scholarly journals McCann and others v. The United Kingdom and positive obligations pertaining to the planning and control of the operations of law enforcement in line with article 2 of the ECHR

2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (3) ◽  
pp. 665-699
Author(s):  
Darija Martinov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Planning And Control ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
And Control

Positive obligations are obligations of the Member States of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to take active steps to protect the rights guaranteed by this Convention. When it comes to the protection of the right to life, as one of the basic human rights, the case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom set a precedent and established new obligations for States party to the Convention when it comes to planning and conducting law enforcement operations. The manner in which these obligations were established, their scope and content, as well as the comments from jurisprudence and practitioners on this innovative judgment, are the subject of the analysis of this paper.

Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom

2012 ◽  
Vol 106 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miša Zgonec-Rožej
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

In Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom, decided on July 7, 2011, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (the Court) found that the human rights obligations of the United Kingdom applied to its actions in Iraq and that the United Kingdom had violated Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention or ECHR) by failing to investigate the circumstances of the deaths of the relatives of five of the six applicants. The case deals with the extraterritorial application in Iraq of the Convention, which is part of UK domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, 1998, and involves the concepts of jurisdiction, effective control, and the scope of the right to life.

Overruling ‘the Salduz Doctrine’ in Beuze v Belgium: The ECtHR’s further retreat from the Salduz principles on the right to access to lawyer

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-362
Author(s):  
Ergul Celiksoy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Increasing Trend ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

In November 2018, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Beuze v Belgium. Relying on Ibrahim and Others v the United Kingdom, the Grand Chamber held that the Salduz principles require a two-stage test of analysis, and hence, ruled out that systematic statutory restriction of a general and mandatory nature would in itself constitute an automatic violation of Article 6 § 3(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Beuze judgment appears to be very controversial, since the Grand Chamber failed to put forward any convincing reason why it departed from previous case law, particularly Dayanan v Turkey and other judgments against Turkey. In their separate opinion, the concurring Judges in Beuze were concerned that the Beuze judgment overruled ‘ Salduz itself and all other cases that have applied the Salduz test’, and thus, ‘actually distorts and changes the Salduz principle and devalues the right that the Court established previously’. This article analyses the Beuze judgment in the light of the Court’s recent jurisprudence in order to examine whether it contradicts and dilutes the principles previously set out. Further, it discusses the implications of the new standards established in Ibrahim and Others and in subsequent cases, particularly Beuze. Particular attention is paid to the questions of how ‘fair’ is the application of overall fairness assessment in every case, how may the Court’s changing direction of approach concerning the right to access to a lawyer affect the increasing trend of recognition thereof, as a rule, by the contracting states, and finally, to what extent the new principles, especially those established in Beuze, comply with Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer.

scholarly journals After the Honeymoon: The Uneasy Marriage of Human Rights and the Environment Under the European Convention on Human Rights and in UK Law Under the Human Rights Act 1998

2014 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. 317-368
Author(s):  
Karen Morrow
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Law

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) (ECHR) regime has, in the absence of specific coverage of environmental rights, developed a “creative” approach in its jurisprudence in this area, pressing a variety of other rights, notably: Article 6 (the right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (the right to privacy and family life); and Article 1 to the First Protocol of the ECHR (the right to enjoyment of property) into service. This creativity has achieved much in according indirect protection to individuals in this regard, but has also placed additional pressure on the already congested Convention system. The entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) made long-held rights under the ECHR directly accessible in domestic law in the United Kingdom. This naturally spawned a wave of litigation. One of the most prominently litigated areas concerned the pursuit of a variety of environment-based rights claims. In the intervening decade, the application of the ECHR to environmental claims in the UK courts has generated somewhat mixed results. This is in part a result of the “patchwork” approach that has developed toward environmental claims within the Convention regime itself, but it is also a product of the nature of the relationship between the ECHR and domestic law and the content and ethos of both regimes. This article will conclude by briefly considering the on-going role of the ECHR regime in environmental cases in light of subsequent developments in this area of law, notably under the Aarhus Convention.

scholarly journals Internet and freedom of expression in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 1023-1042
Author(s):  
Ljiljana Mijović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Internet ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
And Control

Internet as a means of communication, whatever the type of information it might be used for, falls within the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. As established in the European Court's case law, freedom of expression constitutes one of the essentials of a democratic society, therefore limitations on that freedom foreseen in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention are to be interpreted strictly. In order to ensure effective protection of one's freedom of expression on the Internet, States bear a positive obligation to create an appropriate regulatory framework, balancing the right to freedom of expression on one and the limitations prescribed in Article 10 § 2, on the other hand. Special attention in doing so is to be paid to the risk of harm posed by content and communications on the Internet to the exercise and enjoyment of other human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention, particularly the right to respect for private life. While it is the fact that the electronic network, serving billions of users worldwide, will never be subject to the same regulations and control, because of the national authorities' margin of appreciation, the European Court established commonly applicable general principles regarding the Internet as a media of exercising right to freedom of expression.

scholarly journals A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PRACTICE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND MALAYSIA IN RESPECT OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nazli Ismail @ Nawang
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Great Influence ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

International law, particularly treaties on human rights, has great influence on the development of the right to freedom of expression. The application of international treaties is very much dependant on the constitutions of individual countries and these constitutions to a large extent are dissimilar from one to another. The position in the United Kingdom is relatively unique since the country has no codified written constitution to safeguard the fundamental right to freedom of expression and as a result it was regarded as residual in nature. Nonetheless, the provisions of the international treaties, particularly the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) have altered this position and accordingly freedom of expression has been formally incorporated into the UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Meanwhile, the international human rights treaties is considered to have less influence in Malaysia arguably since the country has a written constitution (the Federal Constitution) that contains a specific part on fundamental liberties including the right to freedom of expression. Keywords: International law, treaties, freedom of expression.

scholarly journals Problems of Translation of Provisions of International Treaties Illustrated by The Example of Article 6 of the European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 265-276
Author(s):  
Iwona Wrońska
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Language Translation ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Official Languages ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Problems Of Translation

Abstract The subject of these reflections is the analysis of issues concerning language translation of the treaty and connotations connected therewith of the meaning of legal regulations. As an example here one can cite Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, prepared in the two official languages of the Council of Europe, i.e. English and French. The problems of interpretation of Article 6, which regulates the right to a fair trial, resulted from the official translation of the term “prawo do sprawiedliwego procesu sądowego” (the right to a just trial). This triggered a quite widespread discussion in the Polish doctrine as to whether the English term “fair” should be translated as “sprawiedliwy”. Moreover, on the basis of a translation so constructed other proposals of the concept in Article 6 appeared in the literature on the subject, such as “uczciwy” (honest), “słuszny” (right) or “praworządny” (lawful) trial. The article presents the argumentation of Polish lawyers on adopting the aforementioned terms, demonstrating how the language used in translation of the treaty may affect the accurate understanding of legal terminology.

scholarly journals Licensed to kill…discourse? agents provocateurs and a purposive right to freedom of expression

2021 ◽  
pp. 092405192110334
Author(s):  
Katie Pentney
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Perception ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Police Services ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Scant Attention ◽  
The Right

Undercover police operations have emerged from the shadows and into the spotlight in the United Kingdom as a result of a public inquiry into undercover policing and the enactment of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act. The inquiry has revealed troubling details about the ways intelligence and police services have wielded their powers to infiltrate and undermine political groups and social movements over the course of five decades. The problem is not exclusive to the United Kingdom, but is seen the world over. Yet despite the widescale nature of the problem, the legality of agents provocateurs – undercover officers who infiltrate social and political movements to manipulate their messaging, instigate violent tactics and undermine public perception – has received scant attention in legal scholarship or the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. This article capitalises on the current spotlight to suggest that agents provocateurs can and should be conceived of as (potential) violations of the right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. A purposive approach is required to ensure protection for not only the means of expression – the exchange of information and ideas – but also the ends – vibrant democratic discourse and meaningful public debate.

scholarly journals CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN DECISIONS REGARDING NON-COMPLIANCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-46
Author(s):  
Dzhuzha О. M. ◽  
◽  
Melnychenko І. P. ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The article provides a legal analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in such cases like “Vinter and Others v. The United Kingdom”, “Hutchinson v. The United Kingdom”. The European Court of Human Rights has established key standards for those sentenced to life imprisonment, compliance with which will ensure that this type of punishment meets the requirements of the Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Such standards are: 1) sentencing of life imprisonment is not prohibited and does not conflict with the Article 3 or any other article of the Convention. The imposition of “non-reducible” life imprisonment may raise questions of compliance with the requirements of the Article 3 of the Convention; 2) in decision making whether life imprisonment can be considered as “non-reducible”, it is necessary to establish whether the person convicted to life imprisonment had any prospect of release. If national law provides for the possibility of reviewing life imprisonment regarding its mitigating, reducing, terminating or releasing, this is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of th Article 3 of the Convention; 3) for the purposes of the Article 3 of the Convention it is sufficient that life imprisonment is reducible de jure and de facto; 4) European penitentiary policy is currently focusing on the correctional purpose of imprisonment, in particular until the end of long prison sentences; 5) at the very beginning of the sentence a person convicted to life imprisonment has the right to know what he must do to consider the possibility of his release and under what conditions the sentence will be reviewed or also in what order a request to this may be made; 6) if domestic law does not provide for any mechanism or possibility to review life imprisonment, then the non-compliance with the requirements of the Article 3 of the Convention occurs at the time of imposition of life imprisonment and not at a later stage. The importance of such standards separating of the European Court of Human Rights for the national theory and practice of life imprisonment is that these provisions are effective guidelines for determining the prospects of releasing from sentencing in the form life imprisonment. Key words: European Court of Human Rights, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, case law, convict, life imprisonment.

scholarly journals E.T. Phoned Home…They Know

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 92-112
Author(s):  
Holly Huxtable
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Big Brother ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Regime ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

The rationale behind the applicability of human rights treaties to foreign surveillance is the subject of debate. Presented with the opportunity to weigh in on this issue in the case of Big Brother Watch and Others v The United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights simply assumed (and rightly so) that the European Convention on Human Rights applies, providing no further reasoning. This article explores the challenges that arise with establishing jurisdiction over foreign surveillance under human rights treaties, and argues for an alternative base for extraterritorial jurisdiction grounded in the moral and theoretical principles underlying the human rights regime.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document