2. European Convention on Human Rights

The Individual ◽

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter first explains the background and rationale for the formation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), tracing its roots to the Council of Europe that was formed in 1949 and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) established a year later. It then looks at the different kinds of human rights embedded in the ECHR, including the right to life, right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, right to property, and right to free elections. The chapter also provides an overview of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), along with the major changes made to its complaints system and how it interprets the Convention rights. Finally, it considers the ECtHR’s use of proportionality and margin of appreciation doctrines to find the balance between the rights of the individual and the community when deciding upon qualified rights.

7. Freedom of religion and expression

Human Rights Law Concentrate ◽

10.1093/he/9780198794172.003.0007 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Bernadette Rainey

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Hate Speech ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

European Convention ◽

Freedom Of Religion ◽

Essential Information ◽

European Court ◽

State Restriction ◽

The Uk ◽

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on freedom of religion and freedom of expression, which are classified as qualified rights, and examines Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which explains the right to hold or not hold a belief as well as the right to manifest a belief. It also considers how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decides if there has been manifestation of belief, interpretation of Article 10 with respect to views that shock and disturb and some forms of hate speech, and state restriction of expression. The chapter concludes with a discussion of freedom of religion and expression in the UK.

Internet and freedom of expression in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights

Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta Novi Sad ◽

10.5937/zrpfns54-24432 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 54 (3) ◽

pp. 1023-1042

Author(s):

Ljiljana Mijović

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

Case Law ◽

Private Life ◽

European Convention ◽

The Internet ◽

European Court ◽

The Right ◽

And Control

Internet as a means of communication, whatever the type of information it might be used for, falls within the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. As established in the European Court's case law, freedom of expression constitutes one of the essentials of a democratic society, therefore limitations on that freedom foreseen in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention are to be interpreted strictly. In order to ensure effective protection of one's freedom of expression on the Internet, States bear a positive obligation to create an appropriate regulatory framework, balancing the right to freedom of expression on one and the limitations prescribed in Article 10 § 2, on the other hand. Special attention in doing so is to be paid to the risk of harm posed by content and communications on the Internet to the exercise and enjoyment of other human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention, particularly the right to respect for private life. While it is the fact that the electronic network, serving billions of users worldwide, will never be subject to the same regulations and control, because of the national authorities' margin of appreciation, the European Court established commonly applicable general principles regarding the Internet as a media of exercising right to freedom of expression.

Asserting the Right to Life (Article 2, ECHR) in the Context of Industry

German Law Journal ◽

10.1017/s2071832200005551 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 8 (3) ◽

pp. 231-253 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Dimitris Xenos

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Self Regulation ◽

European Convention ◽

Right To Life ◽

Liberal Tradition ◽

European Court ◽

Active Protection ◽

The Right ◽

First Time

In the liberal tradition, there has always been scepticism about the state's involvement in the activities of industry. Instead, internal measures by way of self-regulation and collective action have been preferred. In recognition of the reality that exclusive reliance on such solutions has not prevented violations of human rights, to which a high constitutional importance is attached, other arrangements have to be provided. In the system of the European Convention of Human Rights (hereinafter the Convention), positive obligations are imposed engaging the state in the active protection of human rights. The need to protect human rights against the hazards of industry has been the main issue in the case of Öneryildiz v. Turkey, in which, for the first time in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the Court), a claim under the right to life (Article 2 of the Convention) has successfully been asserted in the context of industry.

4. Right to life and freedom from ill-treatment

Human Rights Law Concentrate ◽

10.1093/he/9780198794172.003.0004 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Bernadette Rainey

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Death Penalty ◽

European Convention ◽

Right To Die ◽

Controversial Issues ◽

Human Beings ◽

Right To Life ◽

Essential Information ◽

European Court ◽

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on the right to life and freedom from ill-treatment, considered the two most fundamental human rights premised on the idea of the inherent dignity of human beings. The chapter examines the right to life as elucidated in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), along with the ECHR’s positive obligations. It also highlights exceptions in Article 2(2) and the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) adjudication on controversial issues as to when life begins and ends, including abortion, the right to die, and the death penalty. The chapter then examines Article 3 and the interpretation of the Article by the ECtHR. In addition, the chapter looks at the UK’s approach to freedom from ill-treatment and the right to life, and concludes with a discussion of the scope of Article 3 with regard to freedom from ill-treatment.

Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.5305/amerjintelaw.106.1.0131 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 106 (1) ◽

pp. 131-137 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Miša Zgonec-Rožej

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

United Kingdom ◽

European Convention ◽

Effective Control ◽

Right To Life ◽

The United Kingdom ◽

European Court ◽

Grand Chamber ◽

In Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom, decided on July 7, 2011, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (the Court) found that the human rights obligations of the United Kingdom applied to its actions in Iraq and that the United Kingdom had violated Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention or ECHR) by failing to investigate the circumstances of the deaths of the relatives of five of the six applicants. The case deals with the extraterritorial application in Iraq of the Convention, which is part of UK domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, 1998, and involves the concepts of jurisdiction, effective control, and the scope of the right to life.

The scope of the margin of appreciation in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

Problems of Legality ◽

10.21564/2414-990x.154.239125 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

K. O. Trykhlib

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Case Law ◽

European Convention ◽

European Consensus ◽

European Court ◽

Margin Of Appreciation ◽

The Individual ◽

Restrictive Measures ◽

Discretionary Powers

The article analyzes the essence and features of the application of the doctrine of margin of appreciation in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. It has been established that the margin of appreciation can be wide or narrow. The factors influencing the scope of the state’s margin of appreciation while effectively ensuring and protecting the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights have been identified and examined. The core criteria and principles of law, which are applied and developed in its case-law by the European Court of Human Rights when granting a certain scope of discretionary powers, have been studied. It is concluded that the key task of the European Court of Human Rights is to exercise effective review over the ensuring and protection of human rights and freedoms enshrined by the European Convention on Human Rights. When defining and granting the margin of appreciation, the European Court of Human Rights is guided by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The scope of the state’s discretion always depends on the circumstances of each particular case, the type and specifics of the violated and/or limited right, its significance for the individual, the characteristics of competing interests, the background and context of the interference, the presence or absence of the European consensus on the issue at stake, the purpose of the interference, the degree of its intensity and the duration, the nature of restrictive measures and their results, as well as the proportionality of the restriction of human rights and freedoms.

Introductory Note

10.1093/oso/9780190923846.003.0027 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Guido Raimondi

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Separation Of Powers ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

European Convention ◽

European Court ◽

European Public ◽

Introductory Note ◽

Un Security Council ◽

The Right ◽

The Eu

This article comments on four important judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights in 2016. Al-Dulimi v. Switzerland addresses the issue of how, in the context of sanctions regimes created by the UN Security Council, European states should reconcile their obligations under the UN Charter with their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to respect the fundamentals of European public order. Baka v. Hungary concerns the separation of powers and judicial independence, in particular the need for procedural safeguards to protect judges against unjustified removal from office and to protect their legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary is a judgment on the interpretation of the Convention, featuring a review of the “living instrument” approach. Avotiņš v. Latvia addresses the principle of mutual trust within the EU legal order and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.

Information delayed is justice denied

Informatologia ◽

10.32914/i.52.1-2.1 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 52 (1-2) ◽

pp. 1-8

Author(s):

Jurij Toplak ◽

Boštjan Brezovnik

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

European Convention ◽

Access To Information ◽

Effective Protection ◽

Public Authorities ◽

European Court ◽

Disclosure Of Information ◽

Access Information ◽

European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2016 that the European Convention on Human Rights includes a right to access information held by public authorities. While according to international documents the procedures for accessing information should be ‘rapid’, the courts have yet to rule on what ‘rapid’ means and when the procedures are so long that they violate rights of those asking for information. This article analyses the length of proceedings in access to information cases in Slovenia and Croatia. It shows that these two countries do not have a system of effective protection of rights because the authorities can easily delay disclosure of information for several years. It argues that lengthy procedures violate the right to access the information and the freedom of expression. It then presents solutions for improving access to information procedures in order for them to become ‘rapid’

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

European Journal of Health Law ◽

10.1163/15718093-bja10024 ◽

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 ◽

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.

Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy. Application No. 27765/09

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.2.0417 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 107 (2) ◽

pp. 417-423 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Irini Papanicolopulu

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

European Convention ◽

International Convention ◽

European Court ◽

The Status ◽

Grand Chamber ◽

Effective Remedy ◽

Maritime Search And Rescue ◽

In a unanimous judgment in the case Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) held that Italy’s “push back” operations interdicting intending migrants and refugees at sea and returning them to Libya amounted to a violation of the prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR or Convention), the prohibition of collective expulsions under Article 4 of Protocol 4 to the Convention, and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention. Hirsi Jamaa is the Court’s first judgment on the interception of migrants at sea and it addresses issues concerning the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, as well as the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.