scholarly journals The right to minimum subsistence and property protection under the ECHR: Never the twain shall meet?

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid Leijten
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Right ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Clear Trend ◽  
European Court ◽  
Subsistence Minimum ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
To Come ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

This article discusses recent developments concerning the right to minimum subsistence as a matter of property protection under the European Convention on Human Rights. It starts with two recent cases: Bélané Nagy v. Hungary and Baczúr v. Hungary. In its judgments in these cases, the European Court of Human Rights emphasised that, in determining whether an interference with a benefit is proportional, an important consideration is whether the individual still receives a subsistence minimum. It moreover held that a right to a (minimum) benefit can exist even if the conditions for receiving this benefit have not been met. Read together, Bélané Nagy and Baczúr flag an increasingly social interpretation of the property right enshrined in Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR involving positive obligations and a focus on the neediest. On a closer look, however, the Court’s interpretation is not a very straightforward one. Judgments rendered after Bélané Nagy and Baczúr show that, although there is a clear trend to protect claimants’ means of subsistence, the relationship between property and a right to such means remains opaque, and the potential of a property right to guarantee the latter, limited. In this article, I present the recent case law against the background of the increasing significance of Article 1 P1 in the field of social security as well as the obstacles to protecting a subsistence minimum. I will delineate the questions that promise to haunt the Court in the cases to come and explore some of the answers it could formulate in this regard. It is argued that a positive right to a subsistence minimum is, for various reasons, unlikely to be developed as a matter of property protection under the Convention.

2. European Convention on Human Rights

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter first explains the background and rationale for the formation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), tracing its roots to the Council of Europe that was formed in 1949 and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) established a year later. It then looks at the different kinds of human rights embedded in the ECHR, including the right to life, right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, right to property, and right to free elections. The chapter also provides an overview of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), along with the major changes made to its complaints system and how it interprets the Convention rights. Finally, it considers the ECtHR’s use of proportionality and margin of appreciation doctrines to find the balance between the rights of the individual and the community when deciding upon qualified rights.

scholarly journals La aplicación del primer protocolo adicional del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos a las prestaciones sociales ¿freno para las reformas de seguridad social? = The application of the first additional protocol of the European Human Rights Convention to social benefits, brake for social security reforms?

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 676
Author(s):  
Cristina Sánchez-Rodas Navarro
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Common Element ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

 Resumen: Aunque el derecho a la Seguridad Social aparece regulado en numerosos Tratados inter­nacionales, ni el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos ni sus Protocolos Adicionales la contemplan. Y, sin embargo, son numerosas las sentencias del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos que tienen por objeto la tutela del derecho a percibir prestaciones sociales contributivas, no contributivas y de natu­raleza mixta. El elemento en común que tienen esas sentencias –que se analizan en el primer bloque– es que el Tribunal parte de la premisa de que el derecho a prestaciones sociales es un derecho de propiedad tutelable al amparo del artículo primero del Primer Protocolo Adicional al Convenio Europeo de Dere­chos Humanos. En base a dicho precepto España ya ha sido condenada en dos ocasiones en materia de pensiones de Seguridad Social. Esta jurisprudencia podría convertirse, además, en un límite a la potestad legislativa de los Estados que, como España, introdujeron importantes recortes en materia de pensiones en los años más duros de la última crisis económica y financiera mundial.En el segundo bloque se estudia el impacto de dicha jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Dere­chos Humanos en el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, del que la cuestión prejudicial Florescu es, hoy por hoy, la única exponente. Por último se analiza la jurisprudencia de nuestro Tribunal Consti­tucional que viene manteniendo el criterio que en materia de prestaciones sociales no existe un derecho de propiedad, sino una expectativa de derecho no indemnizable.Palabras clave: Derecho de propiedad, prestaciones contributivas, prestaciones no contributivas, Primer Protocolo Adicional al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos.Abstract: Although the right to Social Security is regulated in numerous international Treaties, neither the European Convention on Human Rights nor its Additional Protocols contemplate it. Never­theless, there are numerous judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that have for object the protection of the right to receive social contributory, non-contributory and of a mixed nature benefits. The common element in these judgments - which are analyzed in the first block - is that the Court starts from the premise that the right to social benefits is a property right that can be protected under the first article of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention. of Human Rights. Based on this pre­cept, Spain has already been sentenced twice in cases related to Social Security pensions. This jurisprudence could also become a limit to the legislative power of States that, like Spain, introduced important pension cuts in the harshest years of the last global economic and financial crisis.The second block examines the impact of this jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the Court of Justice of the European Union, of which the preliminary question Florescu is, at present, the only exponent. Finally, we analyze the jurisprudence of our Constitutional Court that has maintained the criterion that in the field of social benefits there is no property right, but an expectation of non-compensable right.Keywords: Property rights, contributory benefits, non-contributory benefits, First Additional Pro­tocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights and Access to Information

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-315
Author(s):  
Florian Lehne ◽  
Paul Weismann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Traditional Concept ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Legal Innovation ◽  
The Right ◽  
To Receive

This contribution analyses the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung eines wirtschaftlich gesunden land- und forstwirtschaftlichen Grundbesitzes v Austria1 which was handed down in November 2013. In this judgment, the Court affirmed a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (echr), because an Austrian appellate authority refused entirely to provide access to its past decisions. After an introduction into recent developments regarding the ‘right to receive information’, the facts of the case are presented. Subsequently, the Court’s reasoning in the assessment of the case is analysed with a view to the questions ‘interference’, ‘prescription by law’, ‘legitimate aims’ and ‘proportionality’ (stricto sensu). The Court’s supplementation of the traditional concept ‘public watchdog’ by the new notion of ‘social watchdog’ shall be outlined and a critical view on this legal innovation shall be provided, also with regard to the Court’s recent case law which is already pointing in this direction.

Article 6 Echr and Immunities Arising in Public International Law

2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 463-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
David LLoyd Jones
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Right Of Access

The Procedural guarantees laid down in Article 6, European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the fairness and expedition of legal proceedings would be meaningless if the Convention did not protect the right of access to the courts which is a precondition to the enjoyment of those guarantees. As a result, the European Court of Human Rights has laid down the principle that Article 6(1) secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court. The right of access to the courts is not absolute. The Strasbourg case law acknowledges that it may be subject to limitations. Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation in this regard. However, national courts must be satisfied that the limitations applied do not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. Moreover a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6(1) if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.

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.

Introductory Note

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Raimondi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Public ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This article comments on four important judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights in 2016. Al-Dulimi v. Switzerland addresses the issue of how, in the context of sanctions regimes created by the UN Security Council, European states should reconcile their obligations under the UN Charter with their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to respect the fundamentals of European public order. Baka v. Hungary concerns the separation of powers and judicial independence, in particular the need for procedural safeguards to protect judges against unjustified removal from office and to protect their legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary is a judgment on the interpretation of the Convention, featuring a review of the “living instrument” approach. Avotiņš v. Latvia addresses the principle of mutual trust within the EU legal order and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.

The Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents in the Context of Employment

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Rodgers
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Employment Contracts ◽  
Domestic Servants ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

‘Ordinary’ employment contracts—including those of domestic servants—have been deemed to attract diplomatic immunity because they fall within the scope of diplomatic functions. This chapter highlights the potential for conflict between these forms of immunity and the rights of the employees, and reflects on cases in which personal servants of diplomatic agents have challenged both the existence of immunity and the scope of its application. The chapter examines claims that the exercise of diplomatic immunity might violate the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the way in which courts have dealt with these issues. The chapter analyses diplomats’ own employment claims and notes that they are usually blocked by the assertion of immunity, but also reflects on more recent developments in which claims had been considered which were incidental to diplomatic employment (eg Nigeria v Ogbonna [2012]).

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.

Lachiri v Belgium and Bans on Wearing Islamic Dress in the Courtroom: An Emerging Trend

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-53
Author(s):  
Kaushik Paul
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Public Spaces ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Islamic Dress

In recent years, the wearing of Islamic dress in public spaces and elsewhere has generated widespread controversy all over Europe. The wearing of the hijab and other Islamic veils has been the subject of adjudication before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on many occasions. The most recent case before the ECtHR as to the prohibition on wearing the hijab is Lachiri v Belgium. In this case, the ECtHR held that a prohibition on wearing the hijab in the courtroom constitutes an infringement of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to freedom of religion or belief. From the perspective of religious freedom, the ruling of the Strasbourg Court in Lachiri is very significant for many reasons. The purpose of this comment is critically to analyse the ECtHR's decision in Lachiri from the standpoint of religious liberty.

Access to Court v State Immunity

2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Voyiakis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

This comment discusses three recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of McElhinney v Ireland, Al-Adsani v UK, and Fogarty v UK. All three applications concerned the dismissal by the courts of the respondent States of claims against a third State on the ground of that State's immunity from suit. They thus raised important questions about the relation the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention)—especially the right to a fair trial and access to court enshrined in Arcticle 6(1)—and the law of State immunity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document