Konkordat jako element polskiego systemu prawa wyznaniowego

The Subject ◽

Individual Dimension

The concordat defnes the scope of cooperation between the state and the Catholic Church for the good of the human person and the good of society at international level. The signing of the Concordat in 1993 was preceded by long negotiations conducted by two independent legal entities – the Holy See and the Polish State. Concordat norms detail the basic human rights already guaranteed in multilateral international agreements, e.g. in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ratifed by Poland on December 15, 1992 (Articles 9 and 14). In general, the subject ofthe concordat agreement is all matters of church life in its institutional and individual dimension. The purpose of the article is therefore to approximate the scope of the concordat agreement in force in Poland since 1998, as well as to place it in the Polish legal system

Part II Related Doctrines, 11 New Horizons: Good Faith, Contractual Discretions, and Human Rights

10.1093/law/9780198755166.003.0011 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

McMeel Gerard

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Common Law ◽

Public Law ◽

Good Faith ◽

European Convention ◽

Muslim Community ◽

New Horizons ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

The Subject

This chapter explores the roles of good faith, contractual discretions, and human rights in either the negotiation or performance of contracts. It first revisits the orthodox position is that English law does not recognize any over-arching obligation to act in good faith, before providing some examples of statutory interventions as well as common law principles. The chapter then turns to the problem of contractual discretions and provides some analogies with public law. Finally, the chapter turns to the subject of human rights, wherein it discusses the relevant provisions as stated in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the Convention’)—Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol 1. To conclude, the chapter examines a human rights case in Khan v Khan, in the context of an alleged compromise arising out of a family partnership in the Muslim community.

Article 53 CFR

The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.578 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Tobias Lock

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

International Agreements ◽

European Convention ◽

Member States ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognised, in their respective fields of application, by Union law and international law and by international agreements to which the Union or all the Member States are party, including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and by the Member States’ constitutions.

Problems of Translation of Provisions of International Treaties Illustrated by The Example of Article 6 of the European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric ◽

10.1515/slgr-2016-0028 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 45 (1) ◽

pp. 265-276

Author(s):

Iwona Wrońska

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Language Translation ◽

European Convention ◽

International Treaties ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

Official Languages ◽

The Subject ◽

The Right ◽

Problems Of Translation

Abstract The subject of these reflections is the analysis of issues concerning language translation of the treaty and connotations connected therewith of the meaning of legal regulations. As an example here one can cite Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, prepared in the two official languages of the Council of Europe, i.e. English and French. The problems of interpretation of Article 6, which regulates the right to a fair trial, resulted from the official translation of the term “prawo do sprawiedliwego procesu sądowego” (the right to a just trial). This triggered a quite widespread discussion in the Polish doctrine as to whether the English term “fair” should be translated as “sprawiedliwy”. Moreover, on the basis of a translation so constructed other proposals of the concept in Article 6 appeared in the literature on the subject, such as “uczciwy” (honest), “słuszny” (right) or “praworządny” (lawful) trial. The article presents the argumentation of Polish lawyers on adopting the aforementioned terms, demonstrating how the language used in translation of the treaty may affect the accurate understanding of legal terminology.

Interpretarea si aplicarea dreptului UE si a Conventiei pentru apararea drepturilor omului si a libertatilor fundamentale in cererile privind trimiterile preliminare in fata instantelor din Rommnia (Interpretation & Application of EU Law and of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Requests for a Preliminary Ruling by Courts and Tribunals of Romania)

SSRN Electronic Journal ◽

10.2139/ssrn.2407712 ◽

2014 ◽

Author(s):

Daniel Mihail Sandru ◽

Constantin-Mihai Banu ◽

Dragos Calin

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Preliminary Ruling ◽

Eu Law ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

An International Relations Perspective on the Reform Needs of the Human Rights Council

Volume 61 · 2018 - German Yearbook of International Law ◽

10.3790/gyil.62.1.43 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 62 (1) ◽

pp. 43-80

Author(s):

Wolfgang S. Heinz

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Relations ◽

International Law ◽

Structure And Dynamics ◽

Human Rights Council ◽

Local Actors ◽

The Subject

Abstract: This article approaches the matter of institutional reform of the United Nations Human Rights Council from an international relations perspective. A well-known tension exists between State representatives acting for their governments in international organisations, but whose decisions are presented as UN policies. The latter should be guided primarily by the UN Charter and public international law. However, in reality, different worldviews and foreign policy considerations play a more significant role. In a comprehensive stock-take, the article looks at four major dimensions of the Council, starting with structure and dynamics and major trends, followed by its country and thematic activities, and the role of key actors. Council reform proposals from both States and civil society are explored. Whilst the intergovernmental body remains the most important authority responsible for the protection of human rights in the international sphere, it has also been the subject of considerable criticism. Although it has made considerable progress towards enlarging its coverage and taking on more challenging human rights crises, among some of its major weaknesses are the election of human rights-unfriendly countries into its ranks, the failure to apply stronger sanctions on large, politically influential countries in the South and North, and lack of influence on human rights crises and chronic human rights problems in certain countries. Whilst various reform proposals have emerged from States and NGOs, other more far reaching propositions are under sometimes difficult negotiations. In the mid- to long-term, the UN human rights machinery can only have a stronger and more lasting impact if support from national/local actors and coalitions in politics and society can be strengthened.

IV.18. Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Extract)

Basic Documents on International Migration Law ◽

10.1163/ej.9789004152397.i-0.57 ◽

2009 ◽

pp. 286-286

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

III.B.8f Protocol (No 6) to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty (28 April 1983)

International Law & World Order ◽

10.1163/ilwo-iiib8f ◽

2014 ◽

pp. 1-2

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Death Penalty ◽

European Convention ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

III.B.8b Protocol (No. 2) to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Conferring upon the European Court of Human Rights Competence to Give Advisory Opinions (6 May 1963)

International Law & World Order ◽

10.1163/ilwo-iiib8b ◽

2014 ◽

pp. 1-1

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

European Convention ◽

European Court ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

Advisory Opinions

Battles Over Symbols: The “Religion” of the Minority Versus the “Culture” of the Majority

Journal of Law and Religion ◽

10.1017/s0748081400000242 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 28 (1) ◽

pp. 67-104 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Lori G. Beaman

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Religious Freedom ◽

Religious Symbol ◽

Anti Semitism ◽

European Tradition ◽

European Court ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

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

European Constitutional Law Review ◽

10.1017/s1574019610200081 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 6 (2) ◽

pp. 309-333 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Samo Bardutzky

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽

European Court ◽

Fundamental Freedoms ◽

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.