Review of court decisions: a theoretical and legal study of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights

Abstract

The study is devoted to clarifying the main theoretical-legal and practical issues that arise when a person exercises the right to appeal a court decision.
 Issues such as the institution of appeals against court decisions, which are relevant for procedural law, are considered, such as the observance of reasonable proportionality between the right of a person to access the courts of higher instances and the observance of legal certainty in the state.
 As a result of the study, the legal nature of the institution of appeal against a court decision that has not entered into force, as well as one that has entered into force, is revealed. The latter is defined as an extraordinary form of judicial protection, its main features are analyzed.
 To ensure the reliability and completeness of the obtained results, a complex of general scientific and special methods was applied, the complex use of which ensured the achievement of the goals and objectives of the research, as well as the persuasiveness of the formulated conclusions. In particular, the dialectical method was used to study the legal nature of the right to appeal court decisions and private disputes. Methods of analysis and synthesis were used in the formulation of basic concepts, such as "appeal", "cassation review", "procedural filters", etc. The empirical basis of the research was made up of the materials of the judicial practice of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular, both modern legal positions of the international jurisdictional body and key cases were used.
 It was concluded that although access to the court of appeal is subject to indirect restrictions, access to the court of cassation is subject to so-called cassation filters. Such a definition is related both to the role of the cassation instance as a higher court and its definition as a "court of law", and to revised decisions that have entered into force and that shake the already defined legal position of the parties. Nevertheless, strict cassation filters cannot help against the influx of cassation appeals for those states whose citizens have a low level of trust in the courts of first instance.