Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  ECHR judgment
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

How to execute the judgement of the Strasbourg Court in the case Paksas v. Lithuania?

100%
Sinkevičius V.
Przegląd Prawa i Administracji
|
2013
|
vol. 92
57 - 72
EN
The article examines in what way Lithuania may and must execute the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 6 January 2011 in the case of Paksas v. Lithuania. On 6 April 2004, the Seimas removed, following impeachment proceedings, R. Paksas from the office of the President of the Republic for a gross violation of the Constitution. In its ruling of 25 May 2004, the Constitutional Court held that a person who had been removed from office for a gross violation of the Constitution or a breach of the oath may never, in the future, be elected President of the Republic or a member of the Seimas. In the judgment of 6 January 2011 in the case of Paksas v. Lithuania, the European Court of Human Rights found that the absolute prohibition set out in the Lithuanian legal system for R. Paksas to ever stand for election to parliament was disproportionate, and that, having established such a prohibition, Lithuania had violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In the article the conclusion is drawn that in order to execute the ECHR judgment at issue, it does not suffice to amend the Law on Elections to the Seimas — to that effect an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary, since the said absolute prohibition, whereby a person who has been removed from office by the Seimas following impeachment proceedings for a gross violation of the Constitution or a breach of the oath may never again be elected a member of the Seimas or President of the Republic, stems from the Constitution.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wyrok Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka (wielka izba) z 11 lipca 2022 r. w sprawie Kavala przeciwko Turcji, skarga nr 28749/18 (postępowanie naruszeniowe)

88%
Wolanin M.
Constitutional Review
|
2024
|
issue 2
159-171
EN
The author has analysed and translated the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 11 July 2022 in the case of Kavala v. Turkey, application no. 28749/18, made on under the infringement procedure. In this judgment, the Court pointed out a number of previously unarticulated theses on: the enforcement of its judgments, the infringement procedure, the relationship between the Committee of Ministers and the Court, as well as the role of conducting the infringement procedure itself when the Committee of Ministers considers that a State Party to the Convention is refusing to comply with its obligation to respect an issued judgment. The ruling may therefore have significance for a number of cases, including Polish ones, in which states do not comply with the execution of ECHR verdicts.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.