scholarly journals Zastrzeżenia do Europejskiej Konwencji o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności

2029 ◽  
pp. 189-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wojciech Burek

The first part of this article presents Article 57 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and other reservation clauses (in protocols to the Convention) and discusses the characteristics of a system of reservations established by the ECHR and its Protocols. The second and third part analyse and critically appraise states’ practice concerning the formulation of reservations, and objections to other states’ reservations/declarations. The latter were formulated only in respect to some reservations formulated to the Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR. Before concluding with a general assessment of how this system works and what was its impact on other treaty regimes and on the general discussion on reservations to treaties, the role of the European Court of Human Rights (and the Commission before the entry into force of the Protocol No. 11) in the context of reservations is also discussed. 

Author(s):  
Butler William E

This chapter explores the role of Soviet and post-Soviet Russian courts in interpreting and applying international treaties. It is clear that Soviet courts dealt more frequently with treaties than the scanty published judicial practice of that period suggests. This early body of treaties may also have contributed to the emergence in the early 1960s of priority being accorded to Soviet treaties insofar as they contained rules providing otherwise than Soviet legislation. Whatever the volume of cases involving treaties that were considered by Soviet courts prior to 1991, the inclusion of Article 15(4) in the 1993 Russian Constitution transformed the situation. A further transformation occurred when the Russian Federation acceded to the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and began to participate in the deliberations of the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg.


2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence A. Groen

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 133-141
Author(s):  
A A Tymoshenko

The article considers the problem of respect for the right to a fair trial at the pre-trial stage of the criminal process. It is pro- posed to take into account the secondary role of pre-trial activity, whose task is to prepare materials for trial. This competitiveness for the prosecution is not allowed. Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights indicates sufficient blurring boundaries that separate statement of the facts of the presence or absence of a violation of Art. 6 of the European Convention «On Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms» (the right to a fair trial). But in any case the decision is motivated by the observance of guarantees of access to justice. Hence, any infringement of the possibi


Author(s):  
Oliver Lewis

This chapter presents an overview of the adjudicative bodies of the Council of Europe—namely, the European Court of Human Rights (established by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)) and the European Committee of Social Rights—and outlines their mandates with regard to integrating UN human rights treaties. It analyses how these two bodies have cited the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The dataset was forty-five cases dealt with by the Court and two collective complaints decided by the Committee that cite the CRPD up to 2016. Notwithstanding the relatively small size of the dataset, the conclusions are that the Council of Europe system has yet to engage seriously in the CRPD’s jurisprudential opportunities. The reasons for this cannot be ascertained from a desk-based methodology, and further research is required.


2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 601-620
Author(s):  
Vladislava Stoyanova

AbstractThe European Court of Human Rights has consistently reiterated that positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights arise when state authorities know or ought to have known about the risk of harm. This article attempts to describe and assess the role of state knowledge in the framework of positive obligations, and to situate the Court’s approach to knowledge about risk within an intelligible framework of analysis. The main argument is that the assessment of state knowledge is imbued with normative considerations. The assessment of whether the state ‘ought to have known’ is intertwined with, first, concerns that positive obligations should not impose unreasonable burden on the state and, second, the establishment of causal links between state omissions and harm.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Gligorijević

Abstract Protecting children’s informational privacy has never been more difficult. To what extent does it depend upon parental control and consent, and how is this factor incorporated into the law seeking to protect children’s informational privacy? This article addresses these questions, considering the relevant jurisprudence of the English courts, in particular under the tort of misuse of private information, and the relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this article I argue that the relevant jurisprudence in both jurisdictions reveals a doctrine that prioritises parental control and consent, above the harm of intrusion to the child. This risks laying a legal terrain that does not accommodate the protection and vindication of children’s informational privacy rights when they conflict with the wishes of, or are not actively protected by, that child’s parents.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 368-385
Author(s):  
Yana Litins’ka ◽  
Oleksandra Karpenko

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document