Sources and Content of the Pan-European General Principles of Good Administration

2020 ◽  
pp. 19-54
Author(s):  
Ulrich Stelkens ◽  
Agnė Andrijauskaitė
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Relevant Case

This chapter examines the sources of the pan-European principles of good administration developed by the Council of Europe (CoE). It maps the degree of concretization these principles have reached, and how far they have spread concerning the classical and modern topics of administrative law. It scrutinizes the Statute of the CoE, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the (relevant) case law of the European Court of Human Rights, other CoE conventions (such as the CoE Convention on Data Protection, the Convention on Access to Official Documents, and the European Charter of Local Self Government), and the recommendations and other soft law on good administration of the Committee of Ministers and other institutions of the CoE. The chapter concludes that the principles deriving from these sources should not be considered as a loose bundle of various rules in administrative matters but instead form a ‘coherent whole’.

The Impact of the Pan-European General Principles of Good Administration on Swiss Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 353-374
Author(s):  
Nadja Braun Binder ◽  
Ardita Driza Maurer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Swiss Law ◽  
Written Law ◽  
The Impact

This chapter is dedicated to exploring the impact on Swiss administrative law of the pan-European general principles of good administration developed within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE). The chapter claims that the standards stemming from the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights have been adopted in an exemplary way by Swiss authorities. The influence was especially strong in the 1980s and 1990s. The same cannot be said regarding other documents of the CoE, whose impact remains disparate because many aspects of the pan-European general principles of good administration were already part of the national written law. The chapter concludes that despite the exemplary integration of CoE instruments heated debates on the content of these instruments are not excluded from Switzerland.

The Role of the Council of Europe in Improving General Principles of Administrative Law in Poland—Remarks on the 25th Anniversary of Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 478-503
Author(s):  
Barbara Grabowska-Moroz ◽  
Marek Wierzbowski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Direct Influence ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
25Th Anniversary ◽  
European Court ◽  
Standards Of Conduct

This chapter explores the influence on Polish administrative law of pan-European principles of good administration stemming from the Council of Europe (CoE). It reveals that membership of the CoE can be perceived as an element of the democratization process that has had a direct influence on Poland, especially through the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. It furthermore establishes that Polish administrative law generally follows the CoE standards even if at the same time they are overshadowed by the standards flowing from the EU. In addition, the unwillingness of the Polish courts to refer to non-binding CoE standards of conduct which are not strongly founded in statutory law is another obstacle precluding full reception of the said principles.

scholarly journals Standards of the European Court of Human Rights in the area of administrative law with special reference to the Republic of Macedonia

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 815-833
Author(s):  
Vesna Stefanovska ◽  
Blerton Sinani
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
International Standards ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Republic Of Macedonia ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Charges ◽  
The Republic

In many occasions, the European Court of Human Rights has reiterated that the ECHR is a ‘living instrument’. The rights enshrined in the Convention have to be interpreted in the light of present day conditions so as to be practical and effective. Therefore, the Court has on several occasions modified its views on certain subjects because of scientific developments. Although in the scope of Article 6(1) of European Convention on Human Rights are civil rights and obligations and criminal charges, the application to administrative disputes has arised from the Court’s case-law. This paper will try to analyze the framework of administrative disputes in the Republic of Macedonia, mainly the Law on Administrative Disputes and its consolidation with the international standards, specifically with the ECHR. Further, subject of elaboration will be the Macedonian dossier in Strasbourg and the judgments in which the ECtHR found violation of Article 6 of ECHR in relation to administrative disputes and procedures.

scholarly journals Las cláusulas de restricción en el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos

2021 ◽  
pp. 469
Author(s):  
Lara Redondo Saceda
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
The Impact

El presente trabajo pretende analizar el sistema de restricciones al ejercicio de los derechos previsto en los artículos 8 a 11 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Así, el objetivo principal es reflexionar sobre la incidencia de estas cláusulas de restricción, su desarrollo jurisprudencial por parte del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y su significado en la construcción del sistema de derechos humanos del Consejo de Europa.This paper is intended to analyse the system of restrictions on the exercise of rights provided by articles 8 to 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Thus, the principal aim is reflecting on the impact of these restriction clauses, their case-law development by the European Court of Human Rights and their meaning on the construction of the Council of Europe Human Rights System.

scholarly journals Protection of Whistleblowers by the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 25-36
Author(s):  
Sára Kiššová
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Financial Interests ◽  
Internal Sources ◽  
Illegal Activities

Whistleblower protection in the European Union is undergoing significant developments. The new Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons reporting breaches of Union law sets a minimum standard for the protection of whistleblowers. It is awaiting implementation in Member States' national law by December 2021. However, a certain level of protection is also guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights case law principles. Reports of illegal activities provided from close internal sources can strengthen the protection of the EU's financial interests. Adequate protection is needed to prevent retaliation against whistleblowers. As the deadline for transposing this directive approaches, the article aims to analyse the Directive 2019/1973 and compare it with the protection guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Allowing the Right Margin: The European Court of Human Rights and The National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review?

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 381-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean Spielmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Essential Question ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Law

AbstractThe doctrine of the national margin of appreciation is well established in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In applying this essentially judge-made doctrine, the Court imposes self-restraint on its power of review, accepting that domestic authorities are best placed to settle a dispute. The areas in which the doctrine has most often been applied will be presented here, looking at various examples from case law. After a brief overview of the doctrine’s origin, the analysis will focus on the situations in which the margin has been allowed or denied. Does it relate merely to factual and domestic-law aspects of a case? What is the scope of the margin of appreciation when it comes to interpreting provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights? What impact does an interference (whether disproportionate or not) with a guaranteed right have on the margin allowed? Is there a second-degree or ‘reverse’ margin of appreciation, whereby discretionary powers can be distributed between executive and judicial authorities at domestic level? Lastly it is noteworthy that Protocol No 14, now ratified by all Council of Europe Member States, enshrines in Article 12—at least to some extent—an obligation to apply a margin of appreciation. One essential question remains: by allowing any margin of a certain width, is the European Court simply waiving its power of review or is it attributing responsibility to the domestic courts in the interest of a healthy subsidiarity?

‘Unionisation’ of the European Court of Human Rights’ ne bis in idem jurisprudence: the Case of Mihalache v Romania

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-239
Author(s):  
Cedric Serneels
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Relevant Case

This article analyses the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Mihalache v Romania. In the judgment, the Court, dealing with the application of the ne bis in idem principle, further elaborates on the different components of the concept ‘final acquittal or conviction’ under Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The author studies this aspect of the ruling through the lens of judicial dialogue and examines in particular the influence of relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the ECtHR’s reasoning.

Right to Free Elections: Emerging Guarantees or Two Layers of Protection?

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey Golubok
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
The Political ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Venice Commission ◽  
The Right ◽  
Further Development

The article analyses the drafting history and background of the ‘political clause’ of the European Convention on Human Rights – Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 which provides for the right to free elections. It discusses main concepts developed by the Strasbourg Court's jurisprudence concerning that clause. Special attention is devoted to the new trends in the case-law, including gradual emergence of procedural obligations under Article 3, its interplay with other substantive provisions of the Convention, the influence of the ‘soft-law’ instruments emanating from other organs of the Council of Europe, primarily texts of the Venice Commission. In conclusion, two options regarding further development of the Court's case-law on the right to free elections are proposed: the avenue of newly emerging guarantees and the avenue of two (narrower and wider) layers of protection.

Religious Associations as a National Security Threat: The Russian View in Light of European Standards

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 101-133
Author(s):  
Olga Kudriashova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Security Threat ◽  
Traditional Religions ◽  
European Court ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Religious Associations ◽  
European Standards

This article focuses on the Russian practice of suppressing non-traditional religious associations under the guise of protecting national security. Russian legislation and case law are discussed in light of European standards concerning limitations of human rights, including the principles of legal certainty and proportionality. The author concludes that despite the declaration of the principle of ideological diversity and religious freedom in the Constitution of the Russian Federation (hereinafter, “the rf Constitution”), Russian lawmakers and the judiciary are wary of non-traditional religions, regarding them as a national security threat. This tendency is demonstrated by an analysis of registration requirements, as well as the country’s anti-extremism law and the relevant case law. The author examines the following problems of Russian regulation: the vagueness of the law on which the limitations are based and the weak argumentation of judicial decisions by which limitations are imposed. The author concludes that Russian legislation and the relevant case law strongly deviate from the standards set in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (echr) and in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Meanwhile, according to the rf Constitution, the echr is part of the Russian legal system and prevails over Russian laws. The author’s aim is to outline the space provided in Russian law for the abuse of non-traditional religions by Russian authorities.

scholarly journals Enforcing the Judgments of the ECtHR in Russia in Light of the Amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Court

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerttu Mäger
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Russian Constitution ◽  
Cherry Picking ◽  
The Law

The paper was written to analyse the enforceability of the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights in Russia, particularly in light of recent amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Court and relevant case law of the Constitutional Court of Russia. Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights, obliging member states to execute the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights, does not leave room for ‘cherry-picking’ in enforcing the judgements. However, the Constitutional Court has suggested that Russian authorities should indeed engage in cherry-picking and may refuse to enforce judgements that are not in accordance with the Russian Constitution as interpreted by the Constitutional Court. In December 2015, the Russian parliament amended the Law on the Constitutional Court so as to empower said court to declare judgements of the European Court of Human Rights unenforceable when implementation would be in conflict with the Constitution of Russia. The paper discusses the background of these developments and alternatives for overcoming the conflict between domestic legislation and the instruments of the Council of Europe.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document