USE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICE AS A MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF CONVICTS

Forced Labour ◽

European Standards ◽

Effective Remedy ◽

The research paper discusses the use of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights as a mechanism for ensuring the rights of convicts. Today, the practice of the ECHR has become increasingly important not only in the fight against crime, but also in the protection of the rights and freedoms of convicts. This is evidenced by the adoption in 2014 of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Criminal Executive Code of Ukraine on the Adaptation of the Legal Status of a Convict to European Standards”, which is aimed at eliminating the shortcomings of the Criminal Executive Code of Ukraine in respect of compliance with constitutional requirements and European standards regarding the regime of serving the sentences by convicts and so on. Adoption of the said law entailed the implementation of various directions of ensuring the rights of convicts, which became the subject of this study. As part of the research, Article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is analyzed, which states that States – Parties to the Convention undertake to ensure that everyone under their jurisdiction has the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In view of the above, we believe that ensuring of rights and freedoms should also apply to convicts. Today, the practice of the ECHR is actively used in national law enforcement practice in the aspect of ensuring the rights of convicts. Such a statement is based on the own analysis of relevant judgments. The study leads to the conclusion that there are different ways of ensuring the rights of convicts, in particular, ensuring the right to a fair trial, the prevention of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, etc. These directions of activity constitute a mechanism for ensuring the rights of convicts. In addition, we can say with certainty that convicts must be guaranteed all the rights enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which is possible taking into account the stay of persons in penitentiary institutions, in particular the right to life, prohibition of slavery and forced labour; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of expression; the right to an effective remedy; prohibition of discrimination, etc.

Freedom of expression and reputation protection in the European Court of Human Rights practice.

Naukovyy Visnyk Dnipropetrovs kogo Derzhavnogo Universytety Vnutrishnikh Sprav ◽

10.31733/2078-3566-2021-3-39-44 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 3 (3) ◽

pp. 39-44

Author(s):

Andriy Kuchuk

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Hate Speech ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

Private Life ◽

Clear Understanding ◽

Human Rights Practice ◽

European Court ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

The article is devoted to the issue of understanding freedom of expression and reputation protection by the European Court of Human Rights. New opportunities to exercise the right to freedom of expression arise and opportunities to implement the right to freedom of expression as well as the possibilities for defamation increase within a democratic and information society. It is emphasized that within a law-based state guarantees provided to the press are of particular importance, as the media should disseminate information and ideas of public interest, and the public has the right to receive such information and ideas. A clear understanding of the content of the right to freedom of expression and the right to reputation protection is the basis for resolving the issue of finding a balance between them, which designates the relevance of the study. The paper elucidates the results of the European Court of Human Rights decisions analysis under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression). Emphasis is placed on the various features of these rights and the peculiarities of their implementation in different circumstances. It is pointed out that the domestic judicial system actively uses the European Court of Human Rights practice in resolving cases related to reputation protection. Attention is placed on the fact that freedom of expression does not extend to hate speech. The spread of the right to reputation protection as for defamation of family members and relatives is analyzed. Emphasis is placed on the dynamic approach of the European Court of Human Rights towards the interpretation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Even before the beginning of 2000, the European Court of Human Rights noted that the protection of reputation does not fall under the protection of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The study describes the genesis of the positions of the European Court of Human Rights on a person’s reputation protection. It is stated that a person’s right to protection of his or her reputation is covered by Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as part of the right to respect for private life (provided that causing considerable damage to reputation if it affects a person’s private life).

Freedom of Expression: Defining the Limits for Broadcasters

Ecclesiastical Law Journal ◽

10.1017/s0956618x00005652 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 7 (35) ◽

pp. 466-470

Author(s):

Mark Hill

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

Video Footage ◽

European Court ◽

House Of Lords ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

On 10 July 2003, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg delivered a significant judgment concerning the qualified nature of the right of freedom of expression enunciated in Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The previous May saw the House of Lords deliver a judgment on a similar matter. The former related to the resurrection; the latter was about video footage of unborn fœtuses. Each is illuminating and may prove of wider application.

Battles Over Symbols: The “Religion” of the Minority Versus the “Culture” of the Majority

Journal of Law and Religion ◽

10.1017/s0748081400000242 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 28 (1) ◽

pp. 67-104 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Lori G. Beaman

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Religious Freedom ◽

Religious Symbol ◽

Anti Semitism ◽

European Tradition ◽

European Court ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

Grand Chamber ◽

Moreover, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to identify in the constant central core of Christian faith, despite the inquisition, despite anti-Semitism and despite the crusades, the principles of human dignity, tolerance and freedom, including religious freedom, and therefore, in the last analysis, the foundations of the secular State.A European court should not be called upon to bankrupt centuries of European tradition. No court, certainly not this Court, should rob the Italians of part of their cultural personality.In March, 2011, after five years of working its way through various levels of national and European courts, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided that a crucifix hanging at the front of a classroom did not violate the right to religious freedom under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Specifically, Ms. Soile Lautsi had complained that the presence of the crucifix violated her and her children's right to religious freedom and that its presence amounted to an enforced religious regime. The Grand Chamber, reversing the lower Chamber's decision, held that while admittedly a religious symbol, the crucifix also represented the cultural heritage of Italians.

Suživot negatorijske zaštite od imisija i prava na život u zdravoj životnoj sredini

Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci ◽

10.30925/zpfsr.39.1.8 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 39 (1) ◽

pp. 241-268 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Gabrijela Mihelčić ◽

Maša Marochini Zrinski

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Family Life ◽

Causal Link ◽

Minimum Level ◽

Healthy Environment ◽

European Court ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

The Right ◽

Domestic Regulation

The authors analyse the national protection from emissions, in the first place, a property law component of this regime. Domestic regulation of the protection of property rights from harassment was brought in the perspective of the protection that the European Court of Human Rights provides for the right to live in a healthy environment, primarily through the protection of rights under Art. 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to respect for private and family life and home). In the context of the latter, the authors have analysed the interpretative methods used by the European Court and explored the following features: the requirement that environmental and environmental impacts and disturbances violate the Convention right, that is, the existence of a specific Convention causal link; the category of minimum level of severity; oscillation of the "quantum" of minimum level of severity within conventional "fluctuations"; and the scope (and type) of protecting the right to live in a healthy environment through the paradigm of the positive / negative obligations of the Contracting States.

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

European Journal of Health Law ◽

10.1163/15718093-bja10024 ◽

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 ◽

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.

Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy. Application No. 27765/09

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.2.0417 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 107 (2) ◽

pp. 417-423 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Irini Papanicolopulu

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

European Convention ◽

International Convention ◽

European Court ◽

The Status ◽

Grand Chamber ◽

Effective Remedy ◽

Maritime Search And Rescue ◽

In a unanimous judgment in the case Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) held that Italy’s “push back” operations interdicting intending migrants and refugees at sea and returning them to Libya amounted to a violation of the prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR or Convention), the prohibition of collective expulsions under Article 4 of Protocol 4 to the Convention, and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention. Hirsi Jamaa is the Court’s first judgment on the interception of migrants at sea and it addresses issues concerning the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, as well as the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

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

International Legal Materials ◽

10.5305/intelegamate.51.1.0001 ◽

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 ◽

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.

Internet and freedom of expression in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights

Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta Novi Sad ◽

10.5937/zrpfns54-24432 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 54 (3) ◽

pp. 1023-1042

Author(s):

Ljiljana Mijović

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

Case Law ◽

Private Life ◽

European Convention ◽

The Internet ◽

European Court ◽

The Right ◽

And Control

Internet as a means of communication, whatever the type of information it might be used for, falls within the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. As established in the European Court's case law, freedom of expression constitutes one of the essentials of a democratic society, therefore limitations on that freedom foreseen in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention are to be interpreted strictly. In order to ensure effective protection of one's freedom of expression on the Internet, States bear a positive obligation to create an appropriate regulatory framework, balancing the right to freedom of expression on one and the limitations prescribed in Article 10 § 2, on the other hand. Special attention in doing so is to be paid to the risk of harm posed by content and communications on the Internet to the exercise and enjoyment of other human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention, particularly the right to respect for private life. While it is the fact that the electronic network, serving billions of users worldwide, will never be subject to the same regulations and control, because of the national authorities' margin of appreciation, the European Court established commonly applicable general principles regarding the Internet as a media of exercising right to freedom of expression.

Reflection of Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on Impartiality and Independence of National Courts in Context of the Right to a Fair Trial

Bratislava Law Review ◽

10.46282/blr.2021.5.1.228 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 67-90

Author(s):

Alla Demyda

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Case Law ◽

Fair Trial ◽

National Courts ◽

European Court ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

Principles Of Justice ◽

The article focuses on the principle of impartiality and independence of judiciary as a part of the right to a fair trial according to Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In particular, an account will be taken of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in matters of applications from national judges. The article considers the reflection of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the amendment of national legislations and the amendment of the provisions of the national constitutions regarding the principles of justice.

Study of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in criminal law matters

Glasnik Advokatske komore Vojvodine ◽

10.5937/gakv0712371g ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 79 (9) ◽

pp. 371-395

Author(s):

Momčilo Grubač

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Case Law ◽

Procedural Law ◽

Inadmissible Evidence ◽

European Court ◽

Ne Bis In Idem ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

Case Files ◽

This study includes certain number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that relate to the criminal procedural matters, primarily those constituting the right to a fair trial provided in Article 6 of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. These decisions were analyzed and interpreted in order to establish the practice of the Court in these procedural matters and to enable us to evaluate whether domestic criminal procedural law and its application are in line with this practice. The author dealt with the issues of prohibition to institute legal action twice for the same cause of action (ne bis in idem), immunities and privileges, right to court access, exclusion of inadmissible evidence from the criminal case files, right to the impartial court and right of defense to call and interrogate witnesses.