不一致的裁决-违反了《欧洲人权公约》规定的公平审判权

D. Popović
{"title":"不一致的裁决-违反了《欧洲人权公约》规定的公平审判权","authors":"D. Popović","doi":"10.51204/anali_pfbu_21201a","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ECtHR does not review decisions of national courts of the States Parties to the European Convention. However, it has developed a pattern in its case law to find a violation of the Convention on the grounds that the fair hearing lacked if there was a case law inconsistency at the level of national jurisdiction. The ECtHR case law was settled in a Grand Chamber case against Turkey in 2011. To find a violation under Article 6 of the Convention the ECtHR requires two tests. Firstly, it must establish the existence of a profound and long-standing inconsistency in the domestic case law, and secondly, the ECtHR raises the issue of a mechanism aimed at removing the inconsistency. If the mechanism does not exist, or if it applied ineffectively, the ECtHR finds a violation of human rights. The author suggests the ECtHR should revisit its jurisprudence.","PeriodicalId":32310,"journal":{"name":"Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inconsistent Adjudication – A Violation of the Right to Fair Trial Under the European Convention on Human Rights\",\"authors\":\"D. Popović\",\"doi\":\"10.51204/anali_pfbu_21201a\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The ECtHR does not review decisions of national courts of the States Parties to the European Convention. However, it has developed a pattern in its case law to find a violation of the Convention on the grounds that the fair hearing lacked if there was a case law inconsistency at the level of national jurisdiction. The ECtHR case law was settled in a Grand Chamber case against Turkey in 2011. To find a violation under Article 6 of the Convention the ECtHR requires two tests. Firstly, it must establish the existence of a profound and long-standing inconsistency in the domestic case law, and secondly, the ECtHR raises the issue of a mechanism aimed at removing the inconsistency. If the mechanism does not exist, or if it applied ineffectively, the ECtHR finds a violation of human rights. The author suggests the ECtHR should revisit its jurisprudence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32310,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.51204/anali_pfbu_21201a\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51204/anali_pfbu_21201a","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧洲人权委员会不审查《欧洲公约》缔约国国内法院的决定。但是,它在其判例法中形成了一种模式,以在国家管辖权一级存在判例法不一致的情况下缺乏公平听证的理由来认定违反《公约》的行为。欧洲人权法院的判例法在2011年针对土耳其的一个大分庭案件中得到解决。根据《公约》第6条认定违反行为,欧洲人权法院需要两个检验标准。首先,它必须确定在国内判例法中存在深刻和长期的不一致,其次,欧洲人权法院提出了旨在消除不一致的机制的问题。如果这一机制不存在,或者没有有效地实施,欧洲人权法院就认定侵犯人权。作者建议欧洲人权法院重新审视其判例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Inconsistent Adjudication – A Violation of the Right to Fair Trial Under the European Convention on Human Rights
The ECtHR does not review decisions of national courts of the States Parties to the European Convention. However, it has developed a pattern in its case law to find a violation of the Convention on the grounds that the fair hearing lacked if there was a case law inconsistency at the level of national jurisdiction. The ECtHR case law was settled in a Grand Chamber case against Turkey in 2011. To find a violation under Article 6 of the Convention the ECtHR requires two tests. Firstly, it must establish the existence of a profound and long-standing inconsistency in the domestic case law, and secondly, the ECtHR raises the issue of a mechanism aimed at removing the inconsistency. If the mechanism does not exist, or if it applied ineffectively, the ECtHR finds a violation of human rights. The author suggests the ECtHR should revisit its jurisprudence.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
3 weeks
×
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