Molla Sali v. Greece (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina M. Cerna
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Opposite Conclusion ◽  
Sharia Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Way

President Guido Raimondi, the president of the European Court of Human Rights (European Court), in his address on January 25, 2019, at the opening of the Court's judicial year, singled out the case of Molla Sali v. Greece, concerning the application of Sharia law by the Greek courts, as one of the leading judgments of 2018. The judgment, he noted, gave rise to erroneous interpretations, with some commentators suggesting that the Court wanted to pave the way for the application of Sharia law in Europe, when in his view, the judgment leads to precisely the opposite conclusion.

Comparative Views on the Right to Vote in International Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shai Dothan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Right To Vote ◽  
The Right ◽  
Democratic Elections ◽  
The Way

There is a consensus about the existence of an international right to vote in democratic elections. Yet states disagree about the limits of this right when it comes to the case of prisoners’ disenfranchisement. Some states allow all prisoners to vote, some disenfranchise all prisoners, and others allow only some prisoners to vote. This chapter argues that national courts view the international right to vote in three fundamentally different ways: some view it as an inalienable right that cannot be taken away, some view it merely as a privilege that doesn’t belong to the citizens, and others view it as a revocable right that can be taken away under certain conditions. The differences in the way states conceive the right to vote imply that attempts by the European Court of Human Rights to follow the policies of the majority of European states by using the Emerging Consensus doctrine are problematic.

Is the assessment under Article 8 ECHR for migrants justifiable?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110614
Author(s):  
Jennie Edlund ◽  
Václav Stehlík
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Way

The paper analyses the protection granted under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights for different immigration cases. The way the European Court of Human Rights determines compliance with Article 8 for settled migrants differs from the way the Court determines compliance for foreign nationals seeking entry or requesting to regularize their irregular migration status. The paper argues that the European Court of Human Rights application of different principles when determining a States’ positive and negative obligations is contradicting its own case law. It also argues that the absence of justification grounds for the refusal of foreign nationals who are seeking entry lacks legitimacy. By treating all immigration cases under Article 8(2) the paper suggests that the differentiation between cases should be based on how a refusal of entry or an expulsion would impact on the family life. The paper also suggests that more consideration should be given towards the insiders interests when balancing the individual rights against the state's interests. These changes would lead to a more consistent and fair case law and generate a more convergent practice by the states which will increase the precedent value of the Court's judgements.

An Exercise in Defragmentation

2019 ◽  
pp. 179-197
Author(s):  
Andreas von Arnauld
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rigorous Analysis ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
Main Driver ◽  
Unified Command ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Way

The chapter deals with the Grand Chamber judgment in Hassan v UK. With this judgment, which focused on the multinational forces operating in Iraq under unified command in 2003, the European Court of Human Rights has presented a landmark decision with flaws. While eventually unconvincing in its approach to derogations from Convention obligations under Article 15 ECHR, the Court has boldly freed itself of the constraints of the overly abstract and largely unworkable lex specialis standard and—as far as Europe is concerned—has paved the way to consolidate its role as the main driver of further substantive convergence. The author presents a rigorous analysis of the Hassan case and on this basis shows whether and how the Grand Chamber’s findings will influence the global debate regarding the interplay of IHRL and LOAC in the future.

scholarly journals Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: National Democratic Procedures vs. Legal Certainty

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 10-27
Author(s):  
D.S. Velieva ◽  
◽  
M.V. Presnyakov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Way

The problem of execution of decisions of intergovernmental human rights bodies within the national legal systems is considered. It is noted that this problem has no legal solution in principle. The authors believe that the consensus is to “reformat” the existing mechanism of verification of the European Convention interpretations constitutionality by the European Court from the way of non-execution of ECHR judgments to the way of searching possibilities of complex and comprehensive solutions.

Cyberlibel Cases before the European Court of Human Rights: Estimating Possible Outcomes

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-20
Author(s):  
Dragos Cucereanu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Defamation Law ◽  
The Way

Internet defamation, or cyberlibel, has become an increasingly widespread and alarming side of online expression. This has lead to controversies concerning the way of responding to this new challenge in defamation law. Such controversies persist, as law makers and courts in the Council of Europe Member States vary in their solutions. The author searches for uniformity in regulating cyberlibel in Europe, by estimating how the European Court of Human Rights could decide such cases, based on analogy with its previous case law, as well as the law and practice of those States that have addressed the issue. It concludes that the Court may take into consideration the specificity of Internet, while mostly in line with its previous case law, by further developing it. The article proposes a list of criteria that might help deciding cyberlibel cases, and analyses specific ways of determining their applicability and effect.

Children and the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Fenton-Glynn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Children's Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Individual Agency ◽  
European Court ◽  
Comprehensive Examination ◽  
The Way

This book provides a comprehensive and detailed overview of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights as it relates to children. Covering areas including juvenile justice, the immigration system, and education and religion, as well as family life, child protection, and adoption, it undertakes a comprehensive examination of the way in which the Court has approached the rights of children, both in relation to their parents and in relation to the state. In doing so, it tracks the evolution of the Court’s treatment of children’s rights, from its inauspicious and paternalistic beginnings to an emerging recognition of children’s individual agency.

Kokkinakis and the Narratives of Proper and Improper Proselytizing

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 99-111
Author(s):  
Brett G. Scharffs
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Way

Abstract This article explores how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) distinguishes between proper and improper proselytizing. It points out the importance of the competing factual narratives and how the way the facts are presented can determine how the Court responds to the proselytizing activity.

THE COURTS AND THE ECHR: A PRINCIPLED APPROACH TO THE STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE

2013 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
EIRIK BJORGE
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
The Way

AbstractThe way in which the courts in the United Kingdom have interpreted and applied the Ullah principle has created problems in the national application of the European Convention on Human Rights. As is evident particularly in Ambrose, this is partly because Lord Bingham's approach in Ullah has been misunderstood. The article analyses these issues in relation to the notion of binding precedent, finding that judicial authority belongs to principles. The national courts ought not, though that is what the Ullah–Ambrose approach enjoins, to expend their energies seeking to align the case before them with the least dissimilar of the reported cases. Rather they should stand back from the case law of the European Court, and apply the broad principles upon which the jurisprudence is founded.

Evans v. UK – European Court of Human Rights

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 424-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacco Bomhoff ◽  
Lorenzo Zucca
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
Rights And Interests ◽  
The Way

Proportionality review and, in particular, ad hoc judicial balancing of competing rights and interests are probably the most celebrated tools propagated by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and are currently dominant features of the European discourse on rights. This methodology and its discourse, in fact, have gained such widespread popularity that, although the outcome of Convention-based and other fundamental rights claims is often far from certain, the way they will be treated by judges can be predicted with some confidence.

scholarly journals ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krešimir Kamber ◽  
Lana Kovačić Markić
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
World Health ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

On 11 March 2020 the World Health Organization announced the Covid-19 (coronavirus) to be a pandemic. To combat the pandemic, many countries had to adopt emergency measures and some of these measures have affected the judicial system, especially the functioning of courts. The pandemic has been characterised as far as the judiciary is concerned by complete or partial closure of court buildings for the parties and for the public. It is clear that the functioning of national judicial systems has been severely disrupted. This limited functioning of courts impacted the individuals’ right to a fair trial guaranteed, in particular, under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The aim of this article is to examine the manner of the administration of justice during the Covid pandemic and its impact on the due process guarantees. Focus is put on the extent to which different Covid measures, in particular remote access to justice and online hearings have impacted the guarantees of the right to a fair trial and the due process guarantees in general, notably in detention cases. In this connection, the article provides a comparative overview of the functioning of the European legal systems during the pandemic. It also looks into the way in which the two European courts – the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union functioned, as well as the way in which the Croatian courts, including the Constitutional Court, organised their work during the pandemic. The article then provides an insight into the issue of online/remote hearings in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and in the Croatian Constitutional Court’s case-law. On the basis of this assessment, the article identifies the differences in the use of remote/online hearings between and within jurisdictions. In conclusion, the article points to some critical considerations that should be taken into account when devising the manner in which any Covid pandemic experience with the administration of justice (notably with regard to remote/online hearings) can be taken forward.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document