scholarly journals The concept of ‘internal judicial independence’ in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joost Sillen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Communist Countries

Internal judicial independence as a new element of the case law of the Strasbourg Court on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights – The Court has only found violations of internal judicial independence in cases against former communist countries – Relevance of the case law for other member states of the Council of Europe – Internal judicial independence as part of the requirement of an impartial tribunal? – Importance of the independence of the individual judge

Is the assessment under Article 8 ECHR for migrants justifiable?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110614
Author(s):  
Jennie Edlund ◽  
Václav Stehlík
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Way

The paper analyses the protection granted under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights for different immigration cases. The way the European Court of Human Rights determines compliance with Article 8 for settled migrants differs from the way the Court determines compliance for foreign nationals seeking entry or requesting to regularize their irregular migration status. The paper argues that the European Court of Human Rights application of different principles when determining a States’ positive and negative obligations is contradicting its own case law. It also argues that the absence of justification grounds for the refusal of foreign nationals who are seeking entry lacks legitimacy. By treating all immigration cases under Article 8(2) the paper suggests that the differentiation between cases should be based on how a refusal of entry or an expulsion would impact on the family life. The paper also suggests that more consideration should be given towards the insiders interests when balancing the individual rights against the state's interests. These changes would lead to a more consistent and fair case law and generate a more convergent practice by the states which will increase the precedent value of the Court's judgements.

The Impact of the Pan-European General Principles of Good Administration on Swiss Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 353-374
Author(s):  
Nadja Braun Binder ◽  
Ardita Driza Maurer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Swiss Law ◽  
Written Law ◽  
The Impact

This chapter is dedicated to exploring the impact on Swiss administrative law of the pan-European general principles of good administration developed within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE). The chapter claims that the standards stemming from the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights have been adopted in an exemplary way by Swiss authorities. The influence was especially strong in the 1980s and 1990s. The same cannot be said regarding other documents of the CoE, whose impact remains disparate because many aspects of the pan-European general principles of good administration were already part of the national written law. The chapter concludes that despite the exemplary integration of CoE instruments heated debates on the content of these instruments are not excluded from Switzerland.

1 The Court Over Sixty Years

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nussberger Angelika
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Member States ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Violent Conflicts

This introductory chapter provides a background of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a multilateral treaty based on humanism and rule of law. Similar to the—albeit non-binding—Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the ECHR is a document that marks a change in philosophy and gives a new definition of the responsibility of the State towards the individual. It fixes basic values in times of change and paves the way towards reconciliation in Europe. Unlike in a peace treaty, not all wartime enemies participate in its elaboration, but, one by one, all the European States accede to it, signalling their consent to the values fixed by a small community of States in the early 1950s. Seven decades later, forty-seven European States have ratified the Convention. Admittedly, the new start based on common values could not prevent the outbreak of violent conflicts between Member States. At the same time, the resurgence of anti-democratic tendencies could not be successfully banned in all Member States, but such tendencies could be stigmatized as grave human rights violations in binding judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Thus, it is not surprising that the European model of human rights protection has been attractive and inspirational for other parts of the world. Nevertheless, there was and is a debate in some Member States to withdraw from the Convention as the Court’s jurisprudence is seen to be too intrusive on national sovereignty.

scholarly journals Las cláusulas de restricción en el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos

2021 ◽  
pp. 469
Author(s):  
Lara Redondo Saceda
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
The Impact

El presente trabajo pretende analizar el sistema de restricciones al ejercicio de los derechos previsto en los artículos 8 a 11 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Así, el objetivo principal es reflexionar sobre la incidencia de estas cláusulas de restricción, su desarrollo jurisprudencial por parte del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y su significado en la construcción del sistema de derechos humanos del Consejo de Europa.This paper is intended to analyse the system of restrictions on the exercise of rights provided by articles 8 to 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Thus, the principal aim is reflecting on the impact of these restriction clauses, their case-law development by the European Court of Human Rights and their meaning on the construction of the Council of Europe Human Rights System.

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.

Cyberlibel Cases before the European Court of Human Rights: Estimating Possible Outcomes

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-20
Author(s):  
Dragos Cucereanu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Defamation Law ◽  
The Way

Internet defamation, or cyberlibel, has become an increasingly widespread and alarming side of online expression. This has lead to controversies concerning the way of responding to this new challenge in defamation law. Such controversies persist, as law makers and courts in the Council of Europe Member States vary in their solutions. The author searches for uniformity in regulating cyberlibel in Europe, by estimating how the European Court of Human Rights could decide such cases, based on analogy with its previous case law, as well as the law and practice of those States that have addressed the issue. It concludes that the Court may take into consideration the specificity of Internet, while mostly in line with its previous case law, by further developing it. The article proposes a list of criteria that might help deciding cyberlibel cases, and analyses specific ways of determining their applicability and effect.

Allowing the Right Margin: The European Court of Human Rights and The National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review?

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 381-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean Spielmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Essential Question ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Law

AbstractThe doctrine of the national margin of appreciation is well established in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In applying this essentially judge-made doctrine, the Court imposes self-restraint on its power of review, accepting that domestic authorities are best placed to settle a dispute. The areas in which the doctrine has most often been applied will be presented here, looking at various examples from case law. After a brief overview of the doctrine’s origin, the analysis will focus on the situations in which the margin has been allowed or denied. Does it relate merely to factual and domestic-law aspects of a case? What is the scope of the margin of appreciation when it comes to interpreting provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights? What impact does an interference (whether disproportionate or not) with a guaranteed right have on the margin allowed? Is there a second-degree or ‘reverse’ margin of appreciation, whereby discretionary powers can be distributed between executive and judicial authorities at domestic level? Lastly it is noteworthy that Protocol No 14, now ratified by all Council of Europe Member States, enshrines in Article 12—at least to some extent—an obligation to apply a margin of appreciation. One essential question remains: by allowing any margin of a certain width, is the European Court simply waiving its power of review or is it attributing responsibility to the domestic courts in the interest of a healthy subsidiarity?

scholarly journals Enforcing the Judgments of the ECtHR in Russia in Light of the Amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Court

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerttu Mäger
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Russian Constitution ◽  
Cherry Picking ◽  
The Law

The paper was written to analyse the enforceability of the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights in Russia, particularly in light of recent amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Court and relevant case law of the Constitutional Court of Russia. Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights, obliging member states to execute the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights, does not leave room for ‘cherry-picking’ in enforcing the judgements. However, the Constitutional Court has suggested that Russian authorities should indeed engage in cherry-picking and may refuse to enforce judgements that are not in accordance with the Russian Constitution as interpreted by the Constitutional Court. In December 2015, the Russian parliament amended the Law on the Constitutional Court so as to empower said court to declare judgements of the European Court of Human Rights unenforceable when implementation would be in conflict with the Constitution of Russia. The paper discusses the background of these developments and alternatives for overcoming the conflict between domestic legislation and the instruments of the Council of Europe.

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.

The Principle of Legality and Administrative Punishment under the ECHR: A Fused Protection

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-51
Author(s):  
Agno Andrijauskaito
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
European Court ◽  
Administrative Punishment ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
The Relationship

The principle of legality permeates the entire legal system based on the rule of law. It is especially well-pronounced in criminal law. However, what are its content, scope and implications when it comes to prescribing and punishing for offences which are supposedly less reprehensible, namely – administrative offences? How precisely should they or the sanctions that they stipulate be defined in legal provisions? Furthermore, is there any room for interpretation while imposing sanctions by public bodies? This article seeks to delve into these vexed questions by examining the relationship between the principle of legality and administrative punishment within the framework of the Council of Europe ('CoE') and the implications stemming therefrom. This will be done by dissecting the rationale and notion of this principle in the normative sources of the CoE with a special emphasis on Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and its (autonomous) application in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as well as by identifying the shortcomings of the current perception of the legality principle in the context of administrative punishment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document