scholarly journals The right to peaceful enjoyment of property and the security measure of the forfeiture of cash in the jurisprudence of the Serbian Constitutional Court: Certain uncertainty

Pravni zapisi ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 620-644
Author(s):  
Tamás Korhecz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Cash Transfer ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Security Measure ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The right to peaceful enjoyment of property is a first-generation human right, protected by the international and domestic law of the highest rank. This is not an absolute right - the European standards of protecting property rights allow possible interferences prescribed by law. The interferences can be made in the public interest but only under the assumption that the proportionality between the public interest and property rights of individuals at stake is established. Forfeiture of undeclared cash the individuals are transferring across state borders, together with imposing fines for a misdemeanor, represent an interference with individuals' property rights. The EU Member States do not share an identical system of sanctions for this petty offense, but there is a tendency of unification related to the monitoring, registering, and sanctioning of undeclared, cross-border, individual cash transfer. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has established rather precise criteria for distinguishing permitted from unpermitted interferences in cases of undeclared cross-border cash transfers. The Serbian Constitutional Court has been faced with several constitutional complaints regarding alleged unconstitutionally of the imposed security measure amounting to the forfeiture of undeclared cash physically transferred across the state borders. The Constitutional Court has ruled inconsistently on the matter. Although it has regularly referred to the European Court of Human Rights' relevant decisions, it fails to be consistent in following the Strasbourg Court's rulings. In this article, the author has suggested that the legal certainty principle requires the Constitutional Court to consistently interpret the constitutional rights and be systematic in following Strasbourg. Only in this way, the Constitutional Court can help regular courts effectively to harmonize the interpretation and application of laws with the constitutional and international human rights standards regarding property rights.

Reconstructing the European Court of Human Rights’ Article 8 Jurisprudence in Deportation Cases: The Family’s Right and the Public Interest

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 333-360
Author(s):  
Jonathan Collinson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

Abstract This article rationalises the case law of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in deportation cases involving children. The Court engages in a balancing exercise between the right to family life of the deportee’s family on the one side, and the public interest in deportation on the other. This article expands on existing case law analysis by suggesting that in deportation cases, the Court considers Article 8 as a form of commonly held right, rather than an individual right held by one member of the family. Furthermore, the balance is argued to be constructed as a relationship between two factors on both sides, rather than of a sole factor on either side as being determinative. This article concludes that the best interests of the child (one of the ‘Üner criteria’) is not adequately reflected in the Court’s deportation decision-making practice.

scholarly journals Land Acquisition for Public Interests: A Review from the Human Rights Context

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Yesi Nurmantiyas Sari ◽  
Rizal Nugroho ◽  
Al Khanif
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Land Acquisition ◽  
The Public ◽  
The People ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

Land acquisition for public purposes is an activity intended for the public interest that uses community land. To be able to carry out development in the public interest, the government uses state land. If state land is not sufficient or cannot maximize development, the government can use land from individuals or groups by carrying out the land acquisition. In implementing land acquisition, the land acquisition team must pay attention to the rights of the people affected by land acquisition. Irregularities that often occur in the implementation of land acquisition are related to discrimination, intimidation, and violence. These rights are included in human rights, which must be upheld and protected because this is closely related to property rights. Human rights give an understanding that the right to own something is the right of every citizen, including the right to own land is one of the human rights inherent in each person per person in groups. While property rights must not be taken arbitrarily and against the law, such matters are regulated in Article 28H of the 1945 Constitution. This paper concludes that the construction activities of the New Yogyakarta International Airport (NYIA) carried out violated human rights; this is because the land acquisition team has committed violence, discrimination, and violence against the people affected by land acquisition. The form of legal protection provided by the government is proper compensation. 

Austrian Constitutional Court: Vegan Landowner Must Tolerate Hunting on his Property

ICL Journal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-137
Author(s):  
Nina Palmstorfer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Comprehensive Management ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

Abstract It follows from the settled case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that the legal obligation of landowners to tolerate hunting on their property, although they oppose hunting on ethical grounds, may constitute a violation of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions. On the occasion of a landowner’s constitutional complaint the Austrian Constitutional Court assessed such obligation under the Carinthian Hunting Act and came to a different conclusion. In Austria there was a particular public interest in the comprehensive management of game which justifies the obligation to tolerate hunting despite of one’s beliefs. The landowner’s possibility to have the hunt suspended on land that is fully enclosed by a stable fence provided for in the provision was considered appropriate in order to protect the owners’ ethical interests. The Austrian Constitutional Court thus found that the compulsory hunting on one’s land in Carinthia does not violate Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the ECHR.

scholarly journals Comparative analysis of the approaches of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights to the protection of property rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 168-175
Author(s):  
A. A. Drozdov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article substantiates the leading role of the right of private property in the economic system of a state with a market economy, and therefore points to the need to comply with increased guarantees of its protection. It also states that there are problems with the protection of property rights. Then the author substantiates the obligation for all Russian authorities of the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights. A comparative analysis of these positions and approaches to the protection of property rights leads the author to the conclusion that the goal of their harmonization has been partially achieved. In order to increase the effectiveness of the protection of rights, it is necessary to further implement the approaches of the European Court, which increase the guarantees of protection, into the Russian legal system, and it is also necessary to consider the issue of introducing point changes into Russian legislation taking into account these approaches.

CIVIL AND LEGAL LIABILITY OF JUDGES

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaroslav Skoromnyy ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Pension System ◽  
Legal Liability ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Model Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

The article presents the conceptual foundations of bringing judges to civil and legal liability. It was found that the civil and legal liability of judges is one of the types of legal liability of judges. It is determined that the legislation of Ukraine provides for a clearly delineated list of the main cases (grounds) for which the state is liable for damages for damage caused to a legal entity and an individual by illegal actions of a judge as a result of the administration of justice. It has been proved that bringing judges to civil and legal liability, in particular on the basis of the right of recourse, provides for the payment of just compensation in accordance with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. It was established that the bringing of judges to civil and legal liability in Ukraine is regulated by such legislative documents as the Constitution of Ukraine, the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Explanatory Note to the European Charter on the Status of Judges (Model Code), the Law of Ukraine «On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges», the Law of Ukraine «On the procedure for compensation for harm caused to a citizen by illegal actions of bodies carrying out operational-search activities, pre-trial investigation bodies, prosecutors and courts», Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional submission of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the compliance of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of certain provisions of Article 2, paragraph two of clause II «Final and transitional provisions» of the Law of Ukraine «On measures to legislatively ensure the reform of the pension system», Article 138 of the Law of Ukraine «On the judicial system and the status of judges» (the case on changes in the conditions for the payment of pensions and monthly living known salaries of judges lagging behind in these), the Law of Ukraine «On the implementation of decisions and the application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights».

The Electronic Surveillance of Public Assemblies

2011 ◽  
pp. 59-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haralambos Anthopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Electronic Surveillance ◽  
Combined Analysis ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
Political Views ◽  
Protection Legislation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Shed Light

The electronic surveillance of public assemblies has been an issue highly debated in the Greek public arena. The circumstances that brought this internationally contested topic in the public focus were the parliamentary introduction of Law 3625/2007 in Greece and the legislative enactment of an exemption from the data protection legislation for all police activities involving data processing during public assemblies. This paper will argue that the electronic surveillance of public assemblies affects both the privacy of political views (political privacy) and the activism (public anonymity) of a citizen. Along this line, the paper offers a combined analysis of the right to data protection [Art. 9A] and the right to free assembly [Art. 11] as acknowledged in the Greek Constitution (1975/86/01/08). As underlined, both rights constitute the basis for the protection of political privacy and public anonymity and preclude any legislatively posed limitations to their enjoyment. In the end, three key cases of the European Court of Human Rights shed light to the legitimacy of such a ‘panoptic’ surveillance of public assemblies.

Much Ado About Human Rights: The Federal Constitutional Court Confronts the European Court of Human Rights

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 869-894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Hartwig
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Court

On October 14, 2004 the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – German Federal Constitutional Court) delivered a judgment which gave rise to vivid reactions in the mass media and to a dispute between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the German Federal Constitutional Court. In interviews, members of the Strasbourg court spoke about their disappointment in the German Court's unwillingness to implement decisions of the ECtHR while members of the German court referred to the necessity to respect national particularities. Whereas, normally, the ECtHR and the constitutional courts of the Member States of the Council of Europe are fighting side by side for human rights and, therefore, consider themselves as natural allies, this time their decisions, which seem to be incompatible, led to a dispute which attracted as much public interest as a film or theatre premiere.

scholarly journals The United Kingdom’s Coronavirus Act, deprivations of liberty, and the right to liberty and security of the person

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Pugh
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

Abstract In response to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic the UK government has passed the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CA). Among other things, this act extends existing statutory powers to impose restrictions of liberty for public health purposes. The extension of such powers naturally raises concerns about whether their use will be compatible with human rights law. In particular, it is unclear whether their use will fall within the public heath exception to the Article 5 right to liberty and security of the person in the European Convention of Human Rights. In this paper, I outline key features of the CA, and briefly consider how the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the public health exception to Article 5 rights. This analysis suggests two grounds on which restrictions of liberty enforced some under the CA might be vulnerable to claims of Article 5 rights violations. First, the absence of specified time limits on certain restrictions of liberty means that they may fail the requirement of legal certainty championed by the European Court in its interpretation of the public health exception. Second, the Coronavirus Act’s extension of powers to individuals lacking public health expertise may undermine the extent to which the act will ensure that deprivations of liberty are necessary and proportionate.

scholarly journals La inútil prolongación de la agonía del artículo 294 de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (Comentario a las SSTC 8/2017, de 19 de enero, y 10/2017, de 30 de enero)

2017 ◽  
pp. 269-291
Author(s):  
Silvia DEL SAZ
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

LABURPENA: Giza Eskubideen Europako Auzitegiaren jurisprudentziaren ondorioz, Konstituzio Auzitegiak aurreko doktrina zuzendu behar izan du. Horretarako, errugabetasun-presuntziorako eskubidearen irismena zabaldu behar izan du, eta, administrazio-ebazpen zehatzaileetatik eta zigor-epaietatik harago, kalte-ordaina ukatzen duten erabakietara zabaldu du hori, Botere Judizialaren Lege Organikoaren 294. artikuluak eskatzen duen bezalaxe, errugabetasun-presuntzioaren printzipioa ezarri ostean akusatua absolbitu egin den baina delituzko egintzak egon ez zirela frogatu ez den kasuetarako. RESUMEN: Fruto de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, el Tribunal Constitucional se ha visto obligado a rectificar su doctrina anterior extendiendo el alcance del derecho a la presunción de inocencia, más allá de las resoluciones administrativas sancionadoras y sentencias penales, a los pronunciamientos que, tal y como exige el art. 294 LOPJ, deniegan la indemnización en atención a que el acusado fue absuelto en aplicación del principio de presunción de inocencia sin que haya quedado probado que los hechos delictivos no existieron. ABSTRACT: As a result of the case law by the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court was compelled to rectify its former doctrine by broadening the scope of the right to the presumption of innocence beyond punitive administrative resolutions and criminal judgments to rulings that as art. 294 of Judiciary Act requires, deny the award of damages on the ground that the accused was acquitted due to the application of the principle of innocence without having been proved that the criminal offences did not exist.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document