Cultural Rights of MigrantsLiving Together in Dignity?

Author(s):  
Bianca Gutan

The growing and multifarious challenges (political, legal, social, and economic) that global migration raises for contemporary states requires solutions related not only to constitutional identity, but also to a better protection of human rights. Although less visible in the ‘big picture’, cultural rights are an important category of human rights. An absent or a precarious protection of these rights might affect other rights. That is why a balance must be struck between society’s needs and the cultural rights of the individual. In this context, questions may be asked: could there be common points regarding the cultural rights of migrants and of minorities in Europe? Is ‘living together’ a concept that can ensure the full respect of the human dignity of migrants, especially as regards cultural rights? The chapter attempts to answer some of these questions, mainly through the prism of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

2012 ◽  
pp. 608-642
Author(s):  
Lorenza Mola

The paper deals with the case law of the European Commission of Human Rights and of the European Court of Human Rights on the admissibility of individual applications on matters already submitted to other international bodies, under Art. 35, para. 2, letter b) ECHR. It examines the relevant procedural aspects and reviews how the Strasbourg bodies have interpreted the criteria set in this clause, which coordinates parallel international proceedings on the same matters, i.e. (i) the identity of parties, grounds and facts; (ii) the concluded or concurrent exam of the claim within other international mechanisms of protection of human rights open to individuals; and (iii) the equivalent character of these other proceedings in relation to the procedure before the European Court of Human Rights. It does so, particularly with respect to two recent decisions concerning cases where parallel proceedings on the same matter were brought, in the one case, by the same person before the Court as well as to the attention of the EU Commission, and, in the other case, by a legal person before the Court and by its shareholders before international investment arbitral tribunals. It highlights that the ‘reformed' Court has normally followed the prior Commission's case law but has also developed a more systematic and qualified approach to each admissibility criterion as well as to the overall objective of such coordination mechanism, in order both to avoid a plurality of international procedures on the same matter, on the one hand, and to afford the individual an international means of enforcement of her/his rights, on the other hand.


Author(s):  
K. O. Trykhlib

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.


Author(s):  
Yevhen Bilousov ◽  
◽  
Nataliia Kordii ◽  

Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights is called "the right to respect for private and family life", thus establishing at the international level the legal basis for the exercise of the right to privacy. From the content of this article it follows that this right has four components: private and family life, correspondence and housing. The scientific article is devoted to the study of the right to respect for correspondence under Art. 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. From the literal interpretation of the convention provisions and as evidenced by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the implementation of the studied law goes beyond the private life of the individual and acquires special features of its implementation in other spheres of life, such as professional activities. The author analyzes the case law of the European Court in order to identify, generalize and structure the components (content) of the concept of "correspondence", given the possibility of practical use of such information due to the fact that when considering a particular application, the Court assesses whether and types of applied means of communication. This scientific article examines the implementation of the right to correspondence in civil and criminal law, which indicates the gradual expansion of the relevant regulations to different types of legal relations. In examining this issue on the basis of convention provisions and analysis of the case law of the Court, the author has studied and presented in a generalized form the grounds for lawful interference with the right to respect for correspondence.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya Samovich

The manual is devoted to making individual complaints to the European Court of human rights: peculiarities of realization of the right to appeal, conditions of admissibility and the judicial procedure of the European Court of Human Rights. The author analyses some “autonomous concepts” used in the court's case law and touches upon the possibility of limiting the right to judicial protection. The article deals with the formation and development of the individual's rights to international judicial protection, as well as the protection of human rights in universal quasi-judicial international bodies and regional judicial institutions of the European Union and the Organization of American States. This publication includes a material containing an analysis of recent changes in the legal regulation of the Institute of individual complaints. The manual is recommended for students of educational organizations of higher education, studying in the areas of bachelor's and master's degree “Jurisprudence”.


2014 ◽  
pp. 13-31
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Grzelak-Bach

Following a brief introduction of article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the author begins by analyzing case law from the European Court of Human Rights regarding the legal reasoning in judicial proceedings. The main premise of this paper is to present a formula for preparing legal reasoning in administrative court proceedings. The author draws attention to the role of judges who, in the process of adjudication, should apply creative interpretation of the rules of law, when they see errors or omissions in legislative provisions, or blatant violations of the European legal order. The conclusion of those deliberations finds, that the process of tailoring the approach to meet Strasbourg’s requirements should, on a basic level, be at the discretion of judges rather than the legislators.


Author(s):  
Jennie Edlund ◽  
Václav Stehlík

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.


2015 ◽  
pp. 36-51
Author(s):  
RUDOLF DUR SCHNUTZ

The recent move towards the individual access to constitutional justice is a progress for protection of human rights in Europe. The explicit purpose of these efforts is to settle human rights issues on the national level and to reduce the number of cases at the Strasbourg Court. Such individual complaints have to be designed in a way that makes them an effective remedy which has to be exhausted before a case can be brought before the European Court of Human Rights. This paper points out the current state of these improvements on the national level in a difficult context on the European level and the recommendations of the Venice Commission in this regard.


Author(s):  
Antonio López Castillo

En la reciente jurisprudencia del TEDH se advierte una cierta modulación, de lo subjetivo a lo objetivo, en un contexto de controvertida reconsideración nacional de las sociedades abiertas de la Europa en crisis. De ello se trata aquí atendiendo a dos manifestaciones de conflictos de diverso porte y alcance; a propósito, la una, del inclusivo ámbito de la enseñanza, y relativa, la otra, a la regulación de acceso al espacio público mediante reglas excluyentes, de prevención general, pretendidamente instrumentales al aseguramiento de la salvaguarda de la convivencia, de la vida en común.The recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights shows a certain modulation, from the subjective to the objective, in a context of controversial national reconsideration of the open societies of Europe in crisis. This is what we are dealing with here in the light of two manifestations of conflicts of different sizes and scope; purposefully, one, of the inclusive field of education, and relative, the other, to the regulation of access to public space by means of excluding rules, of general prevention, supposedly instrumental to ensuring the safeguarding of coexistence, of living together.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 409-420
Author(s):  
Anna Podolska

Abstract There are various forms of jurisdictional dialogue. In addition to drawing from the case law of another court or seeking direct assistance of such another court in passing the judgment, we can notice in practice situations when by issuing a verdict the courts are communicating with each other. The rulings of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the free movement of judgments in the European Union and protection of fundamental rights are the example of such activities. Each of these bodies was interpreting separately the extent to which the mechanisms of recognising and executing the judgments may interfere with the level of protection of fundamental rights. A common conclusion concerns assigning the priority to protection of fundamental rights, while individual bodies were determining differently the standards of such protection. The analysed judgments can be construed as a communication between these bodies. Although no direct discussion takes place between these courts, this is still a form of interaction which affects the development of the case law and understanding of the boundaries of mutual recognition of judgments and protection of human rights within judicial proceedings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document