Show simple item record

dc.creatorPopović, Dragoljub
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-21T11:18:48Z
dc.date.available2024-05-21T11:18:48Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.issn0003-2565
dc.identifier.urihttps://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1816
dc.description.abstractThe 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.rightsopenAccess
dc.sourceAnali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
dc.subjectviolationen
dc.subjecttestsen
dc.subjectleading caseen
dc.subjectInconsistent case Lawen
dc.subjecthuman rightsen
dc.titleInconsistent adjudication: A violation of the right to fair trial under the European Convention on human rightsen
dc.typearticle
dc.rights.licenseCC BY
dc.citation.epage320
dc.citation.issue2
dc.citation.other69(2): 297-320
dc.citation.spage297
dc.citation.volume69
dc.identifier.doi10.51204/Anali_PFBU_21201A
dc.identifier.fulltexthttps://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/bitstream/id/2031/1809.pdf
dc.identifier.rcubconv_3344_6
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record