scholarly journals Ne bis in idem in the jurisprudence of the European Court on Human Rights with special emphasis on the case Milenković v. Serbia

Eudaimonia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 53-92
Author(s):  
Ana Zdravković
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Human Right ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Criminal Protection ◽  
Domestic Case

In comparative and domestic case law, individuals are often being criminally prosecuted for actions that also contain elements of misdemeanours or other administrative or disciplinary offenses, for which they have already been trialed and even punished. This is evidentially a violation of the ne bis in idem principle, which represents not only one of the basic pillars of criminal law, but also internationally protected human right. Therefore, through analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular Milenković v. Serbia case, together with the stands of domestic courts on the topic at hand, it will be illustrated that inadequate application of the prohibition against double jeopardy necessarily leads to inadequate criminal protection, shortage of just satisfaction for victims and undermining of legal certainty.

Формалізація та алгоритмізація як шляхи забезпечення правильного застосування практики Європейського суду з прав людини

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
Author(s):  
О. В. Білоус
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Fundamental Freedom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

Referring to the Supreme Court of Ukraine Grand Chamber’s jurisprudence in administrative cases the author suggests that domestic courts of Ukraine systematically apply the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Court of Human Rights case-law in manner which is non-uniform, unmotivated, irrelevant and erroneous in essence, which is incompatible with the rule of law dictating clear, foreseeable, and adequately accessible national law to enable individuals to act in accordance with the law. In particular, the author exemplifies the foregoing with Supreme Court of Ukraine Grand Chamber’s judgments, in which European Court of Human Rights case-law was applied: in cases concerning solely the two public administration bodies; in cases with no legal connection with any conventional human right and fundamental freedom; without any meaningful attempt to articulate conclusions or guidelines relating to specific way to use provisions of Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Court of Human Rights case-law in context of a particular case or in abstract and as well manner, in which that is to be used by domestic courts in further cases. With a view to prevent such occurrences the author maintains that there is a pressing need to formalize and algorithmize ways of application of these sources of law. There are some best practices to serve as a starting point for these rules such as the approach of Ukrainian courts to initially consider the case bearing in mind national statutes and other legislation and, subsequently, assess whether the way to solve the case determined by national law aligns with Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Court of Human Rights case-law.

The European Court of Human Rights and Removal of Long-term Migrants

2021 ◽  
pp. 159-174
Author(s):  
Başak Çalı ◽  
Stewart Cunningham
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Unique Position ◽  
European Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Central Argument ◽  
The Right ◽  
Dual Commitment

This chapter analyses the general interpretative outlook of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the rights of long-term migrants facing deportation. It shows that this outlook is strongly marked by recognising the primacy of state discretion in the field of migration policy, while at the same time ensuring that long-term migrants are given access to the protection of the Convention. The chapter then surveys the case law of the ECtHR related to the deportation of long-term migrants, identifying the factors that the Court employs in balancing its dual commitment to states and long-term migrants. The central argument of the chapter is that the Court’s approach to the right to stay of long-term migrants falls short of adequately recognising the unique position of long-term migrants and is unable to differentiate between those who have lived for lengthy periods in host states and any other category of alien in those states. The Court’s recent emphasis on principled deference to domestic courts in balancing the rights of long-term migrants and host states further undercuts any future progressive developments in the field of right to stay for long-term migrants.

scholarly journals State Practice as Element of Customary International Law: A White Knight in International Criminal Law?

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 784-804
Author(s):  
Harmen van der Wilt
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
State Practice

Inter-state practice is relatively scarce in the area of human rights and international criminal law. This article ventures to inquire how this has affected the process of identification of customary international law by international criminal tribunals and courts. The main conclusion is that the two components of customary international law – opinio juris and state practice – have become blurred. In search of customary international law, international tribunals have resorted to national legislation and case law of domestic courts. These legal artefacts can be qualified as both evidence of state practice and opinio juris. The author attempts to explain the reasons for this development and holds that, if properly applied, the methodology, while seemingly messy, comports with the nature of international criminal law.

Ne Bis Interpretatio In Idem?The Two Faces of theNe Bis In IdemPrinciple in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Rosanò
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Regional Custom

The meaning ofidemin thene bis in idemprinciple is controversial in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In interpreting the provision of Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, the court has emphasized the necessary requirement in the identity of the material acts while in antitrust law three requirements have been deemed necessary: (1) Identity of the facts, (2) unity of offender, and (3) unity of the legal interest protected. Despite the opinions of some Advocates General, the court has confirmed different interpretations of the same principle, depending on differences of the legal scope in question. A few years ago, however, the European Court of Human Rights proclaimed the criterion based on the identity of the material acts as the most suitable. This might push the Court of Justice of the European Union to correct its position in the antitrust field. Should this happen, this adjustment might serve as grounds to recognize the existence of a regional custom concerning thene bis in idemprinciple.

scholarly journals (In)formal Migrant Settlements and Right to Respect for a Home

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 335-369
Author(s):  
Lieneke Slingenberg ◽  
Louise Bonneau
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Cities ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Case

Abstract Across European cities, migrants without access to state facilities, resort to living in ‘makeshift camps’ or squats. These settlements are usually evacuated and demolished by state authorities. Instead of discussing the state’s positive obligation to provide decent housing, this article focusses solely on the state’s negative obligations under the right to respect for a home as laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (echr). Drawing upon the cases of Calais and Amsterdam, this article scrutinizes domestic case law about evictions from (in)formal migrant settlements and compares that to case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). We argue that the ECtHR case law provides a relevant framework that should be used to evaluate the legitimacy of evictions and destructions of (in)formal migrants’ settlements. Despite the fact that applying this framework would not entail a complete ban on evictions, it would provide some welcome (procedural and substantive) protection for migrants.

scholarly journals RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE UNDER ARTICLE 8 ECHR IN IMMIGRATION CASES: A HUMAN RIGHT TO REGULARIZE ILLEGAL STAY?

2008 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Thym
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Immigration Laws ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

AbstractApplying the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to immigration cases has always been a balancing exercise between the effective protection of human rights and the Contracting States' autonomy to regulate migration flows. In its recent case law, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR) has considerably extended the protective scope of Article 8 ECHR by granting autonomous human rights protection to the long-term resident status independent of the existence of family bonds under the heading of ‘private life’. This has important repercussions for the status of legal and illegal immigrants across Europe, since the new case law widens the reach of human rights law to the legal conditions for leave to remain, effectively granting several applicants a human right to regularize their illegal stay. The contribution analyses the new case law and develops general criteria guiding the application of the ECHR to national immigration laws and the new EU harmonization measures adopted in recent years.

scholarly journals Right to abortion in modern law and in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 159-170
Author(s):  
Majida Lubura
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Safe Abortion ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
The Right

A basic human right - the right to life, even today faces numerous questions when it comes to its scope. One of those questions is the issue of the right to abortion, which is the subject of numerous controversies among lawyers, philosophers, medical workers, theologists, as well as among citizens in the broadest sense. Debates that exist in various scientific disciplines indicate the complexity of these issues that needs to be legally regulated at the domestic and international level. For that reason, it is necessary to follow and study the judgments of international bodies that have been passed in connection with this issue. As the most developed system of Human Rights protection has been established within the European Convention on Human Rights, and at the same time the most relevant for our country, in this paper the author studies the current practice of the European Court of Human Rights related to the right to abortion. It is evident, from the case law presented in this paper that the Court had a very delicate and difficult task to balance between diametrically opposing rights and interests of various interested parties. The Court's judgments show a consensus only regarding the question of the existence of the right to abortion in cases where the right to life and health of women is endangered. Opponents of abortion claim that in this case, it is not the right to abortion, but the right to life of a woman and that only then an abortion is allowed and justified to be performed, as well as that it is a conclusion that can be deduced from the Court's case law. However, the author of this paper believes that even though the practice of the court is quite neutral, it still tends more towards granting the right to safe abortion.

scholarly journals ‘To me, fair friend, you can never be old’, William Shakespeare, ‘Sonnet 104’: ECHR at 70 Rudolf Bernhardt Lecture, 202

2021 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 895-916
Author(s):  
Başak Çalı
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
William Shakespeare ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Good Proxy ◽  
Mature Part ◽  
Over Time

This article undertakes a survey of the changes in the structure of the interpretive doctrines of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) over time in an exploration of the aging of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention) on its 70th anniversary. It argues that the Court’s interpretive doctrines that seek to give due deference to national rights traditions, canons and institutions have become increasingly pervasive in the Court’s procedural and substantive case law in the last two decades. This, in particular, has come at a loss for interpretative doctrines that interpret the Convention as a practical and effective living pan-European instrument. This argument is built in four parts. First it offers a defence of why a study of the interpretive doctrines of the Court over time is a good proxy for studying the ECHR’s ageing process. In the second part, it discusses the rich doctrinal forms of due deference and effective interpretation in the case law of the Court – both young and mature. Part three explains how the judicialisation and expansion of the European human rights system in late 1990 s transitioned to a more heightened and sophisticated focus on due deference doctrines in the Court’s case law. Finally, part four examines whether the recent judicial innovations under the Court’s Article 18 case law and the widely celebrated success of increased ownership of the Convention by domestic courts can act as counter points to the argument that the effective interpretation principle has suffered a loss as the Convention has aged, concluding that none of this may offset the fact that the Convention at 70 is more conservative in spirit than its younger self.

scholarly journals Study of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in criminal law matters

2007 ◽  
Vol 79 (9) ◽  
pp. 371-395
Author(s):  
Momčilo Grubač
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Inadmissible Evidence ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Case Files ◽  
The Right

This study includes certain number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that relate to the criminal procedural matters, primarily those constituting the right to a fair trial provided in Article 6 of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. These decisions were analyzed and interpreted in order to establish the practice of the Court in these procedural matters and to enable us to evaluate whether domestic criminal procedural law and its application are in line with this practice. The author dealt with the issues of prohibition to institute legal action twice for the same cause of action (ne bis in idem), immunities and privileges, right to court access, exclusion of inadmissible evidence from the criminal case files, right to the impartial court and right of defense to call and interrogate witnesses.

scholarly journals Deprivation of Liberty and Human Dignity in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Spano
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Penal Policy ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Life Sentence

In its landmark 2013 judgment of Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that a life sentence which is not de jure and de facto reducible amounts to a breach of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading punishment, as enshrined in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The author, a judge of the Strasbourg Court, analyses the Vinter judgment both as it stands alone as well as how it fits into and, now, influences the Court’s case-law on Article 3 and 5 of the Convention, before reviewing the procedural requirements laid down by the Court for a ‘Vinter review’ of life sentences. In doing so, the author examines the underlying tensions between the conception of penal policy as falling within the exclusive domain of domestic decision-making and the individualistic and dignitarian notion of human rights in which the Convention system is firmly grounded. The article is based on the 2016 Bergen Lecture on Criminal Law and Criminal Justice which the author gave on 26 October 2016 at the Faculty of Law, University of Bergen. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document