Publiczne eksponowanie banerów antyaborcyjnych w kontekście granic swobody ekspresji

2021 ◽  
pp. 325-349
Author(s):  
Adam Ploszka

In the article, the author analyzes, from the perspective of the limits of the freedom of speech, one of the controversial forms of expression on the permissibility of abortion. This form of expression consists of presentation in public spaces, large-format photographs containing images of bloody dead human fetuses. Banners containing these types of photographs are presented without any restrictions, which means that anyone, including children, can view them. For this text, common court judgements in which the courts held that this form of expression is not protected by freedom of speech were collected and analyzed. The analysis of the judgments of common courts was complemented by reference to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

ICL Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benito Aláez Corral

AbstractThis work deals critically with the Islamic full veil ban in public spaces, that is start­ing to be adopted in some European countries and is being echoed in some regulations in Spanish municipalities. After a brief analysis of the general bans recently passed in Belgium and France and of the partial bans adopted in schools by other countries, like Germany, Ita­ly or the UK, the article analyses the constitutionality of the recently approved municipal bans in Spain from a constitutional perspective, including the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The author reaches the conclusion that according to the Sp Const 1978 an adequate interpretation of the limitations to the freedom of religion and the right to one’s own image, involved when wearing an Islamic full veil, would make a general ban on the full veil in each and every public space unconstitutional, but would allow its partial ban regarding the access to municipal buildings or services or regarding teachers and pupils at schools, as far as these partial bans could be justified by constitutional values like safeguarding of public institutions or services, or protecting the fundamental rights of others. `


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 37-42
Author(s):  
Gülnaz Rəfail qızı Ələsgərova ◽  

Providing an opportunity for society to develop and progress, freedom of speech is surely one of the vital conditions for sustainable democracy. Nevertheless, freedom of speech is not an absolute right and exhaustive list of limitations are delineated by many jurisdictions. In Europe as well it is still subject to accepted restrictions designed to prohibit incitement to hatred or conflict with other human rights. This article discusses approaches to hate speech as a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of speech. The article is dedicated to a comparative analysis of the case law of the ECHR and the provisions of the Recommendations adopted in the framework of the Council of Europe. In particular, the author tries to find a clear distinction between speech that is not welcome by the majority of society and the prohibition of hate speech. Key words: freedom of speech, hate speech, standards of Council of Europe, European Court on Human Rights, context of speech, call for violence


Author(s):  
Benito Aláez Corral

This work deals critically with the islamic full veil ban in public spaces, that is starting to be adopted in some European countries and has found echo in some regulations of spanish municipalities. After a brief analysis of the general bans recently passed in Belgium and France and of the partial bans adopted at schools by other countries, like Germany, Italy or the UK, the article analises from a constitutional perspective, that includes the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the constitutionality of the recently established local bans in Spain. The author reaches the conclusion that according to the Sp. Const. 1978 an adequate interpretation of the limitations to the freedom of religion and right to the own image, involved when wearing an islamic full veil, would make unconstitutional a general ban of the full veil in each and every public space, but would constitutionally allow its partial ban regarding the access to municipal buildings or services or regarding teachers and pupils at public institutions of education, when these partial bans could be justified by constitutionally values like the safeguarding of public institutions or services, or like the protection of the fundamental rights of others.En este trabajo se analizan críticamente las prohibiciones del uso del velo islámico integral en los espacios públicos que empiezan a proliferar en Europa y de las que empiezan a hacerse eco algunos Ayuntamientos españoles. Tras un somero análisis de las prohibiciones generales por las que se han inclinado Bélgica y Francia, y de las prohibiciones parciales que predominan en otros Estados, como Alemania, Italia o el Reino Unido, en ámbitos como el escolar se evalúa desde una perspectiva jurídico-constitucional, que incluye la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, las prohibiciones que empiezan a reclamarse y establecerse en España. El autor llega a la conclusión de que una interpretación dogmáticamente adecuada a la CE de 1978 de las limitaciones posibles a los derechos a la libertad religiosa y a la propia imagen, implicados con el uso del velo integral islámico, hace constitucionalmente ilícita una prohibición general del mismo en todos los espacios públicos, pero permite justificar prohibiciones parciales, como las recientemente adoptadas en algunos municipios españoles para el acceso a edificios o servicios municipales, o las impuestas a alumnos y docentes en centros escolares públicos, en la medida en que estén dirigidas a garantizar el correcto funcionamiento de las instituciones y los servicios públicos y/o a la protección de los derechos de los demás.


Author(s):  
Amy Strecker

Chapter 9 analyses the case law of two international human rights courts—the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—dealing with landscape issues. It compares the approach of the two regional courts and highlights the synergies and antagonisms involved in landscape cases. These include the false dichotomies of ‘Indigenous’ versus ‘Western’ notions of landscape, the culture/nature dichotomy and the private right to property versus the public interest in the landscape (non-proprietary interests), as exemplified in a number of cases before the European Court of Human Rights. A typology of landscape cases is presented and the problems of articulating a right to landscape within the current human rights framework are explored. The chapter concludes by offering some thoughts on collective rights and public spaces.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya Samovich

The manual is devoted to making individual complaints to the European Court of human rights: peculiarities of realization of the right to appeal, conditions of admissibility and the judicial procedure of the European Court of Human Rights. The author analyses some “autonomous concepts” used in the court's case law and touches upon the possibility of limiting the right to judicial protection. The article deals with the formation and development of the individual's rights to international judicial protection, as well as the protection of human rights in universal quasi-judicial international bodies and regional judicial institutions of the European Union and the Organization of American States. This publication includes a material containing an analysis of recent changes in the legal regulation of the Institute of individual complaints. The manual is recommended for students of educational organizations of higher education, studying in the areas of bachelor's and master's degree “Jurisprudence”.


2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut

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.


2014 ◽  
pp. 13-31
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Grzelak-Bach

Following a brief introduction of article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the author begins by analyzing case law from the European Court of Human Rights regarding the legal reasoning in judicial proceedings. The main premise of this paper is to present a formula for preparing legal reasoning in administrative court proceedings. The author draws attention to the role of judges who, in the process of adjudication, should apply creative interpretation of the rules of law, when they see errors or omissions in legislative provisions, or blatant violations of the European legal order. The conclusion of those deliberations finds, that the process of tailoring the approach to meet Strasbourg’s requirements should, on a basic level, be at the discretion of judges rather than the legislators.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document