PDF

TarasVAVRYNCHUK,

Lawyer, the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights

THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE LAW UNDER THE ARTICLE 6 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (CIVILPROCEDURAL ASPECT

This article analyzes the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as of principle of legal certainty under the Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).

Firstly, the principle of legal certainty does not allow reviewing of thefinal judgment which came into forcefor a new trial and a new decision. Review of a judgment should not be disguised as appeal proceedings, it should be applied to correctjudicial errors. The existence of two positionsfor dispute resolution is not a groundfor re-trial.

Secondly, the retroactive application of the law is allowed in exceptional cases, namely when public interest is justified and if it does not impose the burden of the consequences to theparty ofthe case.

Thirdly, the development of jurisprudence doesn’t contradict the proper law enforcement, because absence of evolutionary and dynamic approach may complicate the necessary changes or improvements.

As regards inconsistencies in the case law, it is important to establish mechanisms and tools at the national level to ensure case law harmonization and consistency of enforcement. The European Court was sympathetic to the fact that according to certain circumstances it may take some time to achieve such consistency and harmonization.

Finally, the principle of legal certainty requires strict adherence to the procedure. Deviations are permissible only in the case of exceptional circumstances and must be dulyjustified.

Key words: the principle of legal certainty, the rule of law, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

References

Priymak A. M. The principle of legal certainty: concepts and some aspects. Science, notes nat. Kyiv-Mohyla Academy University. K., 2010. T. 103: Juridical sciences. -WITH. 53-55.[ukr.]

Timotievich v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 8 November 2005 in the case (Application no. 63158/00). URL: http://www.minjust.gov.ua/file/1940. [ukr.]

Lizanets v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 31 May 2007 in the case (Application № 6725/03). URL: http://zakon0.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_216. [ukr.]

Zheltyakov v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 9 June 2011 in the case (Application № 4994/04). URL: http://old.minjust.gov.ua/file/555 [ukr.]

Pravednaya v. Russia: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 18 November 2004 in the case (Application № 69529/01). URL: https://wwwl.umn.edu/humanrts/russian/euro/ Rpravednayacase.html [russ.]

Ponomarev v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 3 April 2008 in the case (Application № 3236/03). URL: http://old.minjust.gov.ua/file/1272. [ukr.]

Ustymenko v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 29 October 2015 in the case (Application № 32053/13). URL: http://old.minjust.gov.ua/file/52354. [ukr.]

Yushchenko and Others v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 15 July 2010 (Statements №№ 73990/01, 7364/02, 15185/02 and 11117/05). URL: http: // old. minjust.gov. ua / file / 2106 [ukr.]

Kontsevich v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 16 February 2012 in the case (Application № 9089/04). URL: http://old.minjust.gov.ua/file/37347. [ukr.]

Melnyk v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 March 2006 in the case (Application № 72286/01). URL: http://www.minjust.gov.ua/file/926 [ukr.]

Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 October 1999 in the case (Application № 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96.) URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i = 001-58592. [engl.]

Stefanetti and Others v. Italy: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 15 April 2014 in the case (Applications № 21838/10, 21849/10, 21852/10, 21855/10, 21860/10, 21863/10, 21869/10 and 21870/10) . URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/ pdf /? Library = ECHR & id = 001-142400 & filename = 001-142400.pdf. [engl.]

National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom 23 Octoberl997: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 23 October 1997 in case (117/1996/736 / 933-935). URL: http: // www. ucc.ie/law/restitution/archive/echrcases/nat_prov. Htm.[engl.]

Velikoda v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 23 October 1997 in the case (Application № 43331/12). URL: old.minjust.gov.ua/ftle/41511. [ukr.]

Beian v. Romania Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 6 December 2007 in the case (Application № 30658/05). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-83822.[engl.]

Pivdenbudtrans v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 6 December 2007 in the case (Application № 38713/04). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-144059.[engl.]

Nejdet §ahin and Perihan §ahin v. Turkey: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 20 October 2011 in the case (Application № 13279/05). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press? I = 003-3718061-4237719.[engl.]

Action 97 v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 20 October 2011 in the case (Statement № 19164/04). URL: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_932. [ukr.]

Sokurenko and Stryhun v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 20 July 2006 in the case (Applications № 29458/04 and № 29465/04). URL: http: //old.minjust. gov. ua / file / 2615. [ukr.]

BAZALVT-IMPEX LLC v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 1 December 2011 in the case. URL: http://old.minjust.gov.ua/file/1399. [ukr.]

Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 9 April 2013 in the case (Application № 21722/11). URL: http://old.minjust.gov.ua/file/43799. [ukr.]