THE PECULIARITIES OF LEGAL CERTAINTY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: THEORETICAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Published:
Apr 22, 2022
Abstract
Based on the analysis and generalization of scholars’ scientific standpoints and the ECHR caselaw, the author justifies the peculiarities of legal certainty in criminal proceedings. The article proves that in criminal proceedings, legal certainty implies predictability and clarity of its procedure and consequences as well as the legal status of its participants and other persons whose rights and legitimate interests are affected. Taking into account the principle of legal certainty, the general requirements to be met in criminal proceedings include the compliance of criminal procedural legislation with the requirements of legal methods; absence of conflicts; ensuring legal unambiguity and confidence in the legal consequences of the proceedings; finality of the decision of the case. Certainty is evident at all stages of the criminal procedural activity (pre-trial investigation, trial, appeal and review of sentences, execution of court decisions), with the special formal requirements made for each of them. Prohibition of double jeopardy (non bis in idem) is an important procedural rule, which is directly related to the principle of legal certainty.
How to Cite
Dmytriieva, M. (2022). THE PECULIARITIES OF LEGAL CERTAINTY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: THEORETICAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS. Baltic Journal of Legal and Social Sciences, (3), 59-67. https://doi.org/10.30525/2592-8813-2021-3-6
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Keywords
Criminal proceedings, human rights, legal certainty, legal uncertainty, law enforcement, case law, ECHR judgements, court decisions
References
1. Beccaria C. (1995) O prestupleniyakh i nakazanikh [On Crimes and Punishments]. Moscow: Stels. (in Russian)
2. Bogacheva L. L. (2013) Pryncyp pravovoji vyznachenosti v jevropejsjkomu i nacionaljnomu pravi (zmistovna kharakterystyka) [The principle of legal certainty in European and National Law (meaningful response)]. Teoriia i praktyka pravoznavstva [Theory and practice of jurisprudence] (electronic journal), vol. 2, no 4, pp. 70–83. Retrieved from: http://dspace.nlu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/6063 (accessed 10 October 2021).
3. Commission of the European Communities (2004) Aalborg Portland A/S and Others v. Commission. Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 January 2004 in Joined Cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62000CJ0204&qid=1622712814831&from=EN (accessed 9 July 2021).
4. Constitutional Court of Ukraine (2005) Rishennja Konstytucijnogho Sudu Ukrajiny № 5-rp/2005 vid 22.09.2005 r [The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 5-rp/2005 dated September 22, 2005]. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v005p710-05#top (accessed 9 July 2021).
5. Constitutional Court of Ukraine (2010) Rishennja u spravi za konstytucijnym podannjam Upovnovazhenogho Verkhovnoji Rady Ukrajiny z prav ljudyny shhodo vidpovidnosti Konstytuciji Ukrajiny Zakonu Ukrajiny ‘Pro miliciju’ [The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 17-rp/2010 dated June 29, 2010 in the case upon the constitutional petition of the Authorised Human Rights Representative of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on conformity with the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of the Law of Ukraine “On Militia”]. Bulletin of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, no 5, pp. 11–17. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v017p710-10#Text (accessed 10 July 2021).
6. Council of Europe (2003) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11 with Protocol Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13. Retrieved from: https://polis.osce.org/convention-protection-human-rights-and-fundamental-freedoms-amended-protocolno11#:~:text=The%20convention%20affirms%20the%20obligation,family%20life%2C%20freedom%20of%20though (accessed 10 July 2021).
7. European Court of Human Rights (1995, October 23) Case of Gradinger v. Austria (application № 15963/90). Judgment. Strasbourg, 23 October 1995. Retrieved from: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57958 (accessed 10 July 2021).
8. European Court of Human Rights (2001, May 29) Case of Franz Fischer v. Austria (application no. 37950/97). Judgment. Strasbourg, 29 May 2001. Retrieved from: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre-press?i=001-59475 (accessed 10 July 2021).
9. European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) (4 April, 2011) Report on the Rule of Law Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 86th plenary meeting (Venice, 25-26 March 2011). Retrieved from: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2011)003rev-e (accessed 10 July 2021).
10. European Court Reports (2007) Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2007. Criminal proceedings against Norma Kraaijenbrink. Case C-367/05. ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2007:444. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0367 (accessed 15 August 2021).
11. International Criminal Court (2011) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Retrieved from: https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdf (accessed 09 September 2021).
12. Matvieieva Yu.I. (2019) Pryncyp pravovoji vyznachenosti jak skladova verkhovenstva prava [The principle of legal certainty as a component of the rule of law] (PhD thesis), Kyiv: National University of “Kyiv-Mohyla Academy”. Retrieved from: http://ekmair.ukma.edu.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/16530/Matvieieva_Pryntsyp_pravovoi_vyznachenosti_yak_skladova_verkhovenstva_prava_dysertatsiia.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed 15 August 2021).
13. Ogneviuk G.Z. (2019) Legal certainty and inadmissibility of double jeopardy: issues of theory and practice. Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, vol. 26, no 4, pp. 108–118.
14. Pogrebnyak S.P. (2009) Osnovopolozhni pryncypy prava [Fundamental principles of law] (Abstract of Doctoral thesis), Kharkiv: Yaroslav Mudryi National Law Academy of Ukraine.
15. Pryimak A.M. (2010) Pryncyp pravovoji vyznachenosti: ponjattja ta okremi aspekty [The principle of legal certainty: concept and particular aspects]. NaUKMA Research Papers. Law, vol. 103, pp. 53–55.
16. United Nations (1949) Charter of the International Military Tribunal – Annex to the Agreement for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis (“London Agreement”), 8 August 1945. Retrieved from: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b39614.html.1. (accessed 03 July 2021).
17. World Justice Project (2021) World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2021. Retrieved from: https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP-INDEX-21.pdf (accessed 03 July 2021).
2. Bogacheva L. L. (2013) Pryncyp pravovoji vyznachenosti v jevropejsjkomu i nacionaljnomu pravi (zmistovna kharakterystyka) [The principle of legal certainty in European and National Law (meaningful response)]. Teoriia i praktyka pravoznavstva [Theory and practice of jurisprudence] (electronic journal), vol. 2, no 4, pp. 70–83. Retrieved from: http://dspace.nlu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/6063 (accessed 10 October 2021).
3. Commission of the European Communities (2004) Aalborg Portland A/S and Others v. Commission. Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 January 2004 in Joined Cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62000CJ0204&qid=1622712814831&from=EN (accessed 9 July 2021).
4. Constitutional Court of Ukraine (2005) Rishennja Konstytucijnogho Sudu Ukrajiny № 5-rp/2005 vid 22.09.2005 r [The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 5-rp/2005 dated September 22, 2005]. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v005p710-05#top (accessed 9 July 2021).
5. Constitutional Court of Ukraine (2010) Rishennja u spravi za konstytucijnym podannjam Upovnovazhenogho Verkhovnoji Rady Ukrajiny z prav ljudyny shhodo vidpovidnosti Konstytuciji Ukrajiny Zakonu Ukrajiny ‘Pro miliciju’ [The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 17-rp/2010 dated June 29, 2010 in the case upon the constitutional petition of the Authorised Human Rights Representative of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on conformity with the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of the Law of Ukraine “On Militia”]. Bulletin of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, no 5, pp. 11–17. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v017p710-10#Text (accessed 10 July 2021).
6. Council of Europe (2003) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11 with Protocol Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13. Retrieved from: https://polis.osce.org/convention-protection-human-rights-and-fundamental-freedoms-amended-protocolno11#:~:text=The%20convention%20affirms%20the%20obligation,family%20life%2C%20freedom%20of%20though (accessed 10 July 2021).
7. European Court of Human Rights (1995, October 23) Case of Gradinger v. Austria (application № 15963/90). Judgment. Strasbourg, 23 October 1995. Retrieved from: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57958 (accessed 10 July 2021).
8. European Court of Human Rights (2001, May 29) Case of Franz Fischer v. Austria (application no. 37950/97). Judgment. Strasbourg, 29 May 2001. Retrieved from: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre-press?i=001-59475 (accessed 10 July 2021).
9. European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) (4 April, 2011) Report on the Rule of Law Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 86th plenary meeting (Venice, 25-26 March 2011). Retrieved from: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2011)003rev-e (accessed 10 July 2021).
10. European Court Reports (2007) Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2007. Criminal proceedings against Norma Kraaijenbrink. Case C-367/05. ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2007:444. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0367 (accessed 15 August 2021).
11. International Criminal Court (2011) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Retrieved from: https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdf (accessed 09 September 2021).
12. Matvieieva Yu.I. (2019) Pryncyp pravovoji vyznachenosti jak skladova verkhovenstva prava [The principle of legal certainty as a component of the rule of law] (PhD thesis), Kyiv: National University of “Kyiv-Mohyla Academy”. Retrieved from: http://ekmair.ukma.edu.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/16530/Matvieieva_Pryntsyp_pravovoi_vyznachenosti_yak_skladova_verkhovenstva_prava_dysertatsiia.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed 15 August 2021).
13. Ogneviuk G.Z. (2019) Legal certainty and inadmissibility of double jeopardy: issues of theory and practice. Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, vol. 26, no 4, pp. 108–118.
14. Pogrebnyak S.P. (2009) Osnovopolozhni pryncypy prava [Fundamental principles of law] (Abstract of Doctoral thesis), Kharkiv: Yaroslav Mudryi National Law Academy of Ukraine.
15. Pryimak A.M. (2010) Pryncyp pravovoji vyznachenosti: ponjattja ta okremi aspekty [The principle of legal certainty: concept and particular aspects]. NaUKMA Research Papers. Law, vol. 103, pp. 53–55.
16. United Nations (1949) Charter of the International Military Tribunal – Annex to the Agreement for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis (“London Agreement”), 8 August 1945. Retrieved from: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b39614.html.1. (accessed 03 July 2021).
17. World Justice Project (2021) World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2021. Retrieved from: https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP-INDEX-21.pdf (accessed 03 July 2021).