Collective Religious Autonomy versus Individual Rights: A Challenge for the ECtHR?

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 315-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merilin Kiviorg

The article will focus on the conflicts between individual rights and collective religious autonomy in Europe. The goal is to analyze the approach taken by the European Court of Human Rights to these conflicts and investigate how it influences both individual and collective religious freedom, how it may affect domestic solutions, and how it may be related to other relevant processes in the fields of law, religion and politics at the European level, e.g., in the context of the Council of Europe and the European Union as well as in the (somewhat specific) context of East European countries. The article will put forward an individual (personal) autonomy-based framework for the court to deal with these conflicts.

Author(s):  
Rafael Bustos Gisbert

El artículo examina los documentos elaborados sobre independencia judicial por distintos órganos del Consejo de Europa. Tiene en cuenta la diferente aproximación en los mismos antes y después de la crisis del Estado de Derecho en algunos de los Estados europeos a partir de 2010. Tras resumir los estándares básicos elaborados en tales textos, se estudia su influencia en el Consejo de Europa y en la UE. En el primer sentido se examina su presencia en la jurisprudencia del TEDH. Respecto a la UE se examina el modo en que ha condicionado la labor de la Comisión en la supervisión del respeto al Estado de Derecho por los Estados miembros desde que comenzara a usarlos para evaluar las candidaturas de los países del Este a ingresar en la UE a finales del pasado siglo, hasta su incorporación al Informe sobre el Estado de Derecho en la UE aprobado en octubre de 2020.This essay focuses on the documents on judicial independence drafted by Council of Europe bodies. It takes into account its diverse approaches before and after the rule of Law backsliding in some European States since 2010. The basic standards elaborated are summarized. Its influence is addressed both at the Council of Europe and at the European Unión. In the first sense it examines the influence of this soft law in the European Court of Human Rights case law. Secondly it focuses in the way it has conditioned the European Commission task of monitoring the effectiveness of rule of law in EU member states. This influence began when they were used to evaluate the candidatures of Eastern European countries to join the EU at the end of the last century but it has kept inspiring the Commision’s activities until the Report on Rule of Law issued in October 2010.


Author(s):  
Katalin Ligeti

Since long before the entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), the two highest courts in Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have sought to develop their respective jurisprudence in such a way as to ensure a strong protection of individual rights, whilst avoiding clashes between the decisions taken in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. An important statement in this regard is provided by the Bosphorus judgment, in which the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR recognised the existence of a presumption of equivalent protection of fundamental rights under EU law. The presumption is rebuttable, but expresses the trustful attitude (and a certain degree of deference) of Strasbourg towards the ability of EU law (and of the CJEU) to protect Convention rights.


Author(s):  
Greer Steven

This chapter examines the origins, historical development, and key characteristics of the various inter-state organizations engaged in human rights activities in Europe. Having briefly described the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, it examines the Council of Europe and the European Union, including the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.


2018 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 735-745
Author(s):  
Carlo Casini ◽  
Marina Casini

Il contributo si sofferma sulla questione riguardante la ricerca scientifica sugli embrioni generati in vitro. L’articolo 18 della Convenzione riguarda specificamente la sperimentazione sull’embrione in vitro e per questo esso è sottoposto ad una riflessione particolarmente approfondita. L’obiettivo è quello di capire se dalla Convenzione emergono linee idonee a definire lo statuto giuridico dell’embrione umano. Gli Autori concludono nel senso che nonostante il concetto di pre-embrione (formulato proprio per teorizzare l’insignificanza dell’embrione umano nei primi 14 giorni dalla fecondazione) sia stato accolto in alcune leggi e abbia implicitamente guidato l’interpretazione di alcuni aspetti relativi alla valutazione del valore dell’embrione, la Convenzione di bioetica lo ha definitivamente respinto con il massimo di autorevolezza. La conclusione è raggiunta attraverso l’esame dell’art. 18 considerandone anche la precedente formulazione contenuta in una bozza; mediante una interpretazione sistematica della Convenzione che esige il riconoscimento del concepito, fin dalla fecondazione, come un “essere umano”; esaminando i contributi preparatori elaborati dalla Assemblea Parlamentare del Consiglio d’Europa e del Parlamento Europeo; prendendo in considerazione gli sviluppi della Convenzione di Oviedo con specifico riferimento al tema del pre-embrione. L’indagine si avvale poi anche di ampi riferimenti alla giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo del Consiglio d’Europa, alla giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea, ad alcune recenti decisioni della Corte Costituzionale italiana. ---------- The paper focuses on the question concerning scientific research on human embryos generated in vitro. Article 18 of the Oviedo Convention specifically concerns the experimentation on the in vitro embryos and for this reason it is subject to a particularly in-depth reflection. The goal is to understand if the Convention shows suitable lines to define the legal status of the human embryo. The authors conclude that despite the concept of pre-embryo (formulated to theorize the insignificance of the human embryo in the first 14 days of fertilization) has been accepted in some laws and has implicitly guided the interpretation of some aspects related to the evaluation of the value of the embryo, the Bioethics Convention definitively rejected it with the utmost authority. The conclusion is reached through the examination of the art. 18 also considering the previous formulation contained in a draft; through a systematic interpretation of the Convention which requires the recognition of the conceived, from the moment of fertilization, as a “human being”; examining the preparatory contributions prepared by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament; taking into consideration the developments of the Oviedo Convention with specific reference to the theme of the pre-embryo. The investigation also makes use of extensive references to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights of the Council of Europe, to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to some recent decisions of the Italian Constitutional Court.


Author(s):  
Viktoriya Kuzma

This article presents the current issues in the law of international organizations and contemporary international law in general. It is pointed out that the division of international law into branches and institutions, in order to ensure the effective legal regulation of new spheres of relations, led to the emergence of autonomous legal regimes, even within one region, namely on the European continent. To date, these include European Union law and Council of Europe law. It is emphasized the features of the established legal relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union at the present stage. It is determined that, along with close cooperation between regional organizations, there is a phenomenon of fragmentation, which is accompanied by the creation of two legal regimes within the same regional subsystem, proliferation of the international legal norms, institutions, spheres and conflicts of jurisdiction between the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is revealed that some aspects of fragmentation can be observed from the moment of establishing relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union, up to the modern dynamics of the functioning of the system of law of international organizations, the law of international treaties, law of human rights. Areas and types of fragmentation in relations between international intergovernmental organizations of the European continent are distinguished. One way to overcome the consequences of fragmentation in the field of human rights is highlighted, namely through the accession of the European Union to the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. Considerable attention has also been paid to defragmentation, which is partly reflected in the participation of the European Union in the Council of Europe’s conventions by the applying «disconnection clause». It is determined that the legal relations established between an international intergovernmental organization of the traditional type and the integration association sui generis, the CoE and the EU, but with the presence of phenomenon of fragmentation in a close strategic partnership, do not diminish their joint contribution into the development of the law of international organizations and contemporary international law in general. Key words: defragmentation; European Union; European Court of Human Rights; Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950; conflict of jurisdictions; «disconnection clause»; Council of Europe; Court of Justice of the European Union; fragmentation; sui generis.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 25-36
Author(s):  
Sára Kiššová

Whistleblower protection in the European Union is undergoing significant developments. The new Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons reporting breaches of Union law sets a minimum standard for the protection of whistleblowers. It is awaiting implementation in Member States' national law by December 2021. However, a certain level of protection is also guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights case law principles. Reports of illegal activities provided from close internal sources can strengthen the protection of the EU's financial interests. Adequate protection is needed to prevent retaliation against whistleblowers. As the deadline for transposing this directive approaches, the article aims to analyse the Directive 2019/1973 and compare it with the protection guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.


2020 ◽  
pp. 112-128
Author(s):  
Anna Planas-Lladó ◽  
Asun Llena ◽  
Carles Vila-Mumbrú

The training and professionalization of youth workers in Europe has been implemented differently in each social and political context. This chapter focuses on how the training and professionalization of youth workers has evolved at a European level and its current situation, as well as concerns and challenges that arise in international debates. The training and professionalization of youth workers in Europe is currently being systematized through the deployment of regulatory frameworks, most of which are promoted by the Council of Europe and the European Union within the framework of the European convergence process. Despite this, there is much diversity in terms of types of training, recognition levels, and intervention models. However, consensus is gradually being reached regarding functions and competences that can contribute both to the credibility and recognition of professionals and to the improvement of their working conditions and quality of interventions.


2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katalin Kelemen

Hungarian constitutional and legislative reforms have been in the spotlight since Hungary’s adoption of a new Fundamental Law, which entered into force on the first day of 2012. Europe’s two leading international organizations (the Council of Europe and the European Union) already issued an opinion about it the year before its entry into force, and they continued to closely follow Hungarian constitutional developments during ensuing years. The new Fundamental Law was followed by a series of new ‘cardinal laws’ and many controversial reforms. This article presents and discusses the opinions delivered by the Venice Commission, the European Court of Human Rights, and the eu institutions on these reforms and the different types of arguments on which they relied. This article also aims to present the interaction between the Hungarian government and Europe’s two leading organizations concerning the new constitutional setting of Hungary, focusing on the legal arguments in each case.


ICL Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosmarie Doblhoff-Dier ◽  
Sandra Kusmierczyk

AbstractBy acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the EU’s role as supranational player in the complex human rights architecture of Europe will be finally recognized. On 5 April 2013, the negotiators of the accession procedure of the European Union to the ECHR agreed on a package of draft accession instruments. Constituting a mile­stone on the road to accession, the now revised Accession Agreement still leaves vast room for discussion. By critically scrutinizing some of its modalities, this article will evaluate its impact on the human rights jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Eu­ropean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the relationship between both courts. To this end, it will address the somewhat disproportionate involvement of the European Union in the future jurisdiction of the ECtHR and in the decision making of the Council of Europe in matters linked to the ECHR. Furthermore, it will focus on the compatibility of the Draft Agree­ment with the principle of autonomous interpretation of European Union Law: a highly rel­evant discussion for the ECJ’s future Opinion under Article 218 (11) TFEU on the compatibil­ity of the finalized draft agreement with the Treaties - the next hurdle for accession.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document