Principles Corroborated by Practice? The Use of Country of Origin Information by the European Court of Human Rights in the Assessment of a Real Risk of a Violation of the Prohibition of Torture, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 302-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Femke Vogelaar
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Real Risk ◽  
Consistent Manner ◽  
Standard Set ◽  
Degrading Treatment

This article studies the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) approach to country of origin information in its case law under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. It will first examine the standard set by the ECtHR on the use of country of origin information, followed by an assessment of the application of these principles by the ECtHR in its case law. The article specifically focusses on the use of country of origin information in expulsion cases of applicants from Somalia, Tamils applicants from Sri Lanka and applicants from Iran. The analysis of the ECtHR’s case law in this article will show that the ECtHR does not apply its own standards in a transparent and consistent manner. This raises questions as to the quality of the ECtHR’s assessment of the risk of a violation of Article 3.

I respingimenti in mare di migranti alla luce della Convenzione europea dei diritti umani

2009 ◽  
pp. 591-607
Author(s):  
Alfredo Terrasi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
North African ◽  
European Court ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Migration Flows ◽  
High Seas

- Italian authorities have recently undertaken a new policy to face migration flows from north african coasts. Since May, 6th 2009 Italian coastguard and financial police vessels have intercepted a large number of boats carrying migrants and returned them to Libya, in force of a readmission agreement between Italy and Libya. These operations, even if they take place on the high seas, have to comply with the European Convention for Human Rights, considering that the migrants fall under jurisdiction of Italian authorities within the meaning of art. 1 of the Convention. In particular, on the basis of the European Court of Human Rights case law, it can be argued that returning migrants to Libya, as long as they can be exposed to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment, is prohibited by art. 3. Moreover, art. 4 or the Fourth Protocol prohibits the collective expulsions of aliens. Notwithstanding, it's uncertain whether forcible return of aliens is consistent with the latter provision considering that the European Court requires that aliens ‘leave the country' in order to apply art. 4. In the end the praxis of Italian authorities is inconsistent with the Convention non-refoulement obligation deriving from art. 3.

scholarly journals Non-pecuniary damages before the European Court of Human Rights: Forget the victim; it’s all about the state

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-369
Author(s):  
Veronika Fikfak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Individual Justice

AbstractThis article studies how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, the Court) adjusts damages for human rights violations. The article empirically analyses 13 years of ECtHR’s case law in relation to Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (torture, inhuman and degrading treatment), and 5 (arbitrary detention) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, the Convention). The goal is to understand whether the statements made by the Court about the aims pursued through just satisfaction are confirmed in practice. Through an empirical quantitative study relating to non-pecuniary damages, the article analyses the practice of the Court in awarding non-pecuniary damages for human rights violations and compares it to the competing visions of the ECtHR’s function. In particular, I am interested in determining whether just satisfaction is aimed at redressing the suffering of the victim, her circumstances and vulnerability, or whether the focus is more on the respondent state, its conduct and its past human rights record. The answers to these questions will contribute to the debate whether the ECtHR’s role is one of delivering ‘individual justice’ or whether the Court is – as an international court enforcing an international treaty – focused on the ‘state’.

scholarly journals BLANKET BANS, SUBSIDIARITY, AND THE PROCEDURAL TURN OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 611-638
Author(s):  
Peter Cumper ◽  
Tom Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Domestic Level

AbstractIn recent years several commentators have identified a ‘procedural turn’ by the European Court of Human Rights whereby it places increased emphasis on the presence or absence and/or quality of legislative and judicial deliberations at domestic level when assessing the proportionality of allegedly rights-infringing measures. One area where the procedural turn has been particularly apparent is in relation to cases involving blanket bans on activities protected by the European Convention. On most accounts this move to ‘process-based review’ is causally linked to the principle of subsidiarity. In this article it is argued that whilst the shift to process-based review may generally have sound justifications in terms of the subsidiary role of the European Court as compared to States parties to the Convention, there are nevertheless several ironic downsides to this approach in the case of blanket bans, in terms of the certainty and predictability of the Court's case law. Furthermore, and more critically, there may be serious consequences in terms of the rights protection afforded to vulnerable minorities within States who may be at the receiving end of such legislative blanket bans.

scholarly journals The Right Not to be Dominated: The Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights on Migrants’ Destitution

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-314
Author(s):  
Lieneke Slingenberg
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Host State ◽  
European Court ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The Right ◽  
Republican Theory

Abstract The European Court of Human Rights increasingly deals with migrants’ complaints about destitution in their host state under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment). This case law has been criticized for not being consistent and/or for not providing migrants with enough protection. Based on a systematic case law search, in this article, I analyse Article 3 case law on migrants’ destitution from a new perspective: the concept of freedom as non-domination, as developed in (neo) republican theory. It will argue that, seen through this lens, many tendencies in the Court’s case law can be explained and constructed as consistent, and it is submitted that in this way the Court does provide migrants with important protection against unfreedom. Nevertheless, I also argue in the article that the case law could be improved in a number of ways in order to provide more effective and robust protection against domination.

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.

The Debate about Soviet Genocide in Lithuania in the Case Law of The European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Dovilė Sagatienė
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Legal Instrument ◽  
Soviet Occupation ◽  
European Court

Abstract Since 1990 Lithuania has been claiming that what happened there during Soviet occupation is genocide, as per the 1948 Genocide Convention, which embodies universal justice for suppressed nations and other groups. Due to Soviet actions in Lithuania throughout the periods of 1940-1941 and 1944-1990, the country lost almost one fifth of its population. The application of Lithuanian national legal regulations regarding this issue has been recently discussed in the framework of another postwar international legal instrument – the European Convention of Human Rights (1950). The goal of this article is to examine the main debates, which were revealed by the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania (2015) and Drėlingas v. Lithuania (2019), regarding the killings of Lithuanian partisans, including the recognition of the significance of partisans for the Lithuanian nation, the foreseeability of genocide “in part,” as well as the punishment for complicity in killing Lithuanian partisans.

The European Convention on Human Rights and International Law

2007 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luzius Wildhaber
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Mutual Relationship ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Special Character ◽  
British Institute

AbstractThis article is an expanded and footnoted version of the lectur given at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on Tuesday 21 March 2006, entitled ‘International Law in the European Court of Human Rights’.The article begins with some comparative comments on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights in monistic and dualistic systems It then discusses in detail the European Court's case law which confirms that the Convention, despite its special character as a human rights treaty, is indeed part of public international law. It concludes that the Convention and international law find themselves in a kind of interactive mutual relationship. checking and buildine on each other.

Is the assessment under Article 8 ECHR for migrants justifiable?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110614
Author(s):  
Jennie Edlund ◽  
Václav Stehlík
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Way

The paper analyses the protection granted under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights for different immigration cases. The way the European Court of Human Rights determines compliance with Article 8 for settled migrants differs from the way the Court determines compliance for foreign nationals seeking entry or requesting to regularize their irregular migration status. The paper argues that the European Court of Human Rights application of different principles when determining a States’ positive and negative obligations is contradicting its own case law. It also argues that the absence of justification grounds for the refusal of foreign nationals who are seeking entry lacks legitimacy. By treating all immigration cases under Article 8(2) the paper suggests that the differentiation between cases should be based on how a refusal of entry or an expulsion would impact on the family life. The paper also suggests that more consideration should be given towards the insiders interests when balancing the individual rights against the state's interests. These changes would lead to a more consistent and fair case law and generate a more convergent practice by the states which will increase the precedent value of the Court's judgements.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document