Individual Applications Under the European convention on Human Rights and the Concept of Administrative Practice: The Donnelly Case

1974 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 440-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Boyle ◽  
Hurst Hannum
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Distinctive Feature ◽  
Direct Access ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Administrative Practice ◽  
The Individual

The most distinctive feature of the European Convention on Human Rights is the optional procedure under Article 25, whereby an individual claiming to be a victim of a violation of one of the rights guaranteed by the Convention may present a complaint against his own (or another) government to the European Commission of Human Rights for investigation. Thus the individual is given direct access to an international tribunal and is recognized as having the standing necessary to pursue his rights under international law.

scholarly journals The legal meaning of the terms "torture", "inhuman treatment or punishment", "degrading treatment or punishment" and their distinction in the decisions of the European commission of human rights and the European court of human rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 26-33
Author(s):  
Khrystyna YAMELSKA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Legal Meaning

The paper reveals the legal meaning of the terms "torture", "inhuman treatment or punishment", "treatment or punishment that degrades human dignity". A distinction between these concepts is made on the examples of court decisions of European courts, taking into account the individual circumstances of each case. The genesis of the origin of the above concepts is investigated through a prism of the decisions of the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. The paper reveals the absolute nature of the "jus cogens" norm of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The author proposes to modernize the Ukrainian criminal legislation on the reception of the position of the European Court of Human Rights on the delimitation of these concepts. In contrast to the European convention regulation of ill-treatment, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the author notes that the Ukrainian legislation regulates this issue quite succinctly. The Article 127 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides a definition only of torture, which in essence coincides with the definition of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the position of the European Court of Human Rights. The paper notes that the practice of Ukrainian courts shows that a distinction (similar to that provided by the European Court of Human Rights) is not implemented.

Integrating Environmental Values into the European Convention on Human Rights

1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Desgagné
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Environmental Values ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Environmental Concerns ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Water Treatment Station

Over the last two decades, the protection of the environment has become a necessity so widely recognized that environmental concerns have pervaded most fields of international law, including the international law of human rights. In 1976 the European Commission of Human Rights dismissed an application on the ground that “no right to nature conservation [was] as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and in particular by Arts 2, 3, or 5.” In 1993, however, the Commission found that the erection and operation of a waste and water treatment station near the domicile of the applicant was such a nuisance as to amount to a violation of her right to a private life. This development in the case law of the European Commission reflects a growing awareness of the links between protection of human rights and protection of the environment.

Closing Ports of Safety: A Legitimate Strategy of Migration Control?

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-127
Author(s):  
Lena Riemer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Public Power ◽  
The Past ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
European Court ◽  
Migration Control ◽  
The Individual

In the past decades, the European Union and its member states have increasingly relied on externalization and non-arrival strategies for migration control. One of the latest developments is the decision by Malta and Italy to unilaterally close their ports to vessels carrying migrants rescued at sea. The article examines the conformity of such practices with the international law of the sea and focuses especially on the customary port of safety principle. It also addresses the applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights in cases where the rejected vessels have not entered the territory of a member state. The paper provides a novel approach for the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisdiction in such cases of extraterritorial migration control, arguing that the jurisdiction could be founded on the imputable-public-power-test. Based on the analysis of potential violations of rights guaranteed by the Convention and its Protocols, the respective practices may, depending on the individual cases, violate the non-refoulement principle and/or the prohibition of collective expulsion.

scholarly journals The European Convention of Human Rights and Migration at Sea: Reading the “Jurisdictional Threshold” of the Convention Under the Law of the Sea Paradigm

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-435
Author(s):  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
European Court ◽  
Common Practices ◽  
The Law ◽  
And Migration ◽  
And Control

AbstractIn all the applications before the ECtHR concerning migration at sea, a preliminary, yet seminal, question is whether the applicants were within the jurisdiction of the respondent State, in terms of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This question becomes even more apposite in contemporary situations of remote interception or search and rescue operations. In addressing the matter of jurisdiction in such cases, the law of the sea becomes of significant importance. This Article argues that as the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has often taken into account human rights considerations, similarly, the European Court of Human Rights should read into the term “jurisdiction” under Article 1 of ECHR law of the sea considerations. Far from resurrecting Banković and the strict “general international law” notion of jurisdiction under ECHR, this Article only intends to shed some light on when a State would be considered as exercising such “authority and control over persons” in the maritime domain. In so doing, this Article will focus only on the potential application of the ECHR to the most common practices of States vis-à-vis migration on the high seas, namely interception and rescue operations.

The European Convention on Human Rights and International Law

2007 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luzius Wildhaber
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Mutual Relationship ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Special Character ◽  
British Institute

AbstractThis article is an expanded and footnoted version of the lectur given at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on Tuesday 21 March 2006, entitled ‘International Law in the European Court of Human Rights’.The article begins with some comparative comments on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights in monistic and dualistic systems It then discusses in detail the European Court's case law which confirms that the Convention, despite its special character as a human rights treaty, is indeed part of public international law. It concludes that the Convention and international law find themselves in a kind of interactive mutual relationship. checking and buildine on each other.

Remarks by Sean D. Murphy

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 193-199
Author(s):  
Sean D. Murphy ◽  
Claudio Grossman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Human Rights Movement ◽  
Interstate System ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Individual

Our conversation might begin by looking backward a bit. The human rights movement from 1945 onward has been one of the signature accomplishments of the field of international law, one that refocused our attention from a largely interstate system to a system where the individual moved in from the periphery to the center. Human rights champions point to numerous landmark treaties, numerous institutions, and the rise of NGOs as a critical vehicle for developing and monitoring human rights rules. Yet others look at the international human right system and still see the state as overly central, tolerating and paying lip service to human rights, but too easily discarding them when they prove to be inconvenient. The persistence of racism comes to mind. As a general matter, how would you assess the strengths and weaknesses of the system that was built essentially during your lifetime?

SCOPE AND NATURE OF PROCEDURAL OBLİGATİONS UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RİGHTS

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (04) ◽  
pp. 79-81
Author(s):  
Nargiz Nasimi Mammadova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Key Words ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Key Words Human

Key words: human rights, positive obligations, right to life, international law

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document