pl
Oryginalny artykuł naukowy
Przegląd Europejski – European Studies Quarterly

Criminalisation of violation of the right to defence as a remedy for its enforcement (national legislative experience)

2021, 2021, Numer 1

Oleksandr Zhytnyi

0000-0003-0795-626X

V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University (Kharkiv, Ukraine)

Mykhailo Spiridonov

0000-0002-9378-9252

Kharkiv Regional Administrative Court (Kharkiv, Ukraine)

Andrii Vasyliev

0000-0001-9480-7814

Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs (Kharkiv, Ukraine)

DOI

10.31338/1641-2478pe.1.21.11

Data publikacji

14.04.2021

Model publikowania

open access

Rodzaj licencji

CC BY 4.0 Int.

Dziedzina

Dziedzina nauk społecznych

Dyscyplina

stosunki międzynarodowe, ekonomia i finanse, nauki o komunikacji społecznej i mediach, nauki o polityce i administracji, nauki o zarządzaniu i jakości, nauki prawne, nauki socjologiczne

Język publikacji

Angielski, Rosyjski

Pliki do pobrania

PDF 164 KB

Artykuł

Liczba wyświetleń:122

Liczba pobrań:20

Cytowania Crossref:0

Wynik Altmetric:0

Abstrakt

The opportunity of admission of the right to defence as an independent object of criminal law protection is analysed in this article. Such opportunity has been considered with the reference to the procedural, constitutional, international law and European aspects of the value of this right. The system-structural, dialectical and comparative methods, as well as the axiological (value) approach were chosen as a methodology for the implementation of the research task. The potential models of criminalisation of violation of the right to defence have been identified as a result.

Słowa kluczowe:

right to defence,prosecution,criminal law,criminal liability,constitutional principles of criminal procedure,European legal values,criminalisation

Bibliografia

ALBRECHT Peter-Alexis (2012), Zabytaâ svoboda. Printsipy ugolovnogo prava v evropeĭskoĭ diskussii o bezopasnosti, Kharkiv.

BRIDGES Katrice L. (2004), The forgotten constitutional right to present a defense and its impact on the acceptance of responsibility – Entrapment Debate, “Michigan Law Review, vol. 103, issue 2.

https://doi.org/10.2307/4141921

CASE OF KROMBACH v. FRANCE (2001) of 13 February 2001, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg (Application no. 29731/96), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59211 (13.05.2001).

CASE OF CHOPENKO v. UKRAINE (2015) of 15 January 2015, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg (Application no. 17735/06), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-192473 (15.04.2015).

FULEI Taras (2015), Zastosuvannia praktyky Evropeĭskoho sudu z prav liudyny pry zdiĭsnenni pravosuddia: Naukovo-metodychnyi posibnyk dlâ suddiv, Kyiv.

HROSHEVYI Yuriy, TATSII Vasyl, TUMANIANTS Anush (2013), Kryminalnyĭ protses: pidruchnyk,Kharkiv.

KOBLIKOV Aleksandr (1961), Pravo obvinâemogo na zaschitu pri proizvodstve predvaritelnogo sledstviâ, Moskva.

MARKUSH Mariya (2007), Pryntsyp zmahalnosti v kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy, Kharkiv.

PRYLUTSKYI Serhyi (2012),Vstup do teorii sudovoi vlady (Suspilstvo. Pravosuddia. Derzhava), Kyiv.

SPIRIDONOV Mykhailo (2016), Responsibility for violation of the rihgt to protection under criminal law of foreign countries, „Forum prava”, no. 5, Kharkiv, http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/FP_index.htm_2016_5_32 (29.09.2016).

YAVORSKYI Bohdan (2010), Spryânnia zakhystu jak neobkhidna umova zabezpechennia funktsionuvannia zasady zmahalnosti u kryminalnomu sudochynstvi, Lviv.