scholarly journals The Guarantees for Accused Persons Under the Article of the European Convention on Human Rights: An Analysis of the Application of the Convention and a Comparison with other Instruments

1996 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 610
Author(s):  
Andrew S Butler

This article is a book review of Stephanos Stavros The Guarantees for Accused Persons under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: An Analysis of the Application of the Convention and a Comparison with Other Instruments (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1993) 388 pp (including 3 appendices), price (hbk) £87.00. This book is a detailed analysis of the case law of the organs of the European Convention on Human Rights on the interpretation and application of Article 6 of the Convention. That article guarantees fair trial rights in the determination of criminal charges and in the determination of civil rights and obligations. The scope of Dr Stavros' study is the rights of an accused under Article 6. Butler praises Dr Stavros for being thorough in his treatment of both case law and international law, providing a closely argued critique alongside the law presented, and for his general enthusiasm for the subject matter (reflected in the book's readability). Despite its limitations, Butler commends this book's high standard of scholarship overall.

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 815-833
Author(s):  
Vesna Stefanovska ◽  
Blerton Sinani

In many occasions, the European Court of Human Rights has reiterated that the ECHR is a ‘living instrument’. The rights enshrined in the Convention have to be interpreted in the light of present day conditions so as to be practical and effective. Therefore, the Court has on several occasions modified its views on certain subjects because of scientific developments. Although in the scope of Article 6(1) of European Convention on Human Rights are civil rights and obligations and criminal charges, the application to administrative disputes has arised from the Court’s case-law. This paper will try to analyze the framework of administrative disputes in the Republic of Macedonia, mainly the Law on Administrative Disputes and its consolidation with the international standards, specifically with the ECHR. Further, subject of elaboration will be the Macedonian dossier in Strasbourg and the judgments in which the ECtHR found violation of Article 6 of ECHR in relation to administrative disputes and procedures.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léon E Dijkman

Abstract Germany is one of few jurisdictions with a bifurcated patent system, under which infringement and validity of a patent are established in separate proceedings. Because validity proceedings normally take longer to conclude, it can occur that remedies for infringement are imposed before a decision on the patent’s validity is available. This phenomenon is colloquially known as the ‘injunction gap’ and has been the subject of increasing criticism over the past years. In this article, I examine the injunction gap from the perspective of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I find that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting this provision supports criticism of the injunction gap, because imposing infringement remedies with potentially far-reaching consequences before the validity of a patent has been established by a court of law arguably violates defendants’ right to be heard. Such reliance on the patent office’s grant decision is no longer warranted in the light of contemporary invalidation rates. I conclude that the proliferation of the injunction gap should be curbed by an approach to a stay of proceedings which is in line with the test for stays as formulated by Germany’s Federal Supreme Court. Under this test, courts should stay infringement proceedings until the Federal Patent Court or the EPO’s Board of Appeal have ruled on the validity of a patent whenever it is more likely than not that it will be invalidated.


2007 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luzius Wildhaber

AbstractThis article is an expanded and footnoted version of the lectur given at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on Tuesday 21 March 2006, entitled ‘International Law in the European Court of Human Rights’.The article begins with some comparative comments on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights in monistic and dualistic systems It then discusses in detail the European Court's case law which confirms that the Convention, despite its special character as a human rights treaty, is indeed part of public international law. It concludes that the Convention and international law find themselves in a kind of interactive mutual relationship. checking and buildine on each other.


2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 863-885 ◽  
Author(s):  
ADAMANTIA RACHOVITSA

AbstractThis article discusses the contribution of the European Court of Human Rights to mitigating difficulties arising from the fragmentation of international law. It argues that the Court's case law provides insights and good practices to be followed. First, the article furnishes evidence that the Court has developed an autonomous and distinct interpretative principle to construe the European Convention on Human Rights by taking other norms of international law into account. Second, it offers a blueprint of the methodology that the Court employs when engaging with external norms in the interpretation process. It analyses the Court's approach to subtle contextual differences between similar or identical international norms and its position towards the requirements of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). It concludes that international courts are developing innovative interpretative practices, which may not be strictly based on the letter of the VCLT.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 168-173
Author(s):  
Tamara Gerasimenko

The subject. The article is devoted to the subject of the exhaustion of domestic remediesbefore filing a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.The purpose. The purpose of this article is to show and reveal the characteristics of suchimportant condition of lodging a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights asthe exhaustion of domestic remedies.The methodology. The following scientific methods have been used to write this article:analysis, comparing and making conclusions.Results, scope of application. The right of individual petition is rightly considered to be thehallmark and the greatest achievement of the European Convention on Human Rights. Individualswho consider that their human rights have been violated have the possibility oflodging a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. However, there are importantadmissibility requirements set out in the Convention that must be satisfied beforea case be examined. Applicants are expected to have exhausted their domestic remediesand have brought their complaints within a period of six months from the date of the finaldomestic decision. The obligation to exhaust domestic remedies forms part of customaryinternational law, recognized as such in the case – law of the International Court of Justice.The rationale for the exhaustion rule is to give the national authorities, primarily the courts,the opportunity to prevent or put right the alleged violation of the Convention. The domesticlegal order should provide an effective remedy for violations of Convention rights.Conclusions. The rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is an important part of the functioningof the protection system under the Convention and its basic principle. 


Author(s):  
Başak Çalı ◽  
Ledi Bianku ◽  
Iulia Motoc

This chapter reviews the regulation of migration in international law, and locates the treatment of the question of migration in the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, it shows that the text of the European Convention on Human Rights is silent on the question of migration or the rights of migrants, but that the European Court of Human Rights has nonetheless emerged as a key court for the rights of migrants through its interpretation of the Convention. The chapter then introduces the overall contribution of the collection of articles as a whole: a comprehensive and critical appraisal of the migration case law of the European Court of Human Rights.


2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-266
Author(s):  
Lorna Woods

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Zakharov v. Russia held that the Russian system of surveillance constituted a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This decision is not the first judgment concerning surveillance, but it is of note because it is a Grand Chamber judgment in which the ECtHR drew together strands of its existing case law. It comes at a time when national systems of surveillance are the subject of much scrutiny: further cases are pending before the ECtHR.


1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Desgagné

Over the last two decades, the protection of the environment has become a necessity so widely recognized that environmental concerns have pervaded most fields of international law, including the international law of human rights. In 1976 the European Commission of Human Rights dismissed an application on the ground that “no right to nature conservation [was] as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and in particular by Arts 2, 3, or 5.” In 1993, however, the Commission found that the erection and operation of a waste and water treatment station near the domicile of the applicant was such a nuisance as to amount to a violation of her right to a private life. This development in the case law of the European Commission reflects a growing awareness of the links between protection of human rights and protection of the environment.


Author(s):  
Ruslana Liashenko ◽  
Myroslav Dobrovinsky

The article presents the results of theoretical and practical research of the interpretation of the European Convention for the Protectionof Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the light of modern concepts of legal understanding.On July 17, 1997, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms of 1950 (hereinafter – the Convention), which was the initial stage in the formation and development of Ukrainianlaw and legal science in general. From that moment, a new stage began – the introduction of legal practice and legal values of Europeinto Ukrainian law.The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as a complex mechanism has a direct effectwithin the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian court system, the principles of interpretation of the Convention applied by the European Courtof Human Rights are valuable and special for judges in Ukraine. One of the main methods of interpreting the Convention is the principleof judicial precedent. Judicial case law is an important part of the legal system of common law states, and the increase in the boundariesof judicial precedent has been observed in Western Europe over the past century. The case law of the European Court of Human Rightsis an additional factor for the official recognition of judicial precedent as a source of law in the protection of human rights, which willhelp strengthen the independence of the judiciary in Ukraine. Nowadays, the use of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Ukraine makes it possibleto replace the prevailing positivist views on law, apply the latest principles of interpretation of human and civil rights, and developthe constitutional jurisprudence of fundamental human rights.The Convention opens a new horizon of tasks in the development of democracy in Ukraine, with the basic principles of whichvarious legal acts of the country must be monitored for compliance with fundamental human rights and freedoms.Through the interpretation and use of the Convention, our state has begun a rapid process of moving away from the positivistunderstanding of law, which has resulted in the emergence of the necessary for the further development of pluralism of legal understandingof law.


2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-171
Author(s):  
Nezir Pivić ◽  
Lejla Zilić-Čurić

Sentencing to life imprisonment is not in contrast with human rights issued in European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, the sentenced imposed to life imprisonment and system to of its execution must meet certain standards to be compatible with requirements stated in Article 3 of European Convention. The subject of our research paper are mentioned standards that Contracting States have to respect in terms of enforcing the sentence of life imprisonment. Introduction to the subject of the research is given in the form of penological review of life imprisonment as well as review of internationally established legal standards under the umbrella of the United Nations and the Council of Europe that relate to sentencing and enforcement of life imprisonment. In focus of this research paper is case law of the European Court of Human Rights that refer to life imprisonment. In that context, the focus of this research paper deals with the issue of the relationship between life imprisonment and prohibition of torture as human right that is absolutely protected and the issue of the Contracting States’s margin in appreciation in prescribing the form and conditions of revision of the sentence. The intention of the authors is focused on the legal analysis of Strasbourg case law on issue of compatibility of life imprisonment with the requirements of the Article 3 of the European Convention and to present the standards generated by Strasbourg case law regarding the implementation and mechanism of revision of life imprisonment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document