The Right to Refuse Medical Treatment under the European Convention on Human Rights

2001 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Wicks
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right To Refuse

scholarly journals Exceptions and Exclusions: The Right to Informed Consent for Medical Treatment of People with Psychosocial Disabilities in Europe

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Waddington ◽  
Bernadette McSherry
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
European Court ◽  
Consent To Treatment ◽  
The Right

This article examines the relevant international law relating to informed consent to treatment for individuals with psychosocial disabilities and reflects on the protection offered in this respect by the European Convention on Human Rights (echr) and the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. The article argues that while the un Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is beginning to influence case law of the European Court of Human Rights, only ‘weak’ protection has been afforded to people with psychosocial disabilities by the echr and the Court in relation to informed consent for medical treatment.

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.

Introductory Note

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.

The Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents in the Context of Employment

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Rodgers
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Employment Contracts ◽  
Domestic Servants ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

‘Ordinary’ employment contracts—including those of domestic servants—have been deemed to attract diplomatic immunity because they fall within the scope of diplomatic functions. This chapter highlights the potential for conflict between these forms of immunity and the rights of the employees, and reflects on cases in which personal servants of diplomatic agents have challenged both the existence of immunity and the scope of its application. The chapter examines claims that the exercise of diplomatic immunity might violate the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the way in which courts have dealt with these issues. The chapter analyses diplomats’ own employment claims and notes that they are usually blocked by the assertion of immunity, but also reflects on more recent developments in which claims had been considered which were incidental to diplomatic employment (eg Nigeria v Ogbonna [2012]).

The Right to Avoid Procreation and the Regulation of Pregnancy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janne Rothmar Herrmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Perspective ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Moral Obligations ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
European Consensus ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Right

This chapter discusses the right to avoid procreation and the regulation of pregnancy from a European perspective. The legal basis for a right to avoid procreation can be said to fall within the scope of several provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), an instrument that is binding for all European countries. Here, Article 12 of the ECHR gives men and women of marriageable age the right to marry and found a family in accordance with the national laws governing this right. However, Article 12 protects some elements of the right not to procreate, but for couples only. The lack of common European consensus in this area highlights how matters relating to the right to decide on the number and spacing of children touch on aspects that differ from country to country even in what could appear to be a homogenous region. In fact, the cultural, moral, and historical milieus that surround these rights differ considerably with diverse national perceptions of the role of the family, gender equality, religious and moral obligations, and so on.

Does the Injunction Gap Violate Implementers’ Fair Trial Rights Under the ECHR?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léon E Dijkman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Validity Of A Patent

Abstract Germany is one of few jurisdictions with a bifurcated patent system, under which infringement and validity of a patent are established in separate proceedings. Because validity proceedings normally take longer to conclude, it can occur that remedies for infringement are imposed before a decision on the patent’s validity is available. This phenomenon is colloquially known as the ‘injunction gap’ and has been the subject of increasing criticism over the past years. In this article, I examine the injunction gap from the perspective of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I find that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting this provision supports criticism of the injunction gap, because imposing infringement remedies with potentially far-reaching consequences before the validity of a patent has been established by a court of law arguably violates defendants’ right to be heard. Such reliance on the patent office’s grant decision is no longer warranted in the light of contemporary invalidation rates. I conclude that the proliferation of the injunction gap should be curbed by an approach to a stay of proceedings which is in line with the test for stays as formulated by Germany’s Federal Supreme Court. Under this test, courts should stay infringement proceedings until the Federal Patent Court or the EPO’s Board of Appeal have ruled on the validity of a patent whenever it is more likely than not that it will be invalidated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document