Strengthening the Protection of Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention in Immigration Control Proceedings

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 273-286
Author(s):  
Matthew Seet
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Immigration Control ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Stateless Person

There is a growing movement (globally and in Europe) addressing statelessness, and the July 2014 decision of Kim v Russia illustrates the role of the Strasbourg Court as a guardian of one of the most important fundamental rights of the ‘legally invisible’ in Europe. The court held that Russia’s two-year detention of a stateless person with a view to expulsion violated his right to liberty and security under Article 5(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights. This comment argues that Kim v Russia represents an important step forward by the Strasbourg Court in safeguarding the stateless person’s right to liberty and security of person under echr doctrine, by highlighting and addressing the special vulnerability of stateless persons to prolonged, indefinite and cyclical detention in immigration control proceedings, although the court should have gone further and indicated general measures explicitly recommending for Russia to introduce statelessness determination procedures.

Human Rights in the EU: Rethinking the Role of the European Convention on Human Rights after Lisbon

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Weiß
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Loss Of Autonomy ◽  
The Eu

Treaty of Lisbon – Fundamental Rights Charter – European Convention on Human Rights – Partial incorporation of Convention in Charter – Incorporation of Charter into EU law with Lisbon – Questions of loss of autonomy for the EU legal order – Gain in direct effect of Convention in EU member states

RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN ENGLISH LAW

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-108
Author(s):  
Philip Sales
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
English Law

AbstractThis paper examines the role of rights and fundamental rights in English public law and private law in recent times. It argues that the idea of fundamental rights has been more significant in the filed of public law and seeks to explain why. It compares the operation of domestic fundamental rights with the rights in the European Convention of Human Rights and suggests a methodology for identifying the existence and scope of the former. The paper considers the possible legal effects which might follow from repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998.

scholarly journals POLICE BAIL WITHOUT CHARGE: THE HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

2010 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 529-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ed Cape ◽  
Richard A. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Recent Origin ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Changing Role ◽  
First Time

Whilst the power of the police to release a person on bail prior to trial has existed for centuries, the power to release on bail a person suspected of but not charged with a criminal offence has been available to the police only since 1925. The power to attach conditions to pre-charge bail is of very recent origin, having been introduced for the first time in 2003 but rapidly expanded since then. Whilst imposing restrictions on the liberty of a person should, constitutionally, be reserved to the judiciary, the fact that it was originally conceived, in part at least, as a mechanism for enhancing liberty reduced the constitutional tension created by allowing members of the executive such powers. However, the changing role of arrest in the investigation of crime and the granting of extensive powers to the police to impose bail conditions means that the police now have the ability to place controls on people not charged with a criminal offence for extended periods of time. It is argued here that this is in breach of the right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, in practice, may also breach other Convention rights.

8. Article 5: The right to liberty and security of the person

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Harris ◽  
Michael O’Boyle ◽  
Ed Bates ◽  
Carla Buckley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Physical Security ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Mentally Disabled ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

This chapter discusses Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the ‘right to liberty and security of person’. The notion of ‘liberty’ here covers the physical liberty of the person, which the Court views alongside Articles 2, 3, and 4 as ‘in the first rank of the fundamental rights that protect the physical security of an individual’. All kinds of detention by the state are controlled by Article 5, including detention in the criminal process, detention of the mentally disabled and detention prior to extradition or deportation.

The Echr Implications of the Investigation Provisions of the Draft Competition Regulation

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Riley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Notification System ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Council Regulation ◽  
Draft Regulation

In September 2000 the European Commission published its long-awaited proposed replacement for Regulation 17, the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Implementation of the Rules on Competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (hereafter the draft regulation).1 The debate on the draft regulation has focused on the abolition of the notification system, the role of the national courts, and the role of the national competition authorities (hereafter the NCAs). However, there is one significant overlooked issue, namely the extent to which the investigation provisions of the draft regulation comply with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter ECtHR).2 Given the paucity of the ECtHR's case law in 1961 it is understandable that the implications of the European Convention of Human Rights (hereafter ECHR) for the investigative provisions of what was to become Regulation 17 were not at that time given any great consideration by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. However, there is now an extensive human rights case law, developed by the Strasbourg authorities which, it is argued, casts a major shadow over the Commission's existing and proposed investigative powers. It is further argued that the case law of the European Court of Justice (hereafter ECJ) and the Court of First Instance (hereafter CFI) in respect of fundamental rights as general principles of law, does not provide an equivalent standard of protection to that offered by the ECtHR.

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.

Fundamental Rights and the Integrity of Union Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio Baquero Cruz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Fundamental Importance ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Future ◽  
Political Understanding

This chapter analyses another area of Union law that is highly controversial and relevant in structural terms—the protection of fundamental rights. It discusses the scope and standard of the protection offered at Union level, the consequences for national law, and the implications of the future accession of the Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. These issues are of fundamental importance for the integrity of Union law and of wider significance for the political understanding of the Union.

The Protection of Intellectual Property in International Human Rights Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Core Subject ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the human rights system and the way it deals with human creations and innovations that are the traditional core subject matter of intellectual property (IP) rights. It begins by reviewing the scope for protection under Article 27 (2) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 15 (1) (c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The chapter moves on to the protection of property in human rights law, especially on the regional, European level. It examines how IP can be protected as property under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU Charter). Finally, the chapter looks at some of the overlaps with international IP rules and the conflict norms in the human rights system to address such overlaps.

The Right to Avoid Procreation and the Regulation of Pregnancy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janne Rothmar Herrmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Perspective ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Moral Obligations ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
European Consensus ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Right

This chapter discusses the right to avoid procreation and the regulation of pregnancy from a European perspective. The legal basis for a right to avoid procreation can be said to fall within the scope of several provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), an instrument that is binding for all European countries. Here, Article 12 of the ECHR gives men and women of marriageable age the right to marry and found a family in accordance with the national laws governing this right. However, Article 12 protects some elements of the right not to procreate, but for couples only. The lack of common European consensus in this area highlights how matters relating to the right to decide on the number and spacing of children touch on aspects that differ from country to country even in what could appear to be a homogenous region. In fact, the cultural, moral, and historical milieus that surround these rights differ considerably with diverse national perceptions of the role of the family, gender equality, religious and moral obligations, and so on.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document