scholarly journals Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: National Democratic Procedures vs. Legal Certainty

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 10-27
Author(s):  
D.S. Velieva ◽  
◽  
M.V. Presnyakov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Way

The problem of execution of decisions of intergovernmental human rights bodies within the national legal systems is considered. It is noted that this problem has no legal solution in principle. The authors believe that the consensus is to “reformat” the existing mechanism of verification of the European Convention interpretations constitutionality by the European Court from the way of non-execution of ECHR judgments to the way of searching possibilities of complex and comprehensive solutions.

Domestic Investigation and Prosecution of Atrocities Committed during Military Operations: The Impact of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 369-404
Author(s):  
Silvia Borelli
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Remedial Measures ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Proactive Approach ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Impact

The undeniable impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on the legal systems – and the wider society – of Member States of the Council of Europe would not have been possible without its unique monitoring system, centred around the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The present article assesses the extent to which the European Court's judgments that have found violations of the procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention to investigate unlawful killings, disappearances, acts of torture or other ill-treatment have, in fact, led to an improvement in the capability of the domestic legal systems of states parties to ensure accountability for such abuses. On the basis of four case studies, it is concluded that the European Court's judgments, coupled with the supervisory powers of the Committee of Ministers, have the potential to make a very great impact on the capability of domestic legal systems to deal with gross violations of fundamental human rights, and have led to clear and positive changes within the domestic legal systems of respondent states. Nevertheless, this is by no means always the case, and it is suggested that, in order for the Convention system to achieve its full potential in the most politically charged cases, the European Court should adopt a more proactive approach to its remedial powers by ordering specific remedial measures, to include in particular the opening or reopening of investigations.

Is the assessment under Article 8 ECHR for migrants justifiable?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110614
Author(s):  
Jennie Edlund ◽  
Václav Stehlík
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Way

The paper analyses the protection granted under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights for different immigration cases. The way the European Court of Human Rights determines compliance with Article 8 for settled migrants differs from the way the Court determines compliance for foreign nationals seeking entry or requesting to regularize their irregular migration status. The paper argues that the European Court of Human Rights application of different principles when determining a States’ positive and negative obligations is contradicting its own case law. It also argues that the absence of justification grounds for the refusal of foreign nationals who are seeking entry lacks legitimacy. By treating all immigration cases under Article 8(2) the paper suggests that the differentiation between cases should be based on how a refusal of entry or an expulsion would impact on the family life. The paper also suggests that more consideration should be given towards the insiders interests when balancing the individual rights against the state's interests. These changes would lead to a more consistent and fair case law and generate a more convergent practice by the states which will increase the precedent value of the Court's judgements.

scholarly journals 4 The Court and Domestic and International Legal Systems

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nussberger Angelika
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Member States ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter assesses the relationship between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and domestic and international legal systems. With the ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Member States accept to be bound by final judgments of the Court and to implement them in their domestic legal systems. The Convention system does not make any difference as to the set-up of the national legal system or to the hierarchical position accorded to the Convention in national law. This is in line with a purist international law perspective, summarized in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of the Law on Treaties: ‘A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.’ However, from the constitutional law perspective of the Member States, the situation is much more multi-faceted and complex. While it is generally accepted that the Court's judgments are binding and have to be implemented, the relationship between the Convention and the national constitutions as well as between their respective guardians, the Court on the one hand and national constitutional or supreme courts on the other hand, is not seen as one-way and hierarchical, but nuanced and differentiated. Implementation of judgments is accepted to be a duty, but not necessarily without exceptions. The chapter then considers the relationship between the ECtHR and the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

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

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 ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

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.

scholarly journals The United Kingdom’s Coronavirus Act, deprivations of liberty, and the right to liberty and security of the person

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Pugh
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

Abstract In response to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic the UK government has passed the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CA). Among other things, this act extends existing statutory powers to impose restrictions of liberty for public health purposes. The extension of such powers naturally raises concerns about whether their use will be compatible with human rights law. In particular, it is unclear whether their use will fall within the public heath exception to the Article 5 right to liberty and security of the person in the European Convention of Human Rights. In this paper, I outline key features of the CA, and briefly consider how the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the public health exception to Article 5 rights. This analysis suggests two grounds on which restrictions of liberty enforced some under the CA might be vulnerable to claims of Article 5 rights violations. First, the absence of specified time limits on certain restrictions of liberty means that they may fail the requirement of legal certainty championed by the European Court in its interpretation of the public health exception. Second, the Coronavirus Act’s extension of powers to individuals lacking public health expertise may undermine the extent to which the act will ensure that deprivations of liberty are necessary and proportionate.

scholarly journals Challenge of Advocate’s Profession in the Age of Money Laundering, Terrorism Financing and Proliferation Evasion “Not to slip with a fragile burden!"

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (21) ◽  
pp. 139-148
Author(s):  
Sandra Joksta
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Money Laundering ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Terrorism Financing ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Joint Connection

Ability to perform advocate’s duty is irrevocably linked to advocate’s immunity concept. The article provides an insight about the scope of advocate’s immunity concept in the age of money laundering. The purpose of it is to analyse the modern tendency to overstep the red lines guarding this concept, when applying legal enactments for money laundering evasion purposes. In the article, the judgment of 19 November 2020 in case “Klaus Mueller vs Germany” made by European Court of Human Rights, is analysed, where the issue of advocate’s immunity was considered in joint connection with the Clause 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The sometimes-exaggerated need for transparency at all costs conflicts with privacy protection aspects of individuals. Legislative enactments of money laundering and terrorism financing and proliferation evasion systemically contradicts Law of Advocacy and causes collision with other norms of higher legal rank such as fundamental rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights to fair trial and justice and rights to choose an occupation and engage in work. Keywords: advocate’s immunity concept, advocate’s rights to professional secret and confidentiality, legal certainty, money laundering and terrorism financing and proliferation evasion, principle of sound legislation, uncertain privilege.

Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights

2022 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Summer School ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
European Court ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Procedural Concerns ◽  
International Summer School

This edited book brings you a collection of current, critical issues regarding the theory and practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The book is divided into three parts: procedural concerns, principles and jurisprudence, and interaction with national legal systems. Each chapter was written by an expert, with each author coming from a distinct background. The authors all presented at the 2019 University of Leipzig’s & University of Dresden’s 1st International Summer School on the European Court of Human Rights, with only select presenters asked to contribute to this book. The book’s goal is to promote further research and discourse on the operation of the Court, a goal that will be continued in the second summer school in 2021. With contributions by Veronika Bilkova, Katharina Braun, Robert Frau, Hanaa Hakiki, Beti Hohler, Stefanie Lemke, Helga Molbaek-Steensig, Jacopo Roberti di Sarsina, Christiane Schmaltz, Barbara Sonczyk, Dominik Steiger, Edith Wagner and Alain Zysset.

THE COURTS AND THE ECHR: A PRINCIPLED APPROACH TO THE STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE

2013 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
EIRIK BJORGE
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
The Way

AbstractThe way in which the courts in the United Kingdom have interpreted and applied the Ullah principle has created problems in the national application of the European Convention on Human Rights. As is evident particularly in Ambrose, this is partly because Lord Bingham's approach in Ullah has been misunderstood. The article analyses these issues in relation to the notion of binding precedent, finding that judicial authority belongs to principles. The national courts ought not, though that is what the Ullah–Ambrose approach enjoins, to expend their energies seeking to align the case before them with the least dissimilar of the reported cases. Rather they should stand back from the case law of the European Court, and apply the broad principles upon which the jurisprudence is founded.

scholarly journals Nadmierny formalizm procesowy jako naruszenie art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności

2020 ◽  
Vol 82 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-136
Author(s):  
Marcin Szwed
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
European Court ◽  
Formal Requirement ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Requirements ◽  
Right Of Access

All judicial proceedings are inevitably based on the formalized procedures. Procedural provisions pursue many important objectives, such ensuring the effectiveness of proceedings or protecting legal certainty by regulating the competences of procedural bodies and the rights and duties of parties. At the same time, excessive procedural formalism may disproportionately limit the right to court, making access to court illusory. Within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights, the permissible limits of procedural formalism are set by Article 6(1). The European Court of Human Rights, assessing whether excessive formalism has occurred in a given case, examines whether relevant formal requirements served a legitimate purpose, in particular legal certainty and proper administration of justice, and did not lead to a disproportionate restriction of the right of access to court. This assessment is made on the basis of all relevant circumstances of the case, such as the stage at which the proceedings were terminated, the type of proceedings, the party’s due diligence, the existence of circumstances justifying failure to comply with a formal requirement or the fact that the party was represented by a professional representative. Therefore, not only the content of national provisions is important, but also the manner of their application by courts.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document