ПРИНЦИП ПРАВОВОЇ ВИЗНАЧЕНОСТІ В РІШЕННЯХ ЄВРОПЕЙСЬКОГО СУДУ З ПРАВ ЛЮДИНИ

Abstract

Kudriavtseva O. М. The principle of legal certainty in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. -

Article.

Ukraine is currently undergoing constitutional re­form. Considerable attention is paid to its implemen­tation in the vector of European integration, the desire for which our country demonstrates convincingly and systematically. This requires constant updating of leg­islation in accordance with modern European trends, the implementation in law enforcement the practice of all standards of constitutional and legal nature. The purpose of the article is to analyze the current cases of the Europe­an Court of Human Rights, in making decisions on which judges relied on the principle of legal certainty.

Reference is made to Brumarescu v. Romania in al­most every judgment of the European Court of Human Rights which has applied the principle of legal certainty. This situation is justified by the fact that the text of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fun­damental Freedoms does not contain a direct mention of this important principle (for example, the phrases “legal certainty”, “principle of legal certainty” are absent in this document). However, until 1999 (until the final decision in Brumarescu v. Romania), the European Court of Human Rights applied the principle of legal certainty. Another important case, in which the European Court of Human Rights has referred to this principle, is the case of Kruslin v. France, the final decision of which was taken in 1990.

Equally important for understanding how broadly the European Court of Human Rights understands the prin­

ciple of legal certainty is that this principle is often used to protect the right to a fair trial in the context of the length of national proceedings. Here are some examples to illustrate the close connection between these principles. Thus, in 2003-2005 the Court considered a number of complaints against the Russian Federation, in which the respondent State was found guilty of violating the right to a fair trial, and the violation was based, inter alia, on

non-compliance with the principle of legal certainty: the case of Ryabykh v. the Russian Federation, 2003; the case of Volkova v. the Russian Federation, 2005; the case of Ku- tepov and Anikeyenko v. the Russian Federation in 2005.