scholarly journals Progress towards equality in the practice of the ECTHR and the partnership agreement in de facto alliances

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 171-175
Author(s):  
M.V. Mendzhul
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Central Committee ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Partnership Agreement ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Recognition

The article examines the progress towards equality in the practice of the ECtHR and its significant impact on the partnership agreement in de facto alliances. It has been established that over the last thirty-five years, the approaches of the European Court of Human Rights to the issue of the right of same-sex partners to family life and its formal recognition have undergone significant changes. It was found that the issue of discrimination was the subject of a number of cases concerning various rights of homosexual unions. It is substantiated that in the aspect of the right to formal recognition of same-sex partnerships by the state, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case “Oliari and others v. Italy ». It was found that despite many years of case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the provisions of Council Regulation № 2016/1104, not all EU countries have provided legal certainty for same-sex couples, even in the form of civil partnerships (namely, Slovakia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia and Lithuania). The French experience of regulating the procedure for concluding, essential conditions of a partnership agreement, as well as the procedure for its termination is studied. It is substantiated that taking into account the European integration processes in Ukraine, reforming its private law according to European standards, our state, given the principle of equality and positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms should guarantee partners in de facto unions sex legal certainty. In our opinion, it is optimal to amend the Central Committee of Ukraine and grant the right to conclude civil partnership agreements to persons regardless of the article. At the same time, the IC of Ukraine must maintain a heteronomous approach, ie guarantee the right to marry persons of the opposite sex, which fully complies with Art. 12 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Given that a partnership agreement can be an effective legal regulator of relations between individuals in de facto unions, it is worth borrowing the positive experience of France in improving Ukrainian legislation.

X and Others v. Austria (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 620-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen A. Doty
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Opposite Sex ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, in X and Others v. Austria, held by a majority of ten to seven that Austria violated Article 14 (prohibition on discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) when it denied an unmarried same-sex couple the right to a second-parent adoption when second-parent adoptions are available to unmarried opposite-sex couples. This is the first time the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has recognized a right to second-parent adoption by same-sex couples.

Battles Over Symbols: The “Religion” of the Minority Versus the “Culture” of the Majority

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori G. Beaman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Symbol ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
European Tradition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

Moreover, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to identify in the constant central core of Christian faith, despite the inquisition, despite anti-Semitism and despite the crusades, the principles of human dignity, tolerance and freedom, including religious freedom, and therefore, in the last analysis, the foundations of the secular State.A European court should not be called upon to bankrupt centuries of European tradition. No court, certainly not this Court, should rob the Italians of part of their cultural personality.In March, 2011, after five years of working its way through various levels of national and European courts, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided that a crucifix hanging at the front of a classroom did not violate the right to religious freedom under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Specifically, Ms. Soile Lautsi had complained that the presence of the crucifix violated her and her children's right to religious freedom and that its presence amounted to an enforced religious regime. The Grand Chamber, reversing the lower Chamber's decision, held that while admittedly a religious symbol, the crucifix also represented the cultural heritage of Italians.

scholarly journals Suživot negatorijske zaštite od imisija i prava na život u zdravoj životnoj sredini

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 241-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrijela Mihelčić ◽  
Maša Marochini Zrinski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Minimum Level ◽  
Healthy Environment ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Regulation

The authors analyse the national protection from emissions, in the first place, a property law component of this regime. Domestic regulation of the protection of property rights from harassment was brought in the perspective of the protection that the European Court of Human Rights provides for the right to live in a healthy environment, primarily through the protection of rights under Art. 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to respect for private and family life and home). In the context of the latter, the authors have analysed the interpretative methods used by the European Court and explored the following features: the requirement that environmental and environmental impacts and disturbances violate the Convention right, that is, the existence of a specific Convention causal link; the category of minimum level of severity; oscillation of the "quantum" of minimum level of severity within conventional "fluctuations"; and the scope (and type) of protecting the right to live in a healthy environment through the paradigm of the positive / negative obligations of the Contracting States.

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.

The European Court of Human Rights: Sabeh El Leil v. France

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Gilles Cuniberti
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Wrongful Dismissal

In Sabeh el Leil v. France, the European Court of Human Rights (‘‘ECtHR’’ or ‘‘the Court’’) ruled for the second time that a contracting state had violated the right to a fair trial afforded by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘‘Convention’’) by denying access to its courts to an embassy employee suing for wrongful dismissal on the grounds that the employer enjoyed sovereign immunity. The ECtHR had first ruled so a year earlier in Cudak v. Lithuania, where the plaintiff was also an embassy employee.

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.

scholarly journals Reflection of Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on Impartiality and Independence of National Courts in Context of the Right to a Fair Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-90
Author(s):  
Alla Demyda
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
The Right

The article focuses on the principle of impartiality and independence of judiciary as a part of the right to a fair trial according to Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In particular, an account will be taken of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in matters of applications from national judges. The article considers the reflection of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the amendment of national legislations and the amendment of the provisions of the national constitutions regarding the principles of justice.

scholarly journals Study of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in criminal law matters

2007 ◽  
Vol 79 (9) ◽  
pp. 371-395
Author(s):  
Momčilo Grubač
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Inadmissible Evidence ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Case Files ◽  
The Right

This study includes certain number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that relate to the criminal procedural matters, primarily those constituting the right to a fair trial provided in Article 6 of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. These decisions were analyzed and interpreted in order to establish the practice of the Court in these procedural matters and to enable us to evaluate whether domestic criminal procedural law and its application are in line with this practice. The author dealt with the issues of prohibition to institute legal action twice for the same cause of action (ne bis in idem), immunities and privileges, right to court access, exclusion of inadmissible evidence from the criminal case files, right to the impartial court and right of defense to call and interrogate witnesses.

scholarly journals Freedom of expression and reputation protection in the European Court of Human Rights practice.

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 39-44
Author(s):  
Andriy Kuchuk
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Human Rights Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the issue of understanding freedom of expression and reputation protection by the European Court of Human Rights. New opportunities to exercise the right to freedom of expression arise and opportunities to implement the right to freedom of expression as well as the possibilities for defamation increase within a democratic and information society. It is emphasized that within a law-based state guarantees provided to the press are of particular importance, as the media should disseminate information and ideas of public interest, and the public has the right to receive such information and ideas. A clear understanding of the content of the right to freedom of expression and the right to reputation protection is the basis for resolving the issue of finding a balance between them, which designates the relevance of the study. The paper elucidates the results of the European Court of Human Rights decisions analysis under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression). Emphasis is placed on the various features of these rights and the peculiarities of their implementation in different circumstances. It is pointed out that the domestic judicial system actively uses the European Court of Human Rights practice in resolving cases related to reputation protection. Attention is placed on the fact that freedom of expression does not extend to hate speech. The spread of the right to reputation protection as for defamation of family members and relatives is analyzed. Emphasis is placed on the dynamic approach of the European Court of Human Rights towards the interpretation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Even before the beginning of 2000, the European Court of Human Rights noted that the protection of reputation does not fall under the protection of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The study describes the genesis of the positions of the European Court of Human Rights on a person’s reputation protection. It is stated that a person’s right to protection of his or her reputation is covered by Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as part of the right to respect for private life (provided that causing considerable damage to reputation if it affects a person’s private life).

scholarly journals The development of protections for the right to marry guaranteed by Article 12 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 510-525
Author(s):  
Jovana Vojvodić
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
21St Century ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Marriage And Family ◽  
International Understanding ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Liberal Attitude ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

Starting from the 21st century, the European Court of Human Rights has changed the approach regarding the interpretation of the right to marry protected under Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The new liberal attitude towards the content of this right has opened up opportunities for new categories of persons to enter into marriage and start a family. The question arises whether the European Court of Human Rights will continue with this trend of interpretation and what consequences that could cause for the international understanding of marriage and family.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document