Issue date: December 2019
Author: Lieneke Slingenberg
The European Court of Human Rights increasingly deals with migrants’ complaints about desti-tution in their host state under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment). This case law has been criticized for not being consistent and/or for not providing migrants with enough protection. Based on a systematic case law search, in this article, I analyse Article 3 case law on migrants’ destitution from a new per-spective: the concept of freedom as non-domination, as developed in (neo) republican theory. It will argue that, seen through this lens, many tendencies in the Court’s case law can be explained and constructed as consistent, and it is submitted that in this way the Court does provide mi-grants with important protection against unfreedom. Nevertheless, I also argue in the article that the case law could be improved in a number of ways in order to provide more effective and robust protection against domination.
Paper: The Right Not to be Dominated: The Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights on Migrants’ Destitution
Note: Reprinted from: Lieneke Slingenberg, The Right Not to be Dominated: The Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights on Migrants’ Destitution. Originally published in Human Rights Law Review, Volume 19, Issue 2, June 2019, Pages 291–314, https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngz012. Reprinted by the Creative Commons License. This article is not included under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 2.0 License of this Journal. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Author: Irakli Ksovreli
Application of an unconstitutional law in the process of adjudication entails a risk of human rights violation, therefore, court should ensure prevention of such risk. The aim of this paper is exploring the very measures for reaching the mentioned goal. Scope of application of constitu-tional rights is not defined in Georgian court practice, which is why this article through compara-tive research, analysing experience of different countries and utilising the rules of various inter-pretations of legal acts, investigates the scope and legal consequences of direct application of the Constitution by common courts
Paper: The Common Courts – Effective Remedy for Human Rights Protection
Author: Elene Gabunia
The system of Common Courts becoming subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of Georgia has grown particularly relevant. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to provide system-ic analysis of the problems within the constitutional control system of Georgia. Specifically, the so called “real” constitutional claim and the prospect of establishing it in Georgia will be dis-cussed. We shall see, how efficient “real” constitutional claim is for the protection of human rights and how hard it is to integrate within the constitutional justice, considering the ongoing transformation of state legal system. The paper will be oriented on both the practice of the Con-stitutional Court of Georgia, as well as the European approaches.
Paper: Real Control in the Georgian System of Constitutional Justice
Author: Iviko Khavtasi
The role of the judicial branch in the US checks and balances model of the separation of powers has never been univocal; An analysis of the epochs reveals that this branch of government has come together in an interesting and complex way of evolution. The following paper briefly discusses the basic essence of the US constitutional model, the development of constitutional review within its framework, key characteristics of the Supreme Court control, along with sever-al case-law decisions and the contemporary challenges of the American Supreme Court in a polarized political climate.
Paper: The Political Role of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Separation of Powers and its Model of Checks and Balances
Pages: 61 -73
Author: Constitutional Court of Georgia
In the Volume 2, 2019 the Journal of Constitutional Law will once again provide its audience with short summaries of the Judgements rendered by the Constitutional Court of Georgia re-cently. Three cases discussed below have been adopted since September till December period and are rather significant. The case notes go through the case facts and party arguments briefly and provides the argumentation as well as the final decision taken by the Court. We hope these three cases will be interesting for our readers worldwide and we will see further deliberations regarding the practice of the Constitutional Court of Georgia.
Badri Bezhanidze v. Parliament of Georgia
Zurab Svanidze v. The Parliament of Georgia
LLC “Stereo+”, Luca Severini, Lasha Zilpimiani, Robert Khakhalevi v. The Parliament of Georgia And The Minister of Justice of Georgia
Paper: Case Notes of the Constitutional Court of Georgia