Defense Rights in European Legal Systems under the Influence of the European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 163-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Weigend
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
European Union Member States

This chapter focuses on the role of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in interpreting the defense rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and other European legal systems. In particular, it considers one aspect of European Union Member States’ compliance with ECtHR case law: the rights of suspects and defendants under Article 6 ECHR. The chapter first discusses the right of a suspect to be informed about the accusation against him, the right to legal assistance at the early stages of the criminal process, the privilege against self-incrimination, and the right to examine adverse witnesses. It then explores how the European Court’s jurisprudence has been received by the legislation and judge-made law in France and Germany. It shows that Article 6 ECHR and the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on various clauses of that article exerted an influence on domestic laws, at least in France and Germany.

scholarly journals papel del artículo 8 CEDH en la construcción del margen de apreciación nacional y la doctrina de las obligaciones positivas del Estado

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lara Redondo Saceda
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
The Right

El artículo 8 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos –que protege los derechos al respeto la vida privada y familiar, el domicilio y la correspondencia– se ha configurado en estos setenta años de Convenio como uno de los escenarios habituales del desarrollo del margen de apreciación nacional y la doctrina de las obligaciones positivas del Estado. Esto parece justificarse en el contenido y estructura de este artículo y en las restricciones y limitaciones al ejercicio de estos derechos establecidas por su párrafo segundo. En este marco, el objetivo de este artículo es analizar cuál ha sido el papel del artículo 8 CEDH en el desarrollo de estos estándares interpretativos y cómo ha influido en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights –which protects the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence– has been configured as a traditional place for the development of the margin of appreciation and the doctrine of State’s positive obligations. The scope and structure of this article and its limitation clause in the second paragraph seem to justify these developments. In this context, the objective of this article is to analyse the role of Article 8 ECHR in the development of these interpretative standards and its influence in the European Court of Human Rights case-law.

The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights as Guardians of Fair Criminal Proceedings in Europe

2019 ◽  
pp. 88-114
Author(s):  
Bettina Weisser
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights

This chapter discusses the role of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) in safeguarding fair criminal proceedings in Europe. In particular, it analyzes the procedure-related guarantee of a fair trial and its various implications as they are laid down in Article 6 ECHR and shaped by the case law of the Court. The chapter first provides an overview of the general procedural guarantees under Article 6, section 1, focusing on the independence and impartiality of the tribunal, right to a fair hearing (equality of arms, the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination, entrapment), public hearing, and hearing within a reasonable time. It then considers procedural rights in criminal proceedings under sections 2 and 3 of Article 6, along with the presumption of innocence under section 2 and specifically listed minimum rights in criminal proceedings under section 3.

scholarly journals The Impact of ECHR and the Case-Law of the ECtHR on the Development of the Right to Legal Assistance in International Criminal Courts (ICTY, ICTR, ICC)

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 188-204
Author(s):  
Mykhailo Buromenskyi ◽  
Vitalii Gutnyk
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights have a significant impact not only on national legal order but also on international criminal courts. The article is dedicated to analyzing that impact in the context of the right to legal assistance. We ascertain the purpose of the establishment of international criminal courts, the specificity of the right to legal assistance in the European system of human rights protection, the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on the drafting of statutes of the international criminal courts and influence of the European Convention on Human Rights and case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on the interpretation of the right to legal assistance in the international criminal courts. Also the primacy of the right to legal assistance is proved, which is provided in the ECHR to the statutes of international criminal courts. At the same time, the international criminal courts, taking into account the purpose of their establishment and jurisdiction, give additional guarantees of the right to legal assistance.

scholarly journals Role of the European Court of Human Rights in realization of social security right

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-63
Author(s):  
Lyusya Mozhechuk ◽  
Andriy Samotuha
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Occupational Injuries ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The article deals with the role of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in protecting the right to social security. There is the analysis of the case law of the ECtHR on the violation of the right to social security, namely the right to receive a pension, which the ECtHR classifies as property rights. The authors have outlined the ways to improve the practice of the ECtHR in this area in modern national and world socio-economic conditions. According to available estimates, around 50 per cent of the global population has access to some form of social security, while only 20 per cent enjoy adequate social security coverage. Ensuring an ap-propriate mechanism for the protection of human and civil rights is a priority for every country. However, according to case law, the number of complaints of violations or non-recognition of their rights is growing every year. An important role in the protection of human rights in today's conditions is played by an international judicial body - the European Court of Human Rights. In Ukraine, where socio-economic rights are recognized at the constitutional level, their guarantee content in the current laws is still not clearly defined, and therefore, as evidenced by the practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, legal mechanisms their protection, in particular the means of judicial control remain ineffective. The right to social security is the right to access and retention of benefits, both in cash and in kind, without discrimination in order to protect, in particular, against (a) lack of income from work caused by illness, disability, maternity, occupational injuries , unemployment, old age or death of a family member; (b) inaccessible access to medical care; (c) insufficient family support, especially for children and adult dependents. It is well known that the European Convention does not contain many socio-economic rights as such (with a few exceptions - protection of property and the right to education). Thus , the former president of the ECtHR Jean-Paul Costa specifically pointed to another important European human rights treaty – the European Social Charter. Human rights are a universal value, and their protection is the task of every state. The European Court of Human Rights plays an important role in protecting human rights in modern conditions. The functioning of such an international judicial institution can not only solve a problem of protection of violated rights, but also affect the development of the judicial system of each state. The main principle of realization and judicial protection of social rights is non-discrimination on the grounds of sex, age, race, national and social origin of the individual, and the role of auxiliary institutions of the Council of Europe in generalizing and improving the ECtHR’s activity has been emphasized.

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.

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.

Risk and the European Convention on Human Rights: Towards a New Approach

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 353-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Hilson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Nuclear Radiation ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Public Concern ◽  
Initial Attempt ◽  
Liberal Conception ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

Abstract The aim of this chapter is to provide an initial attempt at analysis of the place of risk within the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and, where appropriate, the Commission, focusing on the related issues of public concern and perception of risk and how the ECHR dispute bodies have addressed these. It will argue that, for quite some time, the Court has tended to adopt a particular, liberal conception of risk in which it stresses the right of applicants to be provided with information on risk to enable them to make effective choices. Historically, where public concerns in relation to particular risks are greater than those of scientific experts—nuclear radiation being the prime example in the case law—the Court has adopted a particularly restrictive approach, stressing the need for risk to be ‘imminent’ in order to engage the relevant Convention protections. However, more recently, there have been emerging but as yet still rather undeveloped signs of the Court adopting a more sensitive approach to risk. One possible explanation for this lies in the Court’s growing awareness of and reference to the Aarhus Convention. What we have yet to see—because there has not yet been a recent, post-Aarhus example involving such facts—is a case where no imminent risk is evident. Nevertheless, the chapter concludes that the Court’s old-style approach to public concern in such cases, in which it rode roughshod over rights to judicial review, is out of line with the third, access to justice limb of Aarhus.

Passive Proselytism

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 244-269
Author(s):  
Christine Carpenter
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

Abstract Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of religion and conscience. The language of Article 9(1) has been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights as including protections for acts of proselytism, when properly committed and respectful of the rights and freedoms of others. This was the view taken in the foundational Article 9 case of the Court, Kokkinakis v. Greece. In the decades since Kokkinakis, however, the view of the Court on proselytism appears to have shifted, in particular in Article 9 cases involving religious garments. This article seeks to determine whether the Court is consistent in its views on proselytism between these religious garment cases and earlier examples of Article 9 case law.

Overruling ‘the Salduz Doctrine’ in Beuze v Belgium: The ECtHR’s further retreat from the Salduz principles on the right to access to lawyer

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-362
Author(s):  
Ergul Celiksoy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Increasing Trend ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

In November 2018, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Beuze v Belgium. Relying on Ibrahim and Others v the United Kingdom, the Grand Chamber held that the Salduz principles require a two-stage test of analysis, and hence, ruled out that systematic statutory restriction of a general and mandatory nature would in itself constitute an automatic violation of Article 6 § 3(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Beuze judgment appears to be very controversial, since the Grand Chamber failed to put forward any convincing reason why it departed from previous case law, particularly Dayanan v Turkey and other judgments against Turkey. In their separate opinion, the concurring Judges in Beuze were concerned that the Beuze judgment overruled ‘ Salduz itself and all other cases that have applied the Salduz test’, and thus, ‘actually distorts and changes the Salduz principle and devalues the right that the Court established previously’. This article analyses the Beuze judgment in the light of the Court’s recent jurisprudence in order to examine whether it contradicts and dilutes the principles previously set out. Further, it discusses the implications of the new standards established in Ibrahim and Others and in subsequent cases, particularly Beuze. Particular attention is paid to the questions of how ‘fair’ is the application of overall fairness assessment in every case, how may the Court’s changing direction of approach concerning the right to access to a lawyer affect the increasing trend of recognition thereof, as a rule, by the contracting states, and finally, to what extent the new principles, especially those established in Beuze, comply with Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer.

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

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 ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document