scholarly journals TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF “LIVING TOGETHER” IN EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 580-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilias Trispiotis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Living Together ◽  
Democratic Principles ◽  
Full Face

AbstractThe European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Council of Europe have recently recognised “living together” as a legitimate dimension of the rights of others that could justify limitations on various European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) rights, including the rights to freedom of religion and respect for private life. This article argues that the important, yet still unexplored in human rights law, idea of “living together” stems from the republican ideal of fraternity and supplements the distinctive links between democratic principles and rigorous human rights protection. Even so, its justifiability as a limitation ground depends on which conception of the idea is compatible with core values and functions served by human rights under the Convention. This article distinguishes between two main interpretations of “living together”, grounded on responsibility and conformity. It is argued that, in cases touching on our expressive conduct in public, including cases on the wearing of full-face veils, a conformity conception of “living together” sits uneasily both with firmly established case law of the ECtHR and with certain key functions of rights, such as the exclusion of moralistic majoritarian preferences as grounds for coercive prohibitions.

Framing the Boundaries of European Human Rights Law

Global Jurist ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (2-3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Can Öztaş
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Court System ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection

AbstractEuropean human rights protection, ensured by the European Convention and Court of Human Rights, is declared to be universal and inclusive, protecting not only citizens of Europe but also anybody residing within the jurisdiction of the signatory countries. This article challenges this declaration and argues, with the help of some examples from the case law, that European human rights protection is based on the defined concepts of European-ness that exclude the perceived non-European within the Convention and the Court system.

1 The Court Over Sixty Years

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nussberger Angelika
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Member States ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Violent Conflicts

This introductory chapter provides a background of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a multilateral treaty based on humanism and rule of law. Similar to the—albeit non-binding—Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the ECHR is a document that marks a change in philosophy and gives a new definition of the responsibility of the State towards the individual. It fixes basic values in times of change and paves the way towards reconciliation in Europe. Unlike in a peace treaty, not all wartime enemies participate in its elaboration, but, one by one, all the European States accede to it, signalling their consent to the values fixed by a small community of States in the early 1950s. Seven decades later, forty-seven European States have ratified the Convention. Admittedly, the new start based on common values could not prevent the outbreak of violent conflicts between Member States. At the same time, the resurgence of anti-democratic tendencies could not be successfully banned in all Member States, but such tendencies could be stigmatized as grave human rights violations in binding judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Thus, it is not surprising that the European model of human rights protection has been attractive and inspirational for other parts of the world. Nevertheless, there was and is a debate in some Member States to withdraw from the Convention as the Court’s jurisprudence is seen to be too intrusive on national sovereignty.

scholarly journals General and Particular Approaches to Implementation of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 248-292
Author(s):  
VLADIMÍRA PEJCHALOVÁ GRÜNWALDOVÁ
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Level ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court

AbstractThis article deals with the implementation, at the national level, of European human rights protection standards as enshrined in theEuropean Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) and interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It discusses the principles of interpretation of theECHRby the ECtHR, the interaction and mutual dialogue between the ECtHR and national courts, and the approach of the latter to interpretation and application of the case law of the ECtHR. Using the concrete examples of France and the Czech Republic as case studies, it is shown to what extent and how European constitutional courts take into account and apply the letter of the Convention and its interpretation by the ECtHR.

scholarly journals RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE UNDER ARTICLE 8 ECHR IN IMMIGRATION CASES: A HUMAN RIGHT TO REGULARIZE ILLEGAL STAY?

2008 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Thym
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Immigration Laws ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

AbstractApplying the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to immigration cases has always been a balancing exercise between the effective protection of human rights and the Contracting States' autonomy to regulate migration flows. In its recent case law, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR) has considerably extended the protective scope of Article 8 ECHR by granting autonomous human rights protection to the long-term resident status independent of the existence of family bonds under the heading of ‘private life’. This has important repercussions for the status of legal and illegal immigrants across Europe, since the new case law widens the reach of human rights law to the legal conditions for leave to remain, effectively granting several applicants a human right to regularize their illegal stay. The contribution analyses the new case law and develops general criteria guiding the application of the ECHR to national immigration laws and the new EU harmonization measures adopted in recent years.

scholarly journals Application of the Principle of Good Governance in the Activities of the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-69
Author(s):  
Serhiy MELENKO ◽  
◽  
Dan PARANYUK ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Complex Analysis ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Vast Number ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Court

Based on the methodology of performing axiological and logical-gnoseological analysis of juridically significant factors, the article under discussion presents a partial investigation of the practical application of one of the most fundamental principles of state functioning in the field of human rights protection. The object of investigation in the paper is the way the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) perceives, understands and interprets the principle of Good Governance in the course of implementing it in Court’s activities. The precedents, formulated and adopted by the ECHR frequently acquire the status of legal sources for the member states of the Council of Europe. Therefore, the judiciary bodies of these countries have to rely in their practice on the conclusions, the ECHR came to in the course of considering certain cases. Qualitively equal understanding and application of the above decisions is a cornerstone in forming a common European legal space, as well as plays a leading role in the field of human rights protection, guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (hereinafter - the Convention) (Council of Europe, 1950). The principle of Good Governance is a complex notion. It directly or indirectly regards the rights and interests of both individuals (ensuring them certain rights and freedoms in a vast number of articles of the Convention) and social groups. This requires a complex analysis of the principle in both theoretical and practical aspects of its definition and application. Relying on the methodology of profound analysis of the axiological component of a certain legal phenomenon, like the content of some decisions of the Strasbourg Court, the authors of the article attempt to practically trace the implementation of the principle of Good Governance in the course of administering justice in Ukraine, as a member state of the Council of Europe. Therefore, the article under studies deals with the specifics of practical application of the principle of Good Governance in the ECHR activities, as well as with using precedent experience in the system of administrative judiciary of Ukraine.

scholarly journals ASPECTS OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE COURT OF JUSTICE B OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN THE EUROPEAN RIGHTS AFTER OPINION NO. 2/13

Law and World ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-116
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The present article is dedicated to one of the most debatable aspects of human rights protection in the European Union (EU), specifically the question of whether the EU should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This article analyzes the maintained deficit in the functioning of the European Union in terms of the important parameters of democracy as a result of the failed EU accession to the ECHR as well as the new reality created in the relationship between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) after the negative Opinion no. 2/13 of the CJEU and the changes in the nature of the interaction between the two European courts in this changed situation.

scholarly journals Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in the Baltic States’ Cases

2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-109
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Kużelewska
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Baltic States ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract The Baltic States – Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia – are democratic states of law that respect human rights. As members of the Council of Europe, they implemented into domestic law the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (known as the European Convention on Human Rights) – an international document for the universal protection of human rights adopted by the Council of Europe. The aim of the paper is to analyze whether and to what extent did Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian citizens file individual complaints to the European Court of Human Rights over the past thirteen years (2006–2018). The paper is to answer the question if the Baltic Sates’ systems of human rights protection are effective. One of the indicators of effectiveness is the number of complaints brought from the Baltic States to the ECtHR in relation to the number of inhabitants and also in comparison with the total number of complaints from the 47 member states of the Council of Europe as whole. The analysis will cover statistics on the number of judgments in Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian cases before the Court in Strasbourg issued between 2006 and 2018. This will be helpful in determining the degree and the type of violations by the Baltic States of the human rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Right to Invoke Rights as a Limit to Sovereignty – Security Interests, State of Emergency and Review of un Sanctions by Domestic Courts under the European Convention of Human Rights

2017 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Kadelbach ◽  
David Roth-Isigkeit
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Security ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
The Right

Recently, human rights law has been restricted increasingly by measures taken in the interest of public security. This raises the question whether there are limits in human rights protection that cannot be touched without questioning the very essence of individual rights protection itself. This article submits that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in cases dealing with the compatibility of measures taken in the public interest with the echr has defined such limits predominantly in terms of procedure. Accordingly, individuals must not be deprived of the right to independent review in the light of their fundamental rights. Thus, the Court has been developing what may be called a right to invoke rights, a procedural component underlying all guarantees of the Convention. This principle has been established and upheld in three different constellations: general measures for public security, states of emergencies and the implementation of un sanctions regimes.

Effizienterer Menschenrechtsschutz durch Vorabbefassung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte?

2019 ◽  
Vol 102 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-274
Author(s):  
Thomas Klein ◽  
Katrin Treppschuh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
German Government ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Constitutional Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Advisory Opinions

Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which came into force in August 2018, enables the member States to request the European Court of Human Rights to give advisory opinions on questions of principle relating to the interpretation and application of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto. The German Government does not consider it necessary to sign and ratify Protocol No. 16 at the moment referring to the well-developed constitutional protection of Human rights in Germany. This article critically assesses this view and argues that the possibility to apply to the Court for advisory opinions can contribute to making Human rights protection in Germany more effective.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document