scholarly journals The concept of «property» (according to the practice of the European court of human rights)

2021 ◽  
pp. 368-371
Author(s):  
M.V. Dobrev
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Formal Classification ◽  
Rights And Interests ◽  
Material Things

The article is devoted to the autonomous meaning of the term «property» used by the European Court of Human Rights. Emphasis is placed on the fact that in national legal systems, approaches to defining the concept of proper-ty, property rights have been and remain different. The violation of property as ownership exclusively of material things, excluding other rights and interests (substantive legal interests), the application of a formal classification of objects of law leads to violations of the right of everyone to own, use and dispose of their property by public author-ities and local governments. property. As the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights is a source of law in the member states of the Council of Europe, national law cannot contradict the Convention and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.It is noted that the European Court of Human Rights, applying the autonomous meaning of the term «proper-ty», which does not depend on the formal classification of property rights in the national legislation of the mem-ber states of the Council of Europe, applies the following approaches to the concept of «property», the concept and content of property rights. that would be compatible with national legal systems. As a result of the analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, it was established that «property» is: 1) ownership of existing material things; 2) assets, including claims that the entity can claim to have at least a «legitimate ex-pectation» that they will be realized; 3) other rights and interests that constitute assets and can be considered as «property rights». Property that falls within the scope of Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms constitute, inter alia, economic resources to which natural persons have no registered property rights, but which have originally belonged to their ancestors and parents for economic activities, as well as income that individuals receive from the use of these resources.

In Search of a Standard: References to the Rule of Law in the Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights

ICL Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-69
Author(s):  
Eszter Polgári
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Working Definition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Structured Analysis ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Grand Chamber

AbstractThe present article maps the explicit references to the rule of law in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR by examining the judgments of the Grand Chamber and the Plenary Court. On the basis of the structured analysis it seeks to identify the constitutive elements of the Court’s rule of law concept and contrast it with the author’s working definition and the position of other Council of Europe organs. The review of the case-law indicates that the Court primarily associates the rule of law with access to court, judicial safeguards, legality and democracy, and it follows a moderately thick definition of the concept including formal, procedural and some substantive elements. The rule of law references are predominantly ancillary arguments giving weight to other Convention-based considerations and it is not applied as a self-standing standard.

Property and Expropriation: Two Concepts Revisited in the Light of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-191
Author(s):  
Sabrina Praduroux
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract In the late 1950 s René Savatier foretold that the qualification of economic value itself as property (bien) would have been the ultimate evolution of the theory of property rights. This prediction has come true with regard to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Court of Justice (CJEU). This paper investigates the implications of the understanding of property developed by the two European Courts on the concept of expropriation itself as well as for the principles governing expropriation law. Hence, the paper illustrates the role played by both the ECtHR and the CJEU in laying down the parameters of legitimacy for national law, including property law. Within this context, the focus falls on cases in which the Courts characterize the facts as deprivation of property requiring for compensation, even though the relevant property could not be the object of expropriation under the domestic law of the defendant State. My contribution brings new insights into the current transformation of the traditional property categories and suggests the reinterpretation of some key concepts of expropriation law.

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.

Religious Pluralism and State- Centric Legal Spaces in Europe

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-54
Author(s):  
Kyriaki Topidi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Religious Pluralism ◽  
Legal Pluralism ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
European Court ◽  
Starting Point

Multiculturalism is continuously and relentlessly put to the test in the so- called West. The question as to whether religious or custom- based legal orders can or should be tolerated by liberal and democratic states is, however, by no means a new challenge. The present article uses as its starting point the case of religious legal pluralism in Greece, as exposed in recent European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case- law, in an attempt to explore the gaps and implications in the officially limited use of sharia in Western legal systems. More specifically, the discussion is linked to the findings of the ECtHR on the occasion of the recent Molla Sali v. Greece case to highlight and question how sharia has been evolving in the European legal landscape.

The Impact of the Pan-European General Principles of Good Administration on Swiss Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 353-374
Author(s):  
Nadja Braun Binder ◽  
Ardita Driza Maurer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Swiss Law ◽  
Written Law ◽  
The Impact

This chapter is dedicated to exploring the impact on Swiss administrative law of the pan-European general principles of good administration developed within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE). The chapter claims that the standards stemming from the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights have been adopted in an exemplary way by Swiss authorities. The influence was especially strong in the 1980s and 1990s. The same cannot be said regarding other documents of the CoE, whose impact remains disparate because many aspects of the pan-European general principles of good administration were already part of the national written law. The chapter concludes that despite the exemplary integration of CoE instruments heated debates on the content of these instruments are not excluded from Switzerland.

The Reception Process in Austria and Switzerland

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Thurnherr
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The Other ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Starting Position ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common

This chapter discusses the reception of the ECHR in Austria and Switzerland. Topics covered include the accession and ratification of the ECHR in both countries, the status of the ECHR in national law, an overview of the activity of the European Court of Human Rights, and the ECtHR's case law and its effects on the national legal order. Although both countries joined the ECHR at a relatively early stage, this starting position led to different outcomes. The main reason is because the common denominators of neutrality and federalism in these two countries are actually rather small: as Austria follows a very different concept of neutrality, it did not face any (political) difficulties before and during the ratification process. Switzerland, on the other hand, was very reluctant to join the Council of Europe and careful to avoid any concessions with regard to neutrality.

The European Court of Human Rights and Transnational Judicial Dialogue

ICL Journal ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla M Zoethout
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
The Us

AbstractOver the past decade, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) seems more and more inclined to use foreign sources of law, that is to say, law that does not originate in the Convention itself or in one of the Member States of the Council of Europe. Unlike in the US, there is little discussion in Europe about this form of judicial dialogue in the case-law of the ECtHR. This paper seeks both to clarify transnational dialogue by the ECtHR and find ways to justify this practice, against the backdrop of the American debate on this topic. First, the concept of transnational judicial dialogue is analysed (Part II). Then judicial dialogue as it presents itself in the judgments of the ECtHR is assessed, especially when non-Convention or foreign law is being used in a substantive way (Part III). Subsequently, an attempt is made to define when and why the use of foreign law by the ECtHR can be considered a justifiable approach in judicial decision-making (Part IV). The paper rounds off with some concluding remarks (Part V).

scholarly journals Supervision of the execution of The European Court of Human Rights’ case law

2021 ◽  
pp. 33-36
Author(s):  
Corina Siman ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Political ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
European System ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Executive Body

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms empowers the decision-making and executive body of the Council of Europe, id est the Committee of Ministers, to supervise the execution of the European Court of Human Rights’ case law. The mechanism thus established possesses a certain specificity, which is inherent to the European system of protection of fundamental rights. Therefore, both the political nature of the Committee of Ministers and the elements that form the process of monitoring the implementation of the content of the Strasbourg Court’s judgments and decisions are of interest.

scholarly journals Las cláusulas de restricción en el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos

2021 ◽  
pp. 469
Author(s):  
Lara Redondo Saceda
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
The Impact

El presente trabajo pretende analizar el sistema de restricciones al ejercicio de los derechos previsto en los artículos 8 a 11 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Así, el objetivo principal es reflexionar sobre la incidencia de estas cláusulas de restricción, su desarrollo jurisprudencial por parte del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y su significado en la construcción del sistema de derechos humanos del Consejo de Europa.This paper is intended to analyse the system of restrictions on the exercise of rights provided by articles 8 to 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Thus, the principal aim is reflecting on the impact of these restriction clauses, their case-law development by the European Court of Human Rights and their meaning on the construction of the Council of Europe Human Rights System.

scholarly journals Protection of Whistleblowers by the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 25-36
Author(s):  
Sára Kiššová
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Financial Interests ◽  
Internal Sources ◽  
Illegal Activities

Whistleblower protection in the European Union is undergoing significant developments. The new Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons reporting breaches of Union law sets a minimum standard for the protection of whistleblowers. It is awaiting implementation in Member States' national law by December 2021. However, a certain level of protection is also guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights case law principles. Reports of illegal activities provided from close internal sources can strengthen the protection of the EU's financial interests. Adequate protection is needed to prevent retaliation against whistleblowers. As the deadline for transposing this directive approaches, the article aims to analyse the Directive 2019/1973 and compare it with the protection guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document