The purpose of this degree project was to examine which remedies are available to individuals when the State has violated their right to a fair trial as stated in article 6 in the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, the aim was to, in cases where the remedy is determined to money, to clarify the indemnity rates that apply in determining the non-pecuniary damages. The starting point was a review of the European Court practice, domestic Swedish practice and relevant literature. The outcome of the review is that the remedies available to the individual’s disposal can be divided into two categories: primary and secondary remedies. Primary remedies mean compensation not consisting of money, and must be exhausted first. If the primary remedies are inadequate to compensate for the breach of the European Convention, a secondary remedy may be realised, i.e. pecuniary compensation. The primary remedies may include any legal measure, as long as it complies with the national traditions of the country and do not contradict the principle of legality. As for the non-pecuniary damage levels, it was found that the so-called Tariffs stated in the Zullo-case are not binding, but offer some guidance to be found from its flat rate. Each Convention State may decide upon the amount that it considers to be appropriate compensation for the Convention violations, as long as the levels are not significantly lower than what the European Court would decide.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:uu-194440 |
| Date | January 2013 |
| Creators | Raag, Hannes |
| Publisher | Uppsala universitet, Juridiska institutionen |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds