Estonia Supreme Court on Reopening of Judicial Proceedings Following a Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights. Decisions of 6 January 2004, case No. 3-1-13-03 and 10 January 2004, case No. 3-3-2-1-04

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-326
Author(s):  
Taavi Annus
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Subject ◽  
European Standards

In the fourteen years since Estonia regained its independence in 1991, the Europeanisation of its legal, political and economic system has been rapid. Estonia became a member of the Council of Europe in May 1993 and has, thereafter, ratified most of its important international human rights conventions. Before becoming a member of the European Union in May 2004, a large-scale harmonisation of its laws with the EU standards has taken place. Two recent decisions by the Estonian Supreme Court, the subject of the present annotation, on the application of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights illustrate the way in which European standards have become a part of the Estonian legal system.

22. Europe

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greer Steven
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Key Characteristics ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
State Organizations

This chapter examines the origins, historical development, and key characteristics of the various inter-state organizations engaged in human rights activities in Europe. Having briefly described the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, it examines the Council of Europe and the European Union, including the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

scholarly journals Protection of Whistleblowers by the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 25-36
Author(s):  
Sára Kiššová
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Financial Interests ◽  
Internal Sources ◽  
Illegal Activities

Whistleblower protection in the European Union is undergoing significant developments. The new Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons reporting breaches of Union law sets a minimum standard for the protection of whistleblowers. It is awaiting implementation in Member States' national law by December 2021. However, a certain level of protection is also guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights case law principles. Reports of illegal activities provided from close internal sources can strengthen the protection of the EU's financial interests. Adequate protection is needed to prevent retaliation against whistleblowers. As the deadline for transposing this directive approaches, the article aims to analyse the Directive 2019/1973 and compare it with the protection guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Present and Future Relations between the ECJ and the ECtHR

ICL Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosmarie Doblhoff-Dier ◽  
Sandra Kusmierczyk
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The Road ◽  
European Court ◽  
On The Road ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractBy acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the EU’s role as supranational player in the complex human rights architecture of Europe will be finally recognized. On 5 April 2013, the negotiators of the accession procedure of the European Union to the ECHR agreed on a package of draft accession instruments. Constituting a mile­stone on the road to accession, the now revised Accession Agreement still leaves vast room for discussion. By critically scrutinizing some of its modalities, this article will evaluate its impact on the human rights jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Eu­ropean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the relationship between both courts. To this end, it will address the somewhat disproportionate involvement of the European Union in the future jurisdiction of the ECtHR and in the decision making of the Council of Europe in matters linked to the ECHR. Furthermore, it will focus on the compatibility of the Draft Agree­ment with the principle of autonomous interpretation of European Union Law: a highly rel­evant discussion for the ECJ’s future Opinion under Article 218 (11) TFEU on the compatibil­ity of the finalized draft agreement with the Treaties - the next hurdle for accession.

scholarly journals Pilot Judgments Delivered by the European Court of Human Rights against Romania

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 38-46
Author(s):  
Crina Mihaela Verga ◽  
◽  
◽  
◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject

The article defines first the concept of pilot decision. Then it details the procedure employed in case of systemic or systematic violations of any right provided by the European Convention on Human Rights. Some relevant pilot judgments against certain member states of the Council of Europe are highlighted. Next, two pilot judgments delivered against Romania (Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania and Rezmives and Others v. Romania) are thoroughly examined. Finally, some relevant opinions on the subject are expressed. The issue is very topical for the Romanian state and the specialists in the field, precisely because of the consequences determined by the two analyzed pilot judgments.

9. Fundamental rights in the EU

2020 ◽  
pp. 240-268
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
The Eu

This chapter traces the development of EU law-based fundamental rights, from early Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law up to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It considers the EU's relationship with the Council of Europe, focusing on how the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) attempt to avoid conflicting interpretations of overlapping rights, and whether the EU can in fact sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It is important to remember that the ECtHR and the ECHR are not part of EU law. The ECHR is an international human rights treaty administered by the Council of Europe. It is applied and interpreted by the ECtHR, and is transcribed into UK law in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998. The EU, meanwhile, has the Charter of Fundamental Rights as its human rights ‘treaty’. The chapter then looks at the relationship between the CJEU and the ECtHR, and examines post-Brexit fundamental rights.

scholarly journals The practice of the Supreme Court and the decisions of the European Court concluding violations of artic - le 3 of the Convention

2020 ◽  
pp. 413-417
Author(s):  
Alla Radzivill
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Effective System ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
European Standards ◽  
The Right

Law enforcement practice of the Supreme Court in cases involving torture in the light of the standards of the European Court ofHuman Rights. The article is devoted to the study of individual legal positions of the Supreme Court, their coordination with the practiceof the European Court of Human Rights. The author emphasizes that the decisions of the European Court should serve as precedents,which will make it impossible to produce diametrically opposite decisions on similar categories of cases. Analysis of the problem ofcriminal responsibility for torture allows us to form conclusions and suggestions that are important for the development of the theoryof criminal law and the improvement of law enforcement practice.The article deals with the issues related to the peculiarities of the interpretation and application of Article 3 of the European Conventionon Human Rights of the European Court of Human Rights. In particular, the scope of Article 3 has been analyzed; it has been de -fined, what is necessary to understand under concepts of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Substantive and proceduralaspects of violations of the prohibition of torture have been revealed, as well as positive and negative obligations of a state to providethe effective protection of the right. The standards of the appropriate assessment of ill-treatment and the main aspects of judicial qualificationof a particular form of mistreatment as torture have been analyzed. The procedural guarantees, which must be provided for each personat the stage of pre-trial investigation, non-observance of which leads to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, have been determined.Creation of the effective system of protection of human rights and its efficiency is analysed in relation to the crime of “torture”in the context of European Convention on human rights, which must be in future stored and taken for basis for a further improvementand systematization of the single European standards in area of human rights.

The Doctrine of Equivalent Protection: Its Life and Legitimacy Before and After the European Union's Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 874-895 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul De Hert ◽  
Fisnik Korenica
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Regime ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Main Crater ◽  
The Eu

The relationship between the Court of Justice of the European Union (henceforth: Luxembourg Court) and the European Court of Human Rights (henceforth: Strasbourg Court) has been one of the prevailing issues in the human rights debate in Europe. The main crater in the relationship between the two courts is the fact that Strasbourg could not call directly into responsibility the Luxembourg Court due to the fact that EU is not a party in the ECHR, whereas the Luxembourg Court is not likely to obey a Strasbourg ruling without having any international legal obligation to do so. This situation has thus far led to many observations that have called for the accession of the EU to the ECHR, a step that would legalize the relationship between the EU and the Council of Europe, offering critics of human rights an assurance that the EU's human rights regime will become externally controlled by a specialized human rights court.

Council of Europe

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
European Committee ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Two Bodies

This chapter presents an overview of the adjudicative bodies of the Council of Europe—namely, the European Court of Human Rights (established by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)) and the European Committee of Social Rights—and outlines their mandates with regard to integrating UN human rights treaties. It analyses how these two bodies have cited the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The dataset was forty-five cases dealt with by the Court and two collective complaints decided by the Committee that cite the CRPD up to 2016. Notwithstanding the relatively small size of the dataset, the conclusions are that the Council of Europe system has yet to engage seriously in the CRPD’s jurisprudential opportunities. The reasons for this cannot be ascertained from a desk-based methodology, and further research is required.

Does the Injunction Gap Violate Implementers’ Fair Trial Rights Under the ECHR?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léon E Dijkman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Validity Of A Patent

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.

Lachiri v Belgium and Bans on Wearing Islamic Dress in the Courtroom: An Emerging Trend

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-53
Author(s):  
Kaushik Paul
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Public Spaces ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Islamic Dress

In recent years, the wearing of Islamic dress in public spaces and elsewhere has generated widespread controversy all over Europe. The wearing of the hijab and other Islamic veils has been the subject of adjudication before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on many occasions. The most recent case before the ECtHR as to the prohibition on wearing the hijab is Lachiri v Belgium. In this case, the ECtHR held that a prohibition on wearing the hijab in the courtroom constitutes an infringement of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to freedom of religion or belief. From the perspective of religious freedom, the ruling of the Strasbourg Court in Lachiri is very significant for many reasons. The purpose of this comment is critically to analyse the ECtHR's decision in Lachiri from the standpoint of religious liberty.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document