The European Convention on Human Rights*1 must be altered.
An unacceptability of individual applications causing their dismissal by judges of offices of the European Court of Human Rights is an object of this examination.
This article plans to learn whether certain arrangements of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to discovering singular applications forbidden, causing a dismissal of such applications, fall in consistence with the standards of the Rule of law and with the overall regulation of Judicial Review.
A need for such an exploration of the theme results from various realities when judges of offices of the European Court of Human Rights, while acting in singular limit ( for example the purported single adjudicators) with skill referenced in Article 27 of the European Convention on Human Rights embrace their choices which keep the Court from additional creation an exhaustive legal examination to benefits and realities of utilizations got. One of the demonstrating instances of this is the reality as follows.
Since 2007 the Kyiv Circuit court of Ukraine has not been hearing a claim of the Association of Independent legal scholars and writers “The Democratic Space” (here and after – the Association) submitted against the Ukrainian State for example against: the leader of Ukraine; the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine; the Ukrainian parliament; the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine; the State Savings Bank of Ukraine. The claim’s necessity under the steady gaze of the court was: to establish a judgment which could express that the Ukrainian State disregarded the legitimate right of Ukrainian nationals to get back their economies ever kept by them in banking offices of the then Soviet Ukraine, before 02 January 1992, and which had not been gotten back to them from that point forward.
Having discovered that such an infringement happened by virtue of gross encroachments by an appointed authority of the Kyiv Administrative court of Ukraine, the Association required from the Highest Qualification Committee of judges of Ukraine to establish a disciplinary procedures against that judge. However, this advisory group, that bargains, most importantly, with inquiries of carrying judges to disciplinary duties dismissed the Association’s solicitation with no demonstrating clarifications.
A while later, on 10 July 2013, the Highest Administrative court of Ukraine by uprightness of its goal dismissed the Association’s claim against the Highest Qualification Committee of judges of Ukraine. Inside a vital cutoff time of the half year term, the Association presented an application to the locale of the European Court of Human Rights (here and after – the Court). In this application the affiliation expressed that Ukraine had disregarded the affiliation’s basic liberties to reasonable hearing as it is anticipated by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
On 20 March 2014 a chamber judge of the Court received a choice composing that the Association’s application was dismissed by him since he had thought that it was prohibited and as with the end goal that probably won’t be offered before the Grand office of the Court. An assessment of this very choice both starting at some different choices ordered by virtue of other candidates’ applications indicated that such legal choices didn’t fall in consistence: with prerequisites: of Article 45 of the European Convention on Human Rights; with some fair standards, for example, the Rule of law; the legal audit; and the straightforwardness.
In 1977 powerful political scholar and teacher of law at the Columbia University, Law School, Joseph Razz in his “The Authority of law” in the second its edition”*2. recognized constituent standards of the Rule of law as status when there ought to be clear principles and strategies for making laws, and when there ought to be straightforwardness of legitimate arrangements of the law and of legal choices. An assessment of the previously mentioned choices of those single appointed authorities of the Court expressed that the choices needed straightforwardness of exact explanations behind discovering applications unacceptable. What’s more, in the event that it is thus, at that point these choices must be conceded as invalid and void and be revoked as invalid since they don’t fall in consistence with the Rule of law. Yet, sadly the previously mentioned Article 45 of the European Convention on Human Rights, predicting a need to show reasons, for proclaiming applications forbidden doesn’t anticipate any ensuing status for those applications misleadingly found by some single adjudicators prohibited as it is referenced over, that unquestionably adds to all appointed authorities not to demonstrate in their choices exact explanations behind pronouncing the applications unacceptable that over the long haul adds to a dismissal of numerous individual applications without making an exhaustive anticipated that examination should benefits and realities of the applications.
Legal Review is the tenet under which authoritative or leader activities are liable to audit by the legal executive. As indicated by a definition, attracted the “Dark’s Law Dictionary” *3, legal Review is characterized as intensity of courts to audit choices of another division or level of government. As we see, legal audit is a fundamental component of any legal framework that can’t manage without the legal survey. An office of the Court might be undeniably recognized to be a branch of the European Court of Human Rights under which the Grand Chamber, if evaluating the last by its center is the division of Higher locale, that can be validated by arrangements of Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that expresses that inside a time of a quarter of a year from the date of the judgment of a chamber, any gathering to the case may demand that the case be alluded to the Grand Chamber that should choose the case by methods for administering a judgment. So in the event that to concede, that the Grand Chamber has higher purview, at that point an office of a locale Court has lower ward, similar to a lower office making an underlying examination of an application by uprightness of assessing the application with the object of finding a suitability of the application. Assuming this is the case, at that point as indicated by the majority rule tenet of Judicial Review, this present chamber’s choice must be likewise dependent upon legal survey by the Highest Chamber of the Court, i.e., – by the Grand Chamber based on applying to the standard of the similarity of law as it is suggested by the previously mentioned Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Just such a technique will guarantee an action of the popularity based standards in the European Convention on Human Rights during the time spent creation equity by the European Court of Human Rights.
Leaving this, there are sufficient grounds to reason that arrangements of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to discovering forbidden nature of individual applications don’t fall in consistence with the Rule of Law and with the other popularity based standards of making equity as it is referenced previously. All together these arrangements could fall in consistence with the Rule of Law and with the other previously mentioned vote based standards, there ought to be made revisions as follow:
Article 45 of the European Convention on Human Rights ought to be enhanced by provision 3, perusing: If reasons are not given for decisions and for choices proclaiming applications prohibited, at that point such choices will be pronounced to be invalid and void, for example – revoked by the Grand office of the European Court of Human Rights.
Further on: Article 43 ought to be enhanced with proviso 4 perusing that inside a time of a quarter of a year from the date of a judgment\a choice of a chamber, involved with the case whose application is announced unacceptable may demand that the case be alluded to the Grand Chamber for checking on legitimateness of an ascertainment of unacceptability of the application. In the event of discovering such a prohibition to be unlawful, the Grand Chamber will nullification such chambers’ choices by uprightness of its judgment.