{"title":"欧洲人权法院的方向是什么?对乌克兰诉俄罗斯(克里米亚)案大分庭可受理性决定的评论(申请号20958/14和38334/18)","authors":"Agata Kleczkowska","doi":"10.21697/priel.2021.10.2.08","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this article is to analyse the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) decision on admissibility in the Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) case from the perspective of the Court’s comments on the status of Crimea and the legality of Russia’s actions. The Court itself observed that it cannot make such findings; nevertheless, did it really refrain from examining facts and evidence which could also be used to prove the illegality of Russian actions? The article is divided into three parts. The first presents the factual background of the case. The next highlights the Court’s declarations about the scope of the case and refusal to engage in assessment of the legality of Russian actions. The third and fourth parts focus on the Court’s examination of the effective control by Russia over Crimea and the issue of jurisdiction, assessing whether the Court limited itself solely to the issues indispensable for a decision on admissibility.","PeriodicalId":269602,"journal":{"name":"Polish Review of International and European Law","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Where is the European Court of Human Rights Heading? Comments on the Grand Chamber Admissibility Decision in the Case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (Applications No. 20958/14 and 38334/18)\",\"authors\":\"Agata Kleczkowska\",\"doi\":\"10.21697/priel.2021.10.2.08\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this article is to analyse the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) decision on admissibility in the Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) case from the perspective of the Court’s comments on the status of Crimea and the legality of Russia’s actions. The Court itself observed that it cannot make such findings; nevertheless, did it really refrain from examining facts and evidence which could also be used to prove the illegality of Russian actions? The article is divided into three parts. The first presents the factual background of the case. The next highlights the Court’s declarations about the scope of the case and refusal to engage in assessment of the legality of Russian actions. The third and fourth parts focus on the Court’s examination of the effective control by Russia over Crimea and the issue of jurisdiction, assessing whether the Court limited itself solely to the issues indispensable for a decision on admissibility.\",\"PeriodicalId\":269602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Polish Review of International and European Law\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Polish Review of International and European Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21697/priel.2021.10.2.08\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish Review of International and European Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21697/priel.2021.10.2.08","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Where is the European Court of Human Rights Heading? Comments on the Grand Chamber Admissibility Decision in the Case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (Applications No. 20958/14 and 38334/18)
The aim of this article is to analyse the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) decision on admissibility in the Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) case from the perspective of the Court’s comments on the status of Crimea and the legality of Russia’s actions. The Court itself observed that it cannot make such findings; nevertheless, did it really refrain from examining facts and evidence which could also be used to prove the illegality of Russian actions? The article is divided into three parts. The first presents the factual background of the case. The next highlights the Court’s declarations about the scope of the case and refusal to engage in assessment of the legality of Russian actions. The third and fourth parts focus on the Court’s examination of the effective control by Russia over Crimea and the issue of jurisdiction, assessing whether the Court limited itself solely to the issues indispensable for a decision on admissibility.