5. Impartiality and independence

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Due Process ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Compound Decision ◽  
Judicial Bias

This chapter examines impartiality and independence in public administration. The topics that are discussed include judicial bias, administrative bias, waiver, determining civil rights, compound decision making, and the value of independence, with an explanation of the requirement of an independent tribunal in Art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The chapter also explains the difference between bias (which is unlawful), and a lack of impartiality (which may be lawful), and explains when bias will be presumed. Bias is presented as both a lack of due process, and also as a flaw in the substance of a decision maker’s reasoning.

5. Impartiality and independence

2021 ◽  
pp. 170-204
Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Due Process ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Compound Decision ◽  
Judicial Bias

This chapter examines the role of impartiality and independence in public administration. The topics that are discussed include judicial bias, administrative bias, waiver, determining civil rights, compound decision making, and the value of independence, with an explanation of the requirement of an independent tribunal in Art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The chapter also explains the difference between bias (which is unlawful) and a lack of impartiality (which may be lawful), and explains when bias will be presumed. Bias is presented as both a lack of due process and as a flaw in the substance of a decision maker’s reasoning.

5. Right to liberty and right to fair trial

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

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 liberty and fair trial, which are not qualified rights but can be derogated from in times of war and emergency, and provides an overview of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (ECHR) Articles 5 and 6, the most commonly argued rights before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Article 5 on the right to liberty and security of person protects individuals from unlawful and arbitrary detention, whereas Article 6 protects the rights to fair trial in both criminal and civil cases (with added protection in criminal cases). The ECtHR has expanded protection of Article 6 through its interpretation of ‘fair’ hearing and ‘civil’ rights and obligations. The chapter examines due process rights as part of UK law, including the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

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.

scholarly journals The Guarantees for Accused Persons Under the Article of the European Convention on Human Rights: An Analysis of the Application of the Convention and a Comparison with other Instruments

1996 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 610
Author(s):  
Andrew S Butler
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
High Standard ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Charges ◽  
The Subject

This article is a book review of Stephanos Stavros The Guarantees for Accused Persons under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: An Analysis of the Application of the Convention and a Comparison with Other Instruments (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1993) 388 pp (including 3 appendices), price (hbk) £87.00. This book is a detailed analysis of the case law of the organs of the European Convention on Human Rights on the interpretation and application of Article 6 of the Convention. That article guarantees fair trial rights in the determination of criminal charges and in the determination of civil rights and obligations. The scope of Dr Stavros' study is the rights of an accused under Article 6. Butler praises Dr Stavros for being thorough in his treatment of both case law and international law, providing a closely argued critique alongside the law presented, and for his general enthusiasm for the subject matter (reflected in the book's readability). Despite its limitations, Butler commends this book's high standard of scholarship overall.

The Common Core of European Administrative Laws and the Pan-European General Principles of Good Administration

2021 ◽  
pp. 21-34
Author(s):  
Ulrich Stelkens
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Common Core ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Institute Of Public Administration ◽  
German Research ◽  
The Common

This chapter examines a research project carried out at the German Research Institute of Public Administration and the German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer. This 'Speyer project' studies the development, content, and effectiveness of the written and unwritten standards of good administration drawn up within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE), i.e. on the basis of its Statute (SCoE) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is a sort of 'second pillar' of the CoE. These CoE standards are called 'pan-European principles of good administration'. This 'Speyer project' can be understood as a counterpart to the project carried out by Giacinto della Cananea and Mauro Bussani on the Common Core of European Administrative Law (CoCEAL) as it has a similar objective: to ascertain whether, despite many differences between European systems of administrative law, there are some connecting elements, or a 'common core', and, if so, whether such 'connecting elements' can be formulated in legal terms rather than as generic idealities. However, the methodological approach of the 'Speyer project' clearly differs from the 'factual approach' adopted in CoCEAL.

2. The Formation and Recognition of Adult Relationships:

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Gaffney-Rhys
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Forced Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Adult Relationships ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
Opposite Sex ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam and assignment questions. Each book includes key debates, typical questions, diagram answer plans, suggested answers, author commentary and tips to gain extra marks. This chapter considers the formation and recognition of adult relationships i.e. marriage, same-sex marriage, civil partnerships and cohabitation. The questions included in this chapter cover: the right to marry contained in article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights; forced marriage; the difference between opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage and civil partnerships and the difference between marriage and cohabitation.

scholarly journals Homelessness and the ‘over-judicialisation’ of welfare

Legal Studies ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Emma Laurie
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Procedural Safeguards

Abstract Members of the senior judiciary have expressed concern about the ‘over-judicialisation’ of welfare in the context of homelessness decision-making and adjudication. This paper examines how those fears have been manifested and makes a link with the concept of proportionate dispute resolution (PDR). It argues that the statutory scheme incorporates elements of PDR and judges should therefore refrain from introducing additional layers. The courts’ denial of the application of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to the homelessness context is disputed, and the paper makes the case for continuing rigorous judicial oversight of front-line decision-making, recommending that attention is focused on assessing procedural safeguards rather than disputing the ambit of Article 6.

scholarly journals Hard Protection through Soft Courts? Non-Refoulement before the United Nations Treaty Bodies

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-384
Author(s):  
Başak Çalı ◽  
Cathryn Costello ◽  
Stewart Cunningham
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Dimensional Analysis ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
European Court ◽  
The United Nations

AbstractThis Article comparatively analyses how the prohibition of refoulement is interpreted by United Nations Treaty Bodies (UNTBs) in their individual decision-making, where we suggest they act as “soft courts.” It asks whether UNTBs break ranks with or follow the interpretations of non-refoulement of the European Court of Human Rights. This investigation is warranted because non-refoulement is the single most salient issue that has attracted individual views from UNTBs since 1990. Moreover, our European focus is warranted as nearly half of the cases concern states that are also parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. Based on a multi-dimensional analysis of non-refoulement across an original dataset of over 500 UNTB non-refoulement cases, decided between 1990–2020, as well as pertinent UNTB General Comments, the Article finds that whilst UNTBs, at times, do adopt a more progressive position than their “harder” regional counterpart, there are also instances where they closely follow the interpretations of the European Court of Human Rights and, on occasion, adopt a more restrictive position. This analysis complicates the view that soft courts are likely to be more progressive interpreters than hard courts. It further shows that variations in the interpretation of non-refoulement in a crowded field of international interpreters present risks for evasion of accountability, whereby domestic authorities in Europe may favor the more convenient interpretation, particularly in environments hostile to non-refoulement.

Impediments to the Expulsion of Non-Nationals: Substance and Coherence in Procedural Protection under the European Convention on Human Rights

2010 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 457-479
Author(s):  
Ian Bryan ◽  
Peter Langford
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Natural Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Key Features

AbstractThis article offers a critical assessment of the interpretative positions adopted by the European Court of Human Rights as to the applicability of Convention rights and freedoms to the deportation of “aliens” resident in the territory of a Contracting State. The article considers inconsistencies in the Court's jurisprudence and argues that these inconsistencies are a result of the characterisation of deportation proceedings as administrative events. The authors also explore the nature of Contracting States' deportation procedures and examine key features of the procedural guarantees afforded to non-nationals under the Convention and its Protocols. In addition, the authors consider the extent to which Convention notions of due process and natural justice are deemed germane to deportation proceedings. The article contends that disparities in the procedural protections accorded to nationals when compared with resident non-nationals conflict with the purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights are an avertable consequence of the primacy of State sovereignty.

Co-Opting the Health and Human Rights Movement

2002 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 705-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter D. Jacobson ◽  
Soheil Soliman
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Public Health Response ◽  
Health And Human Rights ◽  
Health Goals ◽  
Health Response ◽  
Human Rights Movement ◽  
Broad Public Health

Public health is concerned with how to improve the population’s health. At times, though, actions to improve the community’s health may collide with individual civil rights. For example, a public health response to a bioterrorism attack, such as smallpox, may require relaxing an individual’s due process protections to prevent the smallpox from spreading. This tension lies at the heart of public health policy. It also must be considered in discussing the concept of human rights in health.Proponents of incorporating the concept of human rights in health emphasize the importance of both individual rights and collective rights. They argue that observing human rights is not only consistent with broad public health goals, but necessary to their attainment. To many human rights advocates, the concept is not limited to protecting against governmental intrusion. Accordingly, they emphasize the government’s obligation to promote attainment of human rights by, for instance, providing adequate health care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document