Disparaging Language (ex curia) as a Barrier in Individual Complaints before the European Court of Human Rights (Zhdanov v Russia)—Lessons for the African System?

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelo Dube
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
European System ◽  
African Charter ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Process ◽  
Individual Petition ◽  
African Commission

On 16 July 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rejected an application by Russian human rights activist, Nikolay Alekseyev, on the basis that he had published personally offensive and threatening material online, directed towards the ECtHR. This was in the matter of Zhdanov and Others v Russia Applications Nos 12200/08, 35949/11 and 58282/12. Even though the published material fell afoul of the European Convention in that it amounted to an abuse of the court process, nothing offensive was contained in the applicant’s own submissions before the court. In like fashion to the ECtHR’s admissibility requirements, the African Charter contains a much more pointed exclusionary clause which renders inadmissible any communication that contains disparaging or insulting language. The difference between the two systems is that the European system relies on an open-ended concept of ‘abuse of the right of individual petition’, whilst the African system specifically proscribes insulting language. In this article, I analyse the approach of the ECtHR in the Zhdanov matter, and contrast it with the approach of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Commission) under Article 56(3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. I further interrogate whether there were any instances where, in similar fashion to the Zhdanov matter, the African Commission declared a communication inadmissible on account of insulting language occurring externally, and not contained within the submission itself. Alive to the fact that the concept of ‘abuse’ in the European system is wide, the article is limited to cases in which the abuse of the right of individual petition under the European Convention manifests in disparaging or insulting language.

The Right to Compensation for Wrongful Conviction/Miscarriage of Justice in International Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-244
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Wrongful Conviction ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
African Commission ◽  
Miscarriage Of Justice

Human rights treaties (including Article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (iccpr); Article 3 of the Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and Article 10 of the American Convention on Human Rights) explicitly protect the right to compensation for wrongful conviction or miscarriage of justice. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights is silent on this right. The Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have developed rich jurisprudence on the ambit of the right to compensation for wrongful conviction or miscarriage of justice. States have adopted different approaches to give effect to their obligation under Article 14(6) of the iccpr. Relying on the practice and/or jurisprudence from States in Africa, Europe, North America, Asia, and Latin America and on the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the article illustrates the approaches taken by some States to give effect to Article 14(6) of the iccpr and the relevant regional human rights instruments.

ANALYSIS OF PRACTICE OF THE ECHR REGARDING WOMAN`S RIGHT TO ABORTION

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivanna Maryniv ◽  
◽  
Aljona Babich ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Fourth Generation ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
European Court ◽  
Main Emphasis ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

This article is devoted to highlighting the content and nature of women's right to abortion and opportunities for its protection. Since this right is attributed by scientists to the fourth generation of human rights and it is relatively new, it is extremely relevant to clarify the issue of the relationship between the rights and interests of a pregnant woman and an unborn child. The authors point out the existence of an urgent problem associated with the absence in European сountries of a unified approach to determining the criteria and conditions under which abortion is considered legal. It is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that a separate article dedicated to the right to abortion is absent in the European Convention on Human Rights. Since one of the conditions of acceptability of an individual complaint is the requirement to refer to violation of only those rights that are provided and guaranteed by the ECHR. The only opportunity for women to protect their right or receive compensation for violation of the right to abortion - is appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, referring to Article 8 of the European Convention, which determines the right of everyone to respect for privacy. Thus, the right to abortion is considered through the prism of the right to privacy. The main emphasis in this article is made on the analysis of the most important decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Affairs, where women complain about violation of their rights due to imprisonment of abortion, which led to terrible consequences. The authors clarified the relation of the ECHR to abortion and deprivation of the right of a woman on their conduct. The court has developed criteria that help determine whether there was a violation of a woman's right to respect for privacy, guaranteed by Article 8. In the article the main problems due to which women in most cases cannot implement their right in their own country properly are identified. Also, in the context of the court decisions, the difference between the ECHR positions regarding this issue and the internal legislation of some European countries, against which the complaints are most often served is analyzed. The authors draw the attention of states to the need to take into account the conclusions of the European Court and lead laws and other regulatory acts in accordance with its decisions.

scholarly journals Nagorno-Karabakh in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-123
Author(s):  
Aleksa Nikolic
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
The People ◽  
European Court ◽  
European System ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Right

The paper analyses the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh from the point of view of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) regarding the violation of human rights of the warring parties directly related to the disputed territory. The European system of human rights protection is one of the greatest European achievements in the field of law, especially if we keep in mind that its judgments are binding on the signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms (ECHR), thus giving it suprajudicial power. Through the analysis of two cases, Sargsyan vs Azerbaijan and Chiragov and others vs Armenia, the Court addressed some very interesting issues that may encourage different interpretations of the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms (ECHR), but also directly affect the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In this regard, the analysis of the (non) existence of the right of the people of Nagorno- Karabakh to self-determination is especially interesting and significant. The author concludes that the ECtHR in its judgments has taken certain positions that may be of great importance in resolving the status of Nagorno-Karabakh before the international community and international organisations.

scholarly journals Note biogiuridiche sulla recente sentenza della CEDU su PMA, IVG e DGP

2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aldo Rocco Vitale
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Assisted Reproductive Technology ◽  
Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis ◽  
Genetic Diagnosis ◽  
Reproductive Technology ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Italian Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right

L’articolo esamina la recente decisione della Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo che ha censurato la legge 40/2004 in tema di procreazione medicalmente assistita per il suo divieto di diagnosi genetica preimpianto. La Corte ha accusato di incoerenza l’ordinamento giuridico italiano perché esso vieta la diagnosi genetica preimpianto, ma ammette l’aborto terapeutico. Il contributo analizza brevemente il caso e la sentenza riguardante una coppia di portatori sani di fibrosi cistica che chiedeva l’accesso alle tecniche previste dalla legge 40/2004 lamentando la violazione del diritto alla vita privata e familiare e il divieto di discriminazione contemplati dagli art. 8 e 14 della Convenzione Europea per i Diritti dell’Uomo. Quindi si passa ad una critica etica, filosofica e giuridica del problema trattato, soffermandosi sulla differenza e sul rapporto tra la legge italiana sull’aborto e quella sulla procreazione medicalmente assistita, sulla diagnosi genetica preimpianto e sul rischio di eugenetica che essa porta con sé. ---------- The article examines the recent decision of the European Court of human rights which has censored the Italian law 40/2004 on assisted reproductive technology for its ban on preimplantation genetic diagnosis. The Court accused of inconsistency the Italian legal system because it prohibits preimplantation genetic diagnosis, but admits the therapeutic abortion. The contribution analyses briefly the case and the ruling concerning a pair of healthy carriers of cystic fibrosis that sought access to techniques foreseen by law 40/2004 complaining of the violation of the right to private and family life and the prohibition of discrimination covered by art. 8 and 14 of the European Convention on human rights. So we then move on to a philosophical, legal and ethics critique of the problem issued, dwelling on the difference and relationship between the Italian law on abortion and on assisted reproductive technology, on preimplantation genetic diagnosis and on the risk of eugenics that it brings.

scholarly journals A Prisoner’s Right to be Released or Placed on Parole: A Comment on Öcalan v Turkey (No. 2) (18 March 2014)

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-92
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Or Practice ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
African Commission

Abstract The European Convention on Human Rights does not provide for a prisoner’s right to parole and no international or regional human rights instrument provides for this right. However, recently, in the case of Öcalan v Turkey (No. 2), one of the judges of the European Court of Human Rights interpreted the European Convention on Human Rights as providing for a prisoner’s right to parole. This is the first time that a judge of this court, and to the author’s best knowledge, a judge of a regional or international court, has expressly held that a prisoner has the right to parole. The author assesses this holding in the light of the jurisprudence or practice on the right to parole from the Human Rights Committee, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. In order to put the discussion in context, the author also highlights jurisprudence emanating from the European Court of Human Rights relevant to the relationship between parole and other human rights. The author recommends that the time has come for the right to parole to be recognised in human rights instruments.

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

Introductory Note

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Raimondi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Public ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This article comments on four important judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights in 2016. Al-Dulimi v. Switzerland addresses the issue of how, in the context of sanctions regimes created by the UN Security Council, European states should reconcile their obligations under the UN Charter with their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to respect the fundamentals of European public order. Baka v. Hungary concerns the separation of powers and judicial independence, in particular the need for procedural safeguards to protect judges against unjustified removal from office and to protect their legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary is a judgment on the interpretation of the Convention, featuring a review of the “living instrument” approach. Avotiņš v. Latvia addresses the principle of mutual trust within the EU legal order and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.

Does the Injunction Gap Violate Implementers’ Fair Trial Rights Under the ECHR?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léon E Dijkman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Validity Of A Patent

Abstract Germany is one of few jurisdictions with a bifurcated patent system, under which infringement and validity of a patent are established in separate proceedings. Because validity proceedings normally take longer to conclude, it can occur that remedies for infringement are imposed before a decision on the patent’s validity is available. This phenomenon is colloquially known as the ‘injunction gap’ and has been the subject of increasing criticism over the past years. In this article, I examine the injunction gap from the perspective of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I find that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting this provision supports criticism of the injunction gap, because imposing infringement remedies with potentially far-reaching consequences before the validity of a patent has been established by a court of law arguably violates defendants’ right to be heard. Such reliance on the patent office’s grant decision is no longer warranted in the light of contemporary invalidation rates. I conclude that the proliferation of the injunction gap should be curbed by an approach to a stay of proceedings which is in line with the test for stays as formulated by Germany’s Federal Supreme Court. Under this test, courts should stay infringement proceedings until the Federal Patent Court or the EPO’s Board of Appeal have ruled on the validity of a patent whenever it is more likely than not that it will be invalidated.

scholarly journals A Commentary on the African Commission's General Comment on the Right to Freedom of Movement and Residence under Article 12(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Romola Adeola ◽  
Frans Viljoen ◽  
Trésor Makunya Muhindo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
African Charter ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Level ◽  
African Commission

Abstract In 2019, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted General Comment No 5 on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The Right to Freedom of Movement and Residence (Article 12(1)). In this general comment, the commission elaborated on the right to freedom of movement and residence within state borders. This issue, while explicit in international human rights law, is a challenge within various jurisdictions, including in Africa. This article provides a background to and commentary on General Comment No 5, leveraging on the insight of the authors, who participated in its drafting. Unlike the UN Human Rights Committee's earlier general comment, General Comment No 5 provides detailed guidance on the internal dimension of the right to free movement and residence. As “soft law”, its persuasive force depends on a number of factors, including its use at the domestic level, its visibility and its integration into regional human rights jurisprudence.

Lachiri v Belgium and Bans on Wearing Islamic Dress in the Courtroom: An Emerging Trend

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-53
Author(s):  
Kaushik Paul
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Public Spaces ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Islamic Dress

In recent years, the wearing of Islamic dress in public spaces and elsewhere has generated widespread controversy all over Europe. The wearing of the hijab and other Islamic veils has been the subject of adjudication before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on many occasions. The most recent case before the ECtHR as to the prohibition on wearing the hijab is Lachiri v Belgium. In this case, the ECtHR held that a prohibition on wearing the hijab in the courtroom constitutes an infringement of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to freedom of religion or belief. From the perspective of religious freedom, the ruling of the Strasbourg Court in Lachiri is very significant for many reasons. The purpose of this comment is critically to analyse the ECtHR's decision in Lachiri from the standpoint of religious liberty.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document