初步移交程序与欧洲人权法院司法审查的范围

Helena Majić, Ljerka Mintas Hodak
{"title":"初步移交程序与欧洲人权法院司法审查的范围","authors":"Helena Majić, Ljerka Mintas Hodak","doi":"10.25234/ECLIC/8989","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to examine the scope of the ECtHR’s review of preliminary reference procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU, insofar as it concerns the right to a fair trial and other procedural safeguards read into substantive rights of the ECHR. In Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium, the ECtHR established the principles of its review under Article 6(1) ECHR in connection to the obligation of the national courts to refer the question for a preliminary ruling. This paper analyses the scope of protection of the right to a fair trial in the context of the national court’s failure to refer a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, in particular in the light of the CJEU’s Cilfit case law and additional obligations imposed on the national courts by the ECtHR that supplement the standards set out in the CJEU’s jurisprudence. The reason behind circumventing the applicability of the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 ECHR) to the preliminary reference procedure is being ellaborated as well, especially with respect to the CJEU’s finding that a request for preliminary ruling does not constitute a mean of redress available to the parties. Furthermore, this paper discusses whether the preliminary reference procedure can be considered as a procedural safeguard read into substantive rights of the ECHR. In connection to the latter, the interrelation between preliminary reference procedure and two principles - the principles of subsidiarity and equivalent protection - is analysed.","PeriodicalId":246552,"journal":{"name":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PRELIMINARY REFERENCE PROCEDURE AND THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS\",\"authors\":\"Helena Majić, Ljerka Mintas Hodak\",\"doi\":\"10.25234/ECLIC/8989\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purpose of this paper is to examine the scope of the ECtHR’s review of preliminary reference procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU, insofar as it concerns the right to a fair trial and other procedural safeguards read into substantive rights of the ECHR. In Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium, the ECtHR established the principles of its review under Article 6(1) ECHR in connection to the obligation of the national courts to refer the question for a preliminary ruling. This paper analyses the scope of protection of the right to a fair trial in the context of the national court’s failure to refer a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, in particular in the light of the CJEU’s Cilfit case law and additional obligations imposed on the national courts by the ECtHR that supplement the standards set out in the CJEU’s jurisprudence. The reason behind circumventing the applicability of the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 ECHR) to the preliminary reference procedure is being ellaborated as well, especially with respect to the CJEU’s finding that a request for preliminary ruling does not constitute a mean of redress available to the parties. Furthermore, this paper discusses whether the preliminary reference procedure can be considered as a procedural safeguard read into substantive rights of the ECHR. In connection to the latter, the interrelation between preliminary reference procedure and two principles - the principles of subsidiarity and equivalent protection - is analysed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":246552,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/8989\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/8989","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文的目的是研究欧洲人权法院对《欧洲人权公约》第267条规定的初步参考程序的审查范围,因为它涉及公平审判的权利和其他被解读为《欧洲人权公约》实质性权利的程序性保障。在Ullens de Schooten和Rezabek诉比利时案中,欧洲人权法院根据《欧洲人权公约》第6(1)条确立了其审查原则,涉及国家法院将该问题提交初步裁决的义务。本文分析了在国家法院未能将问题提交欧洲法院进行初步裁决的背景下,公平审判权的保护范围,特别是考虑到欧洲法院的Cilfit判例法和欧洲人权法院对国家法院施加的补充欧洲法院判例中规定的标准的额外义务。目前也在阐述回避获得有效补救的权利(《欧洲人权公约》第13条)适用于初步参考程序的原因,特别是关于欧洲法院关于请求初步裁决不构成当事各方可获得的补救手段的结论。此外,本文还讨论了初步参考程序是否可以被视为一种解读为《欧洲人权公约》实质性权利的程序性保障。关于后者,分析了初步参考程序与辅助原则和等效保护原则这两项原则之间的相互关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
PRELIMINARY REFERENCE PROCEDURE AND THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The purpose of this paper is to examine the scope of the ECtHR’s review of preliminary reference procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU, insofar as it concerns the right to a fair trial and other procedural safeguards read into substantive rights of the ECHR. In Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium, the ECtHR established the principles of its review under Article 6(1) ECHR in connection to the obligation of the national courts to refer the question for a preliminary ruling. This paper analyses the scope of protection of the right to a fair trial in the context of the national court’s failure to refer a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, in particular in the light of the CJEU’s Cilfit case law and additional obligations imposed on the national courts by the ECtHR that supplement the standards set out in the CJEU’s jurisprudence. The reason behind circumventing the applicability of the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 ECHR) to the preliminary reference procedure is being ellaborated as well, especially with respect to the CJEU’s finding that a request for preliminary ruling does not constitute a mean of redress available to the parties. Furthermore, this paper discusses whether the preliminary reference procedure can be considered as a procedural safeguard read into substantive rights of the ECHR. In connection to the latter, the interrelation between preliminary reference procedure and two principles - the principles of subsidiarity and equivalent protection - is analysed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTIGATION ORDER THE RIGHT TO WATER AND THE RIGHT TO USE HYDROPOWER: THE CASE OF SERBIA AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EU JUDICIAL CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS AND MEASURES REGARDING UNLAWFUL RESIDENCE OF FOREIGNERS IN CROATIA IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT FREEDOM OF SERVICES BY CORRESPONDENCE AS THE “FIFTH FREEDOM” FOR THE DIGITAL SINGLE MARKET – LIMITATIONS BY THE TFEU PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL EDUCATION AND ITS RELEVANCE IN A EUROPEAN CONTEXT
×
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