《欧洲人权公约》第6条规定的“完全管辖权”:Hans Kelsen诉分权原则

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
M. Allena, F. Goisis
{"title":"《欧洲人权公约》第6条规定的“完全管辖权”:Hans Kelsen诉分权原则","authors":"M. Allena, F. Goisis","doi":"10.54648/euro2020045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the ‘full jurisdiction’ requirement under Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its implementation within European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law. It first analyses the theoretical foundations for ‘full jurisdiction’ which implies, in principle, a substitutive review of the merits of administrative decisions. It then focuses on the ECtHR case law, highlighting its ambivalence and inconsistencies: while the Court generally requires a substitutive review in criminal cases and in cases involving complex technical assessments, it tends to accept a less exacting standard of review in civil cases, especially when administrative discretionary choices or policy determinations are at issue. This article suggests that the ambivalence and inconsistencies within ECtHR case law can be explained in terms of the principle of separation of powers, which still underpins most legal systems of signatory states to the ECHR.\nArt. 6 ECHR, fair trial, administrative procedures, full jurisdiction, principle of separation of powers.","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Full Jurisdiction’ Under Article 6 ECHR: Hans Kelsen v. the Principle of Separation of Powers\",\"authors\":\"M. Allena, F. Goisis\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/euro2020045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the ‘full jurisdiction’ requirement under Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its implementation within European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law. It first analyses the theoretical foundations for ‘full jurisdiction’ which implies, in principle, a substitutive review of the merits of administrative decisions. It then focuses on the ECtHR case law, highlighting its ambivalence and inconsistencies: while the Court generally requires a substitutive review in criminal cases and in cases involving complex technical assessments, it tends to accept a less exacting standard of review in civil cases, especially when administrative discretionary choices or policy determinations are at issue. This article suggests that the ambivalence and inconsistencies within ECtHR case law can be explained in terms of the principle of separation of powers, which still underpins most legal systems of signatory states to the ECHR.\\nArt. 6 ECHR, fair trial, administrative procedures, full jurisdiction, principle of separation of powers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Public Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Public Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2020045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2020045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文审查了《欧洲人权公约》第6条规定的“完全管辖权”要求及其在欧洲人权法院判例法中的实施情况。它首先分析了“完全管辖权”的理论基础,这在原则上意味着对行政决定的是非曲直进行替代性审查。然后,它将重点放在ECtHR判例法上,强调了其矛盾和不一致之处:虽然法院通常要求在刑事案件和涉及复杂技术评估的案件中进行替代性审查,但在民事案件中,它倾向于接受不那么严格的审查标准,尤其是在行政自由裁量权选择或政策决定存在争议时。本文认为,欧洲人权法院判例法中的矛盾和不一致可以从分权原则来解释,分权原则仍然是《欧洲人权公约》签署国大多数法律制度的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘Full Jurisdiction’ Under Article 6 ECHR: Hans Kelsen v. the Principle of Separation of Powers
This article examines the ‘full jurisdiction’ requirement under Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its implementation within European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law. It first analyses the theoretical foundations for ‘full jurisdiction’ which implies, in principle, a substitutive review of the merits of administrative decisions. It then focuses on the ECtHR case law, highlighting its ambivalence and inconsistencies: while the Court generally requires a substitutive review in criminal cases and in cases involving complex technical assessments, it tends to accept a less exacting standard of review in civil cases, especially when administrative discretionary choices or policy determinations are at issue. This article suggests that the ambivalence and inconsistencies within ECtHR case law can be explained in terms of the principle of separation of powers, which still underpins most legal systems of signatory states to the ECHR. Art. 6 ECHR, fair trial, administrative procedures, full jurisdiction, principle of separation of powers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
×
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