The Strasbourg Court on the Dayton Constitution: Judgment in the case of Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 22 December 2009

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samo Bardutzky
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber

On 22 December 2009, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter: the Court) issued a judgment on the applications filed by two citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr Dervo Sejdić and Mr Jakob Finci. It found a violation of their rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and under the Protocols to the Convention. Bosnia and Herzegovina had violated the applicants' rights under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Battles Over Symbols: The “Religion” of the Minority Versus the “Culture” of the Majority

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori G. Beaman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Symbol ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
European Tradition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

Moreover, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to identify in the constant central core of Christian faith, despite the inquisition, despite anti-Semitism and despite the crusades, the principles of human dignity, tolerance and freedom, including religious freedom, and therefore, in the last analysis, the foundations of the secular State.A European court should not be called upon to bankrupt centuries of European tradition. No court, certainly not this Court, should rob the Italians of part of their cultural personality.In March, 2011, after five years of working its way through various levels of national and European courts, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided that a crucifix hanging at the front of a classroom did not violate the right to religious freedom under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Specifically, Ms. Soile Lautsi had complained that the presence of the crucifix violated her and her children's right to religious freedom and that its presence amounted to an enforced religious regime. The Grand Chamber, reversing the lower Chamber's decision, held that while admittedly a religious symbol, the crucifix also represented the cultural heritage of Italians.

Georgia v. Russia (I)

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-173
Author(s):  
Bjorn Arp
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber

On July 3, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) rendered its judgment in Georgia v. Russia, concerning Russia’s collective expulsion of a large number of Georgian nationals between October 2006 and January 2007. The Court held that Russia had violated several provisions of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention or ECHR), in particular Article of Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR (prohibition of collective expulsions). Because the Russian government had failed to cooperate with the Court by providing relevant information, the Court also found a violation of Article 38 of the ECHR, which obliges states to furnish “all necessary facilities” for the effective conduct of the Court’s investigation of the case. The Court deferred its decision on the question of “just satisfaction” under Article 41 pending further submissions by the parties. This was the first of three interstate proceedings that Georgia has brought against Russia under the special procedure of Article 33, and it is the first decision on the merits of these cases.

Cyprus v. Turkey

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 393-399
Author(s):  
Alexia Solomou
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Missing Persons ◽  
European Court ◽  
Greek Cypriot ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
First Time

In a judgment rendered on May 12, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) ordered Turkey to pay Cyprus unprecedented sums for nonpecuniary damage suffered by the relatives of missing persons and by the “enclaved” Greek Cypriot residents of the Karpas Peninsula stemming from the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and its aftermath. In doing so, the Court applied Article 41 on just satisfaction of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention or Convention) to an interstate complaint for the first time.

X and Others v. Austria (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 620-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen A. Doty
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Opposite Sex ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, in X and Others v. Austria, held by a majority of ten to seven that Austria violated Article 14 (prohibition on discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) when it denied an unmarried same-sex couple the right to a second-parent adoption when second-parent adoptions are available to unmarried opposite-sex couples. This is the first time the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has recognized a right to second-parent adoption by same-sex couples.

scholarly journals Problems of the Russian Legislstion Improvement and Practice of its Applicatoin Based on the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (in the Spfere of the Administrative Coersion)

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 30-39
Author(s):  
Viatcheslav Viatcheslavovich Gavrilov ◽  
◽  
Olga Eugenievna Shishkina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal System ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The article is devoted to the issues of the implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights into the Russian legal system. The sphere of administrative coercion and administrative liability was chosen as a practical material for this research. The authors stress the role and importance of the ECHR practice for the improvement of Russian legislation, outline problems and difficulties of the implementation of the ECHR judgments in this sphere.

scholarly journals Suživot negatorijske zaštite od imisija i prava na život u zdravoj životnoj sredini

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 241-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrijela Mihelčić ◽  
Maša Marochini Zrinski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Minimum Level ◽  
Healthy Environment ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Regulation

The authors analyse the national protection from emissions, in the first place, a property law component of this regime. Domestic regulation of the protection of property rights from harassment was brought in the perspective of the protection that the European Court of Human Rights provides for the right to live in a healthy environment, primarily through the protection of rights under Art. 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to respect for private and family life and home). In the context of the latter, the authors have analysed the interpretative methods used by the European Court and explored the following features: the requirement that environmental and environmental impacts and disturbances violate the Convention right, that is, the existence of a specific Convention causal link; the category of minimum level of severity; oscillation of the "quantum" of minimum level of severity within conventional "fluctuations"; and the scope (and type) of protecting the right to live in a healthy environment through the paradigm of the positive / negative obligations of the Contracting States.

Does Self-isolation Violate the Right to Liberty? An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ Practice in Light of the Ukrainian Experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 368-385
Author(s):  
Yana Litins’ka ◽  
Oleksandra Karpenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Stress Test ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Human Rights Practice ◽  
Rapid Action ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

Abstract COVID-19 became a stress-test for many legal systems because it required that a balance be found between rapid action to prevent the spread of the disease, and continued respect for human rights. Many states in Europe, including Ukraine, chose to enforce an obligation to self-isolate. In this article we review what the obligation to self-isolate entails in the case of Ukraine. We also analyse whether such an obligation should be viewed as a deprivation or a mere restriction of liberty, and if it is permissible under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Aircraft Night Noise Complainants Win Case in European Court

2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (9) ◽  
pp. 20-26
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Aircraft Noise ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Ear Infection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Falling Asleep ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Do So

Eight residents, who lived close to Heathrow Airport, claimed violation of their human rights under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The noise levels experienced by the applicants were such as to prevent sleep to them and their families, leading to health problems. In some cases they had been forced to move away from the airport. Aircraft noise prevented the applicants from falling asleep, delaying this till after 01.00 and they were woken early, typically around 05.00, but sometimes earlier. Some applicants wore earplugs to help sleep at night, but in one case this resulted in an ear infection. Disturbance had increased after 1993, despite an assurance that it would not do so. The applicants won their case before the European Court of Human Rights and were awarded damages and costs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document