II. EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS MEDVEDYEV ET AL V FRANCE (GRAND CHAMBER, APPLICATION NO 3394/03) JUDGMENT OF 29 MARCH 2010

2010 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 867-882 ◽  
Author(s):  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Considerable Importance ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Drug Smuggling ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
High Seas

On 29 March 2010, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), sitting as a Grand Chamber, delivered its Judgment in the Medvedyev v France case, which involved the interdiction and the exercise of enforcement jurisdiction over a drug smuggling vessel on the high seas. The case was referred by both the applicants and the Respondent State to the Grand Chamber, following the Judgment of a Chamber of the Fifth Section of the Court, on 10 July 2008. The Grand Chamber accepted this referral and the public hearing took place on 6 May 2009. This decision is of considerable importance as one of the very few decisions of the Strasbourg Court which has touched upon issues pertaining to the law of the sea, let alone to interdiction of vessels on the high seas, and the only case to have found a violation of the Convention on the part of the interdicting State, namely France.

Registration of Religious Entities and Religious Autonomy in Romania—Old Limitations and New Challenges

2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romanița Elena Iordache
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Adoption Process ◽  
European Court ◽  
Tier System ◽  
New Challenges ◽  
The Law ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

Abstract In January 2013, the Romanian Law on Religious Freedom and the General Status of Religious Denominations reached five years of implementation—the right time to assess the quality of the law, its fairness and enforceability, the way it responded to foreseeable challenges but, most importantly, to unexpected ones. Though, at the time of its adoption, law-makers, practitioners and religious denominations alike considered the law a working compromise doomed to be amended soon, no amendments were made so far. In spite of criticisms concerning the over-restrictive three tier system of registration for religious entities, voiced during the adoption process and subsequently, the biggest challenge for the law came however from a different direction through a little known case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in January 2012 and referred to the Grand Chamber in July 2012. The domestic proceedings as well as the chamber judgment in Sindicatul Păstorul Cel Bun v. Romania highlight that the principle of religious autonomy and the relation between state and Church still need to be defined and enforced in the Romanian context.1

scholarly journals The European Convention of Human Rights and Migration at Sea: Reading the “Jurisdictional Threshold” of the Convention Under the Law of the Sea Paradigm

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-435
Author(s):  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
European Court ◽  
Common Practices ◽  
The Law ◽  
And Migration ◽  
And Control

AbstractIn all the applications before the ECtHR concerning migration at sea, a preliminary, yet seminal, question is whether the applicants were within the jurisdiction of the respondent State, in terms of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This question becomes even more apposite in contemporary situations of remote interception or search and rescue operations. In addressing the matter of jurisdiction in such cases, the law of the sea becomes of significant importance. This Article argues that as the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has often taken into account human rights considerations, similarly, the European Court of Human Rights should read into the term “jurisdiction” under Article 1 of ECHR law of the sea considerations. Far from resurrecting Banković and the strict “general international law” notion of jurisdiction under ECHR, this Article only intends to shed some light on when a State would be considered as exercising such “authority and control over persons” in the maritime domain. In so doing, this Article will focus only on the potential application of the ECHR to the most common practices of States vis-à-vis migration on the high seas, namely interception and rescue operations.

WATERED-DOWN RIGHTS ON THE HIGH SEAS:HIRSI JAMAA AND OTHERS V ITALY(2012)

2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 728-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariagiulia Giuffré
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Italian Coast ◽  
High Seas

On 23 February 2012, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court), sitting as a Grand Chamber, delivered its long-anticipated judgment in theHirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy(Hirsi) case.1The case was filed on 26 May 2009 by 11 Somalis and 13 Eritreans who were among the first group of 231 migrants and refugees (191 men and 40 women) that left Libya heading for the Italian coast. Halted on 6 May 2009 by three ships from the Italian Revenue Police (Guardia di Finanza) approximately 35 miles south of Lampedusa on the high seas, in the SAR zone under Maltese competence, they were summarily returned to Libya without identification and assessment of their protection claims.2

NEGLIGENCE AND ARTICLE 6: THE GREAT ESCAPE?

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-52
Author(s):  
Tom Hickman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal

WHEN, the European Court of Human Rights decided in Osman v. UK [1999] 1 F.L.R. 193 that striking out a claim in negligence (in Osman v. Ferguson [1993] 4 All E.R. 344) against the police, for failing to prevent a disturbed teacher injuring a pupil and killing the pupil’s father, amounted to a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention, many domestic lawyers felt that human rights law had gone too far. Article 6 protects the right to a fair and public hearing in the determination of one’s civil rights. The ECtHR did not say that the hearing had not been fair, but that it had not really been a hearing at all. By so deciding, the ECtHR subjected the public policy considerations that had been relied on by the Court of Appeal to strike out the claim to the requirements of legitimacy and necessity which have to be satisfied to justify an interference with Article 6.

Crucifixes, Margin of Appreciation and Consensus: The Grand Chamber Ruling in Lautsi v Italy

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Ronchi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Display ◽  
Double Standards ◽  
The Public ◽  
Religious Symbols ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Public Environment

In March 2011, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights reversed the decision of the Court's Second Section in Lautsi v Italy. The case clearly demonstrates how controversial the use of religious symbols in the public environment has become. This article sets out the complicated framework of the case, assesses the judgment and concludes that the Grand Chamber's decision is unfortunate and, in many respects, objectionable. It will be shown that this decision has implications regarding the malleable nature of the doctrines of the margin of appreciation and consensus, as well as the development of Strasbourg's application of double standards in its case law regarding the public display of religious symbols.

CIVIL AND LEGAL LIABILITY OF JUDGES

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaroslav Skoromnyy ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Pension System ◽  
Legal Liability ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Model Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

The article presents the conceptual foundations of bringing judges to civil and legal liability. It was found that the civil and legal liability of judges is one of the types of legal liability of judges. It is determined that the legislation of Ukraine provides for a clearly delineated list of the main cases (grounds) for which the state is liable for damages for damage caused to a legal entity and an individual by illegal actions of a judge as a result of the administration of justice. It has been proved that bringing judges to civil and legal liability, in particular on the basis of the right of recourse, provides for the payment of just compensation in accordance with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. It was established that the bringing of judges to civil and legal liability in Ukraine is regulated by such legislative documents as the Constitution of Ukraine, the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Explanatory Note to the European Charter on the Status of Judges (Model Code), the Law of Ukraine «On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges», the Law of Ukraine «On the procedure for compensation for harm caused to a citizen by illegal actions of bodies carrying out operational-search activities, pre-trial investigation bodies, prosecutors and courts», Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional submission of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the compliance of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of certain provisions of Article 2, paragraph two of clause II «Final and transitional provisions» of the Law of Ukraine «On measures to legislatively ensure the reform of the pension system», Article 138 of the Law of Ukraine «On the judicial system and the status of judges» (the case on changes in the conditions for the payment of pensions and monthly living known salaries of judges lagging behind in these), the Law of Ukraine «On the implementation of decisions and the application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights».

In Search of a Standard: References to the Rule of Law in the Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights

ICL Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-69
Author(s):  
Eszter Polgári
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Working Definition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Structured Analysis ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Grand Chamber

AbstractThe present article maps the explicit references to the rule of law in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR by examining the judgments of the Grand Chamber and the Plenary Court. On the basis of the structured analysis it seeks to identify the constitutive elements of the Court’s rule of law concept and contrast it with the author’s working definition and the position of other Council of Europe organs. The review of the case-law indicates that the Court primarily associates the rule of law with access to court, judicial safeguards, legality and democracy, and it follows a moderately thick definition of the concept including formal, procedural and some substantive elements. The rule of law references are predominantly ancillary arguments giving weight to other Convention-based considerations and it is not applied as a self-standing standard.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document