Unification of Fair Trial Guarantees in Proceedings as Reliable Means of Human Rights Protection
Abstract
Updating the procedural legislation: adopting the Russian Federation Administrative Procedure Code, drafting a single code of civil procedure, reforms in the common jurisdiction courts and arbitration courts, influence of legal opinions of the European Court of Human Rights on the national legal system determined the indispensability of a single level of legal guarantees as an integral part of court proceedings. Implementing the requirements of this conception in procedural legislation is a guarantee of complying with the Russian Federation's international obligations in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms. As the requirements to fair trial apply to all stages of the process and all its forms (civil law, administrative, criminal, constitutional), and they meet the criteria of the right to sufficient governance, it can be stated that the level of legal guarantees is unified in the European legal family. However, this level is inconsistent within Russian legislation: in judicial and non-judicial process, which poses a challenge requiring urgent solution. A special concern is caused by the legal regulation of inspecting judicial acts in general jurisdiction courts where the higher judicial instance is, the lower is the level of legal guarantees in a procedure. Hence, it is urgent to develop a common approach to ensure a single level of legal guarantees in procedural legislation and to approve it as a prerequisite for real insuring a person, citizen or organization with rights, freedoms and legal interests. The examination of the applicable approaches may help to conclude that we are still at the beginning of the path of realizing, developing and setting a single level of legal guarantees of fair trial in procedural legislation.
References
APK i GPK 2002 g.: sravnitel'nyy analiz i aktual'nye problemy pravoprimeneniya [Administrative and Civil Procedure Codes of 2002: Comparison and Issues of Application] Materialy Vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii. Moscow: RAP, 2004. 460 p.
Alekseevskaya E.I. (2008) O soblyudenii printsipa pravovoy opredelennosti v proizvodstve v sude nadzornoy instantsii [On the Principle of Legal Certainty in Proceeding in Supervisory Court]. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika, no 4, pp. 47-48.
Alekseevskaya E.I. (2015) Novyy kodeks grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva: kakim emu byt'? [New Code of Civil Proceedings: Outlook]. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, no 2, pp. 4-10.
Alekseevskaya E.I. (2016) Zakony razvitiya sudebnoy sistemy [Laws of Developing Judicial System]. Moscow: Yustitsinform, 148 p. (in Russian)
Borisova E.A. (2003) Proizvodstvo po proverke sudebnykh posta novleniy v poryadke nadzora v grazhdanskom i arbitrazhnom protsesse [Procedure of Supervising Judicial Acts in Civil Procedure and Arbityrazh]. Zakonodatel'stvo, no 9, p. 76.
Eremenko M.S. (2001) Standarty Soveta Evropy v oblasti grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva i problema dostupa k pravosudiyu [Council of Europe Standards on Judicial Procedure and Access to Justice]. Problemy dostupnosti i effektivnosti arbitrazhnogo i grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva. Moscow: Lidzhist, pp. 370-384.
Efimova V.V. (2004) Kontrol' v arbitrazhnom protsesse kak sposob ustraneniya sudebnykh oshibok: (Avtoref. diss. ...kand. jurid. nauk) [Supervision in Arbitrage as a Way to Avoid Judicial Mistakes (Summary of candidate of juridical sciences dissertation)]. Saratov, p. 7.
Gomien D., Harris D., Zvaak L. (1998) Evropeyskaya konventsiya o pravakh cheloveka i Evropeyskaya sotsial'naya khartiya: pravo i praktika [European Convention on Human Rights and European Social Charter: Law and Practice]. Moscow: MNIMP, 600 p. (in Russian)
Petrov A.V., Epifanov A.E. (2013) Yuridicheskaya priroda gosudarstvennogo kontrolya i nadzora [Legal Nature of State Control and Supervision]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava, no 7, pp. 36-47.
Prikhod'ko I.A. (2001) Dostupnost' pravosudiya v grazhdanskom i arbitrazhnom protsesse. Osnovnye problemy [Access to Justice in Civil Procedure and Arbitrazh. Major Challenges]. Problemy dostupnosti i effektivnosti arbitrazhnogo i grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva. Moscow: Lidzhist, pp. 12-42.
Rekhtina I.V. (2010) Nadzornoe proizvodstvo v grazhdanskom protsesse: voprosy teorii i praktiki [Supervisory Proceeding in Civil Process: Issues of Theory and Practice]. Moscow: Yurlitinform, p. 7. (in Russian)
Sidorenko V.M. (2002) Printsip dostupnosti pravosudiya i problemy ego realizatsii v grazhdanskom i arbitrazhnom protsesse. [Principle of Accessibility of Justice and its Implementing in Civil Procedure and Arbitrage. Summary of Candidate of Juridical Sciences Dissertation]. Ekaterinburg, p. 7.
Sherstyuk V.M. (2015) «Pravo byt' vyslushannym i byt' uslyshannym» — printsip grazhdanskogo protsessual'nogo prava [Right to be Heard and Listened, Principle of Civil Procedural Law]. Sovremennye problemy grazhdanskogo i arbitrazhnogo sudoproizvodstva. Moscow: Statut, pp. 28-35.
Tikhomirov Yu.A. (1995) Publichnoe pravo [Public Law]. Moscow BEK, p. 102 (in Russian)
Zhilin G.A. (2001) Konstitutsionnye osnovy pravosudia po grazhdanskin delam i ego effektivnost [Constitutional Principles of Justice in Civilian Cases and its Efficiency]. Problemy dostupnosti i effektivnosti arbitrazhnogo i grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva. Moscow: Lidzhist, pp. 272-282.
Copyright (c) 2016 Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.













