Conţinutul numărului revistei |
Articolul precedent |
Articolul urmator |
781 6 |
Ultima descărcare din IBN: 2024-02-10 11:32 |
SM ISO690:2012 UNGUREAN, Ivan. Standarde privind responsabilităţile judecătorilor. In: Revista Moldovenească de Drept Internaţional şi Relaţii Internaţionale, 2011, nr. 2, pp. 133-139. ISSN 1857-1999. |
EXPORT metadate: Google Scholar Crossref CERIF DataCite Dublin Core |
Revista Moldovenească de Drept Internaţional şi Relaţii Internaţionale | |||||
Numărul 2 / 2011 / ISSN 1857-1999 /ISSNe 2345-1963 | |||||
|
|||||
Pag. 133-139 | |||||
|
|||||
Descarcă PDF | |||||
Rezumat | |||||
Respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms is the essence of a democratic society therefore a true democracy cannot exist without the compliance with these universally recognized values. As the European Court for Human Rights observed, “protection and development of human rights and fundamental freedoms is based on a truly democratic political regime, on a common concept and respect for human rights”.
Given the fact that the respect for human rights is preserved only in a democratic society, this means that its protection imply all components of a state: state institutions, regardless of the hierarchy, political parties, trade unions, civil society in general, etc.
Liability of judges is particularly important in determining the response of the state on actions of those categories of subjects empowered with public functions, called to administer justice. Creating an institution of appeal of judge's actions or decisions in order to prevent a finding of a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, would be in line with European Community standards across the principle of “judicial error correction by an appropriate appeal system”. Equally, this principle represents the most relevant and important standard in establishing the liability of a judge, also an effective appeal, being the only one in the right to consider the illegality of the judicial act and, therefore, to rule as to the responsibility of the judge for a judicial error, except the case when it was committed in bad faith, becoming a criminal offence. |
|||||
|