The case of Varif et al.v. Czech Republic concerned whether Czech legislation that imposed a moratorium on school attendance and a fine as a punitive mechanism for non-vaccination violates the European Convention on H...The case of Varif et al.v. Czech Republic concerned whether Czech legislation that imposed a moratorium on school attendance and a fine as a punitive mechanism for non-vaccination violates the European Convention on Human Rights by forcing children to receive routine vaccinations. In the ruling, the European Court of Human Rights reiterated that the choice of public health measures falls within the discretion of member states. Meanwhile, to limit the infringement of individual interests to what is necessary and reasonable, the European Court of Human Rights clarified the criteria for human rights protection for compulsory routine vaccination: It should have a legal basis, a lawful aim, and be in line with the “needs of a democratic society.” Accordingly, the European Court of Human Rights held that the legal provisions involved in the case did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. As the first response of the European Court of Human Rights to compulsory vaccination, the case of Varif et al.v. Czech Republic strengthens the influence of the law of the European Union in the field of public health by upholding the discretion of member states. Besides, although the case involves only routine vaccination, the human rights protection criteria clarified in it can be taken as a reference for introducing vaccination measures against COVID-19 in the context of the global pandemic.展开更多
In any modern society under the role of law, the court, as the organ of trials, invariably has its authority recognized by the constitution and laws, an authority that the general public accepts as a matter of course....In any modern society under the role of law, the court, as the organ of trials, invariably has its authority recognized by the constitution and laws, an authority that the general public accepts as a matter of course. Sentences and rulings passed by the court represent recognition of the relevant legal matters in accordance with the law, and their execution is guaranteed by the compulsory power of the state. Nevertheless, judges are human beings and,展开更多
In regard to the people’s court’s infringement upon the litigation right of defendants,there are two relief means in our country:procuratorial supervision and appeal,neither of which can realize the goal of relief.T...In regard to the people’s court’s infringement upon the litigation right of defendants,there are two relief means in our country:procuratorial supervision and appeal,neither of which can realize the goal of relief.The conflict between interrogation and defense has to do with the lack of relief mechanism.To solve the problem concerning relief to the defendant whose litigation right is infringed upon the court,independent procedural appeal mechanism must be established,the relationship between it and factual appeal must be properly dealt with.The procedure for procedural appeal should be made in accordance with the characteristics of procedural appeal.展开更多
For the purpose of summarising the judicial experiencein adjudicating IP-related cases and familarising the readersin China and overseas with the practical situation of
In response to the 'cages in courts' issue in criminal trials,after reviewing a series of cases such as 'Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.Russia',the European Court of Human Rights has gradually clarified tha...In response to the 'cages in courts' issue in criminal trials,after reviewing a series of cases such as 'Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.Russia',the European Court of Human Rights has gradually clarified that the 'human dignity of the accused and his right to a fair trial are higher than the value of court security',thus found that putting the accused in a cage dock or improper use of a glass cabin dock are in breach of Article 3 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights,constitutes degrading treatment and violates the right to a fair trial.This position is in line with the international overall trend,which is of significance as a reference for China’s courts.Domestic courts should take the initiative to change the current use of the 'low fence dock' to further enhance China’s judicial civilization.展开更多
文摘The case of Varif et al.v. Czech Republic concerned whether Czech legislation that imposed a moratorium on school attendance and a fine as a punitive mechanism for non-vaccination violates the European Convention on Human Rights by forcing children to receive routine vaccinations. In the ruling, the European Court of Human Rights reiterated that the choice of public health measures falls within the discretion of member states. Meanwhile, to limit the infringement of individual interests to what is necessary and reasonable, the European Court of Human Rights clarified the criteria for human rights protection for compulsory routine vaccination: It should have a legal basis, a lawful aim, and be in line with the “needs of a democratic society.” Accordingly, the European Court of Human Rights held that the legal provisions involved in the case did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. As the first response of the European Court of Human Rights to compulsory vaccination, the case of Varif et al.v. Czech Republic strengthens the influence of the law of the European Union in the field of public health by upholding the discretion of member states. Besides, although the case involves only routine vaccination, the human rights protection criteria clarified in it can be taken as a reference for introducing vaccination measures against COVID-19 in the context of the global pandemic.
文摘In any modern society under the role of law, the court, as the organ of trials, invariably has its authority recognized by the constitution and laws, an authority that the general public accepts as a matter of course. Sentences and rulings passed by the court represent recognition of the relevant legal matters in accordance with the law, and their execution is guaranteed by the compulsory power of the state. Nevertheless, judges are human beings and,
文摘In regard to the people’s court’s infringement upon the litigation right of defendants,there are two relief means in our country:procuratorial supervision and appeal,neither of which can realize the goal of relief.The conflict between interrogation and defense has to do with the lack of relief mechanism.To solve the problem concerning relief to the defendant whose litigation right is infringed upon the court,independent procedural appeal mechanism must be established,the relationship between it and factual appeal must be properly dealt with.The procedure for procedural appeal should be made in accordance with the characteristics of procedural appeal.
文摘For the purpose of summarising the judicial experiencein adjudicating IP-related cases and familarising the readersin China and overseas with the practical situation of
文摘In response to the 'cages in courts' issue in criminal trials,after reviewing a series of cases such as 'Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.Russia',the European Court of Human Rights has gradually clarified that the 'human dignity of the accused and his right to a fair trial are higher than the value of court security',thus found that putting the accused in a cage dock or improper use of a glass cabin dock are in breach of Article 3 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights,constitutes degrading treatment and violates the right to a fair trial.This position is in line with the international overall trend,which is of significance as a reference for China’s courts.Domestic courts should take the initiative to change the current use of the 'low fence dock' to further enhance China’s judicial civilization.
