Freedom of Religion from the Perspective of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nasty M. Vladoiu ◽  
Ovidiu Predescu
Author(s):  
Ruslana Liashenko ◽  
Myroslav Dobrovinsky

The article presents the results of theoretical and practical research of the interpretation of the European Convention for the Protectionof Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the light of modern concepts of legal understanding.On July 17, 1997, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms of 1950 (hereinafter – the Convention), which was the initial stage in the formation and development of Ukrainianlaw and legal science in general. From that moment, a new stage began – the introduction of legal practice and legal values of Europeinto Ukrainian law.The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as a complex mechanism has a direct effectwithin the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian court system, the principles of interpretation of the Convention applied by the European Courtof Human Rights are valuable and special for judges in Ukraine. One of the main methods of interpreting the Convention is the principleof judicial precedent. Judicial case law is an important part of the legal system of common law states, and the increase in the boundariesof judicial precedent has been observed in Western Europe over the past century. The case law of the European Court of Human Rightsis an additional factor for the official recognition of judicial precedent as a source of law in the protection of human rights, which willhelp strengthen the independence of the judiciary in Ukraine. Nowadays, the use of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Ukraine makes it possibleto replace the prevailing positivist views on law, apply the latest principles of interpretation of human and civil rights, and developthe constitutional jurisprudence of fundamental human rights.The Convention opens a new horizon of tasks in the development of democracy in Ukraine, with the basic principles of whichvarious legal acts of the country must be monitored for compliance with fundamental human rights and freedoms.Through the interpretation and use of the Convention, our state has begun a rapid process of moving away from the positivistunderstanding of law, which has resulted in the emergence of the necessary for the further development of pluralism of legal understandingof law.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-132
Author(s):  
Gabrijela Mihelčić ◽  
Maša Marochini Zrinski ◽  
Renata Šantek

The authors discuss and analyse case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the right to respect for home under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with respect the issue of proportionality. In the paper, the proportionality category was viewed as a criterion for securing protection and as a material precondition for deciding whether the State party's interference with the right to respect for home was proportionate. The cases in which the applicant's eviction occurred after national proceedings for the enforcement of mortgages were addressed. In this context, the genesis of the proportionality category was analysed, from the cases where the Court found it necessary to examine the proportionality to the cases where the Court did not consider the proportionality test necessary.


Author(s):  
Ruslana Liashenko ◽  
Myroslav Dobrovinsky

The article presents the results of theoretical and practical research of the interpretation of the European Convention for the Protectionof Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the light of modern concepts of legal understanding.On July 17, 1997, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms of 1950 (hereinafter – the Convention), which was the initial stage in the formation and development of Ukrainianlaw and legal science in general. From that moment, a new stage began – the introduction of legal practice and legal values of Europeinto Ukrainian law.The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as a complex mechanism has a direct effectwithin the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian court system, the principles of interpretation of the Convention applied by the European Courtof Human Rights are valuable and special for judges in Ukraine. One of the main methods of interpreting the Convention is the principleof judicial precedent. Judicial case law is an important part of the legal system of common law states, and the increase in the boundariesof judicial precedent has been observed in Western Europe over the past century. The case law of the European Court of Human Rightsis an additional factor for the official recognition of judicial precedent as a source of law in the protection of human rights, which willhelp strengthen the independence of the judiciary in Ukraine. Nowadays, the use of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Ukraine makes it possibleto replace the prevailing positivist views on law, apply the latest principles of interpretation of human and civil rights, and developthe constitutional jurisprudence of fundamental human rights.The Convention opens a new horizon of tasks in the development of democracy in Ukraine, with the basic principles of whichvarious legal acts of the country must be monitored for compliance with fundamental human rights and freedoms.Through the interpretation and use of the Convention, our state has begun a rapid process of moving away from the positivistunderstanding of law, which has resulted in the emergence of the necessary for the further development of pluralism of legal understandingof law.


2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-321
Author(s):  
Javier Martínez-Torrón ◽  
Rafael Navarro-Valls

The international protection of the freedom of religion and belief has experienced substantial improvements during the second half of this century. One of the important steps that has been taken by international organizations is the European Convention on Human Rights (1950). The system of the European Convention has often been presented as a model of efficiency in the international protection of human rights, above all for the judicial machinery created to enforce the rights included in the Convention and its Protocols, whose center is the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg). The European system, however, is far from perfect, at least as far as the protection of the freedom of religion, conscience and thought is concerned. This article attempts to describe the main strengths and deficiencies of the case-law of the European Court in regard to the freedom of religion and belief. The Court has showed respect for the historical tradition of each country, and has explicitly affirmed that every religious group is entitled to true freedom—not merely toleration. In practice, however, the Court has failed to fully protect the strictly individual dimension of religious liberty, and consequently the rights of some religious minorities seem to be in danger—specially those minorities which defend ideas openly contrasting with the ethical choices assumed by the majority. The article ends with some conclusions on the aspects of the European Court's doctrine that will be advisable to change if it wants to be considered as an example that should be followed in the international environment.


2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-147
Author(s):  
Kevin Aquilina

This paper attempts to answer whether section 24(2) of the Maltese Official Secrets Act conforms, or is in conflict, with the right to a public hearing under section 39(3) of the Constitution of Malta and Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It reviews case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to a public hearing and concludes that Strasbourg case law has developed to allow restrictions upon this right even if they are not written down in this Convention. On the other hand, from a comparative exercise carried out with seven similar laws to the Maltese Official Secrets Act, it transpires that the Maltese provision is unique, does not find any counterpart in these seven laws surveyed and, worse still, appears to conflict with Article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention.


2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1533-1560
Author(s):  
Jovana Vojvodić

Private life, family life, home and correspondence represent some of the most intimate and significant aspects of human life. The focus of this paper is an analysis of the right to respect for private life, family life, home and correspondence, as the elements of the protection of the Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The analysis was primarily conducted through research and interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights recent case law, whereby, some of the cases of the highest importance as well as the case of the Republic of Serbia as a respondent state, were specially observed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 443-467
Author(s):  
Hamdija Šarkinović

The paper deals with property, which is guaranteed by Article 58 of the Constitution of Montenegro and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The constitutional-law concept of the right to property in Montenegro is broader than the traditional civil law concept, as it includes all real rights, as the European Court under the notion of property, in addition to the usual, includes all acquired rights of a person. The autonomous concept of property and possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was separately covered, consisting of three rules: principle of peaceful enjoyment of possessions, deprivation of possessions, and control of the use of property. The application of the text of justification of interference with property in the case law of the European Court is explained, which includes the text of legality, the text of a legitimate aim in the general or public interest and the text of proportionality. However, the case law of the ordinary courts in the field of guarantees of property rights, constitutional and convention’s is not harmonized with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and represents one of the main tasks of the Constitutional Court in the coming period. The Constitutional Court of Montenegro follows the concept of property enshrined in the Constitution and gives the property meaning as the constitutional and convention human right guaranteed by the Constitution, and its inviolability as one of the fundamental values of the constitutional order, although the case law of the Constitutional Court has not fully and always been coherent with the aforementioned principles.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Rozhina ◽  
T. Reshetneva

Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is applicable to any dispute between people in the field of civil law, however, the supervisory bodies of the Council of Europe had to resolve many complex issues arising from the application of this article in the field of public law, when any disciplinary the body was empowered by law to take actions affecting the rights or interests of individuals. To a large extent, the Court's case-law is developed in just such cases.


Author(s):  
Natalia Varlamova

During the COVID-19 pandemic public authorities have to implement a variety of measures to counter the spread of the disease, many of which involve human rights restrictions. One of the most common and at the same time sensitive way to respond to a pandemic is so-called lockdown. This term does not have a strict legal meaning; it covers a system of measures aimed at reducing social interactions between people. These measures include the requirement to maintain a “social distance” and not to leave home unless necessary, strict isolation for certain population groups, prohibition of various mass events and closure of many organizations, restriction of transport links between states and regions within the country. Based on the analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the author discusses the problems of compatibility of these restrictions with the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Most of these measures can be justified in accordance with the Convention if they are taken in order to prevent the spread of coronavirus and protect public health, if they are lawful and reasonable in the context of epidemiological situation and proportionality (not excessiveness). Moreover, the implementation these measures can be considered as the fulfilment of the positive obligations by the countries-members of the Convention to protect the lives of persons under their jurisdiction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document