The article examines the ‘full jurisdiction’ requirement under Article 6 ECHR and its implementation within ECtHR case law. It first analyses the theoretical foundations for ‘full jurisdiction’ which implies, in principle, a substitutive review of the merits of administrative decisions. It then focuses on the ECtHR case law, highlighting its ambivalence and inconsistencies: while the Court generally requires a substitutive review in criminal cases and in cases involving complex technical assessments, it tends to accept a less exacting standard of review in civil cases, especially when administrative discretionary choices or policy determinations are at issue. This article suggests that the ambivalence and inconsistencies within ECtHR case law can be explained in terms of the principle of separation of powers, which still underpins most legal systems of signatory states to the ECHR.

‘Full Jurisdiction’ under Article 6 ECHR: Hans Kelsen v. the principle of separation of powers

Miriam Allena;
2020

Abstract

The article examines the ‘full jurisdiction’ requirement under Article 6 ECHR and its implementation within ECtHR case law. It first analyses the theoretical foundations for ‘full jurisdiction’ which implies, in principle, a substitutive review of the merits of administrative decisions. It then focuses on the ECtHR case law, highlighting its ambivalence and inconsistencies: while the Court generally requires a substitutive review in criminal cases and in cases involving complex technical assessments, it tends to accept a less exacting standard of review in civil cases, especially when administrative discretionary choices or policy determinations are at issue. This article suggests that the ambivalence and inconsistencies within ECtHR case law can be explained in terms of the principle of separation of powers, which still underpins most legal systems of signatory states to the ECHR.
Campo DC Valore Lingua
dc.authority.ancejournal EUROPEAN PUBLIC LAW -
dc.authority.people Miriam Allena en
dc.authority.people Francesco Goisis en
dc.collection.id.s e31e10d6-cbc8-31fb-e053-1705fe0a5b99 *
dc.collection.name 01 - Article in academic journal / Articolo su rivista scientifica *
dc.contributor.appartenenza Dipartimento di Studi Giuridici *
dc.contributor.appartenenza.mi 498 *
dc.contributor.area AREA MIN. 12 - Scienze giuridiche *
dc.date.accessioned 2019/12/09 10:00:45 -
dc.date.available 2019/12/08 13:30:54 -
dc.date.firstsubmission 2019/12/08 13:30:53 *
dc.date.issued 2020 en
dc.date.submission 2019/12/08 13:30:53 *
dc.description.abstract The article examines the ‘full jurisdiction’ requirement under Article 6 ECHR and its implementation within ECtHR case law. It first analyses the theoretical foundations for ‘full jurisdiction’ which implies, in principle, a substitutive review of the merits of administrative decisions. It then focuses on the ECtHR case law, highlighting its ambivalence and inconsistencies: while the Court generally requires a substitutive review in criminal cases and in cases involving complex technical assessments, it tends to accept a less exacting standard of review in civil cases, especially when administrative discretionary choices or policy determinations are at issue. This article suggests that the ambivalence and inconsistencies within ECtHR case law can be explained in terms of the principle of separation of powers, which still underpins most legal systems of signatory states to the ECHR. en
dc.description.allpeople Allena, Miriam; Goisis, Francesco -
dc.description.allpeopleoriginal Miriam Allena; Francesco Goisis en
dc.description.fulltext reserved en
dc.description.fulltextoriginal mixed en
dc.description.international no en
dc.description.note > 6000 en
dc.description.numberofauthors 2 -
dc.identifier.isi WOS:000562496600004 en
dc.identifier.scopus 2-s2.0-85099588599 -
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/11565/4022463 -
dc.identifier.url https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/European+Public+Law/26.2/EURO2020045 en
dc.language.iso eng en
dc.relation.firstpage 287 en
dc.relation.issue 2 en
dc.relation.lastpage 306 en
dc.relation.medium PRINT + ONLINE en
dc.relation.volume 26 en
dc.subject.keywords ART. 6 ECHR, FULL JURISDICTION, SEPARATION OF POWERS en
dc.subject.singlekeyword ART. 6 ECHR *
dc.subject.singlekeyword FULL JURISDICTION *
dc.subject.singlekeyword SEPARATION OF POWERS *
dc.title ‘Full Jurisdiction’ under Article 6 ECHR: Hans Kelsen v. the principle of separation of powers en
dc.type.driver info:eu-repo/semantics/article -
dc.type.full 01 JOURNAL ARTICLE / ARTICOLO SU RIVISTA::01 - Article in academic journal / Articolo su rivista scientifica it
dc.type.impactfactor si en
dc.type.miur 262 -
dc.ugov.classaux2 01 Internaz.preval.lingua ENG en
dc.ugov.descaux1 06/12/2019 en
dc.ugov.descaux2 -- en
dc.ugov.flaux1 no en
iris.isi.extIssued 2020 -
iris.isi.extTitle 'Full Jurisdiction' Under Article 6 ECHR: <i>Hans Kelsen v</i>. <i>the Principle of Separation of Powers</i> -
iris.scopus.extIssued 2020 -
iris.scopus.extTitle ‘Full Jurisdiction' Under Article 6 ECHR: Hans Kelsen v. the Principle of Separation of Powers * -
isi.authority.ancejournal EUROPEAN PUBLIC LAW###1354-3725 *
isi.category OM *
isi.date.issued 2020 *
isi.description.allpeopleoriginal Allena, M; Goisis, F; *
isi.document.sourcetype WOS.ESCI *
isi.document.type Article *
isi.document.typenorm Article *
isi.document.types Article *
isi.identifier.eissn 1875-8207 *
isi.identifier.isi WOS:000562496600004 *
isi.journal.journaltitle EUROPEAN PUBLIC LAW *
isi.journal.journaltitleabbrev EUR PUBLIC LAW *
isi.language.original English *
isi.publisher.place ZUIDPOOLSINGEL 2, PO BOX 316, 2400 AH ALPHEN AAN DEN RIJN, NETHERLANDS *
isi.relation.firstpage 287 *
isi.relation.issue 2 *
isi.relation.lastpage 305 *
isi.relation.volume 26 *
isi.title 'Full Jurisdiction' Under Article 6 ECHR: <i>Hans Kelsen v</i>. <i>the Principle of Separation of Powers</i> *
scopus.authority.ancejournal EUROPEAN PUBLIC LAW###1354-3725 *
scopus.category 3308 *
scopus.contributor.affiliation Bocconi University -
scopus.contributor.affiliation University of Milan -
scopus.contributor.afid 60021796 -
scopus.contributor.afid 60030318 -
scopus.contributor.auid 57221594827 -
scopus.contributor.auid 57190190041 -
scopus.contributor.country Italy -
scopus.contributor.country Italy -
scopus.contributor.dptid 125685100 -
scopus.contributor.dptid 125685329 -
scopus.contributor.name Miriam -
scopus.contributor.name Francesco -
scopus.contributor.subaffiliation Administrative Law; -
scopus.contributor.subaffiliation Full Professor of Administrative Law; -
scopus.contributor.surname ALLENA -
scopus.contributor.surname GOISIS -
scopus.date.issued 2020 *
scopus.description.abstract This article examines the ‘full jurisdiction' requirement under Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its implementation within European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law. It first analyses the theoretical foundations for ‘full jurisdiction' which implies, in principle, a substitutive review of the merits of administrative decisions. It then focuses on the ECtHR case law, highlighting its ambivalence and inconsistencies: while the Court generally requires a substitutive review in criminal cases and in cases involving complex technical assessments, it tends to accept a less exacting standard of review in civil cases, especially when administrative discretionary choices or policy determinations are at issue. This article suggests that the ambivalence and inconsistencies within ECtHR case law can be explained in terms of the principle of separation of powers, which still underpins most legal systems of signatory states to the ECHR. *
scopus.description.allpeopleoriginal ALLENA M.; GOISIS F. *
scopus.differences scopus.description.abstract *
scopus.differences scopus.subject.keywords *
scopus.differences scopus.description.allpeopleoriginal *
scopus.differences scopus.identifier.doi *
scopus.differences scopus.title *
scopus.document.type ar *
scopus.document.types ar *
scopus.identifier.doi 10.54648/euro2020045 *
scopus.identifier.eissn 1875-8207 *
scopus.identifier.pui 2010663343 *
scopus.identifier.scopus 2-s2.0-85099588599 *
scopus.journal.sourceid 21100865932 *
scopus.language.iso eng *
scopus.publisher.name Kluwer Law International *
scopus.relation.firstpage 287 *
scopus.relation.issue 2 *
scopus.relation.lastpage 306 *
scopus.relation.volume 26 *
scopus.subject.keywords administrative procedures; Art. 6 ECHR; fair trial; full jurisdiction; principle of separation of powers.; *
scopus.title ‘Full Jurisdiction' Under Article 6 ECHR: Hans Kelsen v. the Principle of Separation of Powers * *
scopus.titleeng ‘Full Jurisdiction' Under Article 6 ECHR: Hans Kelsen v. the Principle of Separation of Powers * *
Appare nelle tipologie: 01 - Article in academic journal / Articolo su rivista scientifica
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Full Jurisdiction ARTICLE.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Documento in Pre-print (Pre-print document)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 299.8 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
299.8 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri
Full Jurisdiction ACCEPTANCE.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Allegato per valutazione Bocconi (Attachment for Bocconi evaluation)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 101.16 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
101.16 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11565/4022463
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact