• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Refugee Law >Subsidiarity and ‘Arguability’: the European Court of Human Rights’ Case Law on Judicial Review in Asylum Cases
【24h】

Subsidiarity and ‘Arguability’: the European Court of Human Rights’ Case Law on Judicial Review in Asylum Cases

机译：辅助性和“可争议性”：欧洲人权法院关于庇护案件司法审查的判例法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The European Court of Human Rights’ case law on judicial review in asylum cases is not entirely consistent. However, it can be interpreted as consistent if two presumptions are accepted. First, that, as the Court's role should be subsidiary to that of domestic courts, domestic judicial review should at least be of the same quality and substance as the European Court of Human Rights’ review. Secondly, that the Court distinguishes between arguable and non-arguable cases not just in the context of Article 13 ECHR and of the admissibility of applications, but that this distinction is central to its entire case law about the asylum procedure. This analysis results in a coherent doctrine on deadlines for submitting evidence, the burden of proof, the intensity of judicial review, and suspensive effect. If the Court understands its case law in this way, it can prevent it from becoming, in some respects, a court of first instance.
机译：欧洲人权法院关于庇护案件司法审查的判例法并不完全一致。但是，如果接受两个假设，则可以解释为一致。首先，由于法院的角色应代替国内法院的角色，因此国内司法审查至少应与欧洲人权法院的审查具有相同的质量和实质。第二，法院不仅在《欧洲人权公约》第十三条和可否受理申请的范围内区分可争论的案件和不可争论的案件，而且这种区分对于整个关于庇护程序的判例法至关重要。这种分析导致了在提交证据的截止日期，举证责任，司法审查的强度和暂停效力方面的一致原则。如果法院以这种方式理解其判例法，则可以在某些方面阻止其成为一审法院。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号