The experience of the European Court of Human Rights in substantiating relevant decisions in the aspect of the provisions on the release of convicts from punishment
The article examines the peculiarities of the application of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights to substantiate
the relevant decisions in terms of provisions on the release of convicts from punishment. The factors that create obstacles to the effectiveness
of the impact of ECtHR practice on the administration of national justice are indicated. It is determined that the observance of
the norms of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by the subjects of justice is a priori impossible
without taking into account the existing case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
It is indicated that at different stages of criminal liability there may be certain legal facts that determine the inexpediency of sentencing
the convict, actual or full execution of the sentence, inability to achieve the purpose of the sentence, the inability of the convict
to serve his sentence. National courts must take into account the experience of the ECtHR in justifying the relevant decisions in terms
of the provisions on the release of convicts from punishment. Despite a large body of research on exemption, a number of issues regar -
ding the application of the rules of this legal institution remain unresolved, many of which are insufficiently covered or controversial.
In particular, in our opinion, a promising area of research is the functionality of the institution of exemption from punishment in the
law of foreign countries.
It is analyzed that the practice (legal positions) of the Strasbourg Court, from which the understanding of convention norms
derives and is derived, is a dynamic aspect of law that adapts to specific historical conditions as a result of their dynamic interpretation
by ECtHR judges. The above allows us to conclude that the most correct approach is in which the source of law is the rules of the Convention
in their understanding of the ECtHR. That is, the Convention and the practice of the ECtHR in its entirety, unity. Their separate
consideration or selection often leads to an optional direct perception of ECtHR practice and a systematic violation of the Convention.
The establishment of the ECtHR in its decision of the fact of violation of the norms of the Convention is undoubtedly a direct consequence
of the unsatisfactory activity of the national judicial branch of power, which raises the question of the responsibility of their
officials. It is determined that there is a causal link between the results of judges ’actions in Ukraine (their decisions) and the consequences
of payments from the state budget in the framework of the execution of ECtHR decisions. Consequently, judges in Ukraine,
along with other officials, should be jointly and severally liable.