scholarly journals An evolving conception of discrimination in Europe

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Abel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Czech Republic ◽  
Ethnic Origin ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Segregated Schools ◽  
South Wales ◽  
European Court ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
Grand Chamber

CESAA 19th ANNUAL EUROPE ESSAY COMPETITION 2011 - Postgraduate winner: Simone Abel (University of New South Wales)In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights’ Grand Chamber handed down its judgment in DH and Others v Czech Republic. The case arose out of the disproportionately high number of Roma children assigned places in segregated schools for children with intellectual disabilities in the Czech Republic. It was alleged that this practice discriminated against Roma children who had normal, or even above normal, intelligence levels. The applicants claimed that they had been discriminated against in the enjoyment of their right to education on account of their race or ethnic origin  TheCourt made a finding of indirect discrimination against the Czech government. Commentators have hailed this as a landmark judgment that expands the conception of discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights. This paper will discuss how this finding differs from the First Chamber’s judgment and other ECHR caselaw to alter the conception of discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights.

6 Responsibility, 6.4 Admissibility of the Application by Vlastimir and Borka Banković, Živana Stojanović, Mirjana Stoimenovski, Dragana Koksimović, and Dragan Suković against Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom , European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber Decision, [2001]

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scovazzi Tullio
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Czech Republic ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Radio Station ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber

The Bankovic case is one of few cases in which the European Court of Human Rights took a position that, without an acceptable explanation, restricts the application of rights granted by the European Convention on Human Rights. The application was submitted by individuals who put forward that in 1999 seventeen states parties violated art. 2 (right to life) of the Convention by bombing by aircraft the television and radio station in Belgrade. As a consequence of this NATO directed operation sixteen civilians were killed and another sixteen were seriously injured. The Court found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the case, as at that time Yugoslavia was not a party to the Convention. The Court gave a too restrictive interpretation of the word ‘jurisdiction’ to basically conclude that the Convention applies only within the territory of states parties. The Bankovic decision has been contradicted by subsequent judgments.

Discriminación racial y ejercicio del derecho a la instrucción en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. El caso de la minoría gitana

2012 ◽  
pp. 247-291
Author(s):  
Lucía CASADO CASADO
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

LABURPENA: Lan honetan, lehen-lehenik, hurbilpen orokor bat egingo dugu Giza Eskubideak eta Oinarrizko Askatasunak Babesteko Europako Hitzarmenak jasotzen dituen diskriminazio-debekuaren eta hezkuntzarako eskubidearen eraketari; eta ondoren, arraza-diskriminazioaren debekuak hezkuntzarako eskubidearekin duen lotura aztertuko dugu, Giza Eskubideen Europako Auzitegiaren jurisprudentziaren esparruan. Horretarako, eremu horretako lau epai esanguratsuri helduko diegu: Giza Eskubideak eta beste batzuk Txekiar Errepublikaren aurka kasua, bi epai sortarazi dituena (bata Bigarren Sekzioarena, eta bestea Sala Nagusiarena); Sampanis eta beste batzuk Greziaren aurka kasua, eta Orsus eta beste batzuk Kroaziaren aurka kasua. Kasu horietan planteatzen den auzia da ea estatu jakin batzuek ijito etniako umeak eskolaratzeko abiarazi dituzten neurriak diskriminatzaileak diren ala ez. Horretaz gainera, gogoeta batzuk egingo ditugu alor horretako jurisprudentziaren bilakaeraz eta beraren ondorioez. RESUMEN: este trabajo, tras realizar una aproximación general a la configuración de la prohibición de discriminación y al derecho a la instrucción en el Convenio Europeo para la protección de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales, analiza la prohibición de discriminación racial en conexión con el ejercicio del derecho a la instrucción en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Para ello, examina cuatro sentencias relevantes recaídas en este ámbito (casos D.H. y otros contra República Checa, que ha dado lugar a dos sentencias —una de la Sección 2.ª y otra de la Gran Sala—; Sampanis y otros contra Grecia; y Orsus y otros contra Croacia), en las que se plantea si las medidas adoptadas por determinados Estados en relación con la escolarización de niños de etnia gitana son o no discriminatorias. También se realizan algunas consideraciones en torno a la evolución jurisprudencial en este ámbito y sus consecuencias. ABSTRACT: After a general approximation to the configuration of the prohibition of discrimination and of the right of instruction by the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, this work analyzes the prohibition of racial discrimination in relation with the exercise of the right of instruction within the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. For this purpose, four relevant judgments on the subject (cases D.H and others against the Czech Republic, which produced two rulings: one by the Second section and other by the Grand Chamber; Sampanis against Greece; and Orsus and others against Croatia) where it arose whether the measures adopted by some States in relation to the schooling of kids from the gypsy ethnic group are or not discriminatory are studied. Some considerations regarding the evolution by the case law regarding this area are also carried out and their consequences.

scholarly journals Khlaifia and Others v. Italy

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-280
Author(s):  
Jill I. Goldenziel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Detention Centers ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Arab Spring ◽  
Domestic Law

In Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber or Court) released a landmark opinion with broad implications for how states must respect the individual rights of migrants. In the judgment, issued on December 15, 2016, the Court held that Italy's treatment of migrants after the Arab Spring violated the requirement of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that migrants receive procedural guarantees that enable them to challenge their detention and expulsion. The Court also held that Italy's treatment of migrants in detention centers did not violate the ECHR's prohibition on cruel and inhuman treatment, in part due to the emergency circumstances involved. The Court further held that Italy's return of migrants to Tunisia did not violate the prohibition on collective expulsion in Article 4 of Protocol 4 of the ECHR. Enforcement of the judgment would require many European states to provide a clear basis in domestic law for the detention of migrants and asylum-seekers. Given the global diffusion of state practices involving migrants, and other states’ desires to restrict migration, this case has broad implications for delineating the obligations of states to migrants and the rights of migrants within receiving countries.

Navalnyy v. Russia (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-370
Author(s):  
Corina Heri
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Political Activism ◽  
Recent Change ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Administrative Sanctions

On November 15, 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued its judgment in Navalnyy v. Russia. The applicant in the case argued that the Russian authorities had targeted him for arrest and administrative sanctions because of his political activism. In its judgment, the Grand Chamber confirmed its recent change in approach to Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including the normalization of the provision's scope and burden of proof. However, it displayed continued uncertainty about how to deal with measures based on a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate purposes.

It Takes a Village to Implement a Judgment: Creating a Forum for Multi-Stakeholder Involvement in the Czech Republic

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 193-198
Author(s):  
Vít Alexander Schorm
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Czech Republic ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
European Court ◽  
National Implementation ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Government ◽  
Multi Stakeholder

Abstract In this practice note, the Government Agent of the Czech Republic before the European Court of Human Rights and other international bodies for the protection of human rights reflects on national implementation, with the help of selected examples.

Structure and Substance: Developing a Practical and Effective Prohibition on Discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights

2003 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan Small
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Equal Weight ◽  
Free Standing ◽  
Substantive Equality ◽  
European Court ◽  
Full Effect ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
Exercise Of Discretion ◽  
Near Future

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights has not had any real measure of success. This may be explained in part by its lack of free-standing status and in part by the unwillingness of Convention bodies to give it full effect. All too common to European human rights jurisprudence is the Court's exercise of discretion to refrain from ruling on the discrimination claim when another substantive article has been breached. Common too is the failure to apply rigorously standards of interpretation which have rendered the article weak in terms of a substantive equality guarantee. Protocol 12 seeks to overcome these difficulties, by creating an equality guarantee with equal weight as other Convention rights. The Protocol is not likely to enter into force in the near future. In the meantime, the European Court of Human Rights appears to be making efforts to strengthen the Article 14 jurisprudence. First, the Court seems to be showing some increased willingness to deal with the discrimination claim. Second, the prohibited grounds have been extended, in terms that invite comment on the rationale for prohibited grounds. Third, a claim based on indirect discrimination has finally succeeded. Each of these disparate developments, taken together, signal attempts on the part of the Court to take Article 14 seriously. It is suggested that these attempts, while important, lack principled reasoning, and that domestic courts should take seriously the task of supplying principles on which the Court can rely for guidance.

European Court of Human Rights

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerem Altiparmak ◽  
Onur Karahanogullari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Muslim Students ◽  
Fourth Section ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
European Court ◽  
Freedom Of Thought ◽  
Grand Chamber

On 10 November 2005 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (‘Court’) decided the long-running headscarf battle between Muslim students and Turkish universities in the Şahin judgment. On appeal, it held that the prohibition against wearing headscarves on university premises did not violate Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘Convention’) on freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It thereby confirmed the decision of the Fourth Section of the Court of 29 June 2004.

Overruling ‘the Salduz Doctrine’ in Beuze v Belgium: The ECtHR’s further retreat from the Salduz principles on the right to access to lawyer

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-362
Author(s):  
Ergul Celiksoy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Increasing Trend ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

In November 2018, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Beuze v Belgium. Relying on Ibrahim and Others v the United Kingdom, the Grand Chamber held that the Salduz principles require a two-stage test of analysis, and hence, ruled out that systematic statutory restriction of a general and mandatory nature would in itself constitute an automatic violation of Article 6 § 3(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Beuze judgment appears to be very controversial, since the Grand Chamber failed to put forward any convincing reason why it departed from previous case law, particularly Dayanan v Turkey and other judgments against Turkey. In their separate opinion, the concurring Judges in Beuze were concerned that the Beuze judgment overruled ‘ Salduz itself and all other cases that have applied the Salduz test’, and thus, ‘actually distorts and changes the Salduz principle and devalues the right that the Court established previously’. This article analyses the Beuze judgment in the light of the Court’s recent jurisprudence in order to examine whether it contradicts and dilutes the principles previously set out. Further, it discusses the implications of the new standards established in Ibrahim and Others and in subsequent cases, particularly Beuze. Particular attention is paid to the questions of how ‘fair’ is the application of overall fairness assessment in every case, how may the Court’s changing direction of approach concerning the right to access to a lawyer affect the increasing trend of recognition thereof, as a rule, by the contracting states, and finally, to what extent the new principles, especially those established in Beuze, comply with Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer.

scholarly journals General and Particular Approaches to Implementation of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 248-292
Author(s):  
VLADIMÍRA PEJCHALOVÁ GRÜNWALDOVÁ
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Level ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court

AbstractThis article deals with the implementation, at the national level, of European human rights protection standards as enshrined in theEuropean Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) and interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It discusses the principles of interpretation of theECHRby the ECtHR, the interaction and mutual dialogue between the ECtHR and national courts, and the approach of the latter to interpretation and application of the case law of the ECtHR. Using the concrete examples of France and the Czech Republic as case studies, it is shown to what extent and how European constitutional courts take into account and apply the letter of the Convention and its interpretation by the ECtHR.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document