موازین سنجش استقلال قضاتِ محاکم ملی (مطالعۀ تطبیقی در رویۀ قضایی دادگاه میان‌امریکایی حقوق بشر و دیوان دادگستری اروپا)

مقالات آماده انتشار

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانش‌آموخته حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، واحد چالوس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، چالوس، ایران

2 دانشیار، گروه حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

3 استادیار، گروه حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکدۀ حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

4 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق جزا و جرم شناسی، گروه حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه علوم قضایی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

اصل استقلال قضات، به‌عنوان یکی از اصول بنیادین دادرسی منصفانه و عنصر محوری در حمایت از حقوق بشر، نه‌تنها از منظر حقوقی اهمیت حیاتی دارد، بلکه در عمل نیز ضامن دموکراسی، عدالت اجتماعی و حکمرانی خوب و مؤثر خواهد بود. در سطح بین‌المللی و منطقه‌ای، نهادهای حقوق بشری مختلف، به‌ویژه دادگاه میان‌امریکایی حقوق بشر و دیوان دادگستری اروپا، با تدوین موازین و معیارهایی از طریق رویه‌های قضایی خود، در ارتقای استقلال قضات، تضمین حفاظت از آن در محاکم ملی کشور‌های عضو و شکل‌دهی به هنجارها و چارچوب‌های حقوقی بین‌المللی مرتبط با دادرسی منصفانه نقش برجسته‌ و تعیین‌کننده‌ای ایفا کرده‌اند. این مقاله با هدف بررسی و تحلیل موازین سنجش استقلال قضاتِ محاکم ملی و ارزیابی تأثیر دو دادگاهِ موردمطالعه در ارتقای این اصل در سطح بین‌المللی، بر مبنای روش توصیفی- تحلیلی و با بهره‌گیری از منابع کتابخانه‌ای و اسنادی تدوین شده است. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که هر دو دادگاه در رویۀ قضایی خود، بر نقش بنیادین استقلال قضات در تحقق عدالت قضایی تأکید دارند و معیارها و الزامات مشخصی برای سنجش آن تعیین کرده‌اند؛ ازجمله فرایند انتخاب و انتصاب قضات، اصل امنیت شغلی، تضمین‌ها در برابر فشارهای بیرونی و سازوکارهای انضباطی و برکناری قضات.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Standards for Assessing the Independence of Judges of National Courts (A Comparative Study of the Jurisprudence of the IACtHR and the ECJ)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Morteza Rasteh 1
  • Gholam hassan Kooshki 2
  • Seyed Alireza Mirkamali 3
  • Saeed Ghaedi 4
1 MA. in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Chalus Branch, Islamic Azad University, Chalus, Iran
2 Associate Prof., Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Allameh Tabatabai, Tehran, Iran
3 Assistant Prof., Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran
4 PhD Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Judicial Sciences, Tehran. Iran
چکیده [English]

The principle of the Independence of Judges, as one of the fundamental pillars of a fair trial and a central element in the protection of human rights, possesses not only vital legal significance but also practical importance as a safeguard of democracy, social justice, and good and effective governance. At the international and regional levels, various human rights institutions—particularly the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice—have played a prominent and decisive role in promoting the Independence of Judges, guaranteeing its protection within national judicial systems, and shaping international norms and frameworks related to fair trial guarantees through their judicial practice. This article seeks to examine and analyze the standards for assessing the Independence of Judges in national courts and to evaluate the impact of these two courts in reinforcing this principle internationally. Employing a descriptive-analytical method and drawing upon library and documentary sources, the study finds that both courts emphasize the fundamental role of the Independence of Judges in achieving judicial justice and have established concrete criteria for its assessment, including procedures for judicial selection and appointment, security of tenure, safeguards against external or political pressure, and mechanisms governing the discipline and removal of judges.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Independence of Judges
  • Fair Trial
  • Rule of Law
  • Inter-American Court of Human Rights
  • European Court of Justice

مراجع

  1. Akbari, Azim & Zamani, Seyed Ghasem (2022). Judicial Impartiality, Criteria of Determining and Instances in International Documents and European Court of Human Right Procedure. Legal Research Quarterly, 24 (96), 139-161. https://doi.org/10.29252/jlr.2021.110968.1055 (In Presian).
  2. Akefi Ghaziani, Mohammad & Fazaeli, Mostafa (2019). The Inter-American Human Rights System; The Strengths and The Weaknesses. Journal of Law, University of Isfahan, 6 (9), 170-190. https://doi.org/10.22108/law.2019.119928.1037 (In Presian).
  3. Divisional Court, King’s Bench Division (1923). Case of R v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 KB 256, Judgment of 9 November 1923.
  4. ECJ (2023). Case of Commission v. Poland [Rule of Law IV] (App. C-204/21).
  5. ECJ (2022). Case of F. v. J. M (App. C-508/19).
  6. ECJ (2021a). Case of B. et al. v. Krajowa Rada Sadownictwa (App. C-824/18).
  7. ECJ (2021b). Case of Commission v. Poland [Disciplinary Regime of Judges] (App. C-719/19).
  8. ECJ (2021c). Case of Commission v. Poland [Rule of Law III] (App. C-791/19).
  9. ECJ (2021d). Case of Criminal Proceedings v. W. B. et al. (App. C-748/19 to C-754/19).
  10. ECJ (2021e). Case of B. et al. v. Prokuratura (App. C‑748/19 to C‑754/19).
  11. ECJ (2020a). Case of Erik Simpson and HG v. Council and Commission (App. C-542/18 RX-II & C-543/18 RX-II).
  12. ECJ (2020b). Case of Q. v. Land Hessen (App. C-272/19).
  13. ECJ (2019a). Cases ofK. et al. v. Krajowa Rada Sadownictwa (App. C-585/18, C-624/18, & C-625/18).
  14. ECJ (2019b). Case of Commission v. Poland [Rule of Law I] (App. C-619/18).
  15. ECJ (2018a). Case of Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v. Tribunal de Contas [Portuguese Judges] (App. C-64/16).
  16. ECJ (2018b). Case of Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM (App. C-216/18).
  17. ECJ (2012). Case of Commission v. Hungary (App. C-286/12).
  18. ECJ (2000a). Case of Abrahamsson and Anderson v. Fogelqvist (App. C-407/98).
  19. ECJ (2000b). Case of Gabalfrisa v. Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria (App. C-110/98 to C-147/98).
  20. ECJ (1997). Case of Dorsch Consult v. Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH (App. C-54/94).
  21. ECJ (1994). Case of Almelo et al. v. NV Energiebedrijf Ijsselmij (App. C-393/92).
  22. Fallah-Nezhad, Fateme (2022). Judicial Independence and Impartiality is a Manifestation of Fair Trial in Order to Protect the Rights of Citizens; the Legal System of the Islamic Republic of Iran Compared to the People's Republic of China. Comparative Law Review, 13 (26), 737-775. https://doi.org/10.22059/jcl.2022.344424.634378 (In Presian).
  23. Farokhi, Rahmatollah; Ramazani Ghavam Abadi, Mohammad Hossein; Zamani, Seyd Ghasem (2016). The Role of European Court of Justice in the Development of EU Legal Integration. Public Law Research, 17 (49), 57-83. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjpl.2016.2370 (In Presian).
  24. Harris, D.; O’Boyle, M.; Bates, E. & Buckley, C. M. (2023). Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. 5th Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  25. Harris, D., & Livingstone, S. (1998). The Inter-American System of Human Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  26. Herz, M. (2011). The Organization of American States. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
  27. Hurley, D. (2022). System of Judicial Appointment across Europe. in: Library & Research Service, Dublin: Houses of the Oireachtas.
  28. Heydar-Nezhad, Valiyolah & Ghamami, Mahdi (2019). A comparative study of the conditions and procedures for the selection and appointment of judges in the legal systems of the United States and France. Comparative Law Review, 10 (1), 111-140. https://doi.org/10.22059/jcl.2018.258134.633673 (In Presian).
  29. IACmHR (2013). “Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas” (OAS/ Ser.L/ V/ II. Doc. 445).
  30. IACtHR (2023). Case of Gutiérrez Navas et al. v. Honduras (Ser. C No.500).
  31. IACtHR (2016). Case of Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador (Ser. C No.327).
  32. IACtHR (2015). Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras (Ser. C No.302).
  33. IACtHR (2013a). Case of the Constitutional Tribunal [Camba Campos et al.] Ecuador (Ser. C No.268).
  34. IACtHR (2013b). Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina (Ser. C No.271).
  35. IACtHR (2013c). Case of the Supreme Court of Justice [Quintana Coello et al.] Ecuador (Ser. C No.266).
  36. IACtHR (2012). Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile (Ser. C No.239).
  37. IACtHR (2011). Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela (Ser. C No.227).
  38. IACtHR (2009). Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela (Ser. C No.197).
  39. IACtHR (2008). Case of Apitz Barbera et al. [First Court of Administrative Disputes] v. Venezuela (Ser. C No.182).
  40. IACtHR (2001). Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru (Ser. C No.71).
  41. Jalali, Ali Reza & Abouata, Mohammad (2020). The Approach of the Constitutional Courts of the EU Member States to the Preliminary Ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Public Law Research, 21 (64), 257-278. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjpl.2020.31030.1804 (In Presian).
  42. Kadkhodaei, Abbasali (2001). A View on the Structure of the European Court of Justice and Its Role in the Process of EU Integration. Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, 80 (839), 87–106 (In Presian).
  43. Khaleghi, A. (2024). Criminal Procedure, Vol. 1. 50th Edition, Tehran: Shahr-e Danesh (In Presian).
  44. Konstadinides, T. (2017). The Rule of Law in the European Union: The Internal Dimension. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
  45. López, C. (2020). Criminal Law in the EU and the Right to a Fair Trial. Madrid: Aula Magna Proyecto clave McGraw Hill.
  46. Micklitz, H. & De Witte, B. (2012). The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States. Cambridge: Intersentia.
  47. Micus, A. (2015). The Inter-American Human Rights System as a Safeguard for Justice in National Transitions. Boston: Brill Hijhoff.
  48. Mozafari, Hossein; Rahimi, Roohollah; Sheikh Movahed, Mahdi; Moghadamfar, Mohammad (2022). The role of the judiciary in maintaining the position and security of judges with emphasis on Article 164 of the Constitution. International Legal Research, 15 (55), 647-664. https://doi.org/10.30495/alr.2022.1951208.2311 (In Presian).
  49. Najizowareh, Morteza (2015). Impartial Adjudication in Criminal Matters. 2nd Edition, Tehran: Shahr-e Danesh (In Presian).
  50. Omejec, J. (2019). Strengthening Confidence in the Judiciary: Appointment, promotion and dismissal of judges and ethical standards. Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights.
  51. Parvin, Kh. (2024). Human Rights: From Theory to Practice. 3rd Edition, Tehran: Mizan (In Presian).
  52. Pasqualucci, J. (2014). The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  53. Shamloo, Baqer & Mohammadi, Shahram (2011). Violation of the judge's impartiality and lack of independence; a manifestation of an action that hinders a fair trial. Legal Research Quarterly, 14 (3), 93-136 (In Presian).
  54. Van Dijk, P.; Van Hoof, F.; Van Rijn, A. & Zwaak, L. (2018). Heory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights. 5th Edition, Cambridge: Intersentia.
  55. Vining, Richard; Bullock, Charles; Boldt, Ethan (2023). The Politics of Interim Judicial Appointments.  Journal of Law and Courts, 11 (2), 350-369. https://doi.org/10.1017/jlc.2022.15
  56. Voermans, W., & Albers, P. (2003). Councils for the Judiciary in EU Countries. Brussels: ENCJ.
  57. Zuniga, N. (2024). The Inter American Court of Human Rights The Legitimacy of International Courts and Tribunals. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی

مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده
انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 01 تیر 1405

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار