scholarly journals STATE LIABILITY FOR NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES IN THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

TEME ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 017
Author(s):  
Nebojša Raičević ◽  
Zoran Radivojević
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
European Court ◽  
Moral Damage ◽  
State Liability

Non-pecuniary damages are a form of just satisfaction that the ECtHR may award if a violation of protected rights is found. These damages can be claimed by individuals, groups of persons, non-governmental organizations and states, whereby the awarded amount must be distributed to individual victims. However, for the Court to award compensation for non-pecuniary damage, several requirements must be met. The Court has awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage on several grounds, such as pain, stress, anxiety, frustration, embarrassment, humiliation, and loss of reputation. Unfortunately, the criteria for determining the amounts of compensation for moral damage are still not clear and precise, so they have been determined by the Court on an equitable basis, taking into account its case-law standards.

Psychiatric commitment: over 50 years of case law from the European Court of Human Rights

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 427-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Niveau ◽  
J. Materi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
European Court ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Respective Number

AbstractPurposeTo extensively review the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) case law concerning psychiatric commitment, and to estimate the role of this supranational jurisprudence in the practice of contemporary psychiatry.MethodUsing keywords to search the ECHR computerized database “HUDOC”, we reviewed all cases concerning psychiatric commitment registered between September 1953 and December 31, 2004. Four groups were identified: applications declared inadmissible; applications accepted but not judged by the Court; pending cases; and cases judged by the Court.ResultsOf the almost 118,000 decisions taken by the ECHR in this time frame, we found 108 situations concerning psychiatric commitment. Forty-one of these applications were considered by the Court to be inadmissible. Twenty-four other cases were considered admissible but not judged by the ECHR. Three admissible cases were still pending at the end of 2004. The ECHR judged 40 cases, and found in 35 of them that one or several rights as guaranteed by the Convention had been violated.DiscussionThe ECHR protects the human rights of persons subjected to involuntary psychiatric commitment by creating supranational law in the following areas: definition of “unsoundness of mind”; conditions of lawfulness of detention; right to a review of detention by a Court; right to information; right to respect for private and family life; and conditions of confinement, which address inhuman and degrading treatment. The respective number of applications submitted to the ECHR did not depend on when the Convention had entered into force in that country.ConclusionThe possibility of an individual to access the ECHR depends on the degree of democracy in his country and on the access to legal assistance through non-governmental organizations or individual intervening parties.

scholarly journals Unilateral declarations and the European Court of Human Rights: Between efficiency and the interests of the applicant

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 607-630 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lize R Glas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
European Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
Human Rights Violation

Faced with numerous repetitive applications, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has welcomed the unilateral declaration mechanism as a way to handle these efficiently. In a unilateral declaration, the state admits a human rights violation and promises to provide redress to the applicant. On that basis, the Court strikes out an application and does not deal with its merits. Some authors and non-governmental organizations warn against losing sight of the applicants’ interests whilst relying on unilateral declarations. Against this background, this article aims to establish whether unilateral declarations are indeed (mostly) used to dispose of repetitive applications and how this procedure works in practice. The second aim is to determine whether the interests of the applicants are sufficiently protected when the Court rules on unilateral declarations. The analysis is based on all 1285 unilateral declarations, which the states parties to the ECHR have proposed in the five years following 2 April 2012.

Granica praw człowieka. Czy Polska dopuszcza się strukturalnego naruszenia EKPC w sprawach azylowych?

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (22 (180)) ◽  
pp. 41-55
Author(s):  
Marcin Górski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Structural Problem ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
European Court ◽  
High Level

Artykuł analizuje polską praktykę ignorowania wniosków o udzielenie ochrony międzynarodowej oraz znacznego poziomu odmów udzielenia ochrony międzynarodowej w kontekście Reguły 61 Regulaminu Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka, która pozwala na zastosowanie procedury wyroku pilotażowego w przypadku strukturalnego naruszenia EKPC. Z motywów wyroku ETPC z 23 lipca 2020 r. w sprawie M.K. i inni przeciwko Polsce, a także informacji przedstawionych przez Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich i organizacje pozarządowe wynika, że istnieją podstawy dla zakwalifikowania praktyki ignorowania wniosków o udzielenie ochrony międzynarodowej jako naruszenia strukturalnego. Nie ma natomiast wystarczających podstaw dla takiej kwalifikacji w odniesieniu do znacznego poziomu odmów udzielenia ochrony międzynarodowej. The Border of Human Rights. Is Poland Liable for Structural Violation of the ECHR in Asylum Cases? The article analyzes the Polish practice of ignoring applications for international protection and the high level of refusals to grant international protection in the context of Rule 61 of the Rules of the European Court of Human Rights, which allows the employment of the pilot judgment procedure in the event of a structural violation of the ECHR (structural problem). It appears from the reasoning of the judgment of the ECtHR of 23 July 2020 M.K. and others v. Poland, as well as from information provided by the Ombudsman and non-governmental organizations that there are grounds for classifying the practice of ignoring applications for international protection as a structural violation (structural problem). However, there are no sufficient grounds for such a classification with regard to the significant level of refusals to grant international protection.

An overnight success a decade in the making

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Dondoli
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
European Court ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
Positive Step

On 30 June 2016, the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter ‘European Court’) decided that a binational same-sex couple was discriminated against because they were not allowed to marry; and at the same time, they were unable to live in Italy as a couple. For nearly one decade, human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have submitted third-party interventions asking the European Court to recognize that unmarried same-sex couples should be treated differently from unmarried different sex couples when the first have no possibility of marrying. This article argues that the European Court has finally accepted what the NGOs have suggested since 2007, and that the decision in Taddeucci and McCall v. Italy signals a positive step forward from the ‘analogous situation’ doctrine towards recognizing indirect discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation for same-sex couples.

The right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya Samovich
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Educational Organizations ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Procedure ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

The manual is devoted to making individual complaints to the European Court of human rights: peculiarities of realization of the right to appeal, conditions of admissibility and the judicial procedure of the European Court of Human Rights. The author analyses some “autonomous concepts” used in the court's case law and touches upon the possibility of limiting the right to judicial protection. The article deals with the formation and development of the individual's rights to international judicial protection, as well as the protection of human rights in universal quasi-judicial international bodies and regional judicial institutions of the European Union and the Organization of American States. This publication includes a material containing an analysis of recent changes in the legal regulation of the Institute of individual complaints. The manual is recommended for students of educational organizations of higher education, studying in the areas of bachelor's and master's degree “Jurisprudence”.

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.

Rola uzasadnienia sądowego w realizacji prawa do rzetelnego procesu sądowoadministracyjnego– standard strasburski

2014 ◽  
pp. 13-31
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Grzelak-Bach
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Basic Level

Following a brief introduction of article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the author begins by analyzing case law from the European Court of Human Rights regarding the legal reasoning in judicial proceedings. The main premise of this paper is to present a formula for preparing legal reasoning in administrative court proceedings. The author draws attention to the role of judges who, in the process of adjudication, should apply creative interpretation of the rules of law, when they see errors or omissions in legislative provisions, or blatant violations of the European legal order. The conclusion of those deliberations finds, that the process of tailoring the approach to meet Strasbourg’s requirements should, on a basic level, be at the discretion of judges rather than the legislators.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document