scholarly journals NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PARIS PRINCIPLES, ENGAGED INTO THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE SYSTEM OF INTERNAL MEANS OF SECURITY

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lyudmyla Deshko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Classification Criterion ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
National Institutions ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Similar Body ◽  
Special Competence ◽  
Paris Principles

The purpose of the article is to clarify the place of national institutions engaged in the promotion and protection of human rights in the system of domestic means created in accordance with the Paris Principles. Research methods is the general methods of scientific cognitivism as well as concerning those used in legal science: methods of analysis and synthesis, formal logic, comparative law etc. The concept of understanding of the organizational and legal guarantees of human and citizen's rights has been improved in the constitutional law science, namely: the classification criterion for division into groups is the possibility/non possibility of exercising any kind of state coercion in the course of jurisdictional/ non jurisdictional activity; representative body (body responsible for ensuring Ukraine's representation in the European Court of Human Rights and coordinating the implementation of its decisions), bodies of the state executive service, private executors are the elements of the system of organizational and legal guarantees of human and citizen's rights; by classification criterion – the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms is the primary function of the authority-guarantor or similar body of some other kinds of functions – it is substantiated that national institutions engaged into the promotion and protection of human rights belong to the group of authority-guarantor of special competence established specifically to provide guarantees, human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is proposed within the group of authority-guarantor of special competence established specifically to ensure the guarantees of human rights and fundamental freedoms, to distinguish a sub-group of national institutions engaged into the promotion and protection of human rights: 1) human rights commissions; 2) human rights ombudsmen; 3) anti-discrimination ombudsmen (commissions); 4) human rights institutes (centers); 5) human rights advisory committees; 6) comprehensive human rights institutes.

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.

The Strasbourg Court on the Dayton Constitution: Judgment in the case of Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 22 December 2009

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samo Bardutzky
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber

On 22 December 2009, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter: the Court) issued a judgment on the applications filed by two citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr Dervo Sejdić and Mr Jakob Finci. It found a violation of their rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and under the Protocols to the Convention. Bosnia and Herzegovina had violated the applicants' rights under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

scholarly journals Problems of the Russian Legislstion Improvement and Practice of its Applicatoin Based on the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (in the Spfere of the Administrative Coersion)

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 30-39
Author(s):  
Viatcheslav Viatcheslavovich Gavrilov ◽  
◽  
Olga Eugenievna Shishkina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal System ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The article is devoted to the issues of the implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights into the Russian legal system. The sphere of administrative coercion and administrative liability was chosen as a practical material for this research. The authors stress the role and importance of the ECHR practice for the improvement of Russian legislation, outline problems and difficulties of the implementation of the ECHR judgments in this sphere.

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.

Aircraft Night Noise Complainants Win Case in European Court

2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (9) ◽  
pp. 20-26
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Aircraft Noise ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Ear Infection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Falling Asleep ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Do So

Eight residents, who lived close to Heathrow Airport, claimed violation of their human rights under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The noise levels experienced by the applicants were such as to prevent sleep to them and their families, leading to health problems. In some cases they had been forced to move away from the airport. Aircraft noise prevented the applicants from falling asleep, delaying this till after 01.00 and they were woken early, typically around 05.00, but sometimes earlier. Some applicants wore earplugs to help sleep at night, but in one case this resulted in an ear infection. Disturbance had increased after 1993, despite an assurance that it would not do so. The applicants won their case before the European Court of Human Rights and were awarded damages and costs.

The ‘Iukos Affair’. The Russian Judiciary and the European Court of Human Rights

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence A. Groen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Undue Influence ◽  
European Court ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Structural Nature ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

This note analyzes the functioning of the Russian judiciary on the basis of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgments in the cases of OAO Neftianaia Kompaniia Iukos and three of the company’s former leading executives, Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovskii, Platon Leonidovich Lebedev and the late Vasilii Aleksanian. The analysis turns to the breaches by the Russian state of Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 18 (permissible restrictions to the rights guaranteed) of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as established by the Court in the aforementioned cases, and the role of the Russian judiciary therein. In light of the fundamental flaws and structural nature characterizing the violations found, the conclusion is reached that the Russian judiciary (still) appears not to be entirely free from undue influence by the other branches of government.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document