standards of the Convention applicable in case of violation of the right to appeal and interlocutory review, which include the standards guaranteeing protection of fundamental individual rights: Article 5 (right to liberty and security of person), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Art. 1 Protocol No. 1 (right to protection of and respect for property) as well as the rules laying down the minimum requirements for appeal or review procedures: Article 5(4), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). An analysis of the ECHR legal positions laid down the requirements for an appeal or review procedure against a court decision on "deprivation of liberty" (remand in custody, house arrest, prohibition of certain actions, placing a person in a hospital for forensic medical or forensic psychiatric examination). Such a procedure must meet minimum fair trial standards and be urgent and effective. The authors also substantiate the identification of general and specific standards of effective remedy in relation to the procedure of appeal and review of interlocutory decisions rendered at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings. Thus, the procedure will be effective if it is accessible, sufficient and expeditious and if the appeal and review of the interlocutory decision can result in the reversal of the appealed decision and the "rectification of the disputed situation". Private standards apply to cases of appeal and review of specific interlocutory decisions that are made in secret, e.g. an order to monitor and record telephone conversations, obtain information on connections between subscribers and subscriber devices, etc. In such cases, the moment the right to an effective remedy arises is linked to the moment when the person becomes aware (is notified) of the procedural actions taken. On the basis of the analysis of the ECHR legal positions, proposals for improving the criminal procedure legislation were formulated. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.
对刑事诉讼审前阶段作出的中间决定的上诉和复审权利的执行标准
根据俄罗斯宪法第46条,保障每个人的权利和自由得到司法保护。这项权利也必须在刑事诉讼中实现,包括在诉讼的审前阶段。与此同时,俄罗斯联邦宪法法院还没有充分详细地拟订在法院的中间裁决及其审查过程中应如何实现司法保护权。在寻找执行上诉和审查刑事诉讼审前阶段作出的中间决定的权利的标准时,发件人提到被欧洲人权法院解释为与《俄罗斯宪法》所载人权有关的法律条款的《欧洲公约》的条款。为此,我们研究了50多份欧洲人权法院的判决以及当代国内外法律学者的立场。提交人列出了在侵犯上诉权和中间复审权的情况下适用的《公约》标准清单,其中包括保障个人基本权利的标准:第5条(人身自由和安全的权利)、第8条(尊重私人和家庭生活、住宅和通信的权利)、第1号议定书第1条(保护和尊重财产的权利)以及规定上诉或审查程序最低要求的规则:第5条(4)、第6条(公平审判的权利)、第13条(获得有效补救的权利)。对《欧洲人权公约》法律立场的分析规定了对法院关于"剥夺自由"的裁决(羁押候审、软禁、禁止某些行动、将某人送进医院进行法医或法医精神检查)提出上诉或复审程序的要求。这种程序必须符合最低限度的公平审判标准,而且必须紧急有效。作者还证实,在刑事诉讼审前阶段作出的上诉和复审中间决定的程序方面,确定了有效补救的一般和具体标准。因此,如果程序是可利用的、充分的和迅速的,并且如果上诉和对中间决定的审查能够导致推翻上诉的决定和“纠正有争议的情况”,则该程序将是有效的。私人标准适用于上诉和覆核秘密作出的特定中间裁决的案件,例如命令监视和记录电话谈话、获取用户与用户设备之间的连接信息等。在这种情况下,获得有效补救的权利发生的时刻与当事人意识到(被通知)所采取的程序性行动的时刻联系在一起。在分析《欧洲人权公约》法律立场的基础上,提出了完善刑事诉讼立法的建议。作者声明没有利益冲突。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信