Violation Of Article Research Articles

European Court of Human Rights: review of the Grand Chamber judgment of 16 February 2021 in the case of Hanan v. Germany (application no.4871/16)

In Hanan v. Germany (application no.4871/16), the European Court of Human Rights considered the issue of the effectiveness of the German authorities’ investigation of the deaths of the applicant’s two sons as the result of an airstrike. The Court decided that the investigation satisfied the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention. The Court pointed out that all the circumstances needed to determine criminal liability of the suspected persons were established during the investigation. Delay in starting the investigation was due to the deaths having occurred in the active hostilities phase of an armed conflict. However, the investigation was able to identify the person who ordered the airstrike. The applicant, as next-of-kin of the persons killed, was not deprived of an opportunity to participate in the investigation. The Court concluded that the failure to examine the applicant as a witness did not constitute a violation of Article 2 of Convention, because he could not have provided additional information to determine the criminal liability of the person who ordered the airstrike. Also, the Court noted that the applicant had effective remedies to challenge the effectiveness of the investigation and had used these.

ARTICLE 29/39 OF THE MAGNA CARTA IN THE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY OF THE LATE 16TH CENTURY

The article is devoted to the reception life of Article 29/39 of the Magna Carta in the political and right-wing controversy of England at the end of the 16th century. It is shown that the Magna Carta, which fell out of use in the late Middle Ages, returned to the political and right-wing space in the Elizabethan era. It was customary to use the Magna Carta in the 1225 edition, otherwise the edition of Henry III, which was confirmed more than 30 times and was perceived as an act of parliament. An analysis of the treatises of common law jurists William Fleetwood and Robert Snape led to the conclusion that the Magna Carta was considered a document that restored the ancient best and just right, trampled by the Norman invasion, and ensured continuity with the beyond the memory of British antiquity. Article 29 was considered the core and quintessence of the liberties and rights of subjects. A study of the controversy between common law lawyers James Maurice, Robert Beale and civilist Richard Coisin around the judicial powers of the High Commission, its ex officio inquisition procedure and specific incidents of persecution of nonconformist priests led to the conclusion that these common law lawyers insisted on the fundamental nature of Article 29, on the unlawfulness of the prosecutions, the inability of the commission to issue criminal sentences and to use the ex officio inquisition oath. They argued that the royal authority did not have the prerogative to create commissions in violation of Article 29. Civilist Richard Coisin objected that ecclesiastical jurisdiction is an independent branch of law and is not subject to Magna Carta.

Torture and inhuman treatment in the context of the relevant practice of the European Court of Human Rights

The article examines the problems of torture and ill-treatment in the relevant practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) has become an important place in the practice of application of criminal law of Ukraine. After analyzing some practice ECtHR about violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the forms of torture and inhuman treatment were singled out. These include: improper investigation, improper treatment of convicts, improper medical care of convicts, threats of torture, ignoring allegations of threats of torture or ill-treatment, etc.It was found that despite numerous judgments of the European Court of Human Rights against Ukraine, both certain provisions of law and practice of their application continue to contradict the provisions of the Convention, in particular Article 3.It is established that currently the problem of treatment of people by law enforcement agencies and other state representatives is urgent and systemic.The paper proposes that some European experience should be borrowed in providing a real mechanism for the protection of human rights and freedoms. Reforms are needed to ensure the effective participation of victims in criminal proceedings and the use of incentives, as well as the practice of compensating victims. It seems that given the accompanying circumstances, failure to provide the victim with a real opportunity to participate in criminal proceedings, as well as the lack of informing the victims about the progress of the investigation can be considered as inhuman treatment within the meaning of Art. 3 of the Convention.

Міжнародно-правові аспекти протидії гібридній війні

An important component in the modern hybrid warfare toolkit is legal warfare. This component is dangerous, like others, but remains poorly understood. The purpose of the article is to determine the role and place of international law in countering hybrid aggression.For hybrid warfare, there is no single universally accepted definition. Non-linear war, active measures or the conflict in the gray zone are used as alternative ones. A state that has launched a hybrid aggression achieves the goal of internal instability in another state, prioritizing non-military means, such as information attacks and influence operations, combined with economic pressure, support from local opposition groups, misinformation, and criminal activity. Also, troops without insignia or military personnel that are not part of the regular troops are used. The main emphasis is on information abilities and non-state actors. The strategic benefits of a hybrid war are that it is difficult to prove the aggressor’s involvement. The legal uncertainty of the aggressor delays adequate opposition.The UN Charter prohibits aggression through non-recognition of the use of force without legal justification. Article 2 (4) guarantees the right of states to protection from the use of force against their territorial integrity and political independence. The ban on the use of force implies a level of armed aggression at which self-defense is justified in accordance with Art. 51 of the UN Charter or collective defense in accordance with Art. 5 of the Washington Treaty of 1949 on the establishment of NATO.The unlawful use of force, regardless of whether they are regular armed forces or non-state military groups, requires international opposition. This legal norm is able to respond to changes in the methods of warfare. Economic measures, misinformation and criminal activity are not considered a violation of Article 2 (4). However, actions that do not fall within the scope of the use of force may be illegal, as they will constitute a form of interference.Thus, theoretically, the scope of the UN Charter is sufficient to stop hybrid aggression, the level of which does not exceed the classical threshold for the use of military force.

Glosa do wyroku Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka w sprawie „Rooman przeciwko Belgii" z dnia 31 stycznia 2019 roku (skarga nr 18052/11)

Glosa dotyczy wyroku Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka w sprawie Rooman przeciwko Belgii. Trybunał stwierdził w nim nienaruszenie art. 5 Europejskiej konwencji praw człowieka, którego celem jest zapobieganie arbitralnemu lub nieuzasadnionemu pozbawieniu wolności ze względu na to, że związek między przyczyną przymusowego odosobnienia a zaburzeniem psychicznym występującym u skarżącego nie został zerwany. Opracowanie jest próbą krytycznej oceny wniosków przedstawionych przez Trybunał ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem jego dotychczasowego orzecznictwa w tej materii. Jednocześnie wskazuje na doniosłą rolę prawa do wolności i bezpieczeństwa osobistego w demokratycznym społeczeństwie w rozumieniu konwencji.

PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM TINGKAT BANDING DALAM MENERAPKAN UNSUR-UNSUR PASAL 2 DAN PASAL 3 UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 31 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI (Studi Putusan No. 3/TIPIKOR/2016/PT PDG dan No. 9/ TIPIKOR/ 2017/PT PDG)

The law governing criminal acts of corruption is Law Number 31 of 1999 as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Eradication of Corruption. Corruption crime regulated by Law Number 31 of 1999 consists of various forms / types. In writing this thesis, the author conducts research on corruption cases as referred to in decision Number 3 / TIPIKOR / 2016 / PT PDG and Number 9 / TIPIKOR / 2017 / PT PDG. From the results of the study, the first conclusion was obtained that the consideration of the appellate level judges in applying the elements of Article 2 and Article 3, that in Decision Number 3 / TIPIKOR / 2016 / PT PDG, was the legal judgment of the First Level Judge in its decision that could be approved and corroborated by the Level Judge Appeals, except in the case of conviction for the Defendant, according to the Judge of the Level of Appeals the imposed criminal sentence needs to be aggravated and there are still incriminating matters for the Defendant that have not been considered by the First Level Judge. Criminal application by the Court of Appeal Court is to improve the decision of the First Level Court which imprisonment for 2 (two) years and 6 (six) months and improvement of imprisonment for 3 (three) years and a fine of Rp 50,000,000 (fifty) million rupiahs) subsidair criminal confinement for 2 (two) months. Judge's consideration in Decision Number 9 / TIPIKOR / 2017 / PT PDG, is that the Panel of Appeal Judges has considered Article 2 with elements of a criminal offense committed by the defendant. The Appellate Court Judges disagree with the decision of the First Level Court regarding the Acts of the Defendants in violation of Article 3 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption. Based on the results of the examination of legal facts in the trial and the consideration of the Panel of Appellate Judges with the Primair indictment proved and fulfilled all elements of Article 2 paragraph (1) Juncto Article 18 paragraph (1) letter b paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of Law Number 31 of 1999. The application of the criminal sentence dropped to Defendants II and IV for 4 years and fined Rp. 200,000,000.00 (two hundred million rupiah).

Issues concerning divorce in European Court of Human Rights case law

The article deals with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the context of the individuals’ possibility to dissolveone’s marriage in general and other issues related to divorce.Starting with the case of Johnston and Others v. Ireland (1986) ECHR made it clear that a right to divorce cannot be derived fromArticle 12 of the Convention (Right to marry). The Court stated that drafters of the Convention had no intention to include in Article12 any guarantee of a right to have the ties of marriage dissolved by divorce. On the other hand, in case of F. v. Switzerland (1987)ECHR stated that if national legislation allows divorce, which is not a requirement of the Convention, Article 12 secures for divorcedpersons the right to remarry without unreasonable restrictions.In more recent cases the Court dealt with issues concerning the lengthy divorce proceedings that impaired applicants’ right tomarry again. In this aspect the Court would not exclude that a failure to conduct divorce proceedings within a reasonable time could incertain circumstances raise an issue under Article 12 of the Convention. However, in such cases the Court emphasizes more on the issueof the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in light of the failure of the domestic authorities to conduct the divorce proceedingsefficiently.Another side of divorce proceedings was reviewed in case of Babiarz v. Poland (2017) where the applicant complained that byrefusing to grant him a divorce the authorities had prevented him from marrying the woman with whom he had been living and had achild. The situation arose due to the provisions of Polish law that a divorce could not be granted if it had been requested by the partywhose fault it was that the marriage had broken down, if the other party refused to consent. In the Court’s view, if the provisions of theConvention cannot be interpreted as guaranteeing a possibility, under domestic law, of obtaining divorce, they cannot, a fortiori, beinterpreted as guaranteeing a favourable outcome in divorce proceedings instituted under the provision of that law allowing for adivorce.

Briefly Noted

On February 13, 2020, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) announced its decision in N.D. and N.T. v. Spain. According to a press release from the Court, the case concerned two individuals (one from Mali and the other from Côte d'Ivoire) who were immediately returned to Morocco from Spain after unlawfully entering the autonomous Spanish city of Melilla on the North African coast. The individuals argued that their return to Morocco violated ECHR Articles 4 of Protocol 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion) and Article 13 (right to an affective remedy). The ECtHR disagreed, basing its decision on the fact that the two applicants unlawfully entered Melilla. The Court stated that because the two individuals had chosen not to make use of lawful channels for entry, their immediate return to Morocco without individual assessment of their cases for asylum "was thus a consequence of their own conduct" (para. 231). Because the Court found no violation of article 4, it could not make a finding with respect to article 13.

LEGAL STANDARDS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINFL PROCEEDINGS

The article deals with the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights regarding evidence and evidence, which are disclosed in the provision of paragraph 3 of Article 6 “The right to a fair trial” of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the latest practice of the Supreme Court regarding the criteria for admissibility of evidence and analysis of the current criminal procedural law. As you know, the attitude of the state towards the protection of human rights and freedoms is one of the indicators of its democracy. Ukraine has chosen the European Community as the main strategic vector of development. Such a vector provides for the unification of the regulatory framework in accordance with European legislation, as well as compliance by law enforcement agencies with international standards for the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens. That is why, the corresponding rule is enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, providing that the rule of law in criminal proceedings is applied taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (part 2 of article 8). A detailed analysis of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings and the relationship of these norms with the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights is carried out. They also examined the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the admissibility of evidence in decisions in which a violation by the state of the norms of the Convention was found, and in decisions in which such a violation was not found. So, summarizing and analyzing the practice of the ECHR, we saw that the Court emphasizes that a guilty verdict cannot be generally based only on inadmissible evidence, and if such a sentence is pronounced, then this is a violation of Article 1 6 of the Convention in respect of an unfair trial. Therefore, the investigator, prosecutor, investigating judge and judge should take into account the relevant practice of the ECHR and the norms of the Convention in their procedural activities in order to avoid these violations and to submit complaints to the European Court of Human Rights in the future.

‘Marry in Haste …’: The (Partial) Abolition of Same-sex Marriage in Bermuda

Abstract In 2018, the British Overseas Territory of Bermuda revoked the right to marry for same-sex couples. In a judgment that reconceives the relationship between sexual orientation and religious freedoms, the Bermuda Supreme Court and Court of Appeal found this revocation to be unconstitutional. I explore the political and legal context in which same-sex marriage was granted and then revoked in Bermuda. I also consider the Bermuda Courts’ judgments in light of the subsequent judgment of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court in Steinfeld, among others. While there was an assumption from both the Bermuda and United Kingdom Governments that the revocation provision was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, I argue that this underestimates the significance of the distinction between declining to recognise a right to same-sex marriage and revoking a right that has already been exercised. While the European Court of Human Rights has not yet found the absence of same-sex marriage to be a violation of Article 12 of the Convention, I argue that the revocation of a right to marry between same-sex couples that had been recognised in accordance with national law changes the terrain on which the Convention arguments would be made.

At Risk of Rights: Rehabilitation, Sentence Management and the Structural Violence of Prison

This article explores governing through rights in a penal context by analyzing a recent case before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (the “Court” or “Supreme Court”), Brown v The Parole Board for Scotland et al. (UKSC 2017). The case involved a prisoner whose stay in prison was extended by several years beyond what the trial court ordered because he was unable to access offender behavior courses due to staffing shortages and waiting lists. In rejecting this as an arbitrary detention (in violation of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights), the Supreme Court focused on the prisoner’s behavior as a justification for non-release. This article traces how the Court applied concepts of rehabilitation and sentence progression to shift focus from the state’s compliance with its rights duties to the prisoner’s deservingness of rights protection. Using frameworks of governmentality and structural violence, I explore how administrative processes, such as sentence management and rights litigation, facilitate and constitute prison violence. Specifically, rehabilitation provided the means of constructing the petitioner as a disobedient and undeserving subject, while simultaneously valorizing the penal authorities’ enlightened oversight of his sentence. Through such moves, the Court and, by extension, legal institutions, can inflict violence in three ways: first, by legitimating the extension of confinement using tools aimed at limiting detention; second, by imposing material and psychic burdens in the pursuit of legal claims, creating both hope and the basis of destroying it; and third, by obscuring and denying the disordered and inherently violent nature of the experience of imprisonment. The article seeks to expose how bureaucratic logics (like balancing tests), spaces (like appeal courts), and material practices (as in the temporal organization of “background facts” in legal judgments) are part of prison and the violence which characterizes the prison experience.

The Russian Construction System’s Goal of Reducing the Cost of Mass Residential and Public Buildings

Almost all human professional activity is realized via some type of system. A high-quality work system must be created taking into account the requirements of professionals with the corresponding specialties. Otherwise, the system and the professional activity of its associated employees will be ineffective as a minimum. A good example is Russia’s construction system. The present article’s analysis of the main provisions of Russian federal construction laws and regulations shows that the main aim in construction is the protection of people’s lives and health in residential and public buildings under the impact of hazardous natural phenomena, which in the Russian construction system is done in gross violation of articles 2 and 72 of the Russian Federation Constitution. For example, populated areas—the largest construction projects in Russia—are not even acknowledged as capital construction projects by federal laws and regulations, which makes it possible to cheapen the construction of mass residential and public buildings. Based on a number of theoretical technical requirements on construction of residential and public buildings, the article substantiates the thesis that the Russian construction system should contain a particular major element that could solve the problem of protecting human life and health under the impact of natural hazards: a group of regional specialists with in-depth knowledge of local conditions.

Legal ways of double taxation resolving

The purpose of the article is a comprehensive study of the problems of double taxation, which is at the intersection of categories of taxable entity and taxpayer. According to the purpose, it is substantiated that double taxation arises in the case of taxation of income received by residents abroad, or in the case of a mixed procedure of tax payment, or in the taxation of the distributed part of the profits of enterprises. It has been established that double taxation is also possible with the partial imposition of one object on another, and this can occur both within the same country and under different tax systems. The taxation of petroleum products with excise tax, which resulted from the legislative regulation that led to double taxation, was considered and analyzed. In the process of researching the topic of the article, the authors conclude that, starting from 2016, the legislator actually introduced double taxation with the same tax and accordingly replaced the ad valorem excise tax rate on retail sales of excisable goods with specific ones (Euro tax rate per unit of tax). It is stated that double taxation of one and the same taxpayer is a violation of Article 1 of the Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of each natural or legal person, the right to peacefully own their property.

Geheime Detentiecentra in Oost-Europa: de Aansprakelijkheid van Staten voor Medeplichtigheid bij Ernstige Mensenrechten-schendingen in de Strijd tegen Terrorisme (Secret Detention Sites in Eastern Europe: State Responsibility for Complicity in Serious Human Rights Violations in the War on Terror)

This chapter discusses to what extent Council of Europe Member States have been held responsible for their collaboration (i.e. by providing secret detention sites) with the CIA in the United States' extraordinary rendition program. To answer this question, we first discuss the background and organisation of the extraordinary rendition program in general and the secret detention sites on European soil. Second, we address several aspects of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights: the attribution of conduct in violation of articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights; the knowledge on the part of the Council of Europe Member States; the role and significance of diplomatic assurances; and, lastly, the distribution of the burden of proof by the Court.

Član 8 Konvencije o zaštiti ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda i pravo privatnosti u Ustavu Crne Gore

The subject of this paper is a comparative analysis of the right to respect for private and family life in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the right to privacy in the Constitution of Montenegro. To this end, the paper presents relevant provisions in these documents along with a critical approach to their (in) compliance, both in the determination of specific rights and in cases of their restriction. The paper seeks to offer an answer to the question on whether this right is adequately implemented in the Constitution of Montenegro, as well as whether its different content, analyzed on the concrete example, requires direct application of international law. The author also seeks to provide information on whether insufficient harmonization of the provisions of international and national law in this area may affect more complete protection of this right. To this end, the paper analyzes one of the cases in which the European Court of Human Rights ruled on the violation of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in relation to Montenegro. Starting from the presented subject matter, at the end of the paper, appropriate conclusions are drawn about possible directions of improvement of existing solutions and practices in which they are realized. Author primarily used normative and comparative law method together with the case-law analysis.

Konstrukcyjne aspekty wadliwości zawarcia małżeństwa

The Family and Guardianship Code provides for two types of defects connected with the contraction of marriage: non-existence of marriage (matrimonium non existens), which results from an infringement of Article 1 of the Code, and voidability of marriage, which results from a violation of marriage bans, defects in the declaration of intent to enter into marriage or certain defects of marriage by proxy. Both in civil law literature and in family law scholarship, these kinds of defects are commonly identified with a non-existent juridical act and relative invalidity (challengeability) of a juridical act. An analysis of how juridical acts are performed and how marriages are contracted, as well as the mechanism of the aforementioned defects emphasizes major differences between the constructions applied in civil law and in family law. The paper puts forward the thesis that they appear as soon as at the stage of basic regulatory assumptions. In civil law, the central construction is the juridical act as a civil law event, being a basic instrument for implementing autonomy of intent. A civil law relationship is a “product” of a juridical act, whose substance, in the basic scope, is determined by the parties’ intent. In family law, the central institution is marriage as a legal relationship which constitutes the emergence of a family (which clearly results from Articles 23 and 27 of the Family and Guardianship Code). From the point of view of family law, the thing of basic importance is whether the marriage exists and whether, possibly, it can be voided, rather than the defects in the very act of contracting marriage. The legal relationship of marriage is seen as separate from the activity of contracting it. These reflections are an important argument supporting an autonomous classification of entry into marriage as a legal event which is different from a juridical act.

Anticompetitive Patent Settlements – Where Are We Ten Years After the European Commission’s Pharmaceutical Inquiry?

In 2009, the European Commission published a final report on its market inquiry into the pharmaceutical sector. The report revealed the authority’s concerns regarding market practices of pharmaceutical originator companies aimed at delaying the market entry of cheaper generic pharmaceutical products. One of the delaying practices identified by the European Commission were patent settlements between an originator and a generic company including: (i) a value transfer from the originator to a generic company, and (ii) an obligation of a generic company not to enter the market. These patent settlements were called pay-for-delay agreements since the payment was allegedly made in exchange for the non-market entry obligation. The European Commission continued the investigation of patent settlements by its continuous monitoring. It also initiated antitrust proceedings that terminated with huge fines imposed on pharmaceutical companies. The appeals are now pending before the EU courts. Ten years after the publication of the final report on the market inquiry, this article aims to summarise the development of the case law and provide its critical analysis. The article focuses on the analysis of pay-for-delay agreements as infringements of Article 101 TFEU only and does not consider the conclusion of these agreements as an abuse of a dominant position.

Apostasy, Human Rights and Hate Crime in England and Wales: A Mixed Methods Study

Apostasy, or leaving religion, is protected within international human rights law, however apostates face widespread abuses. In England and Wales, the right to change religion or belief is protected by the Human Rights Act. Evidence from campaigners suggests that this right is not enjoyed in practice, particularly by those leaving high control minority religious groups. Abuse and discrimination against apostates fall within the definition of religiously aggravated hate crime, however, apostasy is not included in government statistics or policy, and has not been addressed within academic research. The aim of this study is to understand the experiences of apostates in the context of human rights, and in regard to hate crime law and policy. A mixed methods approach was used, with quantitative data collected via an online victimisation survey, followed by semi-structured interviews with a number of respondents. The study was supported via social media by five NGOs that support apostates in order to access a diverse range of ex-religious groups. The study found that hate crime is a significant issue, particularly for apostates from high control religious backgrounds, and additionally many suffer abuses that would fall within definitions of domestic abuse and coercive control. These abuses have a significant impact on freedom of religion or belief and therefore represent a violation of article 9 ECHR. The study concludes that current legislation provides adequate protection for apostates, however this is not effective in practice due to a lack of recognition. The government in England and Wales have an obligation under human rights law to address the issues faced by apostates, and to include apostasy within hate crime statistics and policy action planning.

Overruling ‘the Salduz Doctrine’ in Beuze v Belgium: The ECtHR’s further retreat from the Salduz principles on the right to access to lawyer

In November 2018, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Beuze v Belgium. Relying on Ibrahim and Others v the United Kingdom, the Grand Chamber held that the Salduz principles require a two-stage test of analysis, and hence, ruled out that systematic statutory restriction of a general and mandatory nature would in itself constitute an automatic violation of Article 6 § 3(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Beuze judgment appears to be very controversial, since the Grand Chamber failed to put forward any convincing reason why it departed from previous case law, particularly Dayanan v Turkey and other judgments against Turkey. In their separate opinion, the concurring Judges in Beuze were concerned that the Beuze judgment overruled ‘ Salduz itself and all other cases that have applied the Salduz test’, and thus, ‘actually distorts and changes the Salduz principle and devalues the right that the Court established previously’. This article analyses the Beuze judgment in the light of the Court’s recent jurisprudence in order to examine whether it contradicts and dilutes the principles previously set out. Further, it discusses the implications of the new standards established in Ibrahim and Others and in subsequent cases, particularly Beuze. Particular attention is paid to the questions of how ‘fair’ is the application of overall fairness assessment in every case, how may the Court’s changing direction of approach concerning the right to access to a lawyer affect the increasing trend of recognition thereof, as a rule, by the contracting states, and finally, to what extent the new principles, especially those established in Beuze, comply with Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer.

Waiver in the Russian Criminal Process from the Point of View of Standards of European Court of Human Rights

The research deals with the case law of European Court of Human Rights against the Russian Federation on complaints of its citizens regarding violation of Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights in criminal proceedings when it considers waiver. The author has defined and analyzed both the standards of waiver and the Court’s approaches to the establishment of waiver and the requirements and conditions developed by it.
 The author’s analysis of the decisions of European Court of Justice in respect of Russia, in which the court considered the legality of waiver in specific criminal cases when the Russian authorities claimed that the Applicant had waived his right, has led to the conclusion about misunderstanding of the Russian law executor of this legal phenomenon. As a result the defects of law enforcement are hidden behind the waiver of one’s right in the Russian criminal process.