Рус Eng Cn Перевести страницу на:  
Nota Bene. Books, journals, publishing technologies.
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate ☒
Библиотека
 ваш профиль
Creative Commons License CC-BY-NC Статья опубликована с лицензией Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) – Лицензия «С указанием авторства – Некоммерческая».
Вернуться к содержанию

Право и политика
Правильная ссылка на статью:

Корпен А.С. Право на доступ к правосудию: допустимые ограничения

Аннотация: Предметом исследования являются актуальные вопросы, связанные с допустимыми ограничениями права на доступ к правосудию. Автор обращает внимание на многообразие такого рода ограничений, которое вытекает из двойственной природы данного права. В статье раскрываются особенности различных видов ограничений доступа к правосудию. Рассматривая практику международных органов, включая практику Европейского суда по правам человека, автор выявляет подходы к анализу ограничений права на доступ к правосудию и определяет случаи признания их их допустимыми. В работе используются общенаучные и частнонаучные методы исследования: диалектический, системный, логический, сранительно-правовой, формально-юридический и другие. Автор предлагает классификацию ограничений права на доступ к правосудию. Различный характер ограничений права на доступ к правосудию позволяет автору выделить три вида ограничений: материально-правовые, юрисдикционные и процессуальные. Автор обращает внимание на то, что в зависимости от характера ограничения различаются подходы к оценке соответствия такого ограничения международным стандартам в области защиты прав человека. Допустимые ограничения права на доступ к правосудию представляют собой баланс частного и публичного интереса, обеспечивающий достижение цели рассматриваемого права.

Ключевые слова:

международное право, права человека, доступ к правосудию, ограничения прав человека, процессуальные гарантии, правовая помощь, международные стандарты, Орхусская конвенция, допустимые ограничения, процессуальные ограничения

Abstract: The subject of this research is the relevant issues pertaining to allowable limitations to the right to justice. The author gives attention to the multifacetedness of such type of limitations that come from the dualistic nature of this right. The article expounds the specificity of various types of limitations of the right to justice. Examining the experience of the international authorities, including the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the author determines approaches towards the analysis of the limitations of the right to justice and defines cases in which they are allowable. The author proposes classification of the limitation to the right to justice. The variable character of limitations of the right to justice allows the author to highlight three types of limitations: material legal, jurisdictional, and procedural. The author underlines that depending on the character of limitation, there are different approaches towards the assessment of correspondence of such limitation to international standards in the area of protection of human rights. The allowable limitations of the right to justice represent the balance of private and public interests which secures the accomplishment of the goal of the right in question.


Keywords:

Aarhus Convention, international standards, legal aid, procedural guarantees, human rights limitations, right to justice, human rights, international law, permissible limitations, procedural limitations


Эта статья может быть бесплатно загружена в формате PDF для чтения. Обращаем ваше внимание на необходимость соблюдения авторских прав, указания библиографической ссылки на статью при цитировании.

Скачать статью

Библиография
1. Резолюция Генеральной Ассамблеи ООН от 16 декабря 2005 г. N 60/147. Основные принципы и руководящие положения, касающиеся права на правовую защиту и возмещение ущерба для жертв грубых нарушений международных норм в области прав человека и серьезных нарушений международного гуманитарного права. URL: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/496/44/PDF/N0549644.pdf?OpenElement.
2. Access to Justice Critical in Ensuring Rule of Law, Speakers Stress as Sixth Committee Continues Deliberations on Principle. Sixty-ninth session, 6th & 7th Meetings coverage. URL: http://WWW.UN.ORG/PRESS/EN/2014/GAL3478.DOC.HTM.
3. Конвенция о доступе к информации, участии общественности в процессе принятия решений и доступе к правосудию по вопросам, касающимся окружающей среды от 15 июня 1998 г. URL: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-13&chapter=27&lang=en.
4. Конвенцией о правах инвалидов от 13 декабря 2006 // Бюллетень международных договоров. 2013. N 7. С. 45-67.
5. ECHR. Ashingdane v.The United Kingdom. Application no 8225/78, Judgment of 28 May 1985.
6. Human Rights Committee. Robert Casanovas v. France. Communication No. 1514/2006: Views of 28 October 2008. URL: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F94%2FD%2F1514%2F2006&Lang=ru, §11.3.
7. Francioni F. (ed.) Access to Justice as a Human rights. Florence, 2007. 580 p.
8. De Visscher Ch. Le déni de justice en droit international // Recueil des cours. Boston, 1935. Pp. 365-442.
9. Баранов С. В. Доступность суда как условие реализации конституционного права на судебную защиту в РФ: Дисс... канд.юр.наук. М., 2011. 179 с.
10. Беляевская О. Я. Пределы реализации права граждан на судебную защиту// Мировой судья. 2006. N 5. С. 8-10.
11. Головко Л. В. Отечественное понятие «право на судебную защиту» и европейское понятие «право на доступ к правосудию»: попытка функционального сравнения // Право на судебную защиту в уголовном процессе: европейские стандарты и российская практика. Томск, 2007. С. 3-21.
12. Yuthayotin S. Access to Justice in Transnational B2C E-Commerce: A Multidimensional Analysis of Consumer Protection Mechanisms. Springer, Switzerland. 2014. 316 p.
13. Galanter M. Access to Justice in a World of Expanding Social Capability // Fordham Urban Law Journal. 2009. V. 37, Is. 1. Pp. 115-128.
14. ECHR. Stubbing and Others v. The United Kingdom. Application no 22083/93, 22095/93, Judgment of 22 November 1996.
15. ECHR. Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v Germany. Application no. 6210/73; 6877/75; 7132/75, Judgment of 28 November 1978.
16. ECHR. Golder v. The United Kingdom. Application no 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975.
17. ECHR. Kreuz v. Poland. Application No 28249/95, Judgment of 19 June 2001.
18. ECHR. Bellet v. France. Application No 23805/94, Judgment of 4 December 1995.
19. ECHR. Levages Prestations Services v. France . Application No 21920/93, Judgment of 23 October 1996.
20. Settem O. Applications of the 'Fair Hearing' Norm in ECHR Article 6(1) to Civil Proceedings: With Special Emphasis on the Balance Between Procedural Safeguards and Efficiency. Springer, 2015. 518 p.
21. ECHR. N.J.D.B. v. The United Kingdom. Application No 76760/12, Judgment of 27 October 2015.
22. CJEU, The Queen, on the application of David Edwards and Lilian Pallikaropoulos v Environment Agency and Others, Cases C-260/11, 11 April 2013.
23. Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Decision V/9n on compliance by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with its obligations under the Convention of 14 October 2014. URL: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/mop5/Documents/Post_session_docs/ece_mp.pp_2014_2_add.1_eng.pdf.
24. African Commission on Human and People’s Rights. Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trail and Legal Assistance of 16 May 2002, DOC/OS(XXX)247. URL: http://www.achpr.org/files/instruments/principles-guidelines-right-fair-trial/achpr33_guide_fair_trial_legal_assistance_2003_eng.pdf.
25. Compliance Committee. Findings and recommendations with regard to communication ACCC/C/2008/33 concerning compliance by the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. 24 September 2010. URL: https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/CC-29/ece_mp.pp_c.1_2010_6_add.3_as%20submitted.pdf.
26. Cooper J. Procedural Due Process, Human Rights and the Added Value of the Rights to a Fair Trail // Judicial Review, 2006. Vol. 11, Is. 1. P. 78-91.
27. Paparinskis M. The International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable Treatment. Oxford, 2013. 320 p.
28. Нефедьев Е. А. Учение об иске. Казань,1895. 43 с.
29. Гурвич М. А. Право на иск. М., 1949. 216 с.
30. Дегтярев С. Л. Реализация судебной власти в гражданском судопроизводстве: теоретико-прикладные проблемы. М., 2007. 376 с.
31. ECHR. Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom. Application no 9310/81, Judgment of 21 February 1990.
32. ECHR. Z and others v. the United Kingdom. Application no 29392/95, Judgment of 10 May 2001.
33. Комитет по правам человека. Замечание общего порядка № 32. Статья 14: Равенство перед судами и трибуналами и право каждого на справедливое судебное разбирательство. URL: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fGC%2f32&Lang=ru. §. 9.
34. Dijk P.V., Hoof F. V., Rijn A. V., Zwaak L. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention of Human Rights (4th edition). Oxford: Intersentia, 2006. 1190 p.
35. ECHR, Fayed v. the United Kingdom. Application no 17101/90, Judgment of 21 September 1994.
36. ECHR, Roche v. the United Kingdom. Application no 32555/96, Judgment of 19 October 2005.
37. Hampson F. Restrictions on Rights of Action and the European Convention on Human Rights: The Case of Powell and Rayner // British Yearbook of International Law. 1990. 61 (1). Pp. 279-310.
38. Human Rights Committee. Peter Hesse v. Australia. Communication No. 1087/2002. Judgement of 15 July 2002. URL: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F75%2FD%2F1087%2F2002&Lang=en.
39. ECHR. McElhinney v. Ireland. Application no 31253/96, Judgment of 21 November 2001.
40. ECHR. Waite and Kennedy v. Germany. Application no 26083/94, Judgement of 18 February 1999.
41. International Court of Justice. Judgment No. 2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a Complaint against the International Fund for Agricultural Development. Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2001, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 10.
42. Human Rights Committee. Francis Hopu and Tepoaitu Bessert v. France. Communication No. 549/1993. Views of 29 July 1997. URL: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F60%2FD%2F549%2F1993%2FRev.1&Lang=en.
43. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Civil Liberties Organisation (in respect of the Nigerian Bar Association) v. Nigeria. Application no. 101/93, Judgement of 22 March 1995. URL: http://www.achpr.org/files/sessions/17th/comunications/101.93/achpr17_101_93_eng.pdf.
44. Mallinder L. Amnesty, Human Rights and Political Transitions: Bridging the Peace and Justice Divide. Oxford, 2008. 586 p.
45. Moore J. Problems with Forgiveness: Granting Amnesty Under the Arias Plan in Nicaragua and El Salvador// Stanford Law Review. 1991. Vol. 43. No. 3. Pp. 733-777.
46. Seibert-Fohr A. Prosecuting Serious Human Rights Violations. Oxford, 2009. 350 p.
47. Olsen T., Payne L., Reiter A. The Justice Balance: When Transitional Justice Improves Human Rights and Democracy // Human Rights Quarterly. 2010. Vol. 32. No. 4. Pp. 980-1007.
48. African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Malawi Africa Association, Amnesty International, Ms Sarr Diop, Union interafricaine des droits de l'Homme and RADDHO, Collectif des veuves et ayantsDroit, Association mauritanienne des droits de l'Homme v. Mauritania. Application no. 54/91-61/91-96/93-98/93-164/97_196/97-210/98, Judgment of 11 May 2000. URL:// http://www.achpr.org/files/sessions/27th/comunications/54.91-61.91-96.93-98.93-164.97_196.97-210.98/achpr27_54.91_61.91_96.93_98.93_164.97_196.97_210.98_eng.pdf .
49. ECHR. Krastanov v Bulgaria. Application no 50222/99, Judgment of 30 September 2004.
50. ECHR. The National & Provincial Building Society, the Leeds Permanent Building Society and the Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom. Application no 21319/93 21449/93 21675/93, Judgment of 23 November 1997.
51. ECHR, Anagnostopoulos and Others v. Greece, Application no 39374/98, Judgment of 7 November 2011.
52. Human Rights Committee. Apirana Mahuika et al. v. New Zealand. Communication No. 547/1993: Views of 27 October 2000. URL: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F70%2FD%2F547%2F1993&Lang=en.
References
1. Rezolyutsiya General'noi Assamblei OON ot 16 dekabrya 2005 g. N 60/147. Osnovnye printsipy i rukovodyashchie polozheniya, kasayushchiesya prava na pravovuyu zashchitu i vozmeshchenie ushcherba dlya zhertv grubykh narushenii mezhdunarodnykh norm v oblasti prav cheloveka i ser'eznykh narushenii mezhdunarodnogo gumanitarnogo prava. URL: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/496/44/PDF/N0549644.pdf?OpenElement.
2. Access to Justice Critical in Ensuring Rule of Law, Speakers Stress as Sixth Committee Continues Deliberations on Principle. Sixty-ninth session, 6th & 7th Meetings coverage. URL: http://WWW.UN.ORG/PRESS/EN/2014/GAL3478.DOC.HTM.
3. Konventsiya o dostupe k informatsii, uchastii obshchestvennosti v protsesse prinyatiya reshenii i dostupe k pravosudiyu po voprosam, kasayushchimsya okruzhayushchei sredy ot 15 iyunya 1998 g. URL: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-13&chapter=27&lang=en.
4. Konventsiei o pravakh invalidov ot 13 dekabrya 2006 // Byulleten' mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov. 2013. N 7. S. 45-67.
5. ECHR. Ashingdane v.The United Kingdom. Application no 8225/78, Judgment of 28 May 1985.
6. Human Rights Committee. Robert Casanovas v. France. Communication No. 1514/2006: Views of 28 October 2008. URL: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F94%2FD%2F1514%2F2006&Lang=ru, §11.3.
7. Francioni F. (ed.) Access to Justice as a Human rights. Florence, 2007. 580 p.
8. De Visscher Ch. Le déni de justice en droit international // Recueil des cours. Boston, 1935. Pp. 365-442.
9. Baranov S. V. Dostupnost' suda kak uslovie realizatsii konstitutsionnogo prava na sudebnuyu zashchitu v RF: Diss... kand.yur.nauk. M., 2011. 179 s.
10. Belyaevskaya O. Ya. Predely realizatsii prava grazhdan na sudebnuyu zashchitu// Mirovoi sud'ya. 2006. N 5. S. 8-10.
11. Golovko L. V. Otechestvennoe ponyatie «pravo na sudebnuyu zashchitu» i evropeiskoe ponyatie «pravo na dostup k pravosudiyu»: popytka funktsional'nogo sravneniya // Pravo na sudebnuyu zashchitu v ugolovnom protsesse: evropeiskie standarty i rossiiskaya praktika. Tomsk, 2007. S. 3-21.
12. Yuthayotin S. Access to Justice in Transnational B2C E-Commerce: A Multidimensional Analysis of Consumer Protection Mechanisms. Springer, Switzerland. 2014. 316 p.
13. Galanter M. Access to Justice in a World of Expanding Social Capability // Fordham Urban Law Journal. 2009. V. 37, Is. 1. Pp. 115-128.
14. ECHR. Stubbing and Others v. The United Kingdom. Application no 22083/93, 22095/93, Judgment of 22 November 1996.
15. ECHR. Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v Germany. Application no. 6210/73; 6877/75; 7132/75, Judgment of 28 November 1978.
16. ECHR. Golder v. The United Kingdom. Application no 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975.
17. ECHR. Kreuz v. Poland. Application No 28249/95, Judgment of 19 June 2001.
18. ECHR. Bellet v. France. Application No 23805/94, Judgment of 4 December 1995.
19. ECHR. Levages Prestations Services v. France . Application No 21920/93, Judgment of 23 October 1996.
20. Settem O. Applications of the 'Fair Hearing' Norm in ECHR Article 6(1) to Civil Proceedings: With Special Emphasis on the Balance Between Procedural Safeguards and Efficiency. Springer, 2015. 518 p.
21. ECHR. N.J.D.B. v. The United Kingdom. Application No 76760/12, Judgment of 27 October 2015.
22. CJEU, The Queen, on the application of David Edwards and Lilian Pallikaropoulos v Environment Agency and Others, Cases C-260/11, 11 April 2013.
23. Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Decision V/9n on compliance by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with its obligations under the Convention of 14 October 2014. URL: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/mop5/Documents/Post_session_docs/ece_mp.pp_2014_2_add.1_eng.pdf.
24. African Commission on Human and People’s Rights. Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trail and Legal Assistance of 16 May 2002, DOC/OS(XXX)247. URL: http://www.achpr.org/files/instruments/principles-guidelines-right-fair-trial/achpr33_guide_fair_trial_legal_assistance_2003_eng.pdf.
25. Compliance Committee. Findings and recommendations with regard to communication ACCC/C/2008/33 concerning compliance by the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. 24 September 2010. URL: https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/CC-29/ece_mp.pp_c.1_2010_6_add.3_as%20submitted.pdf.
26. Cooper J. Procedural Due Process, Human Rights and the Added Value of the Rights to a Fair Trail // Judicial Review, 2006. Vol. 11, Is. 1. P. 78-91.
27. Paparinskis M. The International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable Treatment. Oxford, 2013. 320 p.
28. Nefed'ev E. A. Uchenie ob iske. Kazan',1895. 43 s.
29. Gurvich M. A. Pravo na isk. M., 1949. 216 s.
30. Degtyarev S. L. Realizatsiya sudebnoi vlasti v grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve: teoretiko-prikladnye problemy. M., 2007. 376 s.
31. ECHR. Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom. Application no 9310/81, Judgment of 21 February 1990.
32. ECHR. Z and others v. the United Kingdom. Application no 29392/95, Judgment of 10 May 2001.
33. Komitet po pravam cheloveka. Zamechanie obshchego poryadka № 32. Stat'ya 14: Ravenstvo pered sudami i tribunalami i pravo kazhdogo na spravedlivoe sudebnoe razbiratel'stvo. URL: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fGC%2f32&Lang=ru. §. 9.
34. Dijk P.V., Hoof F. V., Rijn A. V., Zwaak L. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention of Human Rights (4th edition). Oxford: Intersentia, 2006. 1190 p.
35. ECHR, Fayed v. the United Kingdom. Application no 17101/90, Judgment of 21 September 1994.
36. ECHR, Roche v. the United Kingdom. Application no 32555/96, Judgment of 19 October 2005.
37. Hampson F. Restrictions on Rights of Action and the European Convention on Human Rights: The Case of Powell and Rayner // British Yearbook of International Law. 1990. 61 (1). Pp. 279-310.
38. Human Rights Committee. Peter Hesse v. Australia. Communication No. 1087/2002. Judgement of 15 July 2002. URL: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F75%2FD%2F1087%2F2002&Lang=en.
39. ECHR. McElhinney v. Ireland. Application no 31253/96, Judgment of 21 November 2001.
40. ECHR. Waite and Kennedy v. Germany. Application no 26083/94, Judgement of 18 February 1999.
41. International Court of Justice. Judgment No. 2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a Complaint against the International Fund for Agricultural Development. Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2001, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 10.
42. Human Rights Committee. Francis Hopu and Tepoaitu Bessert v. France. Communication No. 549/1993. Views of 29 July 1997. URL: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F60%2FD%2F549%2F1993%2FRev.1&Lang=en.
43. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Civil Liberties Organisation (in respect of the Nigerian Bar Association) v. Nigeria. Application no. 101/93, Judgement of 22 March 1995. URL: http://www.achpr.org/files/sessions/17th/comunications/101.93/achpr17_101_93_eng.pdf.
44. Mallinder L. Amnesty, Human Rights and Political Transitions: Bridging the Peace and Justice Divide. Oxford, 2008. 586 p.
45. Moore J. Problems with Forgiveness: Granting Amnesty Under the Arias Plan in Nicaragua and El Salvador// Stanford Law Review. 1991. Vol. 43. No. 3. Pp. 733-777.
46. Seibert-Fohr A. Prosecuting Serious Human Rights Violations. Oxford, 2009. 350 p.
47. Olsen T., Payne L., Reiter A. The Justice Balance: When Transitional Justice Improves Human Rights and Democracy // Human Rights Quarterly. 2010. Vol. 32. No. 4. Pp. 980-1007.
48. African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Malawi Africa Association, Amnesty International, Ms Sarr Diop, Union interafricaine des droits de l'Homme and RADDHO, Collectif des veuves et ayantsDroit, Association mauritanienne des droits de l'Homme v. Mauritania. Application no. 54/91-61/91-96/93-98/93-164/97_196/97-210/98, Judgment of 11 May 2000. URL:// http://www.achpr.org/files/sessions/27th/comunications/54.91-61.91-96.93-98.93-164.97_196.97-210.98/achpr27_54.91_61.91_96.93_98.93_164.97_196.97_210.98_eng.pdf .
49. ECHR. Krastanov v Bulgaria. Application no 50222/99, Judgment of 30 September 2004.
50. ECHR. The National & Provincial Building Society, the Leeds Permanent Building Society and the Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom. Application no 21319/93 21449/93 21675/93, Judgment of 23 November 1997.
51. ECHR, Anagnostopoulos and Others v. Greece, Application no 39374/98, Judgment of 7 November 2011.
52. Human Rights Committee. Apirana Mahuika et al. v. New Zealand. Communication No. 547/1993: Views of 27 October 2000. URL: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F70%2FD%2F547%2F1993&Lang=en.
Издательство
 
Авторам
 
Услуги
 
Разное
 
Наши сайты

© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.