Chapter 6. The European Convention on Human Rights and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Author(s):  
Oliver Lewis

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 194 ◽  
pp. 531-680

531Human rights — Rights of women in Northern Ireland — Pregnant women and girls — Autonomy and bodily integrity — Right to respect for private and family life — Rights of persons with disabilities — Right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Abortion law in Northern Ireland — Prohibition on abortion in cases of serious malformation of foetus, rape and incest — Balancing of rights — Whether moral and political issues relevant — Role of courts and Parliament — Whether abortion law incompatible with Articles 3 and 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether declaration of incompatibility should be madeHuman rights — Right to respect for private and family life — Qualified right — Abortion law in Northern Ireland — Prohibition on abortion in cases of serious malformation of foetus, rape and incest — Interference with right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether interference justified — Whether interference prescribed by law — Whether having legitimate aim — Whether necessary in democratic society — Whether proportionate — In case of fatal foetal abnormality — In case of rape — In case of incest — In case of serious foetal abnormality — Balancing of rights — European Court of Human Rights — Margin of appreciation accorded to United Kingdom represented by Northern Ireland Assembly — Whether legislative situation in Northern Ireland tenable — Role of legislature and courts — Whether Northern Ireland abortion law incompatible with Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether declaration of incompatibility should be madeHuman rights — Rights of persons with disabilities — Treaties — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 — Northern Ireland abortion law prohibiting abortion in cases of serious malformation of the foetus — Foetus having potential to develop into child with disability in cases of serious foetal abnormality — Value of life with and without disability — Whether life having equal worth — United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recommending States amend abortion laws so as to value equally the life of a person with disabilities — Whether Northern Ireland abortion law disproportionate in cases of serious foetal abnormality — Whether abortion law in Northern Ireland incompatible with Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether declaration of incompatibility should be made532Human rights — Right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Rights of girls and women in Northern Ireland pregnant with foetuses with fatal abnormality or due to rape or incest — Article 3 absolute right — Effect on victim — Whether mothers continuing against their will with fatal foetal abnormality pregnancies or pregnancies due to rape or incest, or having to travel to England for an abortion, likely to suffer inhuman and degrading treatment — Whether any ill-treatment under Article 3 reaching minimum level of severity — Obligations owed by the State under Article 3 of European Convention — Vulnerability of women — Personal autonomy — Whether abortion law in Northern Ireland incompatible with Article 3 of European Convention — Whether declaration of incompatibility should be madeRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Implementation — Interpretation — Effect in domestic law — International treaties to which United Kingdom a party — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Human Rights Act 1998 — United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 — Whether moral and political issues relevant — Balancing of rights — Northern Ireland abortion law interfering with right under Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether interference justified — Whether prescribed by law — Whether having legitimate aim — Whether necessary in democratic society — Whether proportionate — Relevance of moral and political views — Role of courts and Parliament in abortion debate — Whether pregnant women and girls subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment — Whether reaching minimum level of severity for breach of Article 3 of European Convention — Whether Northern Ireland abortion law incompatible with Articles 3 and 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 Convention — Whether declaration of incompatibility should be madeRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Effect in domestic law — Abortion law in Northern Ireland — Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 — Section 25(1) of the Criminal Justice Act (NI) 1945 — Right to respect for private and family life — Right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Whether abortion law in 533Northern Ireland incompatible with Article 8 of European Convention — Balancing of rights — Whether abortion law justified — Whether moral and political values relevant — Margin of appreciation accorded to States by European Court of Human Rights — Whether abortion law in Northern Ireland incompatible with Articles 3 and 8 of European Convention — Whether declaration of incompatibility should be madeTreaties — Interpretation — Implementation — Application — Effect in domestic law — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Interpreting European Convention in light of other international treaties to which United Kingdom a party — United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 — Relevance of unincorporated international treaties when applying European Convention via Human Rights Act 1998 — The law of the United Kingdom


Author(s):  
Genevra Richardson

This chapter examines the increased concern for human rights within the global mental health policy agenda and considers what value human rights might add in relation to the use of coercion in community mental health. It describes the position underlying the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and compares it with the more radical approach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). While the CRPD might be more challenging to mental health professionals, it contains within its principles that the wishes and preferences of the person be centre stage and as such deserve to be taken seriously in the provision of community mental health care.


TEME ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 581
Author(s):  
Dušica Palačković ◽  
Sanda Ćorac

The paper analyzes certain important aspects of the procedural position of persons with mental disabilities in the procedures for deprivation of legal capacity. Regardless of the normative framework, both international and national, which largely protects the rights of this sensitive group of people, a significant number of cases before the European Court of Human Rights and decisions in which Contracting States are declared responsible indicate that there is a problem of their procedural position that is principally conditioned by applying (or not applying) the procedural safeguards provided by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, or the right to a fair trial. Although this right is guaranteed for all civil and criminal procedures and for all persons, the special features of persons with mental disabilities also determine the particularities in the application of the right to a fair trial in the court procedures in which these persons are involved. Therefore, we could talk about formulated specific standards that essentially elaborate one of the key concepts of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - "reasonable adaptation", as well as a direct link to the need for a specific application of the already mentioned Article 6 of the European Convention. The standards that follow from the application of Article 6 are numerous and the analysis of all from the aspect of protecting the rights of persons with mental disabilities is not possible in the paper of this volume, and therefore, special attention was given to the right of these persons to initiate and conduct the procedures for deprivation of legal capacity, personal participation and representation in that procedures.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Broderick

The traditional dichotomy of rights between civil and political rights, on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights, on the other hand, has been increasingly eroded in scholarly and judicial discourse. The interdependence of the two sets of rights is a fundamental tenet of international human rights law. Nowhere is this interdependence more evident than in the context of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD or UN Convention). This article examines the indivisibility and interdependence of rights in the CRPD and, specifically, the positive obligations imposed on States Parties to the UN Convention, in particular the reasonable accommodation duty. The aim of the paper is to analyse, from a disability perspective, the approach adopted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or ‘Strasbourg Court’) in developing the social dimension of certain civil and political rights in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), namely Articles 2 and 3 (on the right to life and the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, respectively), Article 8 (on the right to private and family life) and Article 14 ECHR (on non-discrimination). Ultimately, this paper examines the influence of the CRPD on the interpretation by the Strasbourg Court of the rights of persons with disabilities under the ECHR. It argues that, while the Court is building some bridges to the CRPD, the incremental and often fragmented approach adopted by the Court could be moulded into a more principled approach, guided by the CRPD.


2017 ◽  
Vol 2016 (22) ◽  
pp. 76
Author(s):  
Eilionóir Flynn

<p><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">Persons with disabilities are subject to unique forms of deprivation of liberty, often justified by reference to the need to protect their right to life, right to health, and to protect the human rights of others. This paper examines disability-specific forms of deprivation of liberty, particularly those authorised in mental health and capacity law, in light of their compliance with European and international human rights frameworks. It explores the apparent tension between Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which permits deprivation of liberty of ‘persons of unsound mind’ in certain circumstances, and Article 14 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which states that ‘the existence of a disability shall in no case justify a deprivation of liberty.’ The challenges in attempting to comply with both provisions are illustrated through reference to developments in England and Wales. This paper also seeks to offer a way forward for States Parties to both Conventions, in order to protect the rights of persons with disabilities.</span></p>


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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 578-599

578Human rights — Rights of persons with disabilities — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006, Article 19 — Distinction between categories of disabled persons — Connection of benefit payments to functional need and level of impairment — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 14 — Relationship with Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 — Discrimination against classes of disabled people — Whether measure objectively justified — Whether measure manifestly without reasonable foundation — Whether domestic regulations breaching international treaties — Whether domestic regulations unlawfulRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 — Domestic regulations making distinction with respect to psychological distress — Less favourable treatment of those suffering from psychological distress — Whether domestic regulations in breach of international treaties — Whether domestic regulations unlawful — Whether duty to consult — The law of England


2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document