dc.creator | Popović, Dragoljub | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-05-21T11:18:48Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-05-21T11:18:48Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0003-2565 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1816 | |
dc.description.abstract | The ECtHR does not review decisions of national courts of the States Parties to the European Convention. However, it has developed a pattern in its case law to find a violation of the Convention on the grounds that the fair hearing lacked if there was a case law inconsistency at the level of national jurisdiction. The ECtHR case law was settled in a Grand Chamber case against Turkey in 2011. To find a violation under Article 6 of the Convention the ECtHR requires two tests. Firstly, it must establish the existence of a profound and long-standing inconsistency in the domestic case law, and secondly, the ECtHR raises the issue of a mechanism aimed at removing the inconsistency. If the mechanism does not exist, or if it applied ineffectively, the ECtHR finds a violation of human rights. The author suggests the ECtHR should revisit its jurisprudence. | en |
dc.rights | openAccess | |
dc.source | Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu | |
dc.subject | violation | en |
dc.subject | tests | en |
dc.subject | leading case | en |
dc.subject | Inconsistent case Law | en |
dc.subject | human rights | en |
dc.title | Inconsistent adjudication: A violation of the right to fair trial under the European Convention on human rights | en |
dc.type | article | |
dc.rights.license | CC BY | |
dc.citation.epage | 320 | |
dc.citation.issue | 2 | |
dc.citation.other | 69(2): 297-320 | |
dc.citation.spage | 297 | |
dc.citation.volume | 69 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.51204/Anali_PFBU_21201A | |
dc.identifier.fulltext | https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/bitstream/id/2031/1809.pdf | |
dc.identifier.rcub | conv_3344_6 | |
dc.type.version | publishedVersion | |