Case Note on Nemtsov v. Russia with Particular Focus on the Misuse of State Power: The European Court of Human Rights at a Crossroads

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 321-329
Author(s):  
Martin Eibach
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
State Power ◽  
Case Note ◽  
European Court

scholarly journals Judicial impartiality, decorative comparative law and the Human Rights Court: ECtHR, Alexandru Marian Iancu v. Romania, Application No. 60858/15

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-396
Author(s):  
Jaakko Husa
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Rights Issues ◽  
Judicial Method

This case-note analyses the case of Alexandru Marian Iancu v. Romania, decided by the European Court of Human Rights in February 2020. The comment addresses two essential issues involved. The first issue concerns potential partiality of a judge who has been involved in overlapping proceedings. The second issue concerns the judicial method the Court uses in its reasoning. The note explains the background to the judgment, summarizing the facts leading to the judgment and the human rights issues before the Court. Then the proceedings before the Court and the Court’s decision are reviewed, before commenting on the judgment’s key points of significance for human rights law and use of comparative law as a part of human rights reasoning. The critical focus is on the comparative approach deployed by the Court.

Tyrer v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 1, European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Corporal Punishment ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Substantive Issue ◽  
European Court

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Tyrer v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 1, European Court of Human Rights. The substantive issue in this case concerned whether state-inflicted corporal punishment was a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In ruling on the issue, the Court also established an interpretive doctrine—the Convention as a ‘living instrument’—which is the focus of this case note. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Hirst v United Kingdom [2005] ECHR 681, European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Hirst v United Kingdom [2005] ECHR 681, European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber). This case note concerns the provisions limiting the voting rights of prisoners, and the extent to which the United Kingdom is bound to follow the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Case Note - Retrospective Preventive Detention in Germany: A Comment on the ECHR Decision Haidn v. Germany of 13 January 2011

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 968-977 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grischa Merkel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Preventive Detention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

In four judgements of 13 January 2011 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg returned to the issues raised in its earlier jurisprudence regarding preventive detention (“Sicherungsverwahrung”) under German criminal law. In its decision of 17 December 2009, M. v. Germany, the Court had held that the German Criminal Law's retroactive extension of confinement in preventive detention failed to meet the requirement of lawful detention “after conviction” under Art. 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter “the Convention”), and violates the prohibition of retroactivity (Art. 7 § 1 of the Convention). The articles read as follows:

Tyrer v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 1, European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Corporal Punishment ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Substantive Issue ◽  
European Court

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Tyrer v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 1, European Court of Human Rights. The substantive issue in this case concerned whether state-inflicted corporal punishment was a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In ruling on the issue, the Court also established an interpretive doctrine—the Convention as a ‘living instrument’—which is the focus of this case note. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26, House of Lords

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Religious Persecution ◽  
European Court ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Mirror Principle

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26, House of Lords. The substantive issue in this case concerned an unsuccessful claim for asylum on the basis of a fear of religious persecution. However, the focus of this case note is on Lord Bingham’s views on the extent to which the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights should influence the deliberations of the domestic courts in their application of the Human Rights Act 1998’via the ‘mirror principle’. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Hirst v United Kingdom [2005] ECHR 681, European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Hirst v United Kingdom [2005] ECHR 681, European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber). This case note concerns the provisions limiting the voting rights of prisoners, and the extent to which the United Kingdom is bound to follow the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25, European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Case Note ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Degrading Treatment

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25, European Court of Human Rights. This case concerned whether interrogation techniques employed by the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland between 1971 and 1975 amounted to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. More generally, the case note considers the differences between absolute, limited, and qualified rights. The case predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26, House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Religious Persecution ◽  
European Court ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Mirror Principle

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26, House of Lords. The substantive issue in this case concerned an unsuccessful claim for asylum on the basis of a fear of religious persecution. However, the focus of this case note is on Lord Bingham’s views on the extent to which the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights should influence the deliberations of the domestic courts in their application of the Human Rights Act 1998 via the ‘mirror principle’. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document