scholarly journals Mandatory Vaccination in Child Daycare and Its Relevance to COVID-19

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
André den Exter
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Countries ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
Mandatory Vaccination ◽  
Legal Battle

Last month, the European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg made a landmark ruling on mandatory vaccination of children. After a long legal battle that lasted 16 years, the Grand Chamber decided, in the Vavricka case, that a Czech national law imposing a statutory duty of a set of standard vaccinations for children under the age of 15 does not violate the right to private life as protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Although the outcome of this ruling is not surprising, it may also have consequences relating to the controversy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination which has been raised in other European countries.

S.A.S. v. France (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (6) ◽  
pp. 1025-1072
Author(s):  
Tom Syring
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Full Face ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time

On July 1, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court or the Grand Chamber) delivered its judgment in the case of S.A.S. v. France pertaining to the legality of the French ban on wearing full-face veils in public, introduced by Law No. 2010-1192 of October 11, 2010. The decision comes on the heels of a number of related judgments in adjacent areas of dispute circumscribing the right to privacy and religion and delimiting the circumstances that may justify interference with such fundamental human rights. In the present case, the Court for the first time had to deal with a general ban on certain clothing that arguably, for those most affected, epitomizes the manifestation of their religion. Accepting the principle of “living together (le ‘vivre ensemble’)” as an inherent element of the “rights and freedoms of others” in the French context and conceding a wide margin of appreciation to the respondent state in preserving that principle, the Court found no violation of the applicant’s rights to respect for her private life (Article 8) and to freedom of religion (Article 9) under the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).

Goodwin v. United Kingdom. App. No. 28957/95 and I. v. United Kingdom. App. No. 25680/94

2003 ◽  
Vol 97 (3) ◽  
pp. 659-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
David D. Caron ◽  
Rhona K. M. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Biological Criteria ◽  
The One ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

Goodwin v. United Kingdom. App. No. 28957/95. At <http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm>.European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, July 11, 2002.I. v. United Kingdom. App. No. 25680/94. At <http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm>. European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, July 11, 2002.Under English law, people may change their names and use those new names for official purposes. At the same time, specified biological criteria determine the sex of individuals under the law for various purposes, including marriage and retirement pensions. In Goodwin v. United Kingdom and I. v. United Kingdom, the question presented was whether such biological criteria impermissibly operate to the prejudice of postoperative transsexuals. The grand chamber of the European Court of Human Rights unanimously concluded that the practice of restricting gender in national law to the one registered at birth infringed both the right to respect for private life and the right to marry, contrary to the guarantees of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

scholarly journals The right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and legality of epidemiological monitoring measures to combat the Covid-19 virus pandemic

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (89) ◽  
pp. 303-320
Author(s):  
Jelena Milenković
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Far East ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Countries ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Epidemiological Monitoring ◽  
The Right

In this paper, the author analyzes the protection of the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) at the time of the Covid-19 virus pandemic. At the beginning of the pandemic, European countries had a large number of infected people and some countries encountered a collapse of their health systems. As the situation was beyond control, it raises the question whether such a situation was caused by the non-implementation of epidemiological monitoring measures, which is comparable to the extent and manner of implementing these measures in the Far East; namely, the question is whether the democratic system remained unprotected due to the EU countries' observance of democratic human rights standards, specifically the right to privacy. Given that epidemiological monitoring measures are currently the most important instrument for combating the Covid-19 virus pandemic, European countries have to fulfill the condition of legality in implementing these measures, which interfere with the citizens' right to privacy. In that context, the author explores the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which ensures judicial protection of the rights guaranteed by the Convention (including the right to private life), focuses on the definition of the concept of the right to privacy, and examines whether epidemiological monitoring measures fall into the corpus of privacy rights. Relying on a detailed analysis of the ECtHR case law, the author points to the specific requirements that must be met in order for the epidemiological monitoring measures to be considered legal.

CONCEALED BIRTHS, ADOPTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAW: BEING WARY OF SEEKING TO OPEN WINDOWS INTO PEOPLE'S SOULS

2012 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Marshall
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Biological Father ◽  
Legal Decisions ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Biological Family ◽  
The Right ◽  
Confidentiality And Privacy

AbstractAlthough rare, giving birth in secret or in concealed circumstances still happens in the United Kingdom. The new born child's existence is unknown to his or her biological ‘father’ and or to the wider biological family of the birth giver who wishes to place the child for adoption without his or her existence being revealed to them. Legal decisions need to be made judicially when a local authority seeks orders as to whether it is required to make further inquiries to identify and notify the biological father and or wider biological family as to any forthcoming adoption proceedings. Developments in European human rights law's protection of a right to respect one's private life provided by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) towards a right to personal autonomy, identity and integrity can be interpreted in different ways. However, three positions are argued here to guard against an erosion of women's confidentiality and privacy in these circumstances. First, women's choices of concealment should be accepted with respect rather than perceived as inauthentic and therefore impermissible; this is in keeping with Article 2's right to life and Article 8's right to personal autonomy and integrity. Second, the right to family life protected by Article 8 of any wider biological family and father is not contravened by allowing women to give birth discreetly. Third, openness and transparency, when it comes to exact knowledge of one's parents in this context is not necessary for a child's identity rights, which are also protected by Article 8's right to personal identity, to be legally protected.

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.

scholarly journals The right to private communication using telecommunication means: National and international legal aspects of protection

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 ◽  
pp. 01021
Author(s):  
Olexandr Panasiuk ◽  
Larysa Grynko ◽  
Anna Prokhazka
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
The State ◽  
European Countries ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Private Communication ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Case Basis

Today's challenges dictate the need to strengthen the national and international legal mechanisms for the protection of personal data and the right to private communication. However, considered rights are not absolute. Legitimate restriction of guaranteed rights is possible, since these means of communication are a powerful tool in the investigation and disclosure of hard/very hard crimes, including transnational ones, especially considering the terrorist threats to Ukraine and other European countries. The possibility of restricting human rights, arising from the guarantees enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and consistently enshrined in the ECHR, demands from the state the least compulsory guarantee while interfering with the rights of individuals – to act “in accordance with the law”. Law protection of personal data and right to privacy are researched in the context of peculiarities of conducting investigative (search), secret investigative (search) and other procedural actions in criminal proceedings, which concern access to some telecommunication means (e.g., smartphones). Taking into account different functional purposes of technical means of telecommunication, access and collecting of evidence contained therein, should be carried out on a case-to-case basis, in a different procedural form, considering specifics of telecommunication technologies in each particular case.

Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy. Application No. 27765/09

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 417-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irini Papanicolopulu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
Maritime Search And Rescue ◽  
The Right

In a unanimous judgment in the case Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) held that Italy’s “push back” operations interdicting intending migrants and refugees at sea and returning them to Libya amounted to a violation of the prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR or Convention), the prohibition of collective expulsions under Article 4 of Protocol 4 to the Convention, and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention. Hirsi Jamaa is the Court’s first judgment on the interception of migrants at sea and it addresses issues concerning the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, as well as the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

The European Court of Human Rights has the Turkish Security Forces Held Responsible for Violations of Human Rights: The Case of Akdivar and Others

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Zwaak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Violent Conflict ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eastern Region ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Security Forces ◽  
South Eastern ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

In this article, special attention will be given to the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Right in the case of Akdivar and Others v. Turkey. Since 1985, a violent conflict has raged in the South-Eastern region of Turkey, between the Turkish security forces and sections of the Kurdish population in favour of Kurdish autonomy, in particular members of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan). Since 1987, 10 of the 11 provinces of South-Eastern Turkey have been subjected to emergency rule, which was in force at the time of the facts complained of. The main issue in this case concerned the fact that during this conflict, a large number of villages have been destroyed and evacuated by the security forces. According to the applicants, the alleged burning of their houses by the security forces constituted, inter alia, a violation of Article 3 (the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment or punishment) and Article 8 (the right of respect for private life, family life, and home) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (property rights).

scholarly journals BRIEF CONSIDERATOINS REGARDING THE JURIDICAL PROTECTION OF PRIVATE LIFE IN THE REGULATION OF THE NEW ROMANIAN CIVIL CODE

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 66-71
Author(s):  
Georgeta Valeria Georgeta Valeria
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Personal Privacy ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Private Lives ◽  
The Right

This article, entitled Brief Considerations Regarding the Juridical Protection of PrivateLife in the Regulation of the New Romanian civil Code, examines the new legal regime of howthe private life of the person is respected, in connection to the inseparable link between the rightto a private life, lato sensu, and its four intrinsic rights – the right to freedom of speech, the rightof the person to dignity, the right to a private life and image rights.The regulation was imperatively necessary, both to complete the framework of the valuesguaranteed by art. 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, but also to establish aninterference between the concept of private life and personal privacy, in the context of theexcessive broadcasting of peoples’ private lives.

scholarly journals Internet and freedom of expression in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 1023-1042
Author(s):  
Ljiljana Mijović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Internet ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
And Control

Internet as a means of communication, whatever the type of information it might be used for, falls within the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. As established in the European Court's case law, freedom of expression constitutes one of the essentials of a democratic society, therefore limitations on that freedom foreseen in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention are to be interpreted strictly. In order to ensure effective protection of one's freedom of expression on the Internet, States bear a positive obligation to create an appropriate regulatory framework, balancing the right to freedom of expression on one and the limitations prescribed in Article 10 § 2, on the other hand. Special attention in doing so is to be paid to the risk of harm posed by content and communications on the Internet to the exercise and enjoyment of other human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention, particularly the right to respect for private life. While it is the fact that the electronic network, serving billions of users worldwide, will never be subject to the same regulations and control, because of the national authorities' margin of appreciation, the European Court established commonly applicable general principles regarding the Internet as a media of exercising right to freedom of expression.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document