scholarly journals The Scope of the Right to Give Birth at Home as Reproductive Self-determination In the Legislation of Georgia and the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights

Law and World ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 92-124
Keyword(s):  
Home Birth ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Fetal Life ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Hospital Delivery ◽  
Legitimate Interest ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
At Home

This article discusses the scope of the right to give birth at home as reproductive self-de- termination in the context of Georgian law and the case-law of the European Court. Georgia, like many other member states of the Council of Europe, unconditionally prefers the model of hospital delivery to protect maternal and fetal life and health. It is true that under Georgian law, home birth is not prohibited as such, however except for emergencies, medical staff is authorized to provide medical care only in a licensed medical premise. That equates to a restriction of the right. Despite the legitimate interest in restricting the right to give birth at home, scientific studies have confirmed the similarity between the consequences of home birth and hospital delivery in the case of low-risk pregnancies. The blanket ban on the right to give birth at home became the object of debate in the European Court in 2010. The court explained that the right to respect for private life enshrined in the Convention includes not only a person’s decision to become or not to become a parent, but also the choice of conditions. According to the court, childbirth is a unique and delicate moment in a woman’s life, and the determination of the place of childbirth is fundamentally related to a woman’s personal life. The European Court has discussed the availability and foreseeability of national legislation in the context of restricting the right to give birth at home. The Court has ruled that national authorities must ensure the clarity (if any) of the responsibility for providing obstetric services at home. However, the Court has still left open the issue of the need to restrict the right to give birth at home on the grounds of a lack of consensus among the member states of the Council of Europe and the complex socio-economic aspects of the issue.

The Choice of Child Delivery Is a European Human Right

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Eggermont
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Environment ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Personal Choice ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
Made In

Abstract In a judgment of 14 December 2010, in the case of Madam Ternovszky v. Hungary, the European Court of Human Rights has considered that a State should provide an adequate regulatory scheme concerning the right to choose in matters of child delivery (at home or in a hospital). In the context of homebirth, regarded as a matter of personal choice of the mother, this implies that the mother is entitled to a legal and institutional environment that enables her choice. This contribution stresses in which sense the regulatory schemes in the Member States Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, France and the UK concerning the choice of child delivery are in accordance with Article 8 ECHR, the right to respect for the private life. Do the Member States provide the legal certainty to a mother that the midwife can legally assist a homebirth? Or are restrictions made in interests of public health?

scholarly journals The Peculiarities of Private and Family Life Protection: The Experience of the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 39-45
Author(s):  
Oksana MELENKO ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Essential Questions ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

One of the most vulnerable spheres of life of any individual is his / her private and family life. Therefore, this issue could not slip the attention of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (hereinafter - the Convention) (Council of Europe, 1950). In fact, there have always been some prejudices within this issue, as it is not a secret that accusations of violating an individual’s right to privacy often provoke discussion in the public sphere. For example, when the UK Special Forces eliminated three terrorists (who were no longer resisting) on the territory of Gibraltar (Case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 1995), the media did not particularly intend to protect the right to life of these criminals. On the other hand, quite a few liberal media sources have resonantly responded to the interference with private life, when a group of stockbrokers and bankers were prosecuted for sadomasochism in a private residence. A similar behavior of the press was observed when discussing the mandatory use of seat belts. However, when considering the issues related to the violation of Article 8 of the Convention (Council of Europe, 1950), it is important to find answers to a few rather essential questions: Has there been an interference with private life under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (Council of Europe, 1950)? If so, then – Is this interference sufficiently justified in the light of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (Council of Europe, 1950), namely: Was the interference lawful? If yes, then – Did the interference have a lawful purpose? If yes, then – Was the interference necessary for a democratic society (can it be regarded as an adequate response to socially urgent necessity)? In case there arises a question concerning state’s positive obligations, it will no longer belong to the jurisdiction of paragraph 2, but will touch upon the analysis of the issue whether state’s positive obligation exists at all.

MEDICINSKE USLUGE POLNOG PRILAGOĐAVANjA KAO USLOV ZA PRAVNU PROMENU POLA U SVETLU PRAKSE EVROPSKOG SUDA ZA LjUDSKA PRAVA

2021 ◽  
pp. 199-209
Author(s):  
Veljko Vlašković ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Gender Recognition ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Legal Recognition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Gender Reassignment ◽  
The Right

By its decision in case Goodwin v. United Kingdom (2002), The European Court of Human Rights has recognized the positive obligation of states to provide conditions for the legal recognition of preferred gender in the context of the right to respect for private life. In this regard, the Court emphasized gender identity as an important element of personal identity and an integral part of the transgender person's right to private life. On the other hand, states have kept their margin of appreciation regarding requirements needed for changing gender data in civil registries or in other words legal recognition of preferred gender. After Goodwin case, that has laid foundations for the rights of transgender people to gender identity, further development of this right was set by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in case A.P., Garçon and Nicot v. France (2017). By this decision, the Court has further narrow the margin of appreciation removing imposing of sterilisation as a requirement for legal gender recognition. Finally, The European Court of Human Rights has taken the position in the latest judgment X and Y. v. Romania (2021) that conditioning legal recognition of preferred gender with surgical interventions of gender reassignment represents breach of the right to respect private life. Thus, the Court further approached Council of Europe Resolution 1728 (2010) according to which states are suggested to remove from the requirements for legal gender recognition the subjection to any medical service of gender reassignment, including hormone therapy. Domestic legislation has retained only hormone therapy as a necessary condition for legal gender reassignment. Although this solution is in accordance with the latest case law of the European Court of Human Rights, another step is needed to make the exercise of the right to gender identity adjusted to the "soft law" of the Council of Europe and the bodies under the auspices of the United Nations.

THE RIGHT TO AN INTIMATE, FAMILY AND PRIVATE LIFE IN THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

2021 ◽  
pp. 142-151
Author(s):  
Iulia Butnaru ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Psychological Traits ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Right

Privacy often conflict with other rights and legitimate interests, at which is the question of establishing its boundaries. Obviously there are no clear limits beyond which an infringement must be regarded as permissible. Private life is a concept with an extensive interpretation, which includes different spheres of the person’s life, as demonstrated by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. What is certain is that each person has their own opinion about the extent of privacy and this impression depends on the psychological traits of the person concerned, but also on the traditions and customs that exist in a society at a certain historical stage. The utility of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the protection of private life and the family is that it provides precise criteria to be applied by judges to determine whether the complaint submitted under Article 8 of the Convention European Human Rights is one valid.

While the Treaty does not affect the existence of intellectual property rights, there are nonetheless circumstances in which the exercise of such rights may be restricted by the prohibitions laid down in the treaty. 2. Article 36 permits exceptions to the free movement of goods only to the extent to which such exceptions are necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the rights that constitute the specific subject-matter of the type of intellectual property in question. Perhaps the main advantage of this formula, apart from the fact that it narrows the scope of the exceptions permitted by Article 36, is that it allows subtle distinctions to be made depending on the type of intellectual property in issue. 3. The exclusive right conferred on the owner of intellectual property is exhausted in relation to the products in question when he puts them into circulation anywhere within the Common Market. Spelt out more fully, ‘the proprietor of an industrial or commercial property right protected by the legislation of a Member State may not rely on that legislation in order to oppose the importation of a product which has lawfully been marketed in another Member State by, or with the consent of, the proprietor of the right himself or person legally or economically dependent on him’. The expression ‘industrial and commercial property’ clearly embraces patents and trademarks. It also extends to such specialised areas as plant breeders’ rights. The court has held that copyright can also be a form of industrial or commercial property because it ‘includes the protection conferred by copyright, especially when exploited commercially in the form of licences capable of affecting distribution in the various Member States of goods incorporating the protected literary or artistic work’. The principle that the Treaty does not affect the existence of industrial and commercial property rights is derived from Article 222 of the treaty. This provides that ‘the treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’. Consequently intellectual property rights are unaffected by the provisions of the treaty unless they hinder free movement or offend the rules of competition. In Keurkoop v Nancy Kean (see below) the design of a handbag which was manufactured in Taiwan was registered in the Benelux countries but without the authority of the actual author. In Case 78/70, Deutsche Grammophon v Metro-SB Grossmärkte [1971] ECR 487, [1971] CMLR 631, the European Court stated:

1997 ◽  
pp. 110-114
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Member State ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Commercial Property ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

Germany's Dialogue with Strasbourg: Extrapolating theBundesverfassungsgericht'sRelationship with the European Court of Human Rights in the Preventive Detention Decision

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 757-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birgit Peters
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Level ◽  
National Court ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Proper Role ◽  
European Court ◽  
New Applications ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Sheer Number

Within the Council of Europe, the relationship between the ECtHR and the member states is crucial for the survival and effective functioning of the Court. The ECtHR is currently overwhelmed by applications, the bulk of which emanate from a relatively small number of states, notably Russia, Rumania, Turkey, and the Ukraine. The backlog of cases will soon be toppling the vertiginous mark of 160,000, the adjudication of which alone would take the Court more than six years. The sheer number of cases exemplifies the system's urgent need for reform. Lately, discussions have been heavily influenced by considerations of subsidiarity, which the earlier Interlaken Declaration-as well as the recent Brighton Conference-emphasized as the key for the future relationship between the ECtHR and member states. Discussions about the principle's proper role in the relationship between member states and the ECHR, however, are far from over. This is due to questions regarding the principle itself, as well as to the factual realities dominating in the ECtHR-national court relationship. The principle often focuses on a strict separation of competences at two different levels, the national and the international, and many understandings of that principle require that the two levels stand in a more or less hierarchical relationship. This is difficult to assume in the Council of Europe context, where, compared to the EU, neither the doctrine of direct effect nor the principle of primacy in application reigns. Moreover, Strasbourg's emphasis on subsidiarity appears to focus on the responsibility of the member states to remedy human rights violations. In line with that argument, scholars have opined that the ECHR system should focus on an approach in which the ECtHR would be involved only if there are good reasons to depart from interpretation at the national level. Nonetheless, others recently doubted the overall usefulness of such an understanding of subsidiarity, since those member states responsible for the lion's share of new applications to the ECHR often neither possess a functioning judiciary nor functioning judicial or executive institutions, in general.

The European Court of Human Rights has the Turkish Security Forces Held Responsible for Violations of Human Rights: The Case of Akdivar and Others

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Zwaak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Violent Conflict ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eastern Region ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Security Forces ◽  
South Eastern ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

In this article, special attention will be given to the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Right in the case of Akdivar and Others v. Turkey. Since 1985, a violent conflict has raged in the South-Eastern region of Turkey, between the Turkish security forces and sections of the Kurdish population in favour of Kurdish autonomy, in particular members of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan). Since 1987, 10 of the 11 provinces of South-Eastern Turkey have been subjected to emergency rule, which was in force at the time of the facts complained of. The main issue in this case concerned the fact that during this conflict, a large number of villages have been destroyed and evacuated by the security forces. According to the applicants, the alleged burning of their houses by the security forces constituted, inter alia, a violation of Article 3 (the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment or punishment) and Article 8 (the right of respect for private life, family life, and home) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (property rights).

Mail-Order Trade in Medicines in Europe — A Guide for Legislators to Protect Consumers

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels-J. Seeberg-Elverfeldt
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Mail Order ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Safety Standards ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
Prescription Medicines

AbstractThis article discusses mail-order trade in medicines. It explains why this trade has developed and why there is a need for strict safety standards. The European Court of Justice obliged member states to allow such trade in non prescription medicines but did not specify any safety standards. The 2007 resolution of the Council of Europe lays these down precisely. An analysis of the legal situation in the 30 EU and EEA states shows that they increasingly permit this trade. However, there are considerable deficits as regards the necessary safety standards. To protect consumers from illegal medicine sales via the internet, they should be able to easily identify legal products online. Legislators should act accordingly.

scholarly journals Tajemnica adwokacka jako element realizacji prawa do sprawiedliwego procesu sądowego oraz prawa do poszanowania korespondencji

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-21
Author(s):  
Natalia Banach ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Moral Norms ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

The issue of exemption from the attorney-client privilege and the nature of this attorney-client privilege is widely discussed both in the literature on the subject and in the doctrine. In order to analyze this subject, it was necessary to interpret the provisions of the Law on the Bar Ac (26 May 1982), the provisions of the Code of Bar Ethics (23 December 2011) the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (2 April 1997), both guarantees enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights of liberty from 1950. The interpretation was made in conjunction with Polish case law common courts and case law of the European Court of Human Rights. This also presents the view of the polish Ombudsman’s Office. Given that the professional secrecy of lawyers is an inseparable element of justice, it would be wrong to omit the generally accepted moral norms of society in relation to the procedural role of a lawyer. The thesis put forward that the professional secrecy of lawyers is part of the implementation of the right to a fair trial and the right to respect for private life. The purpose of the work was to emphasize the essence of lawyers’ secrecy as an inseparable element of defense of the parties to the proceedings and to indicate interpretation differences between Polish courts and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document