scholarly journals Staying the Return of Aliens from Europe through Interim Measures: The Case-law of the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yves Haeck ◽  
Clara Burbano Herrera

AbstractThe Strasbourg case-law demonstrates a clear tendency to protect aliens through interim measures in case of imminent deportation. Usually but not uniquely those persons claim(ed) before the supervisory organs to be in a situation of extreme gravity in case of forcible return to their country of origin because they can be subject to the death penalty, life imprisonment, persecution for their political activities, deprived of medicine/adequate medical treatment. This contribution explores which typologies of cases have led the European Commission and Court to apply interim measures in those situations, as well as which rights and freedoms have been protected thereby.

Global Jurist ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Galliani

AbstractLife Imprisonment, unlike the death penalty, does not attract the attention of the doctrine. There are, however, significant developments in the European Court of Human Rights case law. In this paper, using a comparative methodology, we highlight the standard that, at international level, allows to consider Life Imprisonment compatible with human dignity-that is the right to a substantial judicial review. It is no longer acceptable that the ‘last word’ on the lifers’ early release is still entrusted to political power.


2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara Burbano Herrera

<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Abstract</strong></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Today, interim measures have a key role in many of the cases that are brought before the European Human Rights System. The instrument has been designed to preserve and protect rights and freedoms to persons in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, together with the interests of the parties in a case before the Court. This legal figure has been applied – nowadays – on a daily basis for more than half a century, first by the former European Commission on Human Rights (European Commission or Commission) and later by the European Court of Human Rights (European Court, Court or ECtHR).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Despite the fact that interim measures have over time acquired a growing importance in the case law, States when faced with such a measure requiring them to act, sometimes refuse to abide by them. This contribution aims to give an exhaustive overview of the State incompliances. It is argued that the number of non-compliances is steadily growing, as is the number of perpetrators, not only among the ‘new’ Member States, but also among the ‘older’ member States and even the ‘founding fathers’ and that this can have a negative effect on the supervisory system as a whole. Some initiatives can, however, be taken by the European Court and the Committee of Ministers to improve and streamline the procedure with regard to interim measures, whereby all actors in the dispute may benefit.</p>


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 313-336
Author(s):  
Pamela McCormick

Abstract Interim measures can be indicated by most international decision-making bodies which monitor compliance with human rights norms to the parties involved in the proceedings before them, in order to prevent the commission of any irreversible actions which would either preclude the proper examination of a complaint or render the final judgment meaningless. The availability of interim measures is an essential feature of any effective judicial system, particularly where fundamental rights are at stake. They play a particularly important role in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’). The volume of requests for an indication of interim measures received by the Court each year is substantial and increasing. This presents the Court with a number of legal and practical problems. This chapter examines the circumstances in which an indication of interim measures may be made, as well as the consequences of non-compliance with such an indication, although it is acknowledged that the incidence of non-compliance is low. With its recent case law, the Court has brought the existence of interim measures to the attention of a wider audience, which is desirable as only such an awareness will render the protection of Convention rights practical and effective rather than theoretical and illusory, a stated goal of the Court. However, such a wider awareness will in turn increase the volume of requests again, making it likely that the Court will in years to come have to make significant changes to the scope of requests for interim measures, as well as to its practices and procedures for considering such requests.


2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara Burbano Herrera

A Critical Analysis Of The Work Of The European Commission And European Court Of Human Rights In Relation With Non-Compliance Of Interim Measures - Period 1957-2011


2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-171
Author(s):  
Nezir Pivić ◽  
Lejla Zilić-Čurić

Sentencing to life imprisonment is not in contrast with human rights issued in European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, the sentenced imposed to life imprisonment and system to of its execution must meet certain standards to be compatible with requirements stated in Article 3 of European Convention. The subject of our research paper are mentioned standards that Contracting States have to respect in terms of enforcing the sentence of life imprisonment. Introduction to the subject of the research is given in the form of penological review of life imprisonment as well as review of internationally established legal standards under the umbrella of the United Nations and the Council of Europe that relate to sentencing and enforcement of life imprisonment. In focus of this research paper is case law of the European Court of Human Rights that refer to life imprisonment. In that context, the focus of this research paper deals with the issue of the relationship between life imprisonment and prohibition of torture as human right that is absolutely protected and the issue of the Contracting States’s margin in appreciation in prescribing the form and conditions of revision of the sentence. The intention of the authors is focused on the legal analysis of Strasbourg case law on issue of compatibility of life imprisonment with the requirements of the Article 3 of the European Convention and to present the standards generated by Strasbourg case law regarding the implementation and mechanism of revision of life imprisonment.


2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Waddington ◽  
Bernadette McSherry

This article examines the relevant international law relating to informed consent to treatment for individuals with psychosocial disabilities and reflects on the protection offered in this respect by the European Convention on Human Rights (echr) and the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. The article argues that while the un Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is beginning to influence case law of the European Court of Human Rights, only ‘weak’ protection has been afforded to people with psychosocial disabilities by the echr and the Court in relation to informed consent for medical treatment.


Author(s):  
Dzhuzha О. M. ◽  
◽  
Melnychenko І. P. ◽  

The article provides a legal analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in such cases like “Vinter and Others v. The United Kingdom”, “Hutchinson v. The United Kingdom”. The European Court of Human Rights has established key standards for those sentenced to life imprisonment, compliance with which will ensure that this type of punishment meets the requirements of the Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Such standards are: 1) sentencing of life imprisonment is not prohibited and does not conflict with the Article 3 or any other article of the Convention. The imposition of “non-reducible” life imprisonment may raise questions of compliance with the requirements of the Article 3 of the Convention; 2) in decision making whether life imprisonment can be considered as “non-reducible”, it is necessary to establish whether the person convicted to life imprisonment had any prospect of release. If national law provides for the possibility of reviewing life imprisonment regarding its mitigating, reducing, terminating or releasing, this is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of th Article 3 of the Convention; 3) for the purposes of the Article 3 of the Convention it is sufficient that life imprisonment is reducible de jure and de facto; 4) European penitentiary policy is currently focusing on the correctional purpose of imprisonment, in particular until the end of long prison sentences; 5) at the very beginning of the sentence a person convicted to life imprisonment has the right to know what he must do to consider the possibility of his release and under what conditions the sentence will be reviewed or also in what order a request to this may be made; 6) if domestic law does not provide for any mechanism or possibility to review life imprisonment, then the non-compliance with the requirements of the Article 3 of the Convention occurs at the time of imposition of life imprisonment and not at a later stage. The importance of such standards separating of the European Court of Human Rights for the national theory and practice of life imprisonment is that these provisions are effective guidelines for determining the prospects of releasing from sentencing in the form life imprisonment. Key words: European Court of Human Rights, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, case law, convict, life imprisonment.


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 313-336
Author(s):  
Pamela McCormick

AbstractInterim measures can be indicated by most international decision-making bodies which monitor compliance with human rights norms to the parties involved in the proceedings before them, in order to prevent the commission of any irreversible actions which would either preclude the proper examination of a complaint or render the final judgment meaningless. The availability of interim measures is an essential feature of any effective judicial system, particularly where fundamental rights are at stake. They play a particularly important role in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’). The volume of requests for an indication of interim measures received by the Court each year is substantial and increasing. This presents the Court with a number of legal and practical problems. This chapter examines the circumstances in which an indication of interim measures may be made, as well as the consequences of non-compliance with such an indication, although it is acknowledged that the incidence of non-compliance is low. With its recent case law, the Court has brought the existence of interim measures to the attention of a wider audience, which is desirable as only such an awareness will render the protection of Convention rights practical and effective rather than theoretical and illusory, a stated goal of the Court. However, such a wider awareness will in turn increase the volume of requests again, making it likely that the Court will in years to come have to make significant changes to the scope of requests for interim measures, as well as to its practices and procedures for considering such requests.


2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-130
Author(s):  
Miodrag Simović ◽  
Marina Simović ◽  
Vladimir Simović

In the system of measures of societal reaction towards the perpetrators of criminal offences, all the modern criminal laws, including the new legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, recognise sentences in the first place. They are the main types of criminal sanctions whose purpose can be achieved to the fullest, and that is the protection of society and social goods from all forms and types of injury and threat caused by the commission of criminal offences. Given that in the structure of criminal offences occur those with serious consequences, violating the highest social values, committed with a severe form of guilt by a repeat offender, in concurrence or by a group or organised crime group, it is logical that all penal systems recognise the harshest sentence - longterm or life imprisonment - especially after the abolition of the death sentence - capital punishment, for the severest forms of crimes. The paper analyses issues related to the harshest sentence, long-term, or life imprisonment in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the special emphasis on the European Court of Human Rights case law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document