Institutional Infrastructure of the European Court of Human Rights and Its Ability to Shape European Public Order

In this book, Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou argues that, from the legal perspective, the formula 'European public order' is excessively vague and does not have an identifiable meaning; therefore, it should not be used by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in its reasoning. However, European public order can also be understood as an analytical concept which does not require a clearly defined content. In this sense, the ECtHR can impact European public order but cannot strategically shape it. The Court's impact is a by-product of individual cases which create a feedback loop with the contracting states. European public order is influenced as a result of interaction between the Court and the contracting parties. This book uses a wide range of sources and evidence to substantiate its core arguments: from a comprehensive analysis of the Court's case law to research interviews with the judges of the ECtHR.

Download Full-text

II. GRAND CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS,A, B & C v IRELAND, DECISION OF 17 DECEMBER 2010

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1017/s0020589312000620 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 62 (1) ◽

pp. 250-262 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Fiona de Londras ◽

Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

The Other ◽

Public Order ◽

Linguistic Terms ◽

European Consensus ◽

European Court ◽

European Public ◽

The One ◽

Grand Chamber ◽

Scope Of Protection

The use of ‘European consensus’ as a decision-making mechanism of the European Court of Human Rights has been condemned and praised in almost equal measure.1On the one hand, some scholars argue that the way in which so-called ‘consensus’ is identified is generally unsound and lacking in rigour.2It is also claimed that European consensus is overly subjective in its nature3and, in any case, that it undermines the principle that the Convention has an autonomous meaning determined by the Court and separate to what member States do or interpret it as meaning.4On the other hand there are scholars who, while often concerned with the suboptimal methodology adopted in identifying and using European consensus in the decisions of the Court, recognize the method's potential to increase the legitimacy of the Court and its function as a mechanism for the progressive liberalization of the European public order.5This reflects the fact that, generally speaking, European consensus has been applied in order to establish an expanded scope of protection for the Convention in areas not expressly mentioned within it or contemplated at the time of its drafting, on the basis that there is an identifiable trend (although, in strict linguistic terms, not an actual ‘consensus’) among other European States to protect the alleged right.6

Download Full-text

Introductory Note

10.1093/oso/9780190923846.003.0027 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Guido Raimondi

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Separation Of Powers ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

European Convention ◽

European Court ◽

European Public ◽

Introductory Note ◽

Un Security Council ◽

The Right ◽

The Eu

This article comments on four important judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights in 2016. Al-Dulimi v. Switzerland addresses the issue of how, in the context of sanctions regimes created by the UN Security Council, European states should reconcile their obligations under the UN Charter with their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to respect the fundamentals of European public order. Baka v. Hungary concerns the separation of powers and judicial independence, in particular the need for procedural safeguards to protect judges against unjustified removal from office and to protect their legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary is a judgment on the interpretation of the Convention, featuring a review of the “living instrument” approach. Avotiņš v. Latvia addresses the principle of mutual trust within the EU legal order and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.

Download Full-text

The European Convention on Human Rights and International Public Order

Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies ◽

10.1017/s1528887000004341 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 5 ◽

pp. 237-270

Author(s):

Alexander Orakhelashvili

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

European Convention ◽

Public Order ◽

Human Rights Protection ◽

The Public ◽

Rights Protection ◽

European Public ◽

Essential Components ◽

The Law ◽

Definition Of

It is commonly assumed that the European Convention on Human Rights, being a treaty of specific nature, embodies elements of European public order. However, there seems to be no authoritative or generally accepted definition of the public order of Europe, of its essential components, and of its relationship with the notion of international public order. This article will examine these questions. In pursuing this goal, the law-enforcement resources accumulated within the European system of human rights protection will be examined in the context of interaction between the public order of Europe as part of the law of the European Convention, and international public order as part of general international law.

Download Full-text

Limitations of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms in International Law and Novations in the Russian Criminal Legislation

Journal of Russian Law ◽

10.12737/1209 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 1 (11) ◽

pp. 75-84

Author(s):

Юрий Ромашев ◽

YUriy Romashyev

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

National Security ◽

International Law ◽

Criminal Code ◽

Public Order ◽

European Court ◽

State Secret ◽

The Russian Federation ◽

Criminal Legislation ◽

State Secrets

The author analyses new amendments related to state secrets protection: amendments to Article 275 ‘High Treason’, Article 276 ‘Espionage’, Article 283 ‘Disclosure of a State Secret’, and adopted Article 283.1 ‘Illegal Receipt of Information Constituting a State Secret’ of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in respect to their conformity with acceptable restrictions of fundamental human rights and freedoms. Special attention is paid to theoretical and action-oriented aspects of restrictions of fundamental human rights and freedoms. The author investigates relevant provisions of international documents, practice of the European Court of Human Rights, doctrines of leading experts in this sphere. The author notes that the criteria for restricting fundamental human rights and freedoms should be established entirely under the law and be indispensable and applicable in a democratic society, be aimed at the protection of national security and public order. The author draws the conclusion on the urgent character and timeliness of introducing the abovementioned novations into the Russian criminal legislation, and their conformity with generally recognized principles and rules of international law.

Download Full-text

Limitations on Freedom of Religion and Belief in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the Quarter Century since Its Judgment in Kokkinakis v. Greece

Religion and Human Rights ◽

10.1163/18710328-12231158 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 12 (2-3) ◽

pp. 174-197

Author(s):

Mark Hill ◽

Katherine Barnes

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Religious Beliefs ◽

Case Law ◽

Democratic Society ◽

European Convention ◽

Freedom Of Religion ◽

Public Order ◽

Quarter Century ◽

European Court ◽

Margin Of Appreciation

Abstract The manifestation of religious beliefs under Article 9 the European Convention on Human Rights is not absolute but may be subject to prescribed limitations. This article discusses the nature and extent of those limitations, as interpreted in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights from its decision in Kokkinakis v. Greece up to the present. It contrasts the prescriptive text of the Article with its lose and inconsistent interpretation by the Court in Strasbourg. Particular attention is given to the criteria of “prescribed by law”, “necessary in a democratic society”, “public safety”, “public order, health or morals” and “the rights and freedoms of others”. It seeks to divine principles from the varied jurisprudence, particularly at its intersection with the Court’s illusory doctrine of margin of appreciation.

Download Full-text

Police misunderstanding the scope of public order powers in Northern Ireland

The Police Journal Theory Practice and Principles ◽

10.1177/0032258x17716580 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 91 (3) ◽

pp. 249-263

Author(s):

Neil Parpworth

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Northern Ireland ◽

Public Order ◽

Criminal Offence ◽

The Public ◽

European Court ◽

The Uk ◽

Do So

It is a common feature of public order legislation throughout the UK that those who organise public processions must give the police advance notification that they are to be held, and that it is a criminal offence to fail to do so. Whilst the European Court of Human Rights has accepted that such a requirement is not necessarily incompatible with the Article 11 freedom to peacefully assemble, recent litigation concerning the policing of the ‘flag protests’ in Belfast suggests that the officers in charge were mistaken as to the scope of their powers under the relevant legislation, the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, and that they failed to appreciate that the protection afforded to protestors by Article 11 has important limits.

Download Full-text

The European Convention on Human Rights and International Public Order

Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies ◽

10.5235/152888712802784171 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 5 ◽

pp. 237-270

Author(s):

Alexander Orakhelashvili

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

European Convention ◽

Public Order ◽

Human Rights Protection ◽

The Public ◽

Rights Protection ◽

European Public ◽

Essential Components ◽

The Law ◽

Definition Of

It is commonly assumed that the European Convention on Human Rights, being a treaty of specific nature, embodies elements of European public order. However, there seems to be no authoritative or generally accepted definition of the public order of Europe, of its essential components, and of its relationship with the notion of international public order. This article will examine these questions. In pursuing this goal, the law-enforcement resources accumulated within the European system of human rights protection will be examined in the context of interaction between the public order of Europe as part of the law of the European Convention, and international public order as part of general international law.

Download Full-text

The Qualified Right to Freedom of Religion: An examination of the limitations contained in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Studia z Prawa Wyznaniowego ◽

10.31743/spw.9697 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 23 ◽

pp. 73-99

Author(s):

Mark Hill

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Religious Beliefs ◽

Case Law ◽

Democratic Society ◽

European Convention ◽

Freedom Of Religion ◽

Public Order ◽

Article 9 ◽

European Court ◽

Margin Of Appreciation

The manifestation of religious beliefs under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights is not absolute but may be subject to prescribed limitations. This article discusses the nature and extent of those limitations, as interpreted in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights from its decision in Kokkinakis v. Greece up to the present. It contrasts the prescriptive text of the Article with its loose and inconsistent interpretation by the Court in Strasbourg. Particular attention is given to the criteria of ‘prescribed by law’, ‘necessary in a democratic society’, ‘public safety’, ‘public order, health or morals’ and ‘the rights and freedoms of others’. This article seeks to extract clear principles from the contradictory and confusing jurisprudence, particularly at its intersection with the Court’s illusory doctrine of margin of appreciation.

Download Full-text