Ždanoka v. Latvia – European Court of Human Rights

2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.G. Hoogers
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
To Come ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

On March 16, 2006, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its final judgment in the case of Tatjana Ždanoka against the Republic of Latvia. Although not the first decision under Article 3 of the first Protocol, the Ždanoka v. Latvia case was important, because it allowed the Court to come to a decision on an aspect of Article 3, first Protocol, which in earlier case law had not extensively been dealt with by the ECtHR: the right to be elected. Moreover, the case allowed the Court to make some statements of principle on another question with which numerous member states of the Council have been dealing throughout the 20th century: how far may a democracy go in protecting itself from (allegedly) undemocratic parties, groups or individuals?

Overruling ‘the Salduz Doctrine’ in Beuze v Belgium: The ECtHR’s further retreat from the Salduz principles on the right to access to lawyer

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-362
Author(s):  
Ergul Celiksoy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Increasing Trend ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

In November 2018, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Beuze v Belgium. Relying on Ibrahim and Others v the United Kingdom, the Grand Chamber held that the Salduz principles require a two-stage test of analysis, and hence, ruled out that systematic statutory restriction of a general and mandatory nature would in itself constitute an automatic violation of Article 6 § 3(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Beuze judgment appears to be very controversial, since the Grand Chamber failed to put forward any convincing reason why it departed from previous case law, particularly Dayanan v Turkey and other judgments against Turkey. In their separate opinion, the concurring Judges in Beuze were concerned that the Beuze judgment overruled ‘ Salduz itself and all other cases that have applied the Salduz test’, and thus, ‘actually distorts and changes the Salduz principle and devalues the right that the Court established previously’. This article analyses the Beuze judgment in the light of the Court’s recent jurisprudence in order to examine whether it contradicts and dilutes the principles previously set out. Further, it discusses the implications of the new standards established in Ibrahim and Others and in subsequent cases, particularly Beuze. Particular attention is paid to the questions of how ‘fair’ is the application of overall fairness assessment in every case, how may the Court’s changing direction of approach concerning the right to access to a lawyer affect the increasing trend of recognition thereof, as a rule, by the contracting states, and finally, to what extent the new principles, especially those established in Beuze, comply with Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer.

scholarly journals Tajemnica adwokacka jako element realizacji prawa do sprawiedliwego procesu sądowego oraz prawa do poszanowania korespondencji

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-21
Author(s):  
Natalia Banach ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Moral Norms ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

The issue of exemption from the attorney-client privilege and the nature of this attorney-client privilege is widely discussed both in the literature on the subject and in the doctrine. In order to analyze this subject, it was necessary to interpret the provisions of the Law on the Bar Ac (26 May 1982), the provisions of the Code of Bar Ethics (23 December 2011) the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (2 April 1997), both guarantees enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights of liberty from 1950. The interpretation was made in conjunction with Polish case law common courts and case law of the European Court of Human Rights. This also presents the view of the polish Ombudsman’s Office. Given that the professional secrecy of lawyers is an inseparable element of justice, it would be wrong to omit the generally accepted moral norms of society in relation to the procedural role of a lawyer. The thesis put forward that the professional secrecy of lawyers is part of the implementation of the right to a fair trial and the right to respect for private life. The purpose of the work was to emphasize the essence of lawyers’ secrecy as an inseparable element of defense of the parties to the proceedings and to indicate interpretation differences between Polish courts and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

La Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo: il divieto di eterologa non viola la Convenzione europea sui diritti umani Nota in margine alla sentenza della Grande Camera del 3 novembre 2011

2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Casini
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Reproduction ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Artificial Reproduction ◽  
Member States ◽  
Italian Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Lower Chamber ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

Il contributo prende in esame la sentenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo emanata dalla Grande Camera il 3 novembre 2011 (caso S.H. et Al.v. Austria n. 57813/00). Essa va ad arricchire positivamente il panorama biogiuridico europeo. La sentenza in oggetto riguarda il giudizio instaurato nei confronti dell’Austria, a proposito della disciplina che pone il divieto di fecondazione artificiale eterologa. Nella sentenza, resa in via definitiva, la Grande Camera ha superato, ribaltandolo, il giudizio espresso dalla Camera semplice il 1° aprile 2011, affermando che il divieto di fecondazione artificiale eterologa, contenuto nella legge austriaca, non contrasta con gli artt. 8 (diritto alla vita privata e familiare) e 14 (principio di non discriminazione) della Convenzione europea per la salvaguardia dei diritti e delle libertà fondamentali. La Corte non affronta le questioni bioetiche e biogiuridiche sollevate dalla fecondazione artificiale eterologa (si pensi al diritto del figlio all’unitarietà delle figure genitoriali), ma salva la legge austriaca facendo riferimento alla dottrina del c.d. “margine di apprezzamento” degli Stati membri. È auspicabile comunque che la sentenza influisca sul giudizio di costituzionalità in ordine al divieto di eterologa contenuto nella legge italiana. Nella prospettiva di valorizzare la voce degli Stati, merita sostegno iniziativa cittadina europea promossa ai sensi dell’art. 11 del Trattato di Lisbona per riconoscere il diritto alla vita di ogni essere umano fin dal concepimento. ---------- The article considers the decision of the European Court of Human Rights given by the Grand Chamber on November 3rd 2011 (case S.H. et Al. vs. Austria, application n. 57181/00). This ruling, which adds an important contribution to European Biolaw, concerns the Austrian law that prohibits heterologous artificial human reproduction and reversed the previous ruling (April, 1st, 2011) by the lower chamber of the European Court. So, the Grand Chamber affirmed that the ban on heterologous artificial reproduction does not violate article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) of Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Grand Chamber did not address the bioethical questions raised by heterologous artificial reproduction, but confirmed the law by referring to the theory of a “wide margin of appreciation” of member States. It is to be hoped that this decision will carry weight with the Italian Constitutional Court when it considers the Italian law prohibiting heterologous artificial reproduction. With regard to valorizing the beliefs of the member States, it would be good to support the European citizen’s initiative, promoted following article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty, to recognize the right to life of every human being from conception.

The right to the protection of religious feelings versus freedom of expression in the light of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the European Convention on Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 58-83
Author(s):  
Janusz Roszkiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
A Value ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

This article concerns the right to the protection of religious feelings as a value which justifies a restriction of freedom of expression. The right to the protection of religious feelings can be protected by three methods: civil, penal and administrative. The issue is discussed from the point of view of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the European Convention on Human Rights, with particular emphasis on the case-law of the Polish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

scholarly journals Human Rights Waiver in Criminal Proceedings in Terms of the European Court of Human Rights: ‘Russian Cases’

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 50-58
Author(s):  
Irina Chebotareva ◽  
Olesia Pashutina ◽  
Irina Revina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Widespread Occurrence ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

The article investigates the general position of the European Court of Human Rights on the admissibility and validity of the waiver of rights, the features of the European mechanism for protecting human rights in case of the waiver of the right; studies the case-law practices in criminal cases of the Court in relation to Russia where the Court considered the presence/absence of the waiver of the right. The practice of the ECHR reveals the widespread occurrence of human rights violations in the Russian criminal proceedings with the alleged waiver of the right in the framework of criminal procedure. These includes the situations when the Government claimed that the Applicant had waived his/her right and the Applicant did not agree with this fact and insisted that he had been deprived of the opportunity to exercise his/her right. According to the ECHR, violations of human rights established in the Convention are related not only to shortcomings in the legal system but also to improper law enforcement that does not comply with the Convention requirements. Based on the analysis of the ECHR’s general approaches to the waiver of the right, the authors revealed the compliance of the Russian criminal procedure with the requirements of the Court to the waiver of the right and the guarantees established for it. To achieve the objectives in the HUDOC database of the European Court, using search requests we identified cases against Russia considered by the Chamber and the Grand Chamber, in which the ECHR examined the issue of the presence/absence of the waiver of the right in the criminal procedure. As a result, 40 judgments in which the Court directly considered the issue of the presence/absence of the waiver of the right in the criminal procedure in Russia were selected. We studied and analysed the selected judgments.

Stages of Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 219-254
Author(s):  
Kristina Hatas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Destination Country ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

This case list offers a guide to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law pertaining to migration. While the case list does not cite every ECtHR decision related to migration, it offers a comprehensive overview of important instances of case law indicative of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on migration. These are, for example, Grand Chamber decisions, or cases cited by the Court in its more recent case law. In addition to including key cases cited in the preceding chapters of this book, this list also includes cases identified in thematic case law guides of the ECHR and recent jurisprudence in the area of migration, notified by the ECHR in monthly updates. The cases are organised in thematic blocks, which in turn appear in the order in which they pertain to the different temporal stages of migration, from entering the destination country to the right to remain and the cultural and religious rights of long-term migrants.

scholarly journals The hidden meanings in the case law of the European Court for Human Rights

Semiotica ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 (209) ◽  
pp. 209-230
Author(s):  
Laura Ervo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Organized Crime ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

AbstractIn my paper, I will study the case law of the European Court of Human Rights by using discourse analysis as a method. My hypothesis is that the court has changed its line concerning the right to a fair trial (in article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights) over the last twenty years. Earlier, it always defended the rights of the accused and the authorities’ problems, for instance, in fact gathering, were recessive. The same covered the rights of the witnesses even if the court usually confessed that also the witness has their rights, which should be respected. It also stressed that authorities of course have difficulties with proof – for example – the offences that are connected with the organized crime. Still, the rights of defense were always number one and inviolate. During recent years, the line seems to have changed even if the court has not transparently said so. However, it has given some new precedents by the Grand Chamber where the rights of the defense have been limited more than before; for instance, the cases Jalloh v. Germany (11 July 2006), Gäfgen v. Germany (1 June 2010), and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. Great Britain (15 December 2011). The expressions used in case law show that the way of thinking has changed as well. Still, the changes are sometimes more hidden than transparent where discourse analysis is the only tool for catching the changes and showing differences in the thinking of the court.

Discriminación racial y ejercicio del derecho a la instrucción en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. El caso de la minoría gitana

2012 ◽  
pp. 247-291
Author(s):  
Lucía CASADO CASADO
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

LABURPENA: Lan honetan, lehen-lehenik, hurbilpen orokor bat egingo dugu Giza Eskubideak eta Oinarrizko Askatasunak Babesteko Europako Hitzarmenak jasotzen dituen diskriminazio-debekuaren eta hezkuntzarako eskubidearen eraketari; eta ondoren, arraza-diskriminazioaren debekuak hezkuntzarako eskubidearekin duen lotura aztertuko dugu, Giza Eskubideen Europako Auzitegiaren jurisprudentziaren esparruan. Horretarako, eremu horretako lau epai esanguratsuri helduko diegu: Giza Eskubideak eta beste batzuk Txekiar Errepublikaren aurka kasua, bi epai sortarazi dituena (bata Bigarren Sekzioarena, eta bestea Sala Nagusiarena); Sampanis eta beste batzuk Greziaren aurka kasua, eta Orsus eta beste batzuk Kroaziaren aurka kasua. Kasu horietan planteatzen den auzia da ea estatu jakin batzuek ijito etniako umeak eskolaratzeko abiarazi dituzten neurriak diskriminatzaileak diren ala ez. Horretaz gainera, gogoeta batzuk egingo ditugu alor horretako jurisprudentziaren bilakaeraz eta beraren ondorioez. RESUMEN: este trabajo, tras realizar una aproximación general a la configuración de la prohibición de discriminación y al derecho a la instrucción en el Convenio Europeo para la protección de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales, analiza la prohibición de discriminación racial en conexión con el ejercicio del derecho a la instrucción en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Para ello, examina cuatro sentencias relevantes recaídas en este ámbito (casos D.H. y otros contra República Checa, que ha dado lugar a dos sentencias —una de la Sección 2.ª y otra de la Gran Sala—; Sampanis y otros contra Grecia; y Orsus y otros contra Croacia), en las que se plantea si las medidas adoptadas por determinados Estados en relación con la escolarización de niños de etnia gitana son o no discriminatorias. También se realizan algunas consideraciones en torno a la evolución jurisprudencial en este ámbito y sus consecuencias. ABSTRACT: After a general approximation to the configuration of the prohibition of discrimination and of the right of instruction by the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, this work analyzes the prohibition of racial discrimination in relation with the exercise of the right of instruction within the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. For this purpose, four relevant judgments on the subject (cases D.H and others against the Czech Republic, which produced two rulings: one by the Second section and other by the Grand Chamber; Sampanis against Greece; and Orsus and others against Croatia) where it arose whether the measures adopted by some States in relation to the schooling of kids from the gypsy ethnic group are or not discriminatory are studied. Some considerations regarding the evolution by the case law regarding this area are also carried out and their consequences.

scholarly journals THE EROSION OF THE SALDUZ DOCTRINE IN THE CASES OF IBRAHIM AND OTHERS V. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND BEUZE V. BELGIUM

2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 95-122
Author(s):  
Faruk H. Avdić ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Defense Attorney ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

The so-called Salduz doctrine that concerns the right to a fair trial and the right to the defense attorney emerged from the case of Salduz v. Turkey, decided on the part of the European Court of Human Rights where the Grand Chamber found the violation of Article 6, paragraph 3(c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In this connection, the aim of this paper is twofold. In the first place, the paper aims to demonstrate how the European Court of Human Rights has overturned the two main tenents of the so-called Salduz doctrine derived from its landmark case of Salduz v. Turkey in its later Judgments delivered in the case of Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom and the case of Beuze v. Belgium. The two tenets derived from the Salduz doctrine being examined in the paper are the right to access to the defense attorney as a rule during pre-trial proceedings and the absolute exclusionary rule. In the second place, the paper aims to offer a critique of the standard of compelling reasons employed in the Ibrahim Judgment. In order to achieve its aim, this paper primarily analyses the jurisprudence of the European Human Court of Human Rights in the cases of Salduz v. Turkey, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom, and Beuze v. Belgium. Besides, the paper also touches upon other judgments of the European Court of Human Rights related to its subject. The paper in question, therefore, primarily relies on the case-law method in achieving its aims. The paper concludes that in overturning the Salduz doctrine in relation to aspects examined in the paper, the European Court of Human Rights has exacerbated the legal standing of the person against whom criminal proceedings are being conducted.

The European Court of Human Rights: Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 217-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Arno Hessbruegge
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Language Education ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Right To Education ◽  
Republic Of Moldova ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

On October 19, 2012, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) ruled that policies pursued by de facto authorities in the Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova aimed at suppressing Moldovan-language education violated the right to education of the affected children and their parents. The Court held Russia responsible for these violations by virtue of the continued vital support Russia provides to the de facto authorities. Meanwhile, the Court found Moldova to have complied with residual human rights obligations it retained, despite lacking effective control over Transdniestria. This important judgment develops the jurisprudence of the Court in relation to human rights violations arising from conduct of de facto authorities. However, it does not fully clarify the standards the Court applies in attributing their conduct to third states.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document