Suchergebnisse

The Judge plays a decisive role in promoting respect for human rights. His activity is governed by the fundamental principles of the "rule of law" concept. The principle of separation of powers is a principle that any democracy, that wants to be real, must necessarily take it into consideration and implement it. Delimitation of powers is, broadly speaking, a different jurisdiction to establish institutional authority, and to exclude other forms of mutual intrusion than those permitted by law. At European level, the criteria and conditions of the judicial domain, and the judges, receive a broader notion, more complex. The structure of today's European Union is based solely on the rules of law. Rule of law is ensured through creation of Community law that is independent and uniform for all Member States. To ensure judicial protection of individual rights conferred by Community law, transparency is indispensable to national procedural law. Therefore, the national legislation must be put in harmony with European law and the national legislator is obliged to respect the decisions of the EUCJ, which decided that, in principle, the conditions imposed by national law will not have to render virtually the rights conferred by Community law. Any judge, seized within its jurisdiction, is required to apply the provisions of Community law and protect rights which are conferred to individuals, leaving all provisions inapplicable, possibly contrary, the national law, either before or after the Community rule. European law clearly reinforces cultural and legal national judge. Community law isn't a foreign law, it is an outside law. This law is proper to each of our States as its national law, but it also has this feature to be at the same time a common value for all.

Since justice is carried out through the judiciary, composed of judges, this means that the judicial power is exercised only by the court în the person of the judge, the sole bearer of that power. The judge is the one empowered to investigate a case în order to clarify it, thus proceeding to a trial and then pronouncing a judgment, thus making an act of justice. But we can speak of a power (a system of organs that have the power to do justice, including by constraint) and not just authority, unless organically the independence of the members of the judiciary is guaranteed and the exercise of the power to judge is sovereign. Therefore, not only justice per se, as a branch of government must be independent of the executive and the Parliament, but also individual judges have the right to enjoy independence în the performance of their professional duties.

The arbitration agreement constitutes the main element of private arbitration. Arbitration Convention creates essentially a double effect, a main direct negative (one to evade certain disputes under the jurisdiction of state power) and a positive one, complementary (to give judges the power to decide the dispute in question). The main effect called negative effect of the arbitration agreement (arbitration compromise clause), is to remove, to dispute subject to its jurisdiction courts that would have had in the absence of the arbitration clause jurisdiction to resolve the dispute between the parties. Once removed jurisdiction of the courts, the dispute shall be resolved by the arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with the arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement grants the arbitral tribunal with the power to judge a dispute, checking by its own court jurisdiction on that issue. Literature called the verification principle Kompetenz-Kompetenz. Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle empowers the arbitral court to decide on its own jurisdiction. For arbitration agreement to be effective, it must result from genuine consent of the parties, also to correspond to legal national rules. In examining objectives' arbitrability of international disputes, a court must apply its own conception of international public policy. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is applied in the same way both for litigation through the courts as well as arbitration. As a result, the European Court of Human Rights determined that the requirements of Article 6 must be applied by arbitral tribunals.

Choosing arbitration as a way of resolving legal disputes, it involves the guarantee of principle regarding contractual freedom. This principle is also established in ECtHR's jurisprudence. In this situation the question is whether the court can impose or sanction an arbitration decision that violates the ECtHR rules. Under the ECtHR's jurisprudence, it is not necessarily an arbitration decision to be canceled because it did not correspond to all the guarantees of Article 6. Each contracting State, in principle, can decide the reasons an arbitration decision should be annulled or not. An arbitration agreement, reached between the parties, restricts voluntarily the right to access to courts and dispute settlement in accordance with their rules of procedure. Thus, the parties to an arbitration agreement must be "fully aware" of giving up this fundamental right and once validly waived this right, they cannot plead infringement of it. European Convention on Human Rights is binding on judges only indirectly, only the proceedings of the court in connection with the arbitration proceedings are subject to the European Court of Human Rights, but not the arbitration procedure itself. So, ECtHR in Article 6 (1) of the Convention is not directly imposed to arbitration courts, but obliges courts of contracting states to establish appeal against arbitral order to verify the correctness of the arbitration proceedings and to quash decisions that disregard the fundamental procedural guarantees laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights.