Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

The article presents the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights of 5 March 2020 in GROBELNY v. Poland, by which the Court found that Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights had been infringed following the rejection by national courts of the applicant's claim for compensation equal to the invalidity pension which he was unlawfully deprived of by applying the res judicata principle, despite the existence of relevant and sufficient grounds for departing from that principle, namely the fact that the applicant's deprivation of pension rights was the consequence of a manifest error attributable to the public authority, found as such by the court in the second dispute. The Court held that, in this way, the national authorities had failed to ensure compliance with the principles of social justice and fairness or good governance and that the burden to which the applicant was subject was disproportionate, since he was required to bear the consequences of the errors attributable to the public authorities on his own, even though he did not have any other legal means to compensate for the damage. The article also contains an analysis by the author of the ECtHR ruling.

Secessionism is one of the important challenges in many contemporary societies. Sovereignty, International and domestic law, and human rights are only three concepts that could be affected by the emergence of secessionist dynamics. This article investigates the evolution of Catalan secessionist movement after the 2017 independence referendum. It uses process tracing to analyze the events that coincide with the evolution of the Catalan secessionist movement. The main findings reveal that while the EU does not encourage these kinds of movements, it does not agree with the solutions adopted by the Spanish's Central Government to solve the Catalan situation, and condemns the violation of human rights. Also, the Catalan independence movement can stimulate similar dynamics across other countries, which are not favourable to the EU cohesion.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an essential reference to human rights and freedoms. Both the Declaration and the Constitution obliges authorities, especially justice and therefore constitutional justice to respect fundamental rights and freedoms, including those through which is ensured protection of personality's spiritual side. The right to a fair trial has a special place among the fundamental rights in a democratic society, whose level should be inherent in any system of law. The right to a fair trial in an independent and impartial court is recognised in customary international law so that those states that have not yet ratified the international instruments are also bound by law and the judicial system to adapt their legislation appropriately. The right to a fair trial has several components such as access to justice, a fair and public case in a reasonable time, examination of the case by an independent and impartial court, established by law, advertising delivery decisions. The right to be tried by an independent and impartial court is so elemental, exciting Human Rights Committee status as an "absolute right not bear any exception". The right to a fair trial also means a reasonable opportunity to expose any part of his case to the court in a manner that does not disadvantage the opposing party, which is achieved by ensuring its rights of defense. Parties have the right to be assisted by an attorney, elected or appointed by office. Realisation of the right to defense is ensured by the organisation and functioning of the judiciary, which is based on the principles of legality, equality of parties, gratuity, collegiality, publicity, immutability and the active role of the court. To enact a law the court as part of a fair trial takes into account the competence to hear the case, both materially and territorially. In this context, statutory legislation provisions are clear and precise, clearly delineating the powers of courts, the costs involved in the administration of justice. To understand and respect the provisions is of paramount importance in realisng the right - a prerequisite to the existence of balanced and harmonious society.

The positive, unifying ideological resources of liberal and progressive Islamic interpretations deserve more than ever to be exploited in the contemporary socio-political context. Their conceptual tools, principles and theses could solve the conflictual cleavage, politically manipulated, between Islam and Western modernity, without repudiating the references to an Islamic paradigm. Therefore, liberal and progressive Islamic understandings could avoid the recent superficial oscillation between two ideological -artificially constructed- extremes, namely either confining the discussions to the secular, colonialist or postcolonialist perspectives, or promoting the defensive opportunist neotraditionalist Islamic approaches, specific to the nationalist movements of the last century so-called Islamic revival. Liberal Islam does not fully adopt all liberal theses and does not obediently imitate Western philosophy. Liberal Islamic understandings are defined by the opposition against teocracy and by supporting the democracy. Women, minorities and non-Muslims' rights in Muslim-majority countries, freedom of thought and trust in human progress, are other essential tenets that are fundamented on contemporary understandings of the major Islamic sources. Trying to correct some excesses that the liberal Muslims were accused of, but maintaining the reformist tendencies, progressive Muslims' approach is centered on a "multiple critiqueˮ ‒ a simultaneous critique of the diverse discourses and communities in which Muslims are situated. Not only the authoritarian constructions of literalist, puritanist Muslims, the violation of human rights, freedom of expression and of religion, the oppression of women in some Muslim countries are condemned and deconstructed, but also some political, economic, intellectual hegemonic Western aspects of modernity. In Romania these contemporary tendencies of interpreting Islam are not yet represented at a community level.

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.

Transitional Justice in the Arab World and its Effects in the Light of the "Arab Spring" Launched in 2011 The events that took place in early 2011, known as the "Arab Spring", sparked several discussions in relation to regions that were considered closed to the democratic values promoted by Western states. Chain revolutions have primarily addressed a key issue, that of transitional justice, thus trying to bring truth and reconciliation to societies where for decades terror, totalitarianism, serious human rights violations, political repression have reigned, including those committed by police and security organs. Unfortunately, we must note that the lack of traditions in this regard has not allowed the realizations of tasks put before the transitional judiciary in these countries, although, we must admit, some successes have been achieved. Evenimentele ce au avut loc la începutul anului 2011, cunoscute sub termenul de "primăvara arabă" au trezit mai multe discuţii în raport cu regiuni care erau considerate închise pentru valorile democratice promovate de statele occidentale. Revoluţii în lanţ au abordat în primul rând un subiect cheie, cel al justiţiei tranziţionale, astfel încercând să aducă adevărul și reconcilierea în societăţile în care timp de decenii au domnit teroarea, totalitarismul, încălcări grave ale drepturilor omului, represiuni politice și din partea organelor de poliţie și de securitate. Cu regret, trebuie să constatăm faptul, că lipsa unor tradiţii în acest sens, nu a permis realizarea sarcinilor puse în faţa justiţiei tranziţionale în aceste ţări, deși, totuși, trebuie să recunoaștem, anumite succese au fost atinse.

Such famous jurists as H. Kelsen, J. Chevallier, Giorgio del Vecchio, A. Hauriou, Mircea Djuvara, François Rigaux, Ion Deleanu, Tudor Drăganu etc. expressed their views on the principles of the rule of law, which persisted for several centuries. The rule of law is never a perfect reality and no country can claim to have achieved perfection, because the rule of law is not obtained easily, it is the joint effort of the state authorities, civil society, and all the citizens. José Manuel Durão Barroso stated that "The rule of law is the cornerstone of the European Union, there is no true democracy without the rule of law and without democracy the rule of law is just an instrument in the hand of the rulers". While the European Commissioner for Justice, Viviane Reding stated that "In parallel to the economic and financial crisis, we also have been confronted on several occasions with a true "rule of law" crisis. At the beginning of April 2014, in Innsbruck (Austria), was held the academic conference entitled "Strengthening the rule of law in Europe - from a common concept to mechanisms of implementation". On April 21, 2014, the European Parliament noted, according to Article 49 of the EU Treaty, Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia, as any European country can apply to become a member of the European Union, given that they realize the principles of democracy, the fundamentals of freedom, human and minority rights and ensure the rule of law. Thus, achieving the rule of law in Moldova was and will be a permanent and current task in the coming years.