The prism of fundamental rights

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janneke Gerards

European Court of Human Rights – Suggestions for reducing case backlog and national criticism of the Court – Alternative to incremental case law and reasoning by analogy – Greater deference to national courts where individual interests, rather than fundamental rights are at stake – Guidelines to find objective criteria for the definition of fundamental rights – Sharper delineation of Convention rights – Procedural review preceding substantive review

2021 ◽  
pp. 19-23
Author(s):  
Oleksandr STOROZHENKO ◽  
Oksana PROHOROVA

Introduction. Ukraine signed Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms many years ago to provide effective protection of fundamental rights for every human that stands out on its' territory. This document is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. Practice of this Court must be used by national courts of Ukraine to match international human rights' standards. However, according to results of statistical research, application of that legal positions by national judges aren’t correct enough. The purpose of the paper is to identify and analyze problematic issues of application of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights by national courts of Ukraine. The authors also wanted to investigate the national practice of using the ECHR' legal positions and to provide recommendations to address shortcomings in such application. Results. The paper considers the issue of application of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights by the national courts of Ukraine. The legal nature of ECHR decisions' is studied. Authors are stick to the idea that judgments of ECHR aren’t classic precedent. There are authors' opinions about the problem of applying the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which has no official translation. They think that judges need to be taught professional English and French. So that they will be able to understand original text of judgments correct. There is also a thought about necessity of creating special database with Ukrainian translation of some judgments. Authors have also revealed problematic aspects of the application such as: erroneous, manipulative, formal references. There are some decisions of Ukrainian courts that have been analyzed by the authors. Erroneous references to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in such cases have been determined. Authors stated that the reason of those defects is insufficient awareness of judges about the specifics of application legal positions of ECHR. Conclusion. According to the results of the work, the importance of education and training of future judges is stated. In addition, authors emphasized on necessity of further observations of this question.


2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Riley

In September 2000 the European Commission published its long-awaited proposed replacement for Regulation 17, the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Implementation of the Rules on Competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (hereafter the draft regulation).1 The debate on the draft regulation has focused on the abolition of the notification system, the role of the national courts, and the role of the national competition authorities (hereafter the NCAs). However, there is one significant overlooked issue, namely the extent to which the investigation provisions of the draft regulation comply with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter ECtHR).2 Given the paucity of the ECtHR's case law in 1961 it is understandable that the implications of the European Convention of Human Rights (hereafter ECHR) for the investigative provisions of what was to become Regulation 17 were not at that time given any great consideration by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. However, there is now an extensive human rights case law, developed by the Strasbourg authorities which, it is argued, casts a major shadow over the Commission's existing and proposed investigative powers. It is further argued that the case law of the European Court of Justice (hereafter ECJ) and the Court of First Instance (hereafter CFI) in respect of fundamental rights as general principles of law, does not provide an equivalent standard of protection to that offered by the ECtHR.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (29) ◽  
pp. 6-14
Author(s):  
Viacheslav Viktorovich Shamrai ◽  
Yuliia Yuriivna Ivchuk ◽  
Vladislav Yegorovich Tarasenko ◽  
Hlib Omelianovych Fedorov

The purpose of the article is to identify and analyze topical issues of the application of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter - ECtHR) in the context of the implementation of the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine. To achieve this purpose, the authors have studied the scientific positions of the lawyers, the relevant provisions of the current legislation of Ukraine, the requirements of international legal acts and the case-law of the ECtHR. The general provisions of the criminal process science were methodological basis of the study. The authors of the article used the following methods of scientific knowledge: systematic, logical, semantic, comparative and documentary analysis. The place of the case-law of the ECtHR in the system of national legislation has been clarified, in particular the decisions of this Court are binding throughout Ukraine, and national courts have to apply the case-law of the ECtHR as a source of law. It is argued that the right of Ukrainian communities to seek the protection of their rights and freedoms under the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter - ECHR) is an additional guarantee against arbitrariness of the public authorities and officials who violated or restricted them. It was stated that even after implementation of the universally recognized norms and principles of international law in the sphere of protection of human rights and freedoms into current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, the facts of their violation occur. This, in turn, leads to the adoption of the ECtHR decisions against Ukraine, in which 90% of cases state violations of fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the ECHR.


2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.


ICL Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-69
Author(s):  
Eszter Polgári

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.


Author(s):  
Francesca Ippolito ◽  
Carmen Pérez González

This chapter aims to analyse how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has developed the protection of certain socio-economic rights of irregular migrants contributing to the consolidation of a minimum standard in this field. In particular, this chapter focuses on Strasbourg case law developments regarding rights to adequate housing, health care, and education, along with protection against labour exploitation and trafficking with the purpose of labour exploitation. Relevant contributions from other human rights bodies, particularly the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR), will be also considered in order to conclude whether we can affirm the existence of a minimum core protections in this regard. The chapter concludes that international courts and non-judicial mechanisms are contributing to the definition of a shared global understanding of the centrality of human dignity in the quest to protect fundamental rights.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 409-420
Author(s):  
Anna Podolska

Abstract There are various forms of jurisdictional dialogue. In addition to drawing from the case law of another court or seeking direct assistance of such another court in passing the judgment, we can notice in practice situations when by issuing a verdict the courts are communicating with each other. The rulings of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the free movement of judgments in the European Union and protection of fundamental rights are the example of such activities. Each of these bodies was interpreting separately the extent to which the mechanisms of recognising and executing the judgments may interfere with the level of protection of fundamental rights. A common conclusion concerns assigning the priority to protection of fundamental rights, while individual bodies were determining differently the standards of such protection. The analysed judgments can be construed as a communication between these bodies. Although no direct discussion takes place between these courts, this is still a form of interaction which affects the development of the case law and understanding of the boundaries of mutual recognition of judgments and protection of human rights within judicial proceedings.


Author(s):  
VLADIMÍRA PEJCHALOVÁ GRÜNWALDOVÁ

AbstractThis article deals with the implementation, at the national level, of European human rights protection standards as enshrined in theEuropean Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) and interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It discusses the principles of interpretation of theECHRby the ECtHR, the interaction and mutual dialogue between the ECtHR and national courts, and the approach of the latter to interpretation and application of the case law of the ECtHR. Using the concrete examples of France and the Czech Republic as case studies, it is shown to what extent and how European constitutional courts take into account and apply the letter of the Convention and its interpretation by the ECtHR.


2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 427-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Niveau ◽  
J. Materi

AbstractPurposeTo extensively review the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) case law concerning psychiatric commitment, and to estimate the role of this supranational jurisprudence in the practice of contemporary psychiatry.MethodUsing keywords to search the ECHR computerized database “HUDOC”, we reviewed all cases concerning psychiatric commitment registered between September 1953 and December 31, 2004. Four groups were identified: applications declared inadmissible; applications accepted but not judged by the Court; pending cases; and cases judged by the Court.ResultsOf the almost 118,000 decisions taken by the ECHR in this time frame, we found 108 situations concerning psychiatric commitment. Forty-one of these applications were considered by the Court to be inadmissible. Twenty-four other cases were considered admissible but not judged by the ECHR. Three admissible cases were still pending at the end of 2004. The ECHR judged 40 cases, and found in 35 of them that one or several rights as guaranteed by the Convention had been violated.DiscussionThe ECHR protects the human rights of persons subjected to involuntary psychiatric commitment by creating supranational law in the following areas: definition of “unsoundness of mind”; conditions of lawfulness of detention; right to a review of detention by a Court; right to information; right to respect for private and family life; and conditions of confinement, which address inhuman and degrading treatment. The respective number of applications submitted to the ECHR did not depend on when the Convention had entered into force in that country.ConclusionThe possibility of an individual to access the ECHR depends on the degree of democracy in his country and on the access to legal assistance through non-governmental organizations or individual intervening parties.


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 313-336
Author(s):  
Pamela McCormick

Abstract Interim measures can be indicated by most international decision-making bodies which monitor compliance with human rights norms to the parties involved in the proceedings before them, in order to prevent the commission of any irreversible actions which would either preclude the proper examination of a complaint or render the final judgment meaningless. The availability of interim measures is an essential feature of any effective judicial system, particularly where fundamental rights are at stake. They play a particularly important role in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’). The volume of requests for an indication of interim measures received by the Court each year is substantial and increasing. This presents the Court with a number of legal and practical problems. This chapter examines the circumstances in which an indication of interim measures may be made, as well as the consequences of non-compliance with such an indication, although it is acknowledged that the incidence of non-compliance is low. With its recent case law, the Court has brought the existence of interim measures to the attention of a wider audience, which is desirable as only such an awareness will render the protection of Convention rights practical and effective rather than theoretical and illusory, a stated goal of the Court. However, such a wider awareness will in turn increase the volume of requests again, making it likely that the Court will in years to come have to make significant changes to the scope of requests for interim measures, as well as to its practices and procedures for considering such requests.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document