| Title |
Procesiniai saugikliai Europos žmogaus teisių teismo jurisprudencijoje pagal Europos žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijos 8 straipsnį / |
| Another Title |
Procedural safeguards relating to the right to respect for private and family life in the jurisprudence of the European Courtof Human Rights. |
| Authors |
Leonaitė, Erika |
| DOI |
10.15388/Teise.2011.0.138 |
| Full Text |
|
| Is Part of |
Teisė / Vilniaus universitetas.. Vilnius : Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. 2011, t. 81, p. 129-143.. ISSN 1392-1274 |
| Abstract [eng] |
Procedural safeguards, as applied in the context of Article 8 cases of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, can be defined as positive procedural requirements, implicit in the state‘s obligation to ensure respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. The aim of these safeguards is to ensure that the decision-making process, related to substantial rights guaranteed by Article 8. 1 of the Convention, is fair and ensures effective protection of those rights. The article reveals the content of the most widely used procedural safeguards (effective participation in the decision-making process; adversarial review proceedings before an independent body; duty to provide adequate reasons for decisions interfering with article 8 rights) and argues that these safeguards play an important role while applying the fair balance and subsidiarity principles. In the jurisprudence of the Europen Court of Human Rights procedural safeguards are increasingly used as a criterion helping to establish a fair balance between private and public interests. In the context of positive obligations the lack of procedural safeguards may lead to a finding that a State failed to perform its obligation to ensure effective respect for the rights protected by Article 8. In the context of negative obligations procedural safeguards may be employed as a criterion in deciding whether the reasons adduced to justify the interference were relevant and sufficient for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention. Procedural safeguards are also employed in the process of defining the limits of the State’s margin of appreciation and may be concidered as a factor helping to balance subsidiary review performed by the Court and the discretion left to the State. |
| Published |
Vilnius : Vilniaus universiteto leidykla |
| Type |
Journal article |
| Language |
Lithuanian |
| Publication date |
2011 |
| CC license |
|
