Cases of the European Court of Human Rights significant for European integration of Ukraine: “Maidan judgments” concerning Ukraine, of 21 January 2021 (final on 21 April 2021)

P. Pushkar
{"title":"Cases of the European Court of Human Rights significant for European integration of Ukraine: “Maidan judgments” concerning Ukraine, of 21 January 2021 (final on 21 April 2021)","authors":"P. Pushkar","doi":"10.18523/2617-2607.2021.7.96-101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present case commentary is focused on cases concerning the so-called Maidan events of 2013-2014. The commentary suggests that the cases at issue underline existence of the long-standing systemic and structural problems within the domestic legal system of Ukraine, which need to be resolved, notably in order to harmonise the legislative and institutional framework of protection of human rights with the requirements of the European human rights law, which incorporates both the European Convention of Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The cases touch upon a number of previously deficient legislative provisions and institutional practices. However, most importantly they underline the need to adopt legislation to regulate and ensure protection of freedom of association. Such demand is clearly ensuing from the case-law of the Court and its findings in specific cases as to the lack of coherent legislative framework for this right. The extensive Council of Europe expertise in the area covered by the judgments is surely of reference to the implementation measures – the CPT standards, Venice Commission recommendations, other elements, as well as the findings of the International Advisory Panel are all of relevance. Change is needed urgently as the problems identified in the judgments of the Court clearly fall within the rule of law and justice cooperation aspects of interaction not only with the Council of Europe, but also with the European Union, under the Association Agreement with Ukraine.","PeriodicalId":34101,"journal":{"name":"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Iuridichni nauki","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Iuridichni nauki","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-2607.2021.7.96-101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present case commentary is focused on cases concerning the so-called Maidan events of 2013-2014. The commentary suggests that the cases at issue underline existence of the long-standing systemic and structural problems within the domestic legal system of Ukraine, which need to be resolved, notably in order to harmonise the legislative and institutional framework of protection of human rights with the requirements of the European human rights law, which incorporates both the European Convention of Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The cases touch upon a number of previously deficient legislative provisions and institutional practices. However, most importantly they underline the need to adopt legislation to regulate and ensure protection of freedom of association. Such demand is clearly ensuing from the case-law of the Court and its findings in specific cases as to the lack of coherent legislative framework for this right. The extensive Council of Europe expertise in the area covered by the judgments is surely of reference to the implementation measures – the CPT standards, Venice Commission recommendations, other elements, as well as the findings of the International Advisory Panel are all of relevance. Change is needed urgently as the problems identified in the judgments of the Court clearly fall within the rule of law and justice cooperation aspects of interaction not only with the Council of Europe, but also with the European Union, under the Association Agreement with Ukraine.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧洲人权法院对乌克兰的欧洲一体化具有重要意义的案件:2021年1月21日关于乌克兰的“迈丹判决”(2021年4月21日终审)
本案评注的重点是关于2013-2014年所谓迈丹事件的案件。评注指出,有争议的案件突显了乌克兰国内法律体系中长期存在的系统性和结构性问题,这些问题需要解决,特别是为了使保护人权的立法和体制框架与欧洲人权法的要求相协调,欧洲人权法同时纳入了《欧洲人权公约》和《欧盟基本权利宪章》。这些案件涉及一些以前有缺陷的立法规定和体制做法。然而,最重要的是,它们强调必须通过立法来规范和确保对结社自由的保护。这种要求显然是法院判例法及其在具体案件中对这项权利缺乏连贯的立法框架的调查结果提出的。欧洲委员会在判决所涉领域的广泛专业知识无疑可以参考执行措施——欧洲防止酷刑委员会的标准、威尼斯委员会的建议、其他要素以及国际咨询小组的调查结果都具有相关性。迫切需要作出改变,因为法院判决中确定的问题显然属于根据与乌克兰的《结盟协定》不仅与欧洲委员会互动,而且与欧洲联盟互动的法治和司法合作方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Perspectives for the Application of Remote Justice after COVID-19 Pandemic The Rule of Law and the Welfare State: The Ways to Overcome Contradictions Concept of Guidelines of Release from Punishment EU Law in Non-EU Countries: Reflections on Ukrainian Supreme Court’s Jurisprudence on Energy Matters Situation Model of the Next Stage of Court Proceedings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1