The European Convention on Human Rights Has to Be Amended
The European Convention on Human Rights*1 must be changed.
An unacceptability of individual applications causing their dismissal by judges of councils of the European Court of Human Rights is a protest of this examination.
This article means to learn whether certain arrangements of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to discovering singular applications unacceptable, causing a dismissal of such applications, fall in consistence with the standards of the Rule of law and with the general principle of Judicial Review.
A need for such an examination of the theme results from different certainties when judges of councils of the European Court of Human Rights, while acting in singular limit ( i.e. the supposed single judges) with ability said in Article 27 of the European Convention on Human Rights embrace their choices which keep the Court from additionally making a careful legal examination to benefits and actualities of uses got. One of the demonstrating precedents of this is the reality as takes after.
Since 2007 the Kyiv Circuit court of Ukraine has not been hearing a claim of the Association of Independent law specialists and columnists "The Democratic Space" (here and after - the Association) submitted against the Ukrainian State i.e. 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 sanction a judgment which could express that the Ukrainian State disregarded the legal right of Ukrainian nationals to get back their economies at any point kept by them in saving money offices of the then Soviet Ukraine, before 02 January 1992, and which had not been come back to them from that point forward.
Having determined that such an infringement happened because of gross encroachments by a judge 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. In any case, this board, bargains, most importantly, with inquiries of bringing judges to disciplinary duties dismissed the Association's ask for with no demonstrating clarifications.
A while later, on 10 July 2013, the Highest Administrative court of Ukraine by goodness of its goals dismissed the Association's claim against the Highest Qualification Committee of judges of Ukraine. Inside an important due date of the half year term, the Association presented an application to the ward 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 human rights to reasonable hearing as it is predicted by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
On 20 March 2014 a chamber judge of the Court received a choice composition that the Association's application was dismissed by him since he had thought that it was unacceptable and in that capacity that probably won't be offered before the Grand council of the Court. An examination of this very choice both starting at some different choices established by virtue of other candidates' applications demonstrated that such legal choices did not fall in consistence: with prerequisites: of Article 45 of the European Convention on Human Rights; with some popularity based standards, for example, the Rule of law; the legal survey; and the straightforwardness.
In 1977 compelling 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 guidelines and methodology for making laws, and when there ought to be straightforwardness of lawful arrangements of the law and of legal choices. An examination of the previously mentioned choices of those single judges of the Court expressed that the choices needed straightforwardness of exact explanations behind discovering applications unacceptable. What's more, on the off chance 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. Be that as it may, shockingly the previously mentioned Article 45 of the European Convention on Human Rights, anticipating a need to show reasons, for proclaiming applications unacceptable does not predict any ensuing status for those applications misleadingly found by some single judges forbidden as it is said over, that positively adds to all judges not to demonstrate in their choices exact explanations behind pronouncing the applications prohibited that over the long haul adds to a dismissal of numerous individual applications without making an intensive anticipated that investigation would benefits and realities of the applications.
Legal Review is the convention under which administrative or official activities are liable to audit by the legal. 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 office or level of government. As we see, legal survey is a fundamental component of any legal framework that can't manage without the legal audit. A council of the Court might be undeniably recognized to be a bureau of the European Court of Human Rights under which the Grand Chamber, if evaluating the last by its center is the division of Higher purview, that can be substantiated by arrangements of Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that expresses that inside a time of three months from the date of the judgment of a chamber, any gathering to the case may ask for that the case be alluded to the Grand Chamber that should choose the case by methods for decision a judgment. So if to concede, that the Grand Chamber has higher purview, at that point an assembly of a region Court has bring down locale, similar to a lower office making an underlying investigation of an application by uprightness of exploring the application with the question 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 current chamber's choice must be likewise subject to legal audit by the Highest Chamber of the Court, i.e., - by the Grand Chamber based on applying to the rule of the relationship of law as it is suggested by the previously mentioned Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Just such a method will guarantee a movement of the vote based standards in the European Convention on Human Rights during the time spent making 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 unacceptability of individual applications don't fall in consistence with the Rule of Law and with the other majority rule standards of making equity as it is specified previously. All together these arrangements could fall in consistence with the Rule of Law and with the other previously mentioned just standards, there ought to be made corrections as take after:
Article 45 of the European Convention on Human Rights ought to be supplemented by condition 3, perusing: If reasons are not given for judgments and for choices announcing applications forbidden, at that point such choices will be pronounced to be invalid and void, i.e. - revoked by the Grand assembly of the European Court of Human Rights.
Encourage on: Article 43 ought to be supplemented with condition 4 perusing that inside a time of three months from the date of a judgment\a choice of a chamber, involved with the case whose application is proclaimed prohibited may ask for that the case be alluded to the Grand Chamber for inspecting legitimateness of an ascertainment of forbidden nature of the application. In the event of observing such a forbidden nature to be illicit, the Grand Chamber will nullification such chambers' choices by righteousness of its judgment.