Symposium Introduction: The Freedom of Religion and Belief Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Legal, Moral, Political and Religious Perspectives

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 249-260
Author(s):  
Brett G. Scharffs

During the past fifteen years, the European Court of Human Rights has been engaging seriously with the freedom of religion and belief under Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In many ways, the scope and ambition of the Court's jurisprudence has been breathtaking, especially when viewed from the United States; but many questions have begun to emerge about whether the Court has established an intellectual and conceptual architecture that is up to the task of dealing with the increasingly complex cases involving religious freedom that the Court is currently facing and will soon face. Accordingly, several sections of the Association of American Law Schools sponsored a program in January, 2010 entitled, “The Freedom of Religion and Belief Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Legal, Moral, Political and Religious Perspectives.”

2005 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 873-933
Author(s):  
Marc-André Eissen

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms came into force on September 1953. In 1959, the European Court of Human Rights began its work which is to apply the Convention to particular cases. Since then, it has delivered 94 judgments. For Canadian Lawyers, since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has come into force, the European Court and its decisions are of particular signifiance. The following article concerns the Court itself, especially the status of its judges. It also concerns the functions, powers and procedures of the Court and lastly relates the spirit with which the Convention has been applied to the National Laws of the Members of the Council of Europe for the past 25 years.


2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-321
Author(s):  
Javier Martínez-Torrón ◽  
Rafael Navarro-Valls

The international protection of the freedom of religion and belief has experienced substantial improvements during the second half of this century. One of the important steps that has been taken by international organizations is the European Convention on Human Rights (1950). The system of the European Convention has often been presented as a model of efficiency in the international protection of human rights, above all for the judicial machinery created to enforce the rights included in the Convention and its Protocols, whose center is the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg). The European system, however, is far from perfect, at least as far as the protection of the freedom of religion, conscience and thought is concerned. This article attempts to describe the main strengths and deficiencies of the case-law of the European Court in regard to the freedom of religion and belief. The Court has showed respect for the historical tradition of each country, and has explicitly affirmed that every religious group is entitled to true freedom—not merely toleration. In practice, however, the Court has failed to fully protect the strictly individual dimension of religious liberty, and consequently the rights of some religious minorities seem to be in danger—specially those minorities which defend ideas openly contrasting with the ethical choices assumed by the majority. The article ends with some conclusions on the aspects of the European Court's doctrine that will be advisable to change if it wants to be considered as an example that should be followed in the international environment.


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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (7) ◽  
pp. 1539-1544
Author(s):  
Volodymyr V. Marchenko ◽  
Inna I. Kilimnik ◽  
Alla V. Dombrovska

The aim: The aim of the study is to examine the blockchain technology in the field of healthcare, to analyze the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding respect for private and family life, home and correspondence, to analyze the key positions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – ECHR) in the field of human rights to privacy, to analyze the European Union (hereinafter – EU) secondary legislation regarding the supply of medicines, prospects for the blockchain usage in order to protect human rights to privacy and improve the quality of medicines. Materials and methods: Scientific works that are devoted to the outspread of digital technologies in healthcare, the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, the ECHR’s practice on the protection of human rights to privacy, the provisions of the EU secondary legislation that regulate the supply of medicines are studied. The methodology of this article is based on comparative and legal analysis techniques and includes system-structural method, method of generalization, method of analysis and synthesis as well. Conclusions: The blockchain technology in medicine and pharmacology will increase the level of protection of human rights to healthcare quality.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 244-269
Author(s):  
Christine Carpenter

Abstract Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of religion and conscience. The language of Article 9(1) has been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights as including protections for acts of proselytism, when properly committed and respectful of the rights and freedoms of others. This was the view taken in the foundational Article 9 case of the Court, Kokkinakis v. Greece. In the decades since Kokkinakis, however, the view of the Court on proselytism appears to have shifted, in particular in Article 9 cases involving religious garments. This article seeks to determine whether the Court is consistent in its views on proselytism between these religious garment cases and earlier examples of Article 9 case law.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Nedim Begović

Abstract The article analyses the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on accommodation of Islamic observances in the workplace. The author argues that the Court has not hitherto provided adequate incentives to the states party to the European Convention on Human Rights to accommodate the religious needs of Muslim employees in the workplace. Given this finding, the author proposes that the accommodation of Islam in the workplace should, as a matter of priority, be provided within a national legal framework. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, this could be achieved through an instrument of contracting agreement between the state and the Islamic Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina.


Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on freedom of religion and freedom of expression, which are classified as qualified rights, and examines Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which explains the right to hold or not hold a belief as well as the right to manifest a belief. It also considers how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decides if there has been manifestation of belief, interpretation of Article 10 with respect to views that shock and disturb and some forms of hate speech, and state restriction of expression. The chapter concludes with a discussion of freedom of religion and expression in the UK.


2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (01) ◽  
pp. 3-13 ◽  

The right to freedom of religion, enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights has been frequently tested, both in UK courts and in the European Court of Human Rights, where successive decisions over a number of years led to the establishment of several well-known principles. However, in recent years religious extremism has brought into focus a tension between the right of freedom of religious expression and the well-being of individuals (not least children) and society. The Strasbourg court requires neutrality on the part of the state and its courts. However, unlike the European Court of Human Rights, the domestic courts have had to face situations where religious observance can be seen to be causing serious harm and where interference in religious freedom and family life has been shown to be justified.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document