Suchergebnisse

On April 19, 2016, in The Case Concerning the Resolution of the Question of the Possibility to Execute in Accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 4 July 2013 in the Case of Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia in Connection with the Request of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation (Anchugov & Gladkov (Russ.)), the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (Constitutional Court) held that decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are binding on Russian courts, in accordance with Article 15(4) of the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the Constitutional Court stressed the necessity of ensuring a reasonable balance between the obligation to implement ECtHR judgments and respect for the fundamental principles of the Russian Federation's constitutional system. The Constitutional Court found that because the ECtHR judgment in question implicitly conflicted with provisions of the Russian Constitution, Russian courts are not obliged to comply with the judgment regarding issues that remain in conflict; however, other means are available to the Russian legislature to give effect to the judgment. While the decision marks an important development in Russia's relationship with the European system of human rights, it is not inconsistent with the approach taken by a substantial number of European domestic courts in holding that treaty obligations to enforce decisions of international courts cannot justify violating domestic constitutional norms. Copyright © 2017 by The American Society of International Law.

Abstract Understanding that legal categories are created and shaped through a process that is not only juridical, but also social and political, this paper offers an overview of the category 'violence against women' in the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. By doing a critical in-depth analysis of the most relevant cases for the category's development, besides relying on information gathered through interviews conducted with the Courts' lawyers, the paper suggests that the category is a translocal one, in the sense that its content has been determined through a complex interaction between transnational formulations and local variables.

European Court of Human Rights states that the execution of final decisions is a compulsory provision for a fair hearing and a successful conlusion of a trial. The right to a court protected by Article 6 would be illusory if a Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. Execution of a judgment given by any court, is considered to be an integral part of the "trial" for the purposes of Article 6. Based on the Article 1 of European Convention for Human Rights member states of European Council are obligated to implement the the decisions of ECHR in their domestic legislation in the context of building an efficient legal system. This paper aimes to analyze the legal system of member states regarding the reinforcment of decisions looking forword to identify issues, commonalities and diferences among states. What is the procedure followed in the process of execution? What do we understand with "Reasonable timeframe" and which are the legal requirements in which are based "Concrete deadlines" within a judicial decision should be executed? What is the significance of the enforcment agents in this process?