Impediments to the Expulsion of Non-Nationals: Substance and Coherence in Procedural Protection under the European Convention on Human Rights

2010 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 457-479
Author(s):  
Ian Bryan ◽  
Peter Langford
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Natural Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Key Features

AbstractThis article offers a critical assessment of the interpretative positions adopted by the European Court of Human Rights as to the applicability of Convention rights and freedoms to the deportation of “aliens” resident in the territory of a Contracting State. The article considers inconsistencies in the Court's jurisprudence and argues that these inconsistencies are a result of the characterisation of deportation proceedings as administrative events. The authors also explore the nature of Contracting States' deportation procedures and examine key features of the procedural guarantees afforded to non-nationals under the Convention and its Protocols. In addition, the authors consider the extent to which Convention notions of due process and natural justice are deemed germane to deportation proceedings. The article contends that disparities in the procedural protections accorded to nationals when compared with resident non-nationals conflict with the purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights are an avertable consequence of the primacy of State sovereignty.

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.

Appreciating the Margin of Appreciation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Follesdal
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
Democratic Deliberation ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has a practice of granting states a ‘Margin of Appreciation:’ the Court grants states the authority to decide, in some cases, whether they are in compliance with their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. This deference by the ECtHR toward states merits philosophical attention: it is criticized by some for being too respectful of state sovereignty and insufficiently protective of human rights, and by others for the reverse. In addition, the ECtHR seems to be employing this practice more frequently. What precisely is this practice, why did it arise, and is it—or can it be made—normatively legitimate? The chapter seeks to specify some vague aspects of the practice, in light of a justification for the legal practice which acknowledges the value of democratic deliberation.

Public Authority Liability in the United Kingdom

2020 ◽  
pp. 80-86
Author(s):  
Gordon Anthony
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Natural Justice ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
External Sources ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
The Uk

Although the UK has not what would be recognized by other legal systems as a general principle of damages liability concerning public authorities, there is no general shield of immunity for them. Nor is there a separate, or dedicated, system of courts that deals with administrative liability. Finally, there is no such thing as a codification of administrative procedure. However, the rules of administrative procedure can be found not only in common law (the rules of ‘natural justice’ or ‘fairness’, i.e. the rule against bias and audi alteram partem) and in statute law, but also in external sources, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular, in Article 6. The latter has obviously influenced case law under the Human Rights Act, notably through the requirement that UK courts take into account the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Considered as a whole, these sources set out standards of procedural fairness and propriety which must be respected by public authorities.

scholarly journals ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krešimir Kamber ◽  
Lana Kovačić Markić
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
World Health ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

On 11 March 2020 the World Health Organization announced the Covid-19 (coronavirus) to be a pandemic. To combat the pandemic, many countries had to adopt emergency measures and some of these measures have affected the judicial system, especially the functioning of courts. The pandemic has been characterised as far as the judiciary is concerned by complete or partial closure of court buildings for the parties and for the public. It is clear that the functioning of national judicial systems has been severely disrupted. This limited functioning of courts impacted the individuals’ right to a fair trial guaranteed, in particular, under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The aim of this article is to examine the manner of the administration of justice during the Covid pandemic and its impact on the due process guarantees. Focus is put on the extent to which different Covid measures, in particular remote access to justice and online hearings have impacted the guarantees of the right to a fair trial and the due process guarantees in general, notably in detention cases. In this connection, the article provides a comparative overview of the functioning of the European legal systems during the pandemic. It also looks into the way in which the two European courts – the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union functioned, as well as the way in which the Croatian courts, including the Constitutional Court, organised their work during the pandemic. The article then provides an insight into the issue of online/remote hearings in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and in the Croatian Constitutional Court’s case-law. On the basis of this assessment, the article identifies the differences in the use of remote/online hearings between and within jurisdictions. In conclusion, the article points to some critical considerations that should be taken into account when devising the manner in which any Covid pandemic experience with the administration of justice (notably with regard to remote/online hearings) can be taken forward.

The European Court of Human Rights on the UN Individual Counter-Terrorist Sanctions Regime: Safeguarding Convention Rights and Harmonising Conflicting Norms in Nada v. Switzerland

2014 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Auke Willems
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Due Process ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Legal Contexts ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
Due Process Rights

This article analyses the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Nada v. Switzerland from the perspective of individual due process rights and the wider constitutional implications. In Nada v. Switzerland, the Strasbourg Court was asked to rule on the conformity of a State Party to the European Convention on Human Rights in its implementation of the United Nations individual counter-terrorist sanctions regime. The Court found violations of an applicant’s right to respect for private and family life and right to an effective remedy. What the Court did not do was rule on the wider questions of hierarchy, i.e. the relationship between the Convention and binding resolutions by the United Nations Security Council that have precedence over any other international agreement by virtue of Article 103 UN Charter. By choosing to harmonise norms originating in different legal contexts, the Court avoided this fundamental question. However, elements of pluralism and constitutionalism can be found in the judgment. By not giving precedence to the United Nations sanctions regime, the Court has implicitly made a statement about the question of hierarchy, while at the same time managing to uphold its primary task of safeguarding States Parties’ compliance with the Convention.

Limits to Measures of Confiscation of Property Linked to Serious Criminal Offences in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 265-281
Author(s):  
Roberto Virzo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
European Court ◽  
The One ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Principle Of Legality

In the past thirty years, a growing number of international agreements and acts of international institutions has resorted to different kinds of confiscation (“direct confiscation”, “value confiscation”, “enlarged confiscation” or “nonconviction based confiscation”) to contrast and suppress international and transnational crimes. It can be considered that the flexibility – in terms of variety of measures and functions – of confiscation, together with the forced and permanent deprivation of property to which it always leads, significantly affect the favor towards this measure by States and international organisations. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), taking into account the aforementioned proliferation of international acts and agreements concerning the fight to criminal activities, maintains that common “European and even universal legal standards” can be said to exist which encourage the confiscation of property linked to serious criminal offences. Moreover, the Court has gone so far as to maintain that, in accordance with such “universal legal standards”, States Parties to the European Convention of Human Rights must be given “a wide margin of appreciation with regard to what constitutes the appropriate means of applying measures to control the use of property such as the confiscation of all types of proceeds of crime”. However, the implementation of such measures by States authorities must conform with human rights guarantees – inter alia the principle of legality in criminal matters, due process rights and property rights – provided for in customary and conventional international law. This essay seeks to examine the relevant case law of the ECtHR and to focus on the possibility of reconciling, on the one hand, international obligations on the protection of human rights and, on the other hand, international agreements and acts – concerning the fight against criminal activities – that provide for the various types of confiscation measures.

5. Right to liberty and right to fair trial

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on the right to liberty and fair trial, which are not qualified rights but can be derogated from in times of war and emergency, and provides an overview of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (ECHR) Articles 5 and 6, the most commonly argued rights before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Article 5 on the right to liberty and security of person protects individuals from unlawful and arbitrary detention, whereas Article 6 protects the rights to fair trial in both criminal and civil cases (with added protection in criminal cases). The ECtHR has expanded protection of Article 6 through its interpretation of ‘fair’ hearing and ‘civil’ rights and obligations. The chapter examines due process rights as part of UK law, including the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).

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.

Council of Europe

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
European Committee ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Two Bodies

This chapter presents an overview of the adjudicative bodies of the Council of Europe—namely, the European Court of Human Rights (established by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)) and the European Committee of Social Rights—and outlines their mandates with regard to integrating UN human rights treaties. It analyses how these two bodies have cited the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The dataset was forty-five cases dealt with by the Court and two collective complaints decided by the Committee that cite the CRPD up to 2016. Notwithstanding the relatively small size of the dataset, the conclusions are that the Council of Europe system has yet to engage seriously in the CRPD’s jurisprudential opportunities. The reasons for this cannot be ascertained from a desk-based methodology, and further research is required.

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