Legal remedy

Last updated

A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual. [1]

Contents

In common law jurisdictions and mixed civil-common law jurisdictions, the law of remedies distinguishes between a legal remedy (e.g. a specific amount of monetary damages) and an equitable remedy (e.g. injunctive relief or specific performance). Another type of remedy available in these systems is declaratory relief, where a court determines the rights of the parties to action without awarding damages or ordering equitable relief. The type of legal remedies to be applied in specific cases depend on the nature of the wrongful act and its liability. [1] In international human rights law, there is a right to an effective remedy.

In the legal system of the United States, there exists a traditional form of judicial remedies that serve to combat juror biases caused by news coverage. The First Amendment of the United States forbids the government from censoring and restraining the freedom of expression, which allows the ever-expanding news media to influence the legal process. The entangled relationship between mass media and the legal system presents challenges to the Sixth Amendment that guarantees the rights of criminal defendants to receive fair trials. Trial-level remedies are in place to avoid pretrial publicity from affecting the fairness of a trial. To minimize the impacts of pretrial publicity, there are six kinds of judicial remedies at the disposal of judges: voir dire, change of venue, change of veniremen, continuance, admonition, sequestration. [2]

In English and American jurisprudence, there is a legal maxim (albeit one sometimes honored in the breach) that for every right, there is a remedy; where there is no remedy, there is no right. That is, lawmakers claim to provide appropriate remedies to protect rights. This legal maxim was first enunciated by William Blackstone: "It is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right when with-held must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." [3] [4] In addition to the United Kingdom and the United States, legal remedy is a concept widely practiced in the legal system of a variety of countries, though approached differently. [5]

There are three crucial categories of judicial remedies in common law systems. The legal remedy originates from the law courts of England and is seen in the form of a payment of money to the victim, commonly referred to as damages or replevin. Damages aim at making up the harm that a breaching party has committed to the victim. In the history of the English legal system, the legal remedy only existed in the form of monetary relief, and therefore the victim must petition through a separate system if the victim wanted other forms of compensation. Although the courtrooms and proceedings have been integrated, the distinction between requests for money versus action is still present. [6] Non-monetary compensation refers to the second category of judicial remedies—equitable remedies. This type of remedy comes from the equitable jurisdiction developed in the English Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer. Declaratory remedies make up the third category of judicial remedies. Different from the other two categories, declaratory remedies usually involve a court's determination of how the law applies to particular facts without any command to the parties. [7] Courts give declaratory remedies about many different kinds of questions, including whether a person has a legal status, who the owner of a property is, whether a statute has a particular meaning, or what the rights are under a contract. [7] While these are three basic categories of remedies in common law, there are also a handful of others (such as reformation and rescission, both dealing with contracts whose terms need to be rewritten or undone).

Compensatory damages are paid directly to the claimant to compensate for loss and injury when the defendant is proven to be liable for breach of duty or committing wrongful acts. In cases where the claimant has suffered ascertainable costs, it is easy to determine the amount of compensatory damages. In other cases where the liability results from the defendant failing to perform a service, it is necessary to calculate compensatory damages by inquiring how much it would cost for a third party to provide the same service. However, the court takes into account when the non-breaching party makes savings or profits because he or she is involuntarily relieved from the responsibilities specified in a broken contract. If the non-breaching party makes gains from alternative arrangements, compensatory damages are equivalent to his or her loss subtracted by the gains made from the substitution. [6]

Consequential damages, also known as special damages, are intended to compensate for the indirect consequences incurred by the defendant and are sanctioned on a case-by-case basis due to their specificity. Lost profits make up a common type of consequential damages in contract laws. When the party breaching a contract causes the plaintiff to lose profits, the money is recoverable if the plaintiff can prove its ascertainment and trace it to the wrongful conduct of the breaching party, which can be extremely difficult. [8] Moreover, legal expenses including the ones generated by bringing a lawsuit against the breaching party to attain legal remedies do not count toward consequential damages and be charged from the defendant, unless stated in the contract otherwise. [6]

Punitive damages are different from other types of damages because their main purpose is to punish the defendant and deter him or her and many others from engaging in similar kinds of unlawful conduct in the future. [8] The maliciousness and willingness of the defendant to carry out certain wrongful acts are typically what compel the court to impose punitive damages. Since the intention of punitive damages is typically not to compensate the plaintiff, it is often that only a part of it would be awarded to the plaintiff at the discretion of judges and that they serve only as complements to compensatory damages. [6]

Incidental damages, closely associated with compensatory damages, are costs used to prevent further losses that result from the breach of contract on behalf of the nonbreaching party. For example, a company breaches a hiring contract that it signed with a prospective employee. The expenditures that the employee spent searching for another job are an element of incidental damages. [6]

The plaintiff is entitled to receive nominal damages in cases in which there is no actual harm or the plaintiff is unable to prove harm. [6] Although the amount of nominal damages is typically small, the plaintiff can use the award of nominal damages as a justification to plead for punitive awards or appeal a violation of his or her rights that form the basis of the lawsuit, common in cases involving constitutional rights. [8]

Liquidated damages refer to a predetermined amount of money that must be paid by the breaching party, and they are fixed numbers agreed upon by both parties during the formation of a contract. Courts enforcing a liquidated damages provision would consider the reasonableness of its amount, specifically if it approximates the amount of actual damages caused, and the ascertain. Failing to meet this condition would turn liquidated damages into an unenforceable penalty that inequitably benefits the party receiving liquidated awards. [8]

In certain cases, a statute dictates the amount of damages, rather than the calculation of the harm or loss endured by the plaintiff. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act would charge up to $1,000 for every violation of its provision, which is an example of statutory damages. Treble damages is a type of statutory damages in which the amount of compensatory damages awarded to a plaintiff can be tripled given the warranty of a statute. [8]

Equitable remedies

There are three characteristics of equitable remedies that differ from damages. First, the jury is not used in cases involving equitable remedies. Second, in sanctioning equitable remedies, the court does not make decisions based on precedents but tends to rely on the justice that needs to be served. Third, equitable remedies are not monetary. Rather, they include actions, properties, etc., that the court orders the defendant to perform in order to bring both parties in a lawsuit back to the position in which they were prior to their contract. [6]

Injunction is a court order that coerces the defendant to take specific acts or refrains him or her from engaging in certain actions, i.e., breaching a contract. [9] In the U.S., injunction is the most common type of equitable remedies, and failure to comply with an injunction can lead to results ranging from fines to imprisonment.

Accounting for profits is an inquiry into the amount of gains that the defendant benefited from his or her wrongs. Accounting is more commonly practiced in cases against a fiduciary or breach of contract in which the ascertainment of the defendant's profits is important. [9]

Constructive trust is enforced in situations where the possession of a property by the defendant unjustly enriches him or her, and therefore the court decides to grant the ownership of the property to the plaintiff. [9]

Equitable lien is applicable when the defendant used unjust funds obtained from the plaintiff to make improvements to his or her property. By granting the plaintiff a security interest in the property of the defendant, it guards the right of the plaintiff to have the funds returned from the defendant. [9]

In a subrogation case, the property that belongs to the plaintiff from a legal standpoint is used by the defendant to repay the debt to a third party. Subrogation entitles the plaintiff to the rights as the third party against the defendant. [9]

Specific performance refers to the court compelling the defendant to perform certain actions. [9] This type of equitable remedy is limited in scope because in contract laws for example, issuing specific performance would require the property that gives rise to the lawsuit to be unique, or that it is more practical for the defendant to compensate the plaintiff by paying for compensatory damages. [6]

Reformation, or referred to as rectification, is when the court practices remedies by correcting the writings of a contract. Under two circumstances, reformation applies either when (1) the writing does not reflect the agreement made between the parties, or (2) one party signed the contract in the first place because of manipulation by fraud planned and executed by the other party. [9]

Equitable rescission gives the innocent plaintiff the right to undo or rescind a contract when the plaintiff entered the contract as a result of fraud, misrepresentation, etc., or when the contract has been breached by the other party. To restore the situation to what it was before the contract, both parties need to return what they have received from the exchange. [9]

Declaratory remedies

Declaratory remedies, or declaratory judgment, do not belong to the category of damages or equities. They are legal determinations made by the court to address ambiguity or disputes without sanctioning an action or practice against the parties involved. Declaratory remedies serve to affirm the validity of the claims and requests made by the plaintiff, accompanied by injunction in selective cases at the discretion of judges or juries. [10] Declaratory remedies are a component of preventive adjudication because in cases that demand only declaration, no actual harm or loss has been incurred by the plaintiff. [7]

Trial-level remedies for pretrial publicity

Pretrial publicity can lessen the effectiveness of jurors in ways such as presenting incriminating information or arousing blind emotions, which significantly influence the outcome of trials and damage their fairness. [11] As technologies develop, the prevalence of mass media makes legal information more accessible and thus poses a larger threat to the process of adjudication. Trial-level remedies are designed for judges to mitigate the impact of pretrial publicity without infringing the freedom of expression for the press. [2]

Voir dire

Voir dire, which means "tell the truth" in French, refers (only in the US) to a process in which attorneys and judges conduct interviews with potential jurors to discover their bias and rule out the ones who cannot be impartial. The selection procedure usually starts with a written questionnaire before questioning. In the process of questioning, both parties have the right to excuse potential jurors through challenges for cause. An attorney must convince the court with legitimate reasons to eliminate a potential juror. Another method to screen out a member from a pool of jurors is to use peremptory challenges, which cannot be rejected by the judge. However, attorneys can only use peremptory challenges for a limited number of times. [2]

Change of venue

Change of venue is to relocate the trial to another area in the same state that has presumably received less exposure of information regarding the case. [2]

Change of veniremen

Instead of moving the location of the trial, the court can also import jurors from a distant community, where less coverage has been given to the case. [2]

Venir is a French word meaning "to come."

Continuance

Continuance is to postpone the trial on the grounds that the prejudice of jurors would reduce as they forget much information about the case from media. The delay also results in the defendant spending additional time in jail or that it may attract more media attention and drive up the publicity of the case. [2]

Admonition

Admonition utilizes the effectiveness of the instructions of the judge to the jurors and the jurors' obedience. By giving a panel of jurors instructions such as make verdicts solely based on the evidence presented in the court, the judge seeks to diminish the influence of mass media. [2]

Sequestration

For high-profile cases, the jurors are isolated until the case is closed. They would be housed in together while their access of all forms of media and technologies is either screen or restrained. [2]

Case-by-case versus announced

Remedies can be, and in American law usually are, determined case by case, and take into account many different facts including the amount of harm caused to the victim. Remedies can also be determined in advance for an entire class of cases. For example, there can be a fixed fine for all violations of a legal rule, regardless of how much harm was caused in a particular case. [12]

Monetary compensatory damages, along with injunction, are most commonly used in the United States. Similar to the U.S., the courts in the United Kingdom tend to award monetary compensatory damages in tort cases. However, punitive damages are not applicable in the legal systems of the U.K. and Japan or the contractual cases in Australia and occupy a limited but expanding scope in the People's Republic of China. In European states, the type of remedies, including the character and amount of damages, are determined on a case-by-case basis through factors such as the location where the illegal conduct caused damages. The enforcement of legal remedies can be difficult in international litigations as the law in one jurisdiction does not apply to another. [5]

Right to an effective remedy

This section is an excerpt from Right to an effective remedy.[ edit ]

The right to an effective remedy is the right of a person whose human rights have been violated to legal remedy. Such a remedy must be accessible, binding, capable of bringing perpetrators to justice, provide appropriate reparations, and prevent further violations of the person's rights. [13] [14] [15] [16] The right to an effective remedy guarantees the individual the ability to seek remedy from the state directly rather than through an international process. It is a practical means of protecting human rights on the state level and requires the state to not just only protect human rights de jure but also in practice for individual cases. [15] [17] [18] [19] The right to an effective remedy is commonly recognized as a human right in international human rights instruments. [13] [14] [20] [21]

The right to an effective remedy is expressed in Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 47 of the European Union Charter on Fundamental Rights. [20] [13] [14] [21]

See also

Examples

Damages or legal remedies, which may include:

Equitable remedies, which may include:

Declaratory remedies

Categories

Related Research Articles

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Injunction</span> Legal order to stop doing something

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. "When a court employs the extraordinary remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers." A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court.

Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equity (law)</span> Set of legal principles supplementing but distinct from the Common Law

In the field of jurisprudence, equity is the particular body of law, developed in the English Court of Chancery, with the general purpose of providing legal remedies for cases wherein the common law is inflexible and cannot fairly resolve the disputed legal matter. Conceptually, equity was part of the historical origins of the system of common law of England, yet is a field of law separate from common law, because equity has its own unique rules and principles, and was administered by courts of equity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Specific performance</span> Equitable remedy in contract law

Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, whereby a court issues an order requiring a party to perform a specific act, such as to complete performance of the contract. It is typically available in the sale of land law, but otherwise is not generally available if damages are an appropriate alternative. Specific performance is almost never available for contracts of personal service, although performance may also be ensured through the threat of proceedings for contempt of court.

Restitution and unjust enrichment is the field of law relating to gains-based recovery. In contrast with damages, restitution is a claim or remedy requiring a defendant to give up benefits wrongfully obtained. Liability for restitution is primarily governed by the "principle of unjust enrichment": A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution.

A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute. The declaratory judgment is generally considered a statutory remedy and not an equitable remedy in the United States, and is thus not subject to equitable requirements, though there are analogies that can be found in the remedies granted by courts of equity. A declaratory judgment does not by itself order any action by a party, or imply damages or an injunction, although it may be accompanied by one or more other remedies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1991</span>

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is a United States labor law, passed in response to United States Supreme Court decisions that limited the rights of employees who had sued their employers for discrimination. The Act represented the first effort since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to modify some of the basic procedural and substantive rights provided by federal law in employment discrimination cases. It provided the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introduced the possibility of emotional distress damages and limited the amount that a jury could award. It added provisions to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protections expanding the rights of women to sue and collect compensatory and punitive damages for sexual discrimination or harassment.

A prayer for relief, in the law of civil procedure, is a portion of a complaint in which the plaintiff describes the remedies that the plaintiff seeks from the court. For example, the plaintiff may ask for an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, an injunction to make the defendant stop a certain activity, or all of these. The request for a specific amount of money may be referred to as an ad damnum clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constructive trust</span> Type of legal remedy

In trust law, a constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed by a court to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding a legal property right which they should not possess due to unjust enrichment or interference, or due to a breach of fiduciary duty, which is intercausative with unjust enrichment and/or property interference. It is a type of implied trust.

Damages for breach of contract is a common law remedy, available as of right. It is designed to compensate the victim for their actual loss as a result of the wrongdoer’s breach rather than to punish the wrongdoer. If no loss has been occasioned by the plaintiff, only nominal damages will be awarded.

Equitable remedies are judicial remedies developed by courts of equity from about the time of Henry VIII to provide more flexible responses to changing social conditions than was possible in precedent-based common law.

An adequate remedy or adequate remedy at law is part of a legal remedy which the court deems satisfactory, without recourse to an equitable remedy This consideration expresses to the court whether money should be awarded or a court order should be decreed.. Adequate remedy at law refers to the sufficient compensation for the loss or damages caused by the defendant with a proper monetary award. The court must grant the adequacy of remedy that will lead to a "meaningful hearing". Whether legal damages or equitable relief are requested depends largely on,whether or not the remedy can be valued. Both two elements, compensation and the meaningfulness of hearing, provide a proper way to have an adequate remedy. The word "meaningfulness" of hearing in the law process is the assumption that the defendant compensated must be meaningful for the injured party where the defendant made a fully covered compensation for all the losses. Hence, the hearing in which cannot give any right amount of compensation award or settlement is not "meaningful", and the unavailability of the compensation will lead to an inadequate remedy. The adequate remedy at law is the legal remedies by meaning it is satisfactory compensation by way of monetary damages without granting equitable remedies.

Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558 (1990), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that an action by an employee for a breach of a labor union's duty of fair representation entitled him to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.

Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court limited the scope of the Texas Healthcare Liability Act (THCLA). The effective result of this decision was that the THCLA, which held Case Management and Utilization Review decisions by Managed Care entities like CIGNA and Aetna to a legal duty of care according to the laws of The State of Texas could not be enforced in the case of Health Benefit plans provided through private employers, because the Texas statute allowed compensatory or punitive damages to redress losses or deter future transgressions, which were not available under ERISA § 1132. The ruling still allows the State of Texas to enforce the THCLA in the case of Government-sponsored (Medicare, Medicaid, Federal, State, Municipal Employee, etc., Church-sponsored, or Individual Health Plan Policies, which are saved from preemption by ERISA. The history that allows these Private and Self-Pay Insurance to be saved dates to the "Interstate Commerce" power that was given the federal Government by the Supreme Court. ERISA, enacted in 1974, relied on the "Interstate Commerce" rule to allow federal jurisdiction over private employers, based on the need of private employers to follow a single set of paperwork and rules for pensions and other employee benefit plans where employers had employees in multiple states. Except for private employer plans, insurance can be regulated by the individual states, and Managed Care entities making medical decisions can be held accountable for those decisions if negligence is involved, as allowed by the Texas Healthcare Liability Act.

<i>Attorney General v Blake</i> English contract law case on damages for breach of contract

Attorney General v Blake[2000] UKHL 45, [2001] 1 AC 268 is a leading English contract law case on damages for breach of contract. It established that in some circumstances, where ordinary remedies are inadequate, restitutionary damages may be awarded.

<i>Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd</i>

Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798 is an English land law and English contract law case, concerning the measure and availability of damages for breach of negative covenant in circumstances where the court has confirmed a covenant is legally enforceable and refused as it may find, as unconscionable, to issue an order for specific performance or an injunction.

<i>Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the availability of punitive damages in contract. The case related to the oppressive conduct of an insurance company in dealing with the policyholders' claim following a fire. According to the majority, "[t]his was an exceptional case that justified an exceptional remedy."

References

  1. 1 2 "Judicial remedy – National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights". globalnaps.org. 2017-11-03. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R. Pember & Calvert, Jon & Clay (2014). Mass Media Law. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education. ISBN   978-0077861421.
  3. ↑ 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 23
  4. ↑ See also Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 162–163 (1803).
  5. 1 2 Skinner, Gwynne; McCorquodale, Robert; De Schutter, Olivier (December 2013). "The Third Pillar: Access to Judicial Remedies for Human Rights Violations by Transnational Business" (PDF). The International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR).
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Remedies". saylordotorg.github.io. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  7. 1 2 3 Bray, Samuel L. (2010). "Preventive Adjudication". University of Chicago Law Review. 77: 1275, 1281. SSRN   1483859.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 "Damages 101 | News & Insights". Arnall Golden Gregory LLP. Retrieved 2020-02-12.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 L. Bray, Samuel (2016). "The System of Equitable Remedies" (PDF). UCLA Law Review. 530: 553–557.
  10. ↑ Ritchie de Larena, Lorelei (Summer 2008). "Re-evaluating Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property Disputes". Indiana Law Journal. 83 (3): 958–995.
  11. ↑ Kramer, Geoffrey P.; Kerr, Norbert L.; Carroll, John S. (1990-10-01). "Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias". Law and Human Behavior. 14 (5): 409–438. doi:10.1007/BF01044220. ISSN   1573-661X. S2CID   143651824.
  12. ↑ Bray, Samuel L. (2012). "Announcing Remedies". Cornell Law Review. 97. SSRN   1967184.
  13. 1 2 3 "Right to an effective remedy". ag.gov.au. Australian Government: Attorney-General's department. Retrieved 8 June 2018.
  14. 1 2 3 "What is the right to an effective remedy? | Icelandic Human Rights Centre". Icelandic Human Rights Centre. Retrieved 2018-06-08.
  15. 1 2 Kuijer, Martin (29 April 2014). "EFFECTIVE REMEDIES AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" (PDF). Escuela Judicial Española & European Judicial Training Network.
  16. ↑ The Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Gross Human Rights Violations A Practitioners' Guide Revised Edition, 2018 (PDF). 2018. ISBN   978-92-9037-257-8.{{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  17. ↑ Musila, Godfrey (2006-12-20). "The Right to an Effective Remedy Under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights". African Human Rights Law Journal. Rochester, NY. SSRN   2425592.
  18. ↑ "The right to effective remedy" (PDF). universal-rights.org. February 2015. Retrieved 8 June 2018.
  19. ↑ Gutman, Kathleen (2019-09-04). "The Essence of the Fundamental Right to an Effective Remedy and to a Fair Trial in the Case-Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: The Best Is Yet to Come?". German Law Journal. 20 (6): 884–903. doi: 10.1017/glj.2019.67 . ISSN   2071-8322.
  20. 1 2 Paust, Jordan J. (2009). "Civil Liability of Bush, Cheney, et al., for Torture, Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment and Forced Disappearance". Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law. 42 (1): 359. ISSN   0008-7254.
  21. 1 2 "Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial". fra.europa.eu. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 25 April 2015. Retrieved 8 June 2018.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.