Suchergebnisse

L'analyse des positions de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme en matière de la souveraineté d'État et de son expression dans les affaires concrètes démontre la richesse de la jurisprudence de la Cour et en même temps son caractère contradictoire. Les notions de la subsidiarité, de la marge d'appréciation, de l'immunité des États et surtout de leur juridiction extraterritoriale ont été à maintes reprises mises à jour par la Cour au grand dam des États concernés.

Le 5 mai 1998, la Fédération de Russie a mis en application la Convention pour la protection des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales. Cependant, on a pu trouver des affaires qui démontrent une incompréhension quant au caractère obligatoire des décisions de la Cour, qui sont parfois prises pour de simples recommandations. Cet article analyse l'application russe de la Convention en étudiant certaines affaires des 15 dernières années. L'article passe en revue les amendements législatifs qui devraient contribuer à la mise en œuvre de la Convention au niveau national. Par ailleurs, cet article analyse la structure législative de la Fédération de Russie par rapport à la Convention, en y incluant la cour constitutionnelle, la cour suprême, la cour commerciale suprême, le procureur général, et le ministère de la Justice. Parmi les problèmes du système législatif russe, on peut inclure la difficulté à mettre en œuvre les jugements de la Cour européenne et la lenteur des procédures. L'article conclut que bien qu'il y ait une vraie reconnaissance de la Convention par la Russie, avec des résultats significatifs, il reste encore de nombreuses lacunes en ce qui concerne la mise en œuvre des lois directement issues de la Convention.

Interaction of international justice bodies with expert organizations has not been the subject of an analysis performed by legal scholars. Meanwhile, cooperation between the European Commission for Democracy through Law (better known as Venice Commission) and the European Court of Human Rights makes it possible to establish many touch points in their activities. Despite the obvious differences in their status and subject competences both bodies are distinguished by the similarity of methodological approaches as evolutive interpretation of law, doctrine of margin of appreciation, conceptual framework. In the last decade the convergence of legal positions of the European Venice Commission and the European Court has noticeably increased. This is particularly evident in the reports of the Venice Commission and the European Court Grand Chamber's judgments. The Commission's 2020 report on individual access to constitutional justice, presented by a former judge of the European Court of Justice and now a member of the Venice Commission, Angelika Nussberger, is an illustrative example of this convergence of the positions of both institutions on the highly sensitive area of public relations. The practice of providing amicus curiae expert opinions by the Commission at the request of the European Court has also become more widespread. Dozens of judgments of the ECHR of the last decade contain lengthy references to the legal positions of the Commission. The article analyzes some of them. The authors conclude that this methodology strengthens the credibility of the reasoning for the Commission's Opinions and the Court's judgments. In the judgments of the European Court in cases concerning Russia there are also some references to the legal positions of the Venice Commission. This applies primarily to decisions on the implementation of civil and political rights of citizens. The article also analyses some of the acts of the Commission and the Court that have similar subjects of consideration. The authors conclude that the interaction of the Venice Commission and the European Court provides a unique example of the synergy of judicial interpretation of law and the opinions of the expert community. First of all, these are the issues of the functioning of the justice systems, the participation of citizens in political life, the electoral system, and freedom of speech. Ultimately, both institutions are involved in the realization of the quasi-utopia of creating a common European legal space.