scholarly journals The hidden meanings in the case law of the European Court for Human Rights

Semiotica ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 (209) ◽  
pp. 209-230
Author(s):  
Laura Ervo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Organized Crime ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

AbstractIn my paper, I will study the case law of the European Court of Human Rights by using discourse analysis as a method. My hypothesis is that the court has changed its line concerning the right to a fair trial (in article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights) over the last twenty years. Earlier, it always defended the rights of the accused and the authorities’ problems, for instance, in fact gathering, were recessive. The same covered the rights of the witnesses even if the court usually confessed that also the witness has their rights, which should be respected. It also stressed that authorities of course have difficulties with proof – for example – the offences that are connected with the organized crime. Still, the rights of defense were always number one and inviolate. During recent years, the line seems to have changed even if the court has not transparently said so. However, it has given some new precedents by the Grand Chamber where the rights of the defense have been limited more than before; for instance, the cases Jalloh v. Germany (11 July 2006), Gäfgen v. Germany (1 June 2010), and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. Great Britain (15 December 2011). The expressions used in case law show that the way of thinking has changed as well. Still, the changes are sometimes more hidden than transparent where discourse analysis is the only tool for catching the changes and showing differences in the thinking of the court.

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.

Overruling ‘the Salduz Doctrine’ in Beuze v Belgium: The ECtHR’s further retreat from the Salduz principles on the right to access to lawyer

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-362
Author(s):  
Ergul Celiksoy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Increasing Trend ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

In November 2018, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Beuze v Belgium. Relying on Ibrahim and Others v the United Kingdom, the Grand Chamber held that the Salduz principles require a two-stage test of analysis, and hence, ruled out that systematic statutory restriction of a general and mandatory nature would in itself constitute an automatic violation of Article 6 § 3(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Beuze judgment appears to be very controversial, since the Grand Chamber failed to put forward any convincing reason why it departed from previous case law, particularly Dayanan v Turkey and other judgments against Turkey. In their separate opinion, the concurring Judges in Beuze were concerned that the Beuze judgment overruled ‘ Salduz itself and all other cases that have applied the Salduz test’, and thus, ‘actually distorts and changes the Salduz principle and devalues the right that the Court established previously’. This article analyses the Beuze judgment in the light of the Court’s recent jurisprudence in order to examine whether it contradicts and dilutes the principles previously set out. Further, it discusses the implications of the new standards established in Ibrahim and Others and in subsequent cases, particularly Beuze. Particular attention is paid to the questions of how ‘fair’ is the application of overall fairness assessment in every case, how may the Court’s changing direction of approach concerning the right to access to a lawyer affect the increasing trend of recognition thereof, as a rule, by the contracting states, and finally, to what extent the new principles, especially those established in Beuze, comply with Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer.

ANONIMNI SVEDOCI I ZAŠTITA LjUDSKIH PRAVA

2021 ◽  
pp. 277-296
Author(s):  
Veljko Turanjanin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Step Test ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Insufficient Knowledge

Тhe author deals with the problem of anonymous witnesses in the context of the right to a fair trial in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. One of the problems in the application of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is related to the testimonies of anonymous witnesses in criminal proceedings. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights has developed certain criteria that must be followed in national legislation, but it is obvious that there is insufficient knowledge regarding this problem, as well as the reluctance to apply the mentioned rules. The standards developed by the ECtHR are very important for national laws and jurisprudence. The author explains the development of a three-step test that needs to be examined when assessing a violation of the right to a fair trial, through an analysis of a multitude of judgments, in order to provide guidance on the application of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the European Convention on Human Rights. After introductory considerations, the author explains who can be a witness under the Convention, since this question is raised independently of national legislation, and then explains the right to examine witnesses, the admissibility of testimonies by anonymous witnesses and the examination of the three-stage test, and gives concluding remarks.

scholarly journals Inconsistent Adjudication – A Violation of the Right to Fair Trial Under the European Convention on Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-338
Author(s):  
Dragoljub Popović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National Courts ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Case

The ECtHR does not review decisions of national courts of the States Parties to the European Convention. However, it has developed a pattern in its case law to find a violation of the Convention on the grounds that the fair hearing lacked if there was a case law inconsistency at the level of national jurisdiction. The ECtHR case law was settled in a Grand Chamber case against Turkey in 2011. To find a violation under Article 6 of the Convention the ECtHR requires two tests. Firstly, it must establish the existence of a profound and long-standing inconsistency in the domestic case law, and secondly, the ECtHR raises the issue of a mechanism aimed at removing the inconsistency. If the mechanism does not exist, or if it applied ineffectively, the ECtHR finds a violation of human rights. The author suggests the ECtHR should revisit its jurisprudence.

scholarly journals ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krešimir Kamber ◽  
Lana Kovačić Markić
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
World Health ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

On 11 March 2020 the World Health Organization announced the Covid-19 (coronavirus) to be a pandemic. To combat the pandemic, many countries had to adopt emergency measures and some of these measures have affected the judicial system, especially the functioning of courts. The pandemic has been characterised as far as the judiciary is concerned by complete or partial closure of court buildings for the parties and for the public. It is clear that the functioning of national judicial systems has been severely disrupted. This limited functioning of courts impacted the individuals’ right to a fair trial guaranteed, in particular, under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The aim of this article is to examine the manner of the administration of justice during the Covid pandemic and its impact on the due process guarantees. Focus is put on the extent to which different Covid measures, in particular remote access to justice and online hearings have impacted the guarantees of the right to a fair trial and the due process guarantees in general, notably in detention cases. In this connection, the article provides a comparative overview of the functioning of the European legal systems during the pandemic. It also looks into the way in which the two European courts – the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union functioned, as well as the way in which the Croatian courts, including the Constitutional Court, organised their work during the pandemic. The article then provides an insight into the issue of online/remote hearings in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and in the Croatian Constitutional Court’s case-law. On the basis of this assessment, the article identifies the differences in the use of remote/online hearings between and within jurisdictions. In conclusion, the article points to some critical considerations that should be taken into account when devising the manner in which any Covid pandemic experience with the administration of justice (notably with regard to remote/online hearings) can be taken forward.

scholarly journals Predictive analytics in crime prevention and the European Convention on Human Rights: tackling risks in privacy and fair trial frameworks

2021 ◽  
pp. 225-250
Author(s):  
Donatas Murauskas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Crime Prevention ◽  
Predictive Analytics ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Conceptual Issue ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

In this paper, I discuss whether the European Convention on Human Rights provides safeguards to individuals affected by predictive analytics in crime prevention. I start with depicting a conceptual issue that worries legal scholars – the trend of law-enforcement authorities to increase their attention to crime prevention rather than traditional criminal investigations. Then, I dive into the right to privacy case-law of the European Court of Human Rights looking for the Court’s references to the threats of data processing. Lastly, I select concrete cases of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to a fair trial to show that the human rights safeguards are not yet developed to frame predictive analytics in crime prevention.

Stages of Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 219-254
Author(s):  
Kristina Hatas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Destination Country ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

This case list offers a guide to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law pertaining to migration. While the case list does not cite every ECtHR decision related to migration, it offers a comprehensive overview of important instances of case law indicative of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on migration. These are, for example, Grand Chamber decisions, or cases cited by the Court in its more recent case law. In addition to including key cases cited in the preceding chapters of this book, this list also includes cases identified in thematic case law guides of the ECHR and recent jurisprudence in the area of migration, notified by the ECHR in monthly updates. The cases are organised in thematic blocks, which in turn appear in the order in which they pertain to the different temporal stages of migration, from entering the destination country to the right to remain and the cultural and religious rights of long-term migrants.

scholarly journals The Right to a Fair Trial in Automated Civil Proceedings

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-44
Author(s):  
Maria Dymitruk
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
European Court ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Right

Challenges associated with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in law are one of the most hotly debated issues today. This paper draws attention to the question of how to safeguard the right to a fair trial in the light of rapidly changing technologies significantly affecting the judiciary and enabling automation of the civil procedure. The paper does not intend to comprehensively address all aspects related to the right to a fair trial in the context of the automation of civil proceedings but rather seeks to analyse some legal concerns from the perspective of the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Section 1 discusses the issues of using artificial intelligence in the justice and automation of the judicial proceedings. Section 2 is devoted to the judge supporting system based on artificial intelligence and psychological requirements of its practical use. Section 3 presents the right to a fair trial in civil cases established by the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, while subsequent sections characterize its elements with respect to the possibility to automate civil proceedings: a right to have case heard within a reasonable time in section 4 and a right to a reasoned judgment in section 5.

Discriminación racial y ejercicio del derecho a la instrucción en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. El caso de la minoría gitana

2012 ◽  
pp. 247-291
Author(s):  
Lucía CASADO CASADO
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

LABURPENA: Lan honetan, lehen-lehenik, hurbilpen orokor bat egingo dugu Giza Eskubideak eta Oinarrizko Askatasunak Babesteko Europako Hitzarmenak jasotzen dituen diskriminazio-debekuaren eta hezkuntzarako eskubidearen eraketari; eta ondoren, arraza-diskriminazioaren debekuak hezkuntzarako eskubidearekin duen lotura aztertuko dugu, Giza Eskubideen Europako Auzitegiaren jurisprudentziaren esparruan. Horretarako, eremu horretako lau epai esanguratsuri helduko diegu: Giza Eskubideak eta beste batzuk Txekiar Errepublikaren aurka kasua, bi epai sortarazi dituena (bata Bigarren Sekzioarena, eta bestea Sala Nagusiarena); Sampanis eta beste batzuk Greziaren aurka kasua, eta Orsus eta beste batzuk Kroaziaren aurka kasua. Kasu horietan planteatzen den auzia da ea estatu jakin batzuek ijito etniako umeak eskolaratzeko abiarazi dituzten neurriak diskriminatzaileak diren ala ez. Horretaz gainera, gogoeta batzuk egingo ditugu alor horretako jurisprudentziaren bilakaeraz eta beraren ondorioez. RESUMEN: este trabajo, tras realizar una aproximación general a la configuración de la prohibición de discriminación y al derecho a la instrucción en el Convenio Europeo para la protección de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales, analiza la prohibición de discriminación racial en conexión con el ejercicio del derecho a la instrucción en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Para ello, examina cuatro sentencias relevantes recaídas en este ámbito (casos D.H. y otros contra República Checa, que ha dado lugar a dos sentencias —una de la Sección 2.ª y otra de la Gran Sala—; Sampanis y otros contra Grecia; y Orsus y otros contra Croacia), en las que se plantea si las medidas adoptadas por determinados Estados en relación con la escolarización de niños de etnia gitana son o no discriminatorias. También se realizan algunas consideraciones en torno a la evolución jurisprudencial en este ámbito y sus consecuencias. ABSTRACT: After a general approximation to the configuration of the prohibition of discrimination and of the right of instruction by the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, this work analyzes the prohibition of racial discrimination in relation with the exercise of the right of instruction within the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. For this purpose, four relevant judgments on the subject (cases D.H and others against the Czech Republic, which produced two rulings: one by the Second section and other by the Grand Chamber; Sampanis against Greece; and Orsus and others against Croatia) where it arose whether the measures adopted by some States in relation to the schooling of kids from the gypsy ethnic group are or not discriminatory are studied. Some considerations regarding the evolution by the case law regarding this area are also carried out and their consequences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document