Suchergebnisse

The article examines the problems arising in legal science and practice with regard to the compatibility of the wording of court judgments terminating criminal proceedings with the presumption of innocence, the possibility of finding that the defendant has committed a criminal offense and granting civil damages to the victim when criminal proceedings are terminated upon expiry of the statute of limitations, and the possibility to grant civil damages when the proceedings are terminated on the grounds of release from criminal liability. The purpose of the article is to assess whether the provisions of international law, European Union law and constitutional law can be interpreted as allowing the termination of a case in the above-mentioned manner. This objective is pursued through an analysis of the European Convention of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on strengthening certain aspects of presumption of innocence and the right to be presented at the trial in criminal proceedings, jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, constitutions of Lithuania and other European states, rulings of Constitutional Courts. The article concludes that the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights does not in itself preclude a court terminating criminal proceedings for limitation, to find in the reasoning of the judgement that the accused has committed a criminal offense, and at the same time to grant civil damages to victim. Termination of proceedings in this way may be lawfully applied when the court examines the merits of the accusation, all questions of fact and law, guaranteeing all the rights of the defense, thus when the proceedings are discontinued after reaching the final phase of the ordinary hearing that is after the final speeches of the prosecution and defense (for example, by a judgment of the court of first instance). There is no sufficient basis to conclude that the other analyzed legal acts of international law and European Union law establish different requirements and prohibit to terminate proceedings in the specified way. The presumption of innocence enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania allows, and the constitutional right of victims to compensation, which must be effective, forms the basis for finding in the reasoning part of the judgment terminating proceedings rendered after full hearing of the case providing rights of defense that the defendant has committed incriminated offence and basis for satisfying civil claim of the victim whether the proceedings are terminated by applying a statute of limitations or releasing the defendant from criminal liability.

The article examines the problems arising in legal science and practice with regard to the compatibility of the wording of court judgments terminating criminal proceedings with the presumption of innocence, the possibility of finding that the defendant has committed a criminal offense and granting civil damages to the victim when criminal proceedings are terminated upon expiry of the statute of limitations, and the possibility to grant civil damages when the proceedings are terminated on the grounds of release from criminal liability. The purpose of the article is to assess whether the provisions of international law, European Union law and constitutional law can be interpreted as allowing the termination of a case in the above-mentioned manner. This objective is pursued through an analysis of the European Convention of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on strengthening certain aspects of presumption of innocence and the right to be presented at the trial in criminal proceedings, jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, constitutions of Lithuania and other European states, rulings of Constitutional Courts. The article concludes that the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights does not in itself preclude a court terminating criminal proceedings for limitation, to find in the reasoning of the judgement that the accused has committed a criminal offense, and at the same time to grant civil damages to victim. Termination of proceedings in this way may be lawfully applied when the court examines the merits of the accusation, all questions of fact and law, guaranteeing all the rights of the defense, thus when the proceedings are discontinued after reaching the final phase of the ordinary hearing that is after the final speeches of the prosecution and defense (for example, by a judgment of the court of first instance). There is no sufficient basis to conclude that the other analyzed legal acts of international law and European Union law establish different requirements and prohibit to terminate proceedings in the specified way. The presumption of innocence enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania allows, and the constitutional right of victims to compensation, which must be effective, forms the basis for finding in the reasoning part of the judgment terminating proceedings rendered after full hearing of the case providing rights of defense that the defendant has committed incriminated offence and basis for satisfying civil claim of the victim whether the proceedings are terminated by applying a statute of limitations or releasing the defendant from criminal liability.

The article examines the problems arising in legal science and practice with regard to the compatibility of the wording of court judgments terminating criminal proceedings with the presumption of innocence, the possibility of finding that the defendant has committed a criminal offense and granting civil damages to the victim when criminal proceedings are terminated upon expiry of the statute of limitations, and the possibility to grant civil damages when the proceedings are terminated on the grounds of release from criminal liability. The purpose of the article is to assess whether the provisions of international law, European Union law and constitutional law can be interpreted as allowing the termination of a case in the above-mentioned manner. This objective is pursued through an analysis of the European Convention of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on strengthening certain aspects of presumption of innocence and the right to be presented at the trial in criminal proceedings, jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, constitutions of Lithuania and other European states, rulings of Constitutional Courts. The article concludes that the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights does not in itself preclude a court terminating criminal proceedings for limitation, to find in the reasoning of the judgement that the accused has committed a criminal offense, and at the same time to grant civil damages to victim. Termination of proceedings in this way may be lawfully applied when the court examines the merits of the accusation, all questions of fact and law, guaranteeing all the rights of the defense, thus when the proceedings are discontinued after reaching the final phase of the ordinary hearing that is after the final speeches of the prosecution and defense (for example, by a judgment of the court of first instance). There is no sufficient basis to conclude that the other analyzed legal acts of international law and European Union law establish different requirements and prohibit to terminate proceedings in the specified way. The presumption of innocence enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania allows, and the constitutional right of victims to compensation, which must be effective, forms the basis for finding in the reasoning part of the judgment terminating proceedings rendered after full hearing of the case providing rights of defense that the defendant has committed incriminated offence and basis for satisfying civil claim of the victim whether the proceedings are terminated by applying a statute of limitations or releasing the defendant from criminal liability.

The article examines the problems arising in legal science and practice with regard to the compatibility of the wording of court judgments terminating criminal proceedings with the presumption of innocence, the possibility of finding that the defendant has committed a criminal offense and granting civil damages to the victim when criminal proceedings are terminated upon expiry of the statute of limitations, and the possibility to grant civil damages when the proceedings are terminated on the grounds of release from criminal liability. The purpose of the article is to assess whether the provisions of international law, European Union law and constitutional law can be interpreted as allowing the termination of a case in the above-mentioned manner. This objective is pursued through an analysis of the European Convention of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on strengthening certain aspects of presumption of innocence and the right to be presented at the trial in criminal proceedings, jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, constitutions of Lithuania and other European states, rulings of Constitutional Courts. The article concludes that the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights does not in itself preclude a court terminating criminal proceedings for limitation, to find in the reasoning of the judgement that the accused has committed a criminal offense, and at the same time to grant civil damages to victim. Termination of proceedings in this way may be lawfully applied when the court examines the merits of the accusation, all questions of fact and law, guaranteeing all the rights of the defense, thus when the proceedings are discontinued after reaching the final phase of the ordinary hearing that is after the final speeches of the prosecution and defense (for example, by a judgment of the court of first instance). There is no sufficient basis to conclude that the other analyzed legal acts of international law and European Union law establish different requirements and prohibit to terminate proceedings in the specified way. The presumption of innocence enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania allows, and the constitutional right of victims to compensation, which must be effective, forms the basis for finding in the reasoning part of the judgment terminating proceedings rendered after full hearing of the case providing rights of defense that the defendant has committed incriminated offence and basis for satisfying civil claim of the victim whether the proceedings are terminated by applying a statute of limitations or releasing the defendant from criminal liability.

У статті досліджено правові джерела, які нормативно закріплюють конституційний принцип верховенства права у системі права України; здійснено порівняльний аналіз судових тлумачень і наукових підходів щодо сутності та змісту принципу верховенства права; з'ясовано зв'язок і співвідношення принципів верховенства права та законності. Зроблено висновок по те, що відмінності у теоретичних підходах до визначення верховенства права пов'язані із багатогранністю та глибиною відповідної ідеї. Абсолютно визначена дефініція принципу верховенства права видається недоцільною і неможливою через динаміку розвитку міжнародно-правових стандартів прав людини. In the article legal sources, which normatively fix the constitutional principle of the rule of law in the system of law of Ukraine, have been investigated; the comparative analysis of judicial and scientific interpretation of essence and content of the principle of the rule of law has been presented. It has been concluded that the principle of the rule of law is essential in the formation of all institutes of the state and society in general as it defines human rights as supreme social value, and major public reference point. Therefore it is possible to agree with the thesis that the rule of law is "the principle of the principles". It has been proved that the concept of the rule of law constantly evolves and expands. It is natural that in Ukraine it has to develop and be filled with new content, being similar to the European standards of human rights protection. Differences in theoretical approaches to the definition of the rule of law are connected with the diversity and profundity of the corresponding idea. Absolutely accurate definition of the principle of the rule of law has been presented as inexpedient and impossible due to dynamics of the development of international legal standards of human rights. In the branch legislation of Ukraine the principle of the rule of law has been intentionally put at the head of the system of principles by legislators. The principle of legality is subordinated to it in structure and content.