Show simple item record

Fourth instance doctrine and the right to a reasoned judgement in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights

dc.creatorDajović, Goran
dc.creatorSpaić, Bojan
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-11T15:02:49Z
dc.date.available2024-03-11T15:02:49Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.issn0003-2565
dc.identifier.urihttps://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1085
dc.description.abstractPravo na obrazloženu presudu koje je Evropski sud za ljudska prava stvorio u sopstvenoj praksi, zasnivajući ga na pravu na pravično suđenje, u nekim slučajevima služi strazburškom Sudu da se upusti u instanciono odlučivanje povodom predstavki u vezi s članom 6 Konvencije. To pitanje je i praktično i teorijski relevantno jer taj Sud, u skladu s doktrinom "četvrte instance" po pravilu ne postupa kao instancioni sud. U analizi nekoliko temeljnih slučajeva, autori u članku pokazuju pod kojim uslovima i na koji način se Sud u Strazburu upušta u meritorno rešavanje sporova između građana i država članica. Zaključak je da nije reč o tome da ESLJP, kada utvrđuje da li je došlo do povrede prava na obrazloženu presudu, slučajno ili nesmotreno odstupi od doktrine "četvrte instance" već o tome da je u nizu presuda ESLJP sâmo pravo na obrazloženu presudu formulisao tako da ono po sebi odstupa od te doktrine.sr
dc.description.abstractRight to a reasoned judgement, created by the European Court of Human Rights is used in some cases by the Court in Strasbourg to justify acting as a court of higher instance in relation to national courts regarding the article 6 of the Convention. This issue is relevant both for legal theory and legal practice, because the Court, according to the fourth instance doctrine, does not act as an instance court. By analyzing key cases, the authors show under which conditions and in what way the Strasbourg Court rules on the substance of cases. It is concluded that ECHR, in the case of the right to a reasoned judgement, does not stray from the fourth instance doctrine occasionally or by chance. A series of decisions show that the ECHR formulated the right to a reasoned judgement in such a way that the right itself deviates from the fourth instance doctrine.en
dc.publisherUniverzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceAnali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
dc.subjectPravo na pravično suđenjesr
dc.subjectPravo na obrazloženu presudusr
dc.subjectEvropski sud za ljudska pravasr
dc.subjectDoktrina četvrte instancesr
dc.subjectRight to a reasoned judgementen
dc.subjectRight to a fair trialen
dc.subjectFourth instance doctrineen
dc.subjectEuropean Court of Human Rightsen
dc.titleDoktrina "četvrte instance" i pravo na obrazloženu presudu u praksi Evropskog suda za ljudska pravasr
dc.titleFourth instance doctrine and the right to a reasoned judgement in the practice of the European Court of Human Rightsen
dc.typearticle
dc.rights.licenseBY
dc.citation.epage185
dc.citation.issue3
dc.citation.other67(3): 158-185
dc.citation.rankM24
dc.citation.spage158
dc.citation.volume67
dc.identifier.doi10.5937/AnaliPFB1903166D
dc.identifier.fulltexthttps://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/bitstream/id/67/1082.pdf
dc.identifier.rcubconv_499
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record