Judicial control as a guarantee of non-interference in private life during the pre-trial investigation
An observation under the European Court of Human Rights
The article is devoted to the topical issue of judicial control over non-interference in the private (personal and family) life of participants in criminal proceedings. The study was conducted in the context of the analysis of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the legal positions of which should be consistently applied in criminal proceedings; evidence of this are the legal requirements on this issue. The notion and concept of judicial control is a necessity component that helps to guarantee the respect of human dignity and integrity. It is a common and established principle that, during the pre-trial process, it is the position of those ensuring justice in making sure that the life of people is respected and safeguarded. It is noted that in accordance with the national legislation of Ukraine, judicial control is a separate function of the court’s activities at the stage of pre-trial investigation, directly carried out by the investigating judge. The situation will become precarious and detrimental when the private life of people is not respected to the fullest. Therefore, it is the responsibility of those ensuring public order during the pre-trial investigation phase to ensu-re the respect of the private life of the presumed suspect for the proper implementation of the justice process. In ensuring this right, it is established that the empirical and analytical methods of research are necessary, in order to show the effective role played by the European Court of Human Rights in respecting the right to private life during the interrogative phase of inquiry. From the findings, it is seen that, though the Court has played a prominent and pertinent role in the respect of private life, the suspect continues experiencing difficulties when his/her private life is at stake, and it always affects the extent of the justice system.
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2021 DIXI
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Every single author of the articles has to declare that is an original unpublished work exclusively created by them, that it has not been submitted for simultaneous evaluation by another publication and that there is no impediment of any kind for concession of the rights provided for in the contract.
In this sense, the authors committed to await the result of the evaluation by the journal DIXI before considering its submission to another medium; in case the response by that publication is positive, additionally, the authors committed to respond for any action involving claims, plagiarism or any other kind of claim that could be made by third parties.
At the same time, the authors have to declare that they are completely in agreement with the conditions presented in their work and that they cede all patrimonial rights. These rights involve reproduction, public communication, distribution, dissemination, transformation, making it available and all forms of exploitation of the work using any medium or procedure, during the term of the legal protection of the work and in every country in the world, to the Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia Press.
B. Levenets. Models of judicial enforcement of Great Britain and the United States. Entrepreneurship, Economy and Law. (2020). No. 1. Pg. 172.
Case of Aquilina v. Malta (Application no. 25642/94): Judgment; Strasbourg, 29 April 1999. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58239
Case of Cebotari v. Moldova (Application no. 543/03): Judgment; Strasbourg, 13 November 2007. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-83247
Case of Kats and Others v. Ukraine (Application no. 29971/04): Judgment; Strasbourg, 18 December 2008. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-90362.
Case of Letellier v. France (Application no. 12369/86): Judgment; Strasbourg, 26 June 1991. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57678
Case of McKay v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 543/03): Judgment; Strasbourg, 3 October 2006. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-77177
Case of Niedbała v. Poland (Application no. 27915/95): Judgment; Strasbourg, 4 July 2000. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58739
Case of Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg (Application no. 51772/99): Judgment; Strasbourg, 25 February 2003. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60958.
Case of Shchokin v. Ukraine (Application nos. 23759/03 and 37943/06): Judgment; Strasbourg, 14 October 2010. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-100944.
Case of Varga v. Romania (Application no. 73957/01): Judgment; Strasbourg, 1 April 2008. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-123847
Case of Viorel Burzo v. Romania (Application no. 75109/01, 12639/02): Judgment; Strasbourg, 30 June 2009. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-123471
Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 13 April 2012. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17#Text.
O. G. Yanovska Application of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the performance of judicial control in criminal proceedings. Bulletin of the Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine. (2013). No. 2 (27). Pg. 15.
On some issues of the investigating judge of a court of first instance charged with carrying out court supervision over the observance of rights, freedoms and interests of persons involved in criminal proceedings: letter of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine no. 223-558/0/4-13 dated April 5, 2013. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v0558740-13.
P. P. Pidiukov, Ya. Yu. Koniushenko & M. O. Amons. System and competence of the US law enforcement agencies authorized to initiate criminal surveillance (prosecution) and conduct pre-trial criminal proceedings. European perspectives. (2012). № 2. Part 1. Pg. 120–121.
R. I. Trakalo. International legal standards of judicial control over the observance of the right to respect for private life. Bulletin of the Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine. (2014). No. 1. Pg. 89.
S. Rab. Legal systems in UK (England and Wales): overview. (2019). Available at: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/5-636-2498?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default).
Unified State Register of Court Decisions. Available at: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/.
V. Teremetskyi, V. Chmelyuk, V. Matsiuk, V. Galagan & Zh. Udovenko. Problem of ensuring the right to medical care of a detainee (detained in custody) within criminal proceedings: experience of Ukraine and foreign countries. Georgian Medical News. (2019). No. 11 (296). Pg. 155-156.
V. V. Nazarov & R. I. Trakalo. The role of judicial control over the observance of the right to respect for private life in appealing decisions, actions or iaction during the pre-trial investigation. International Law Bulletin. (2015). Vol. 1 (2). Pg. 36.
V. V. Nazarov. Restriction of constitutional rights of the person in criminal procedure: Dissirtation of Doctor Degree in Law on speciality 12.00.09. Dnipropetrovs’k. (2009).
Yu. V. Skrypina. The investigative judge in the system of criminal-procedural activity (comparative-legal research): Dissertation of the Candidate of Juridical Sciences. Kharkiv. (2008).
