Cyberlibel Cases before the European Court of Human Rights: Estimating Possible Outcomes

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-20
Author(s):  
Dragos Cucereanu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Defamation Law ◽  
The Way

Internet defamation, or cyberlibel, has become an increasingly widespread and alarming side of online expression. This has lead to controversies concerning the way of responding to this new challenge in defamation law. Such controversies persist, as law makers and courts in the Council of Europe Member States vary in their solutions. The author searches for uniformity in regulating cyberlibel in Europe, by estimating how the European Court of Human Rights could decide such cases, based on analogy with its previous case law, as well as the law and practice of those States that have addressed the issue. It concludes that the Court may take into consideration the specificity of Internet, while mostly in line with its previous case law, by further developing it. The article proposes a list of criteria that might help deciding cyberlibel cases, and analyses specific ways of determining their applicability and effect.

scholarly journals Enforcing the Judgments of the ECtHR in Russia in Light of the Amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Court

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerttu Mäger
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Russian Constitution ◽  
Cherry Picking ◽  
The Law

The paper was written to analyse the enforceability of the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights in Russia, particularly in light of recent amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Court and relevant case law of the Constitutional Court of Russia. Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights, obliging member states to execute the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights, does not leave room for ‘cherry-picking’ in enforcing the judgements. However, the Constitutional Court has suggested that Russian authorities should indeed engage in cherry-picking and may refuse to enforce judgements that are not in accordance with the Russian Constitution as interpreted by the Constitutional Court. In December 2015, the Russian parliament amended the Law on the Constitutional Court so as to empower said court to declare judgements of the European Court of Human Rights unenforceable when implementation would be in conflict with the Constitution of Russia. The paper discusses the background of these developments and alternatives for overcoming the conflict between domestic legislation and the instruments of the Council of Europe.

scholarly journals The concept of ‘internal judicial independence’ in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joost Sillen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Communist Countries

Internal judicial independence as a new element of the case law of the Strasbourg Court on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights – The Court has only found violations of internal judicial independence in cases against former communist countries – Relevance of the case law for other member states of the Council of Europe – Internal judicial independence as part of the requirement of an impartial tribunal? – Importance of the independence of the individual judge

In Search of a Standard: References to the Rule of Law in the Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights

ICL Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-69
Author(s):  
Eszter Polgári
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Working Definition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Structured Analysis ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Grand Chamber

AbstractThe present article maps the explicit references to the rule of law in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR by examining the judgments of the Grand Chamber and the Plenary Court. On the basis of the structured analysis it seeks to identify the constitutive elements of the Court’s rule of law concept and contrast it with the author’s working definition and the position of other Council of Europe organs. The review of the case-law indicates that the Court primarily associates the rule of law with access to court, judicial safeguards, legality and democracy, and it follows a moderately thick definition of the concept including formal, procedural and some substantive elements. The rule of law references are predominantly ancillary arguments giving weight to other Convention-based considerations and it is not applied as a self-standing standard.

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.

The Impact of the Pan-European General Principles of Good Administration on Swiss Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 353-374
Author(s):  
Nadja Braun Binder ◽  
Ardita Driza Maurer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Swiss Law ◽  
Written Law ◽  
The Impact

This chapter is dedicated to exploring the impact on Swiss administrative law of the pan-European general principles of good administration developed within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE). The chapter claims that the standards stemming from the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights have been adopted in an exemplary way by Swiss authorities. The influence was especially strong in the 1980s and 1990s. The same cannot be said regarding other documents of the CoE, whose impact remains disparate because many aspects of the pan-European general principles of good administration were already part of the national written law. The chapter concludes that despite the exemplary integration of CoE instruments heated debates on the content of these instruments are not excluded from Switzerland.

Germany's Dialogue with Strasbourg: Extrapolating theBundesverfassungsgericht'sRelationship with the European Court of Human Rights in the Preventive Detention Decision

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 757-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birgit Peters
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Level ◽  
National Court ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Proper Role ◽  
European Court ◽  
New Applications ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Sheer Number

Within the Council of Europe, the relationship between the ECtHR and the member states is crucial for the survival and effective functioning of the Court. The ECtHR is currently overwhelmed by applications, the bulk of which emanate from a relatively small number of states, notably Russia, Rumania, Turkey, and the Ukraine. The backlog of cases will soon be toppling the vertiginous mark of 160,000, the adjudication of which alone would take the Court more than six years. The sheer number of cases exemplifies the system's urgent need for reform. Lately, discussions have been heavily influenced by considerations of subsidiarity, which the earlier Interlaken Declaration-as well as the recent Brighton Conference-emphasized as the key for the future relationship between the ECtHR and member states. Discussions about the principle's proper role in the relationship between member states and the ECHR, however, are far from over. This is due to questions regarding the principle itself, as well as to the factual realities dominating in the ECtHR-national court relationship. The principle often focuses on a strict separation of competences at two different levels, the national and the international, and many understandings of that principle require that the two levels stand in a more or less hierarchical relationship. This is difficult to assume in the Council of Europe context, where, compared to the EU, neither the doctrine of direct effect nor the principle of primacy in application reigns. Moreover, Strasbourg's emphasis on subsidiarity appears to focus on the responsibility of the member states to remedy human rights violations. In line with that argument, scholars have opined that the ECHR system should focus on an approach in which the ECtHR would be involved only if there are good reasons to depart from interpretation at the national level. Nonetheless, others recently doubted the overall usefulness of such an understanding of subsidiarity, since those member states responsible for the lion's share of new applications to the ECHR often neither possess a functioning judiciary nor functioning judicial or executive institutions, in general.

The Reception Process in Austria and Switzerland

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Thurnherr
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The Other ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Starting Position ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common

This chapter discusses the reception of the ECHR in Austria and Switzerland. Topics covered include the accession and ratification of the ECHR in both countries, the status of the ECHR in national law, an overview of the activity of the European Court of Human Rights, and the ECtHR's case law and its effects on the national legal order. Although both countries joined the ECHR at a relatively early stage, this starting position led to different outcomes. The main reason is because the common denominators of neutrality and federalism in these two countries are actually rather small: as Austria follows a very different concept of neutrality, it did not face any (political) difficulties before and during the ratification process. Switzerland, on the other hand, was very reluctant to join the Council of Europe and careful to avoid any concessions with regard to neutrality.

The European Court of Human Rights and Transnational Judicial Dialogue

ICL Journal ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla M Zoethout
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
The Us

AbstractOver the past decade, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) seems more and more inclined to use foreign sources of law, that is to say, law that does not originate in the Convention itself or in one of the Member States of the Council of Europe. Unlike in the US, there is little discussion in Europe about this form of judicial dialogue in the case-law of the ECtHR. This paper seeks both to clarify transnational dialogue by the ECtHR and find ways to justify this practice, against the backdrop of the American debate on this topic. First, the concept of transnational judicial dialogue is analysed (Part II). Then judicial dialogue as it presents itself in the judgments of the ECtHR is assessed, especially when non-Convention or foreign law is being used in a substantive way (Part III). Subsequently, an attempt is made to define when and why the use of foreign law by the ECtHR can be considered a justifiable approach in judicial decision-making (Part IV). The paper rounds off with some concluding remarks (Part V).

scholarly journals Globalization and the Law: Deciphering the Message of Transnational Human Rights Litigation

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 1499-1520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peer Zumbansen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Law ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

On 14 October 2004, theBundesverfassungsgericht(BVerfG – German Federal Constitutional Court) voided a decision by theOberlandesgericht(Higher Regional Court) Naumburg, finding a violation of the complainant's rights guaranteed by theGrundgesetz(German Basic Law). The Decision directly addresses both the observation and application of case law from the European Court of Human Rights under the Basic Law's “rule of law provision” in Art. 20.III. While there is a myriad of important aspects with regard to this decision, we may limit ourselves at this point to the introductoryaperçucontained in the holdings of the case. One of them reads as follows:Zur Bindung an Gesetz und Recht (Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG) gehört die Berücksichtigung der Gewährleistungen der Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten und der Entscheidungen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte im Rahmen methodisch vertretbarer Gesetzesauslegung. Sowohl die fehlende Auseinandersetzung mit einer Entscheidung des Gerichtshofs als auch deren gegen vorrangiges Recht verstoßende schematische “Vollstreckung” können gegen Grundrechte in Verbindung mit dem Rechtsstaatsprinzip verstoßen

scholarly journals Supervision of the execution of The European Court of Human Rights’ case law

2021 ◽  
pp. 33-36
Author(s):  
Corina Siman ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Political ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
European System ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Executive Body

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms empowers the decision-making and executive body of the Council of Europe, id est the Committee of Ministers, to supervise the execution of the European Court of Human Rights’ case law. The mechanism thus established possesses a certain specificity, which is inherent to the European system of protection of fundamental rights. Therefore, both the political nature of the Committee of Ministers and the elements that form the process of monitoring the implementation of the content of the Strasbourg Court’s judgments and decisions are of interest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document