The ties that bind: family and private life as bars to the deportation of immigrants

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-296
Author(s):  
Yaël Ronen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
Two Bodies

AbstractThis article analyses the way in which the use of the rights to family life and to private life has evolved as a bar to the deportation of immigrants. The analysis focuses on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with respect to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which uses a rights-based framework; and of the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) with respect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which uses a status-based framework. It notes the interaction between the two bodies and the attempt in each forum to modify its normative framework to follow the other's. The article further considers the implications of each normative framework for both integrated immigrants and other immigrants.

scholarly journals Respect of the Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1533-1560
Author(s):  
Jovana Vojvodić
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

Private life, family life, home and correspondence represent some of the most intimate and significant aspects of human life. The focus of this paper is an analysis of the right to respect for private life, family life, home and correspondence, as the elements of the protection of the Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The analysis was primarily conducted through research and interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights recent case law, whereby, some of the cases of the highest importance as well as the case of the Republic of Serbia as a respondent state, were specially observed.

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.

scholarly journals An Emerging Human Right to Protection against Unjustified Dismissal

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Collins
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Professional Relationships ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Way Of Life ◽  
Human Right ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber

Abstract Although a right to protection against unjustified dismissal is not widely recognised in human rights law, the European Court of Human Rights has begun to use Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights to develop a general right based on the adverse consequences to ordinary private life caused by an unjustified dismissal. Instead of requiring the employer’s reason for the dismissal to be connected to an aspect of an employee’s private and family life in order to engage Article 8, the Court’s new, broader approach focuses on major adverse effects or consequences caused by dismissals to an employee’s family life, personal and professional relationships, to self-respect, and to their chosen way of life and career. The consequence-based approach permits the application of Article 8 whatever reason the employer puts forward for the dismissal. The article assesses the extent and limits of the protection against unjustified dismissal under the Convention as a result primarily of this extension from a reason-based approach to a consequence-based approach to Article 8, an approach that was confirmed by the Grand Chamber in Denisov v Ukraine.

scholarly journals MARRIAGE AND FAMILY LIFE IN THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 58-63
Author(s):  
Oana Ghiţă
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Marriage And Family ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The article 8 and 12 – European Convention of Human Rights regulate the right to family and private life and, respectively, the right to marriage. These rights have been transposed into the national legislation of the States-members of European Union. The two rights that we are speaking of, which can be found as a constitutional principle and as an ordinary law, tries to reduce the public authorities interference into the private and personal family field. The reality proves that the right to marriage has been broken by the impossibility of the spouses to marry because they can not be divorced. This is the reason why we have two different rights in European Convention: the right to private, family life and the right to marriage. Many European states still have a limited regulation of the reasons for getting the dissolution of marriage. The European Convention has nothing to do with such cases because does not regulates the right to divorce and it would be an interference into the national law. How can a person be married again if he/she doesn’t have the possibility to divorce? In these conditions, can we take the European Convention into consideration as a real instrument of protection for the right to marriage? The first precedent of ECHR jurisprudences limits the infringement of the right to marriage made by the national Courts because of the lack of regulations or a bad interpretation of it.

scholarly journals International standards in the fight against terrorism

2010 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 602-628
Author(s):  
Dijana Jankovic
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
International Standards ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
Principal Standards ◽  
Terrorist Acts

Terrorism as a phenomenon of the modern society threatens to jeopardize the most important achievements of the modern society. The international community devotes much attention to the fight against terrorism and a number of legal instruments and standards that illustrate the basic message have been formulated in international documents - and the message is that it is possible to fight against terrorism effectively only if principal standards of internationally protected human rights are fulfilled. The fight against terrorism must never lead to the abolition of values and freedoms that are imperiled by terrorist acts. Even if the need to impose certain restrictions for protection of legitimate interests arouses they must be controlled, while they should protect basic human rights and freedoms. Regulating formal conditions for human rights limitation is the way to control the fight against terrorism and prevent the unlimited space for violation of the established and guaranteed freedom standards. The paper refers to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provide some limitations to the guaranteed human rights as well as the limitation to their usage also exploring to what extent these restrictions are applied in the fight against terrorism.

scholarly journals The Peculiarities of Private and Family Life Protection: The Experience of the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 39-45
Author(s):  
Oksana MELENKO ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Essential Questions ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

One of the most vulnerable spheres of life of any individual is his / her private and family life. Therefore, this issue could not slip the attention of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (hereinafter - the Convention) (Council of Europe, 1950). In fact, there have always been some prejudices within this issue, as it is not a secret that accusations of violating an individual’s right to privacy often provoke discussion in the public sphere. For example, when the UK Special Forces eliminated three terrorists (who were no longer resisting) on the territory of Gibraltar (Case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 1995), the media did not particularly intend to protect the right to life of these criminals. On the other hand, quite a few liberal media sources have resonantly responded to the interference with private life, when a group of stockbrokers and bankers were prosecuted for sadomasochism in a private residence. A similar behavior of the press was observed when discussing the mandatory use of seat belts. However, when considering the issues related to the violation of Article 8 of the Convention (Council of Europe, 1950), it is important to find answers to a few rather essential questions: Has there been an interference with private life under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (Council of Europe, 1950)? If so, then – Is this interference sufficiently justified in the light of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (Council of Europe, 1950), namely: Was the interference lawful? If yes, then – Did the interference have a lawful purpose? If yes, then – Was the interference necessary for a democratic society (can it be regarded as an adequate response to socially urgent necessity)? In case there arises a question concerning state’s positive obligations, it will no longer belong to the jurisdiction of paragraph 2, but will touch upon the analysis of the issue whether state’s positive obligation exists at all.

Detention before Trial and Civil Detention of Dangerous Individuals

2019 ◽  
pp. 498-519
Author(s):  
Grischa Merkel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Pretrial Detention ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Regulations ◽  
Reasonable Suspicion ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality

This chapter focuses on issues surrounding the pretrial detention and civil detention of dangerous individuals. It first considers the legal principles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and their interpretations by the European Court of Human Rights before discussing international regulations on pretrial detention such as those provided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It then examines two major decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights concerning the question of which actions can be deemed a deprivation of liberty. It also looks at pretrial detention based on reasonable suspicion of the commission of a crime and goes on to explain the principle of proportionality underpinning the civil detention of dangerous individuals. The chapter concludes with an analysis of three different ways legal procedures can be affected by charges of terrorism.

Laws against the Denial of Historical Atrocities: A Human Rights Analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 151-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen Temperman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Related Question ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
Criminal Legislation

This article ventures into the contentious question of whether the denial of historical atrocities is per se removed from the protection of freedom of expression and the related question if states may under international human rights law proactively combat, through criminal legislation (‘memory laws’), such types of extreme speech. In so doing, the article compares and contrasts approaches employed by the un Human Rights Committee that monitors the un International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with that of the European Court of Human Rights, regional watchdog of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is argued that both approaches are shifting—though not quite in converging directions. The article makes a case for a contextual rather than exclusively content-based approach. An approach in which the question of ‘likelihood of harm being done to the targeted group’ is guiding, best resonates with the necessity principle.

scholarly journals The Threat to the Life of the Nation as an Introductory Premise of the Derogation of Obligations in the Domain of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-24
Author(s):  
Tadeusz Jasudowicz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Emergency Situation ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
Multiple Interpretation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
Mutual Relations

Abstract The subject of the study is the issue defined in international documents by the term “threat to the life of the nation” as a preliminary condition for departing from obligations in the field of human rights. This premise was adopted both in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as in similar regulations for individual continents, including the European Convention on Human Rights. However, on a practical basis, this issue has raised and continues to raise multiple interpretation doubts. In the presented considerations, various aspects of this problem are presented in the light of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. On the basis of these, it can be assumed that one cannot identify the category of the nation with the categories of the state and//or the population, since each of these categories has its due autonomy; while on the other hand, they accompany, coexist and remain in mutual relations and interaction. Hence, in international norms, both the treaty provisions and the treaty bodies in their rulings consistently confirm “the life of the nation” as the fundamental protected value, which does not prevent them from associating this value with values important for the state as such and for the population/society. The classic model of this approach has already been established by the ECtHR in the Lawless case, where the Court described a derogation situation as “an exceptional crisis or emergency situation that affects the entire population and poses a threat to the organized life of the community that comprises the state

scholarly journals THE PROHIBITION OF TORTURE, CRUEL OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT IN CLOSED INSTITUTIONS

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (91) ◽  
pp. 23-29
Author(s):  
Jelena Girfanova
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
European Regional

In the paper “The prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment in closed Institutions” the author has examined the obxervasnce of  persons’  in detention,  custody or imprisonment human rights in the European regional acts and national instruments as well as the provision of health care for detainees and convicted persons alike.All basic human rights’ documents, namely: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms state that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, degrading his or her human dignity”.  All persons who have been punished, regardless of the crimes for which they were convicted, have the right to humane treatment and respect for their personality. No actions of people, whatever they may be, justify the inhuman treatment of them or the humiliation of their personality.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document