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 | 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.