Članak
jun 18
Nazad

INCONSISTENT ADJUDICATION – A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL UNDER THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Dragoljub Popović

10.51204/Anali_PFBU_21201A
SAŽETAK /

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.

ČLANAK JE RASPOLOŽIV NA /
Engleskom  
REFERENCE /
  1. Calin, Dragos. 2020. The Constitutional Court of Romania and the Rule of Law Standards. 211–227, in 900 Days of Uninterrupted Siege upon the Romanian Magistracy – A Survival Guide, edited by Dragos Calin. Bucharest: C.H. Beck.
  2. Geršić, Gligorije. 2011. Enciklopedija prava. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
  3. Grabenwarter, Christoph. 2014. European Convention on Human Rights – Commentary. München: C.H. Beck. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845258942
  4. Harris, David, Michael O’Boyle, Ed Bates, Carla Buckley. 2018. Harris, O’Boyle and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. 4th edition. Oxford: OUP. https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198785163.001.0001
  5. Marković, Ratko. 2020. Ustavno pravo. 25th edition. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu
  6. Popović, Dragoljub. 1/2017. What are Precedents and How Should Judges Handle Them? Considerations Based on the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Pravni zapisi, Union University School of Law Review VIII: 5–19. https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-13653
  7. Popović, Dragoljub. 1/2019. Reasoning in Domestic Judgments in New Democracies. East European Yearbook on Human Rights 2. https://doi.org/10.5553/EEYHR/258977642019002001002
  8. Schabas, William. 2015. The European Convention on Human Rights – A Commentary. Oxford: OUP.

ECtHR CASE LAW
(In a chronological order)

  1. ECtHR, case 97/1996/716/913, Papageorgiou v. Greece.
  2. ECtHR, case 24846/94, 34165/96 to 34173/96, Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France (GC), 1999.
  3. ECtHR, case 30658/05, Beian v. Romania, 2007.
  4. ECtHR, case 21911/03, Tudor Tudor v. Romania, 2009.
  5. ECtHR, case 22279/04, Plechanow v. Poland, 2009.
  6. ECtHR, case 24428/03, 26977/03, Stefan and Stef v. Romania, 2009.
  7. ECtHR, case 23530/02, Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, 2009.
  8. ECtHR, case 44698/06 ……., Vinčić and Others v. Serbia, 2009.
  9. ECtHR, case 47460/07 ………., Rakić and Others v. Serbia, 2010.
  10. ECtHR, case 38155/02, Stefanica and Others v. Romania, 2010.
  11. ECtHR, case 37204/08, Živić v. Serbia, 2011.
  12. ECtHR, case 13279/05, Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Sahin v. Turkey (GC), 2011.
  13. ECtHR, case 29784/07, Stoilkovska v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 2013.
  14. ECtHR, case 582/05, Çelebi and Others v. Turkey, 2016.
  15. ECtHR, case 76943/11, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania, (GC) 2016.