DOCSLIB.ORG

Effective Access to Justice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effective Access to Justice DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS’ RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS EFFECTIVE ACCESS TO JUSTICE STUDY Abstract This study, commissioned by the European Parliament Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs upon request by PETI Committee, aims to identify and understand the issues affecting effective access to justice raised by the EU citizens and residents in some Member States with the main aim to frame the analysis and obtain a fair representation of recurring issues pertaining to access to justice across the EU. It seeks to understand why citizens have turned to the EU institutions to seek access to justice, and looks at a large range of factors, including legal and procedural issues as well as practical, social, historical and political factors that underpin the issues raised in these petitions. More broadly, the study intends to assess the relevance of the petitions system to address access to justice issues experienced by citizens at national level. PE 596.818 EN This study was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions and was commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Policy departments provide independent expertise, both in-house and externally, to support European Parliament committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU external and internal policies. To contact the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, or to subscribe to its newsletter, please write to: [email protected] AUTHORS Ms Nathy Rass-Masson (Milieu) Ms Virginie Rouas (Milieu) RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Martina Schonard Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Manuscript completed in November 2017 © European Union, 2017 This document is available on the internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/supporting-analyses DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. Effective access to justice ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS CONTENTS 3 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 5 LIST OF TABLES 7 LIST OF FIGURES 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 1. INTRODUCTION 15 1.1. Context and objective of the study 15 1.2. Content of the paper 16 2. METHODOLOGY AND CHALLENGES 17 2.1. Phase 1: Defining the scope of research 17 2.2. Phase 2: Conducting national and EU research 19 2.3. Phase 3: Analysing data and reporting conclusions 20 3. SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 21 3.1. Definition of the concept of effective access to justice 21 3.2. Categories of issues affecting effective access to justice 23 3.2.1. Category 1: Effective access to court 24 3.2.2. Category 2: Costs of justice and legal assistance 25 3.2.3. Category 3: Access to fair trial and enforcement of judgments 25 3.2.4. Outcome of the categorisation of petitions 26 4. ANALYSIS OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN THE MEMBER STATES STUDIED 28 4.1. Background: country-specific factors affecting access to justice 28 4.2. Effective access to court 47 4.2.1. Organisation of the national judicial system 48 4.2.2. Legal and procedural obstacles impeding access to court 53 4.2.3. Practical obstacles impeding access to court 57 4.3. Costs of justice and legal assistance 61 4.3.1. Costs of justice 61 4.3.2. Legal aid 68 4.3.3. Other issues preventing access to proper legal assistance 72 4.4. Access to a fair trial and enforcement of judgments 78 3 Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.4.1. Procedural guarantees 78 4.4.2. Length of proceedings 93 4.4.3. Enforcement of judgments 102 5. ANALYSIS OF EU TOOLS AVAILABLE TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AT NATIONAL LEVEL 109 5.1. Petitions 109 5.1.1. Use of petitions as a mean to enforce the right to access justice 110 5.1.2. Impact of petitions on effectiveness of access to justice 115 5.2. References for a preliminary ruling 121 5.2.1. Use of reference for a preliminary ruling by national judges 122 5.2.2. Impact of references for a preliminary ruling on effectiveness of access to justice 124 5.3. Other instruments available to the EU institutions on the basis of the TFEU 126 5.3.1. EU competence in the area of justice defined by the TFEU 127 5.3.2. Legal instruments adopted on the basis of the TFEU 128 5.3.3. Institutional tools and mechanisms enabled by the TFEU 129 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 133 6.1. Effective access to court 133 6.2. Costs of justice and legal assistance 135 6.3. Access to a fair trial and enforcement of judgments 137 6.4. EU action to improve access to justice 138 REFERENCES 141 ANNEX I: LIST OF PETITIONS 153 ANNEX II: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED FOR THE STUDY 164 4 Effective access to justice ____________________________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACA- Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Europe Jurisdictions of the EU ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution CCBE Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe CEPEJ Commission Européenne pour l'Efficacité de la Justice/ European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice CGAE Consejo General de la Abogacía Española CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union CVM Cooperation and Verification Mechanism ECHR European Convention on Human Rights ECtHR European Court of Human Rights EFTA European Free Trade Association EJTN European Judicial Training Network ENCJ European Network of Councils for the Judiciary EP European Parliament ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds EU European Union EUR Euro FRA Fundamental Rights Agency ICT Information and Communication Technologies NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NPSJC Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the EU ODR Online Dispute Resolution 5 Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PETI European Parliament Committee on Petitions SRSP Structural Reform Support Programme TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union US United States VAT Value Added Tax 6 Effective access to justice ____________________________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Categories of issues affecting effective access to court................................... 24 Table 2: Category of issues related to costs of justice and legal assistance ................... 25 Table 3: Category of issues affecting access to a fair trial and enforcement of judgments 26 Table 4: Overview of issues affecting access to justice in selected petitions .................. 27 Table 5: Selected petitions raising issues linked to the organisation of the national judicial system .................................................................................................................. 48 Table 6: Selected petitions raising legal and procedural obstacles impeding access to court ............................................................................................................................ 54 Table 7: Selected petitions raising practical obstacles impeding access to court ............. 57 Table 8: Selected petitions concerned with the costs of justice .................................... 62 Table 9: Selected petitions concerned with legal aid ................................................... 69 Table 10: Selected petitions raising other issues to access proper legal assistance ........ 72 Table 11: Selected petitions concerned with procedural guarantees ............................. 79 Table 12: Selected petitions concerned with the length of proceedings ......................... 93 Table 13: Selected petitions concerned with the enforcement of judgments ................ 103 Table 14: Relevant EU Regulations and Directives cited in petitions ........................... 112 Table 15: Distribution of petitions per year ............................................................. 117 Table 16: Distribution of selected petitions in Member States .................................... 118 Table 17: Outcomes of admissible petitions dealing with access to justice .................. 120 Table 18 : Number of references for preliminary ruling lodged by national courts in selected Member States ..................................................................................................... 122 Table 19: Average duration of proceedings for references for a preliminary ruling ....... 125 7 Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Number of petitions analysed as relevant in the context of access to justice in the countries studied .................................................................................................. 110 Figure 2: Ratio of number of courts to references for a preliminary ruling in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 ....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Access to Remedy Practical Guidance for Companies
    ACCESS TO REMEDY: PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR COMPANIES 1 Access to remedy Practical guidance for companies A guide for companies to establish and participate in effective UNGP-informed remedy mechanisms for workers who may be adversely impacted by business operations, products, services or relationships in the entirety of their supply chains Supported by Lead authors: Cindy Berman, Ben Rutledge (ETI), and Samir Goswani. Editing: Katharine Earley Research contributors: Michele Law (Cerno Solutions Ltd), Laura Curtze and Steve Gibbons (Ergon), Dr Aidan McQuade, Jesse Hudson, Mark Winters Photos: ILO, World Bank, Claudia Janke ACCESS TO REMEDY: PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR COMPANIES 1 1. Executive Summary 2 2. Overall Guidance 5 3. Ensuring access to remedy in supply chains 6 STEP 1: Take responsibility 6 STEP 2: Provide remedy 9 STEP 3: Assess state-based and other remedy options 14 STEP 4: Develop a corporate remedy strategy 17 4. Developing Operational Grievance Mechanisms (OGMs) 22 A. Considering gender equality in designing OGMs 22 B. Guidance from the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights 22 C. Key factors for consideration 31 5. Country Factors 36 A. Roles and responsibilities of states and companies 36 B. Understanding the local context 36 C. Supporting state justice systems 36 D. Committing to sourcing countries 37 6. ANNEX: Additional Resources 40 ACCESS TO REMEDY: PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR COMPANIES 2 1. Executive summary Modern supply chains are complex, multi-tiered and span the globe. Production typically occurs in developing countries, where labour rights policy may not be sufficiently evolved or enforced, and workers may not be able to freely negotiate improved working conditions with their employers.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Think Tanks and Governments. Country Report. Poland
    “Legal Think Tanks and government – capacity building”: project supported by the International Visegrad Fund www.visegradfund.org Project partners: POLAND HUNGARY Legal Think Tanks and Government CZECH REPUBLIC – Capacity Building Country Report. Poland SLOVAKIA UKRAINE Authors Łukasz BOJARSKI Grzegorz WIADEREK MOLDOVA 1 Authors of the study Łukasz BOJARSKI President and co-founder of INPRIS, lawyer. Co-founder and Chairman of the Board of the Polish Legal Clinics Foundation (FUPP). Expert of Polish and international institutions (including European Commission, OSCE, Council of Europe, academia, private foundations including Stefan Batory Foundation, Open Society Institute). Member of the Editorial Board of the „National Judicial Council. Quarterly” (http://www.krs.pl/pl/kwartalnik-krs). Before: Member of the National Council of the Judiciary of Poland, (2010-2015). Member of the Board of Directors of PILnet – The Global Network for Public Interest Law (2008-2016). Employee of the Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights in the years 1998-2010. Member of the Experts Council of the „Citizen and the Law” (Obywatel i Prawo) program of the Polish- American Freedom Foundation (2005-2013), Member of the Committee on the Efficiency of Justice in the Ministry of Justice. Fields of interest: judiciary, legal services, legal profession, legal education, non- discrimination, human rights. Author of the reform proposals on the access to legal aid and the legal profession. Author of numerous publications on the judiciary, access to justice and interactive innovative methods in legal education, see list of main publications. Contact: lukasz.bojarski at inpris.pl Grzegorz WIADEREK Co-founder of INPRIS and member of the Management Board, lawyer.
    [Show full text]
  • Roe V. Leis, Not Reported in F.Supp.2D (2001)
    Roe v. Leis, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001) 2001 WL 1842459 4. If the Medical Director, in consultation with the Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. Area Medical Director, judges that an abortion is United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western therapeutically indicated, the medical care will be Division. arranged following the procedure established at the institution providing specialty care. Jane ROE, et al. Plaintiffs v. Joint Ex. 2. Defendants and their medical contractors Simon L. LEIS, Jr., et al. Defendants have interpreted “therapeutically indicated” to permit abortions only to save the life of the mother. The No. C–1–00–651. | Jan. 10, 2001. Defendants do not provide abortion services within any of their detention facilities. In July 2000, while an inmate at 1617 Reading Road, Opinion Plaintiff Jane Roe advised Defendants that she was pregnant. They promptly transported her to University Hospital, where an ultrasound confirmed her pregnancy. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR She then requested access to abortion services, which A PERMANENT INJUNCTION Defendants denied. In an August 7, 2000 letter to Ms. Roe’s attorney, Sheriff Leis explained this denial by stating that “the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office does DLOTT, J. not transport inmates for elective procedures without a court order. Upon receipt of a court order, the Hamilton *1 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ County Sheriff’s [sic ] will transport inmate [Jane Roe] to Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. By agreement of the her chosen health care provider.” Joint Ex. 1. Having parties, the Court will treat this Motion as one for a exhausted her administrative remedies, Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Judicial Reform in Ukraine and in Poland: Onstitutional and European Legal Aspect in the Context of Independent Judiciary
    RESEARCH ARTICLES CURRENT JUDICIAL REFORM IN UKRAINE AND IN POLAND: ONSTITUTIONAL AND EUROPEAN LEGAL ASPECT IN THE CONTEXT OF INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY Grzegorz Borkowski, Doctor of Law, Judge seconded to the Regional Court Warszawa-Praga, former Head of Office of the National Council of Judiciary (Poland) Olga Sovgyria, Doctor of Science (Law), professor of the Department of Constitutional Law, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Kyiv, Ukraine) https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-2.3-a000011 Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. The Judicial System of Poland at the Present Stage. – 2.1. Constitutional Tribunal. – 2.1.1. Composition of the Constitutional Tribunal. – 2.1.2. Refusal of Publication of Certain Judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal. – 2.2. The Common Courts System. – 2.2.1. Merger of the Functions of Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General and its Consequences. – 2.2.2. Court directors. – 2.2.3. Random Allocation of Cases. – 2.2.4. Judicial Appointments. – 2.2.5. Secondment of Judges. – 2.2.6. Appointment and Dismissal of Court Presidents. – 2.3. Supreme Court. – 2.3.1. Extraordinary Complaint (Article 86). – 2.3.2. Changes in the Structure of the Supreme Court. – 2.3.3. Lay Judges. – 2.3.4. Changes in Disciplinary Proceedings in Respect of the SC and the Common Judiciary. – 2.4. National Council for Judiciary. – 2.4.1. Entrusting the Sejm with the Competence to Elect the Members of the Council. – 2.4.2 Termination of Office of the Current Members of the Council. – 3. Judicial Reform in Ukraine in 2016: Problems of Implementation. – 3.1. General Characteristics of the Judiciary in Ukraine.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:17-Cv-02542-KPF Document 61 Filed 07/26/18 Page 1 of 70
    Case 1:17-cv-02542-KPF Document 61 Filed 07/26/18 Page 1 of 70 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: July______________ 26, 2018 ------------------------------------------------------X : KATE DOYLE, NATIONAL SECURITY : ARCHIVE, CITIZENS FOR : RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN : WASHINGTON, and KNIGHT FIRST : AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA : UNIVERSITY, : : Plaintiffs, : 17 Civ. 2542 (KPF) : v. : OPINION AND ORDER : U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND : SECURITY and EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF : THE PRESIDENT, ; : Defendants. : : ----------------------------------------------------- X KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: Plaintiffs Kate Doyle, National Security Archive (“NSA”), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”), and Knight First Amendment Institute (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action against the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the Executive Office of the President (“EOP,” and with DHS, “Defendants”), after Doyle unsuccessfully attempted to obtain, under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, records related to visitors of President Trump at the White House Complex, as well as at his properties at Trump Tower, in New York, and Mar-a-Lago, in Florida. The operative complaint brings claims under FOIA, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. ch. 5, the Federal Record Act (“FRA”), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2102-2118, 2901-2910, 3101-3107, Case 1:17-cv-02542-KPF Document 61 Filed 07/26/18 Page 2 of 70 3301-3324, and the Presidential Records Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2209; it seeks injunctive relief and, under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, declaratory relief.
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy Remedies
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 94 Issue 2 Article 7 Spring 2019 Privacy Remedies Lauren H. Scholz Florida State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Privacy Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Scholz, Lauren H. (2019) "Privacy Remedies," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 94 : Iss. 2 , Article 7. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol94/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRIVACY REMEDIES LAUREN HENRY SCHOLZ* When consumers sue companies for privacy-intrusive practices, they are often unsuccessful. Many cases fail in federal court at the motion to dismiss phase because the plaintiff has not shown the privacy infringement has caused her concrete harm. This is a symptom of a broader issue: the failure of courts and commentators to describe the relationship between privacy rights and privacy remedies. This Article contends that restitution is the normal measure of privacy remedies. Restitution measures relief by economic gain to the defendant. If a plaintiff can show the likely ability to recover in restitution, that should be sufficient to pass muster at the motion to dismiss phase even if the court is unconvinced that the plaintiff could show a case for compensatory damages flowing from harm.
    [Show full text]
  • Studia Iuridica 2015/60. Collective Labour
    COLLECTIVE LABOUR LAW Studia Iuridica tom 60 COLLECTIVE LABOUR LAW logo WUW.inddWarszawa 1 20155/12/2014 12:54:19 PM Rada Programowa Grażyna Bałtruszajtys (przewodnicząca), Jan Błeszyński, Zdzisław Galicki, Hubert Izdebski, Jacek Lang, Maria Rogacka-Rzewnicka, Marek Wąsowicz, Beata Janiszewska (sekretarz) Członkowie Rady Programowej afiliowani za granicą Marc Bors (Uniwersytet we Fribourgu), Michael Martinek (Uniwersytet w Saarbrücken), Alessandro Somma (Uniwersytet w Ferrarze), Elena V. Timoshina (Uniwersytet w Sankt Petersburgu) Redaktorzy naukowi tomu Łukasz Pisarczyk Jakub Stelina Recenzenci „Studia Iuridica” w 2015 r. Francisco Javier Andrés Santos, Wojciech Dajczak, Włodzimierz Kamyszanskij, Luz Maria Martinez Velencoso, Andriej Łusznikow, Bronisław Sitek, Jakob Fortunat Stagl Redaktor naczelny Tomasz Giaro Redaktor tematyczny Łukasz Pisarczyk Redaktor językowy Radosław Pawelec Sekretarz Redakcji Adam Niewiadomski Projekt okładki i stron tytułowych Jakub Rakusa-Suszczewski Redaktor prowadzący Dorota Dziedzic Redaktor Krystyna Dziewanowska-Stefańczyk Opracowanie redakcyjne streszczeń anglojęzycznych Robert Stępień ISSN 0137-4346 ISBN 978-83-235-1932-4 © Copyright by Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego 2015 Wersją pierwotną czasopisma jest wersja drukowana. „Studia Iuridica” znajdują się w wykazie czasopism punktowanych przez Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego na potrzeby oceny parametrycznej jednostek naukowych. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego 00-497 Warszawa, ul. Nowy Świat 4 www.wuw.pl; e-mail: [email protected] Dział
    [Show full text]
  • The Business Response to Remedying Human Rights Infringements: the Current and Future State of Corporate Remedy
    The business response to remedying human rights infringements: The current and future state of corporate remedy Human Rights Remedy | June 2018 Australian Business Pledge against Forced Labour i Table of contents 1. Executive summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 About this Report .................................................................................................................................................. 2 3. Context ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 3.1 The Remedy Challenge ........................................................................................................................................ 3 4. Existing frameworks and guidance on the provision of remedy ................................................................................... 4 4.1 International Frameworks and Guidance ............................................................................................................. 5 5. Legal Context ..............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ACLU's Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction
    1 Edward W. Swanson (Bar No. CA-159859) [email protected] 2 Carly Bittman (Bar No. CA-305513) [email protected] 3 SWANSON & MCNAMARA LLP 300 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100 4 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 477-3800 5 Fax: (415) 477-9010 6 [ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 7 Attorneys for Defendant 8 CHRISTIAN NOEL PADILLA-MARTEL 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) CASE NO. CGC-20-586763 12 by and through Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney ) for the City and County of San Francisco, ) DEFENDANT CHRISTIAN NOEL 13 ) PADILLA-MARTEL’S OPPOSITION Plaintiff, ) TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 14 ) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION vs. 15 ) Date: April 27, 2021 CHRISTIAN NOEL PADILLA-MARTEL aka ) Time: 9:30 a.m. 16 CHRISTIAN PADILLA-MARTEL, an ) Dept: 302 individual, ) Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman 17 ) Defendant. ) Complaint Filed: September 24, 2020 18 ) Trial Date: Not Set ) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DLA PIPER LLP (US) SAN F RANCISCO 1 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION CASE NO.: CGC-20-586763 1 David F. Gross (Bar No. CA-83547) [email protected] 2 Robert Nolan (Bar No. CA-235738) [email protected] 3 Mandy Chan (Bar No. CA-305602) [email protected] 4 Katherine Thoreson (Bar No. CA-327443) [email protected] 5 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 6 San Francisco, California 94105-2933 Tel: (415) 836-2500 7 Fax: (415) 836-2501 8 Anne Decker (Bar No.
    [Show full text]
  • Equity Will Not Enjoin a Libel”: Well, Actually, Yes, It Will
    SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 11, Issue 2 Spring 2016 “EQUITY WILL NOT ENJOIN A LIBEL”: WELL, ACTUALLY, YES, IT WILL ∗ ANN C. MOTTO Cite as: Ann C. Motto, “Equity Will Not Enjoin a Libel”: Well, Actually, Yes, It Will, 11 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 271 (2016), at http://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/Documents /Academic Programs/7CR/11-2/motto.pdf. INTRODUCTION “If there is one amendment, that is literally first among equals, then it is truly the First Amendment.”1 The First Amendment prohibits prior restraints on speech, i.e., judicial suppression of material that would be published or broadcast, on the grounds that it is libelous, defamatory, or harmful.2 However, the imposition of subsequent liability for defamation does not abridge the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.3 It is this important distinction drawn by the United States Supreme Court—subsequent punishment vs. prior restraint—that denotes the permissible remedies and punishments in a court of law for defamation. One question remains unanswered by the Supreme Court: while the First Amendment allows for after-the-fact punishment for defamation in the form of money damages, or even imprisonment, does the First Amendment permit ∗ J.D., Chicago-Kent College of Law, May 2016. 1 Cailah E. Garfinkel, The Importance of an Independent Judiciary and a Free Press, 22 SUM DEL. LAW. 28 (2004). 2 There are a few exceptions to the prohibition on prior restraint discussed infra Part I. 3 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 301–02 (1964). 271 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 11, Issue 2 Spring 2016 permanent injunctions against published or spoken speech that has been found to be defamatory by a judge or jury? Permanently enjoining defamatory speech is preventing speech before it happens.
    [Show full text]
  • Eu Directive on Legal Aid for Suspects and Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings and for Requested Persons in European Arrest Warrant Proceedings
    EU DIRECTIVE ON LEGAL AID FOR SUSPECTS AND ACCUSED PERSONS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND FOR REQUESTED PERSONS IN EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT PROCEEDINGS TRANSPOSITION TOOLKIT 1 About Fair Trials Fair Trials is an international human rights organisation with offices in London, Brussels and Washington, D.C., focused on improving the right to a fair trial in accordance with international standards. Our work is premised on the belief that fair trials are one of the cornerstones of a just society: they prevent lives being ruined by miscarriages of justice, and make societies safer by contributing to transparent and reliable justice systems that maintain public trust. Although universally recognised in principle, in practice the basic human right to a fair trial is being routinely abused. Fair Trials’ work combines: (a) helping suspects to understand and exercise their rights; (b) building an engaged and informed network of fair trial defenders (including NGOs, lawyers and academics); and (c) fighting the underlying causes of unfair trials through research, litigation, political advocacy and campaigns. About the Legal Experts Advisory Panel The Legal Experts Advisory Panel (or LEAP) is an EU-wide network of experts in criminal justice and human rights which works to promote fair and effective judicial cooperation within Europe. There are currently over 185 organisational members, with representatives from law firms, CSOs, and academic institutions, covering all 28 EU Member States. Through Fair Trials’ coordination, LEAP is able to offer an expert view on a broad range of EU criminal justice topics, while also boosting cooperation between human rights defenders in crossborder work. LEAP’s importance has been acknowledged by the EU, which has recognised the network’s contribution to EU Justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Victims and Promise of Remedies: International Law Fairytale Gone Bad
    Victims and Promise of Remedies: International Law Fairytale Gone Bad SANJA DJAJIC* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRO D UCTIO N .................................................................................................. 330 ii. REMEDIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW .................................................................... 330 A. Four-foldStructure of Remedies in InternationalLaw ............................ 330 B. European Human Rights System .............................................................. 333 C. Human Rights Committee and ICCPR ..................................................... 339 D. Committee Against Torture and U.N. Convention A gainst Torture........................................................................................ 34 1 E. GeneralInternational Law: InternationalCourt of Justice and InternationalLaw Commission ............................................. 344 F. Human Rights Commission and U.N. Documents .................................... 350 G. Addressees of the Obligation to Provide Remedy .................................... 353 II1. N ATIONAL COURTS AND REMEDIES .................................................................... 353 A. Damages vs. Specific Performance:Problems in Implementing the CA T View s .......................................................................................... 354 * Assistant Professor of Public International Law, Department for International Law at the University of Novi Sad School of Law (Serbia); Ph.D., University of Novi Sad School of Law (2003), LL.M.,
    [Show full text]