Human Rights Law and National Sovereignty in Collusion: The Plight of Quasi-Nationals at Strasbourg

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Benedicte Dembour
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
European Court ◽  
Global Age ◽  
The Common ◽  
Nationality Law

This article offers a review of the cases where the European Court of Human Rights has been called upon to decide whether or not the expulsion of a ‘quasi-national’ following criminal conviction violated the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court has adopted various findings since its first ruling in 1991. The first part of this article argues that neither the facts of the cases, nor the composition of the relevant judicial panels, nor an evolution in the overall political climate explain in themselves the inconsistency in the case law, qualified as arbitrariness by one of the judges. The second part of the article moves beyond a close socio-legal analysis to discuss the significance of the common rule (once inadmissibility decisions are taken into consideration), according to which quasi-nationals are deportable. Nationality law, at the core of the case law, is revealed as a fiction that creates privilege at the same time as it obscures the discriminatory basis of this privilege under the guise of operating a neutral categorisation of human beings. The article notes in conclusion the continuing grip of the nation State in the global age and deplores the legitimation, at the highest judicial level, of exclusion on the basis of unquestioned national privilege.

Jacobs, White, and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey ◽  
Elizabeth Wicks ◽  
Clare Ovey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Member State ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
Seventh Edition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Forced Labour

Nearly seventy years after the founding of the European Court of Human Rights it has dispensed more than 20,000 judgments and affects the lives of over 800 million people. The seventh edition of Jacobs, White & Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights provides an analysis of this area of the law. Examining each of the Convention rights in turn, this book lays out the key principles. Updated with all the significant developments of the previous three years, it offers a synthesis of commentary and carefully selected case-law, focusing on the European Convention itself rather than its implementation in any one Member State. Part 1 of the book looks at institutions and procedures, including the context, enforcement, and scope of the Convention. Part 2 examines Convention rights in terms of many aspects, including rights to remedy, rights to life, prohibition of torture, protection from slavery and forced labour, and family and private life. Part 2 also examines the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; the freedom of expression; and the freedom of assembly and association. The rights to education and elections are considered towards the end of Part 2, as are the freedoms of movement and from discrimination. Part 3 reflects on the achievements and criticisms of the Court and examines the prospects and challenges facing the Court in the present political climate and in the future.

Jacobs, White, and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey ◽  
Pamela McCormick ◽  
Clare Ovey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
European Court ◽  
Forced Labour ◽  
Eighth Edition ◽  
The Right

Seventy years after the founding of the European Court of Human Rights it has dispensed more than 22,000 judgments and affects the lives of over 800 million people. The eighth edition of Jacobs, White & Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights provides an analysis of this area of the law. Examining each of the Convention rights in turn, this book lays out the key principles. Updated with all the significant developments of the previous three years, it offers a synthesis of commentary and carefully selected case-law, focusing on the European Convention itself rather than its implementation in any one Member State. Part 1 of the book looks at institutions and procedures, including the context, enforcement, and scope of the Convention. Part 2 examines each of the Convention rights including the right to a remedy, right to life, prohibition of torture, protection from slavery and forced labour, and respect for family and private life. Part 2 also examines the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; the freedom of expression; and the freedom of assembly and association. The rights to education and elections are considered towards the end of Part 2, as are the freedoms of movement and from discrimination. Part 3 reflects on the achievements and criticisms of the Court and examines the prospects and challenges facing the Court in the present political climate and in the future.

scholarly journals KAZNA DOŽIVOTNOG ZATVORA U EVROPSKOM SISTEMU ZA ZAŠTITU LJUDSKIH PRAVA

2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-171
Author(s):  
Nezir Pivić ◽  
Lejla Zilić-Čurić
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Research Paper ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject

Sentencing to life imprisonment is not in contrast with human rights issued in European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, the sentenced imposed to life imprisonment and system to of its execution must meet certain standards to be compatible with requirements stated in Article 3 of European Convention. The subject of our research paper are mentioned standards that Contracting States have to respect in terms of enforcing the sentence of life imprisonment. Introduction to the subject of the research is given in the form of penological review of life imprisonment as well as review of internationally established legal standards under the umbrella of the United Nations and the Council of Europe that relate to sentencing and enforcement of life imprisonment. In focus of this research paper is case law of the European Court of Human Rights that refer to life imprisonment. In that context, the focus of this research paper deals with the issue of the relationship between life imprisonment and prohibition of torture as human right that is absolutely protected and the issue of the Contracting States’s margin in appreciation in prescribing the form and conditions of revision of the sentence. The intention of the authors is focused on the legal analysis of Strasbourg case law on issue of compatibility of life imprisonment with the requirements of the Article 3 of the European Convention and to present the standards generated by Strasbourg case law regarding the implementation and mechanism of revision of life imprisonment.

scholarly journals CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN DECISIONS REGARDING NON-COMPLIANCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-46
Author(s):  
Dzhuzha О. M. ◽  
◽  
Melnychenko І. P. ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The article provides a legal analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in such cases like “Vinter and Others v. The United Kingdom”, “Hutchinson v. The United Kingdom”. The European Court of Human Rights has established key standards for those sentenced to life imprisonment, compliance with which will ensure that this type of punishment meets the requirements of the Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Such standards are: 1) sentencing of life imprisonment is not prohibited and does not conflict with the Article 3 or any other article of the Convention. The imposition of “non-reducible” life imprisonment may raise questions of compliance with the requirements of the Article 3 of the Convention; 2) in decision making whether life imprisonment can be considered as “non-reducible”, it is necessary to establish whether the person convicted to life imprisonment had any prospect of release. If national law provides for the possibility of reviewing life imprisonment regarding its mitigating, reducing, terminating or releasing, this is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of th Article 3 of the Convention; 3) for the purposes of the Article 3 of the Convention it is sufficient that life imprisonment is reducible de jure and de facto; 4) European penitentiary policy is currently focusing on the correctional purpose of imprisonment, in particular until the end of long prison sentences; 5) at the very beginning of the sentence a person convicted to life imprisonment has the right to know what he must do to consider the possibility of his release and under what conditions the sentence will be reviewed or also in what order a request to this may be made; 6) if domestic law does not provide for any mechanism or possibility to review life imprisonment, then the non-compliance with the requirements of the Article 3 of the Convention occurs at the time of imposition of life imprisonment and not at a later stage. The importance of such standards separating of the European Court of Human Rights for the national theory and practice of life imprisonment is that these provisions are effective guidelines for determining the prospects of releasing from sentencing in the form life imprisonment. Key words: European Court of Human Rights, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, case law, convict, life imprisonment.

Proportionality and the Human Rights of Companies Under the ECHR – Whose Interests are at Stake?

2020 ◽  
Vol 89 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 327-342
Author(s):  
Eduardo Gill-Pedro
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
European Court ◽  
A Company ◽  
Do So

Abstract This article considers whose interests may be at stake when a company claims its human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (echr). In order to do that, the article will first investigate whether it makes sense to conceive of companies as persons capable of having their own interests. It finds that it is possible to do so. The article proceeds to analyse the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in respect of claims regarding their companies’ right to property, free expression and respect for home, considering whether, when the Court assesses the proportionality of the alleged interference, it is the interests of the company claiming the rights that are at stake. The article concludes it is possible to understand the case law of the court as not necessarily placing the interests of the company in the balance when assessing the proportionality of interferences with the Convention rights of companies. The article suggests that such an understanding is normatively desirable if we consider human rights as instruments for the protection of human beings.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document