III.B.8b Protocol (No. 2) to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Conferring upon the European Court of Human Rights Competence to Give Advisory Opinions (6 May 1963)

2014 ◽  
pp. 1-1
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Advisory Opinions

2 Organization, Personnel, and Procedure

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nussberger Angelika
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Original Version ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Advisory Opinions

This chapter discusses the organization, personnel, and procedures of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), frequently referred to as the Strasbourg Court. The Member States are the masterminds for setting the framework of the Court’s organization, procedure, and personnel. The rules laid down in the original version of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in 1950 underwent substantial reform when the permanent Court was established in 1998 on the basis of Protocol No 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The framework has been further modified by important additional protocols, especially Protocol No 14 allowing ‘single judges’ to adopt binding decisions, and Protocol No 16 introducing advisory opinions in addition to adversary procedures. However, not only the Member States make the rules. The Court itself has an important say in adapting the general set-up to its practical needs and in fine-tuning the regulations.

Does Self-isolation Violate the Right to Liberty? An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ Practice in Light of the Ukrainian Experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 368-385
Author(s):  
Yana Litins’ka ◽  
Oleksandra Karpenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Stress Test ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Human Rights Practice ◽  
Rapid Action ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

Abstract COVID-19 became a stress-test for many legal systems because it required that a balance be found between rapid action to prevent the spread of the disease, and continued respect for human rights. Many states in Europe, including Ukraine, chose to enforce an obligation to self-isolate. In this article we review what the obligation to self-isolate entails in the case of Ukraine. We also analyse whether such an obligation should be viewed as a deprivation or a mere restriction of liberty, and if it is permissible under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The ‘Iukos Affair’. The Russian Judiciary and the European Court of Human Rights

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence A. Groen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Undue Influence ◽  
European Court ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Structural Nature ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

This note analyzes the functioning of the Russian judiciary on the basis of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgments in the cases of OAO Neftianaia Kompaniia Iukos and three of the company’s former leading executives, Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovskii, Platon Leonidovich Lebedev and the late Vasilii Aleksanian. The analysis turns to the breaches by the Russian state of Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 18 (permissible restrictions to the rights guaranteed) of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as established by the Court in the aforementioned cases, and the role of the Russian judiciary therein. In light of the fundamental flaws and structural nature characterizing the violations found, the conclusion is reached that the Russian judiciary (still) appears not to be entirely free from undue influence by the other branches of government.

The European Court of Human Rights: Sabeh El Leil v. France

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Gilles Cuniberti
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Wrongful Dismissal

In Sabeh el Leil v. France, the European Court of Human Rights (‘‘ECtHR’’ or ‘‘the Court’’) ruled for the second time that a contracting state had violated the right to a fair trial afforded by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘‘Convention’’) by denying access to its courts to an embassy employee suing for wrongful dismissal on the grounds that the employer enjoyed sovereign immunity. The ECtHR had first ruled so a year earlier in Cudak v. Lithuania, where the plaintiff was also an embassy employee.

scholarly journals Challenge of Advocate’s Profession in the Age of Money Laundering, Terrorism Financing and Proliferation Evasion “Not to slip with a fragile burden!"

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (21) ◽  
pp. 139-148
Author(s):  
Sandra Joksta
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Money Laundering ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Terrorism Financing ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Joint Connection

Ability to perform advocate’s duty is irrevocably linked to advocate’s immunity concept. The article provides an insight about the scope of advocate’s immunity concept in the age of money laundering. The purpose of it is to analyse the modern tendency to overstep the red lines guarding this concept, when applying legal enactments for money laundering evasion purposes. In the article, the judgment of 19 November 2020 in case “Klaus Mueller vs Germany” made by European Court of Human Rights, is analysed, where the issue of advocate’s immunity was considered in joint connection with the Clause 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The sometimes-exaggerated need for transparency at all costs conflicts with privacy protection aspects of individuals. Legislative enactments of money laundering and terrorism financing and proliferation evasion systemically contradicts Law of Advocacy and causes collision with other norms of higher legal rank such as fundamental rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights to fair trial and justice and rights to choose an occupation and engage in work. Keywords: advocate’s immunity concept, advocate’s rights to professional secret and confidentiality, legal certainty, money laundering and terrorism financing and proliferation evasion, principle of sound legislation, uncertain privilege.

EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES OF LEGAL PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ECONOMIC COMMUNITY OF WEST AFRICAN STATES COURT

2021 ◽  
pp. 260-269
Author(s):  
Anna Yu. Vladykina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
West African ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Economic Community ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The article examines the criterion of the exhaustion of domestic remedies of legal protection in the context of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of the Economic Community of West African States in cases related to the protection of human rights. The article analyzes the norms of the European Convention for the Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the norms of the Agreement establishing the Court of the Economic Community of West African States and the Additional Protocol. The question is raised about the need to include a criterion for the exhaustion of local remedies of legal protection in the Court of the Economic Community of West African States in cases related to the protection of human rights. The article also analyzes the position of the Court of the Economic Community of West African States on the issue of the absence of the criterion of exhaustion of domestic remedies of legal protection, examines the jurisprudence. The author concludes that the position of the ECOWAS Court on the acceptability of the exhaustion of the local remedies criterion is positive for the region, while at the same time calls for the court to establish a department staffed with experts to focus on human rights cases.

Georgia v. Russia (I)

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-173
Author(s):  
Bjorn Arp
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber

On July 3, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) rendered its judgment in Georgia v. Russia, concerning Russia’s collective expulsion of a large number of Georgian nationals between October 2006 and January 2007. The Court held that Russia had violated several provisions of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention or ECHR), in particular Article of Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR (prohibition of collective expulsions). Because the Russian government had failed to cooperate with the Court by providing relevant information, the Court also found a violation of Article 38 of the ECHR, which obliges states to furnish “all necessary facilities” for the effective conduct of the Court’s investigation of the case. The Court deferred its decision on the question of “just satisfaction” under Article 41 pending further submissions by the parties. This was the first of three interstate proceedings that Georgia has brought against Russia under the special procedure of Article 33, and it is the first decision on the merits of these cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document