‘The Right to have Rights’: the European Convention on Human Rights and the Procedural Rights of Asylum Seekers

2016 ◽  
pp. 191-211
Author(s):  
Gina Clayton
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights

The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights as Guardians of Fair Criminal Proceedings in Europe

2019 ◽  
pp. 88-114
Author(s):  
Bettina Weisser
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights

This chapter discusses the role of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) in safeguarding fair criminal proceedings in Europe. In particular, it analyzes the procedure-related guarantee of a fair trial and its various implications as they are laid down in Article 6 ECHR and shaped by the case law of the Court. The chapter first provides an overview of the general procedural guarantees under Article 6, section 1, focusing on the independence and impartiality of the tribunal, right to a fair hearing (equality of arms, the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination, entrapment), public hearing, and hearing within a reasonable time. It then considers procedural rights in criminal proceedings under sections 2 and 3 of Article 6, along with the presumption of innocence under section 2 and specifically listed minimum rights in criminal proceedings under section 3.

scholarly journals The Right to Asylum and the Principle of Non- Refoulement Under the European Convention on Human Rights

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (28) ◽  
pp. 108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Ristik
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Dual Systems ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
European Court ◽  
Asylum Law ◽  
Complementary Role ◽  
The Right

The European Convention on Human Rights does not contain any explicit reference to the right to asylum. However, the European Court of Human Rights has provided protection of asylum seekers mainly through interpretation of Article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, even if there is no specific mention of non-refoulement in this Article, the Court has interpreted it to include the prohibition of refoulement. Today, the ECHR is one of the most important juridical instruments for protection of asylum seekers throughout Europe. The main reason for this is that the principle of nonrefoulement under the Convention extends to inhuman and degrading behavior. This paper has placed its focus on the applicability of the ECHR to asylum cases, particularly the development and treatment of the principle of non-refoulement, as a form of complementary protection to those seeking asylum. This will be elaborated mainly through analysis of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. It will be shown that the principle of non-refoulement under the ECHR, as a barrier to removal, plays a significant complementary role regarding the protection of asylum seekers. It will also be shown that the jurisprudence of the ECtHR has important relevance to EU asylum law and policy. In this sense, a comparison between EU law and ECHR protection standards for asylum seekers will be elaborated as well. Finally, it will be concluded that EU Member States are faced with dual systems providing protection to asylum seekers, and a possible solution will be suggested in order to overcome this situation.

The Right to Benefit from an Effective Remedy against Decisions Implying the Return of Asylum-seekers to European Safe Countries

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Morgades-Gil
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
European Countries ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
The Right ◽  
Transfer Decisions

Abstract During the first phase of the ceas, the cjeu considered that asylum-seekers had only limited opportunities to appeal against decisions to transfer them to other European countries based on the Dublin system. This interpretation was contrary to the right to an effective remedy enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and recognised as a principle of eu Law. With the second phase of the ceas, the cjeu ruled on two judgements in June 2016 (Ghezelbash and Karim) in which asylum-seekers benefited from the right to an effective remedy against Dublin transfer decisions. The scope of the judicial review was not limited to cases where there was a risk of being subjected to inhuman treatment as a result of ‘systemic deficiencies’ in the procedures and reception conditions in the receiving country. This article argues that this shift in the jurisprudence of the cjeu restores asylum-seekers’ status as subjects of eu Law.

23. Freedom of Movement

2020 ◽  
pp. 629-646
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey ◽  
Pamela McCormick ◽  
Clare Ovey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the protection of the freedom of movement in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), explains the provisions of Protocols 4 and 7, and discusses the prohibition of expulsion of nationals and the right of entry to the territory of the State of nationality. It describes the complaints of violations of the freedom of movement provisions of Protocols 4 and 7, and analyses the Strasbourg Court’s interpretation of these provisions, considering the reasons given for restrictions of movement. The chapter also considers the case-law on the collective expulsion of asylum seekers and migrants who have sought protection in Europe.

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

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.

Introductory Note

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Raimondi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Public ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This article comments on four important judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights in 2016. Al-Dulimi v. Switzerland addresses the issue of how, in the context of sanctions regimes created by the UN Security Council, European states should reconcile their obligations under the UN Charter with their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to respect the fundamentals of European public order. Baka v. Hungary concerns the separation of powers and judicial independence, in particular the need for procedural safeguards to protect judges against unjustified removal from office and to protect their legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary is a judgment on the interpretation of the Convention, featuring a review of the “living instrument” approach. Avotiņš v. Latvia addresses the principle of mutual trust within the EU legal order and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.

The Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents in the Context of Employment

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Rodgers
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Employment Contracts ◽  
Domestic Servants ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

‘Ordinary’ employment contracts—including those of domestic servants—have been deemed to attract diplomatic immunity because they fall within the scope of diplomatic functions. This chapter highlights the potential for conflict between these forms of immunity and the rights of the employees, and reflects on cases in which personal servants of diplomatic agents have challenged both the existence of immunity and the scope of its application. The chapter examines claims that the exercise of diplomatic immunity might violate the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the way in which courts have dealt with these issues. The chapter analyses diplomats’ own employment claims and notes that they are usually blocked by the assertion of immunity, but also reflects on more recent developments in which claims had been considered which were incidental to diplomatic employment (eg Nigeria v Ogbonna [2012]).

The Right to Avoid Procreation and the Regulation of Pregnancy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janne Rothmar Herrmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Perspective ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Moral Obligations ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
European Consensus ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Right

This chapter discusses the right to avoid procreation and the regulation of pregnancy from a European perspective. The legal basis for a right to avoid procreation can be said to fall within the scope of several provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), an instrument that is binding for all European countries. Here, Article 12 of the ECHR gives men and women of marriageable age the right to marry and found a family in accordance with the national laws governing this right. However, Article 12 protects some elements of the right not to procreate, but for couples only. The lack of common European consensus in this area highlights how matters relating to the right to decide on the number and spacing of children touch on aspects that differ from country to country even in what could appear to be a homogenous region. In fact, the cultural, moral, and historical milieus that surround these rights differ considerably with diverse national perceptions of the role of the family, gender equality, religious and moral obligations, and so on.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document