Georgia v. Russia (I)

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-173
Author(s):  
Bjorn Arp
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber

On July 3, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) rendered its judgment in Georgia v. Russia, concerning Russia’s collective expulsion of a large number of Georgian nationals between October 2006 and January 2007. The Court held that Russia had violated several provisions of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention or ECHR), in particular Article of Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR (prohibition of collective expulsions). Because the Russian government had failed to cooperate with the Court by providing relevant information, the Court also found a violation of Article 38 of the ECHR, which obliges states to furnish “all necessary facilities” for the effective conduct of the Court’s investigation of the case. The Court deferred its decision on the question of “just satisfaction” under Article 41 pending further submissions by the parties. This was the first of three interstate proceedings that Georgia has brought against Russia under the special procedure of Article 33, and it is the first decision on the merits of these cases.

Cyprus v. Turkey

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 393-399
Author(s):  
Alexia Solomou
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Missing Persons ◽  
European Court ◽  
Greek Cypriot ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
First Time

In a judgment rendered on May 12, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) ordered Turkey to pay Cyprus unprecedented sums for nonpecuniary damage suffered by the relatives of missing persons and by the “enclaved” Greek Cypriot residents of the Karpas Peninsula stemming from the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and its aftermath. In doing so, the Court applied Article 41 on just satisfaction of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention or Convention) to an interstate complaint for the first time.

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

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori G. Beaman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Symbol ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
European Tradition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
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

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samo Bardutzky
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
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.

Does Self-isolation Violate the Right to Liberty? An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ Practice in Light of the Ukrainian Experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 368-385
Author(s):  
Yana Litins’ka ◽  
Oleksandra Karpenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Stress Test ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Human Rights Practice ◽  
Rapid Action ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

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.

Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy. Application No. 27765/09

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 417-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irini Papanicolopulu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
Maritime Search And Rescue ◽  
The Right

In a unanimous judgment in the case Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) held that Italy’s “push back” operations interdicting intending migrants and refugees at sea and returning them to Libya amounted to a violation of the prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR or Convention), the prohibition of collective expulsions under Article 4 of Protocol 4 to the Convention, and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention. Hirsi Jamaa is the Court’s first judgment on the interception of migrants at sea and it addresses issues concerning the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, as well as the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

The ‘Iukos Affair’. The Russian Judiciary and the European Court of Human Rights

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence A. Groen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Undue Influence ◽  
European Court ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Structural Nature ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

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.

The European Court of Human Rights: Sabeh El Leil v. France

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Gilles Cuniberti
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Wrongful Dismissal

In Sabeh el Leil v. France, the European Court of Human Rights (‘‘ECtHR’’ or ‘‘the Court’’) ruled for the second time that a contracting state had violated the right to a fair trial afforded by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘‘Convention’’) by denying access to its courts to an embassy employee suing for wrongful dismissal on the grounds that the employer enjoyed sovereign immunity. The ECtHR had first ruled so a year earlier in Cudak v. Lithuania, where the plaintiff was also an embassy employee.

scholarly journals Challenge of Advocate’s Profession in the Age of Money Laundering, Terrorism Financing and Proliferation Evasion “Not to slip with a fragile burden!"

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (21) ◽  
pp. 139-148
Author(s):  
Sandra Joksta
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Money Laundering ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Terrorism Financing ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Joint Connection

Ability to perform advocate’s duty is irrevocably linked to advocate’s immunity concept. The article provides an insight about the scope of advocate’s immunity concept in the age of money laundering. The purpose of it is to analyse the modern tendency to overstep the red lines guarding this concept, when applying legal enactments for money laundering evasion purposes. In the article, the judgment of 19 November 2020 in case “Klaus Mueller vs Germany” made by European Court of Human Rights, is analysed, where the issue of advocate’s immunity was considered in joint connection with the Clause 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The sometimes-exaggerated need for transparency at all costs conflicts with privacy protection aspects of individuals. Legislative enactments of money laundering and terrorism financing and proliferation evasion systemically contradicts Law of Advocacy and causes collision with other norms of higher legal rank such as fundamental rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights to fair trial and justice and rights to choose an occupation and engage in work. Keywords: advocate’s immunity concept, advocate’s rights to professional secret and confidentiality, legal certainty, money laundering and terrorism financing and proliferation evasion, principle of sound legislation, uncertain privilege.

EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES OF LEGAL PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ECONOMIC COMMUNITY OF WEST AFRICAN STATES COURT

2021 ◽  
pp. 260-269
Author(s):  
Anna Yu. Vladykina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
West African ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Economic Community ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The article examines the criterion of the exhaustion of domestic remedies of legal protection in the context of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of the Economic Community of West African States in cases related to the protection of human rights. The article analyzes the norms of the European Convention for the Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the norms of the Agreement establishing the Court of the Economic Community of West African States and the Additional Protocol. The question is raised about the need to include a criterion for the exhaustion of local remedies of legal protection in the Court of the Economic Community of West African States in cases related to the protection of human rights. The article also analyzes the position of the Court of the Economic Community of West African States on the issue of the absence of the criterion of exhaustion of domestic remedies of legal protection, examines the jurisprudence. The author concludes that the position of the ECOWAS Court on the acceptability of the exhaustion of the local remedies criterion is positive for the region, while at the same time calls for the court to establish a department staffed with experts to focus on human rights cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document