scholarly journals Derechos de los reclusos en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos // Inmates’ rights Caselaw in the European Court of Human Rights

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (102) ◽  
pp. 333 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Pablo Sancha Díez
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Second World

Resumen:A pesar de las reticencias de los Estados Partes del CEDH de ceder verdaderas porciones de soberanía, o por mejor decir, de ius puniendi estatales, al Consejo de Europa, de la problemática de la ejecución de las sentencias del TEDH al estar en manos del Comité de Ministros, un órgano político, intergubernamental y no jurisdiccional , disociándose así las funciones de juzgar y hacer ejecutar lo juzgado, al carecer el TEDH de facultades anulatorias o revocatorias de las resoluciones y actuaciones internas vulneradoras de derechos recogidos en el Convenio, y de la inexistencia de un catálogo de derechos fundamentales penitenciarios, recogidos por un lado en instrumentos internacionales de ius cogens, es decir, imperativos, y por otro, en Resoluciones y Recomendaciones meramente programáticas, carentes de fuerza obligatoria (vgr. Reglas Penitenciarias Europeas), hemos de reconocer que el TEDH ha venido cumpliendo dignamente el mandato de protección de los derechos y libertades contenidos en el Convenio, y muy especialmente respecto de los derechos de las personas privadas de libertad, y por ende, de los reclusos. Del análisis de la profusa jurisprudencia del TEDH se infiere que las garantías normativas de los presos consagradas en el CEDH, para no ser teóricas e ilusorias, sino reales y efectivas, han tenido que ser ampliadas, perfiladas y completadas por una serie de garantías jurisdiccionales, a través de un sistema o mecanismo jurisdiccional pretoriano, que debemos calificar de verdadera obra pretoriana del TEDH, y que fue cristalizándose o codificándose en los diversos Protocolos modificativos. Se convendrá, pues, fácilmente, que el grado de protección de los derechos humanos logrado en el ámbito del Consejo de Europa no tiene parangón en relación con otros sistemas universales o regionales nacidos con el mismo cometido, al albur de los procesos de humanización de los sistemas penitenciarios y de internacionalización de los derechos humanos, que tienen lugar a partir de la Segunda Guerra Mundial.Summary:1. Introduction. 2. Judicial protection of human rights and its internationalisationprocess: ECHR. 2.1. The execution of the ECHR issue. 3. Analysis of the inmates’ rights in the ECHR caselaw. 3.1. The ECHR caselaw regarding inmates in spain. 3.2. Excursus on the parot doctrine. 3.3. ECHR caselaw regarding inmates out of spain. 4. Final remarks.Abstract:Despite the reluctance of the State Parties of the ECHR to cede actual portions of their sovereignty or, more specifically, of their state ius punendi in favour of the Council of Europe; the issue of the ECHR sentences execution (given to the fact that this is carried out by the Committee of Ministers, a political, intergovernmental and non-judicial organ, dissociating then the tasks of judging and executing what has been judge); the lack of revocation powers by the ECHR regarding the resolutions and internal decisions relating to the violations of the Convention; the lack of an inventory of the fundamental rights included in ius cogens (i.e. imperative) international tools, and the only pragmatic non-compulsory Resolutions and Recommendations (e.g. European Prison Rules), wemust admit that the ECHR has been worthily fulfilling its mandate of protecting the rights and freedoms contained in the Convention and, specially, regarding the rights of those deprived of liberty and consequently, of the inmates.The analysis of the extensive ECHR caselaw infers that the safeguards of the rights of inmates enshrined in the European Council, in order to be real and effective, instead of theoretical or illusory, must have been extended, shaped and completed by a set of judiciary safeguards. This has been possible thanks to a Praetorian judiciary system which must be considered as a real Praetorian work by the ECHR and which has been the object of many amending Protocols. Thus, it can be easily concluded that the level of protection of the human rights achieved by the Council of Europe is unparalleled if compared with other universal or local systems similarly conceived as a result of the human right penitentiary and internationalisation systems developed after the Second World War.

scholarly journals Derechos de los reclusos en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos

2018 ◽  
pp. 455 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Pablo Sancha Díez
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Council ◽  
World War ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Local Systems ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
Second World

A pesar de las reticencias de los Estados Partes del CEDH de ceder verdaderas porciones de soberanía, o por mejor decir, de ius puniendi estatales, al Consejo de Europa, de la problemática de la ejecución de las sentencias del TEDH al estar en manos del Comité de Ministros, un órgano político, intergubernamental y no jurisdiccional, disociándose así las funciones de juzgar y hacer ejecutar lo juzgado, al carecer el TEDH de facultades anulatorias o revocatorias de las resoluciones y actuaciones internas vulneradoras de derechos recogidos en el Convenio, y de la inexistencia de un catálogo de derechos fundamentales penitenciarios, recogidos por un lado en instrumentos internacionales de ius cogens, es decir, imperativos, y por otro, en Resoluciones y Recomendaciones meramente programáticas, carentes de fuerza obligatoria (vgr. Reglas Penitenciarias Europeas), hemos de reconocer que el TEDH ha venido cumpliendo dignamente el mandato de protección de los derechos y libertades contenidos en el Convenio, y muy especialmente respecto de los derechos de las personas privadas de libertad, y por ende, de los reclusos. Del análisis de la profusa jurisprudencia del TEDH se infiere que las garantías normativas de los presos consagradas en el CEDH, para no ser teóricas e ilusorias, sino reales y efectivas, han tenido que ser ampliadas, perfiladas y completadas por una serie de garantías jurisdiccionales, a través de un sistema o mecanismo jurisdiccional pretoriano, que debemos calificar de verdadera obra pretoriana del TEDH, y que fue cristalizándose o codificándose en los diversos Protocolos modificativos. Se convendrá, pues, fácilmente, que el grado de protección de los derechos humanos logrado en el ámbito del Consejo de Europa no tiene parangón en relación con otros sistemas universales o regionales nacidos con el mismo cometido, al albur de los procesos de humanización de los sistemas penitenciarios y de internacionalización de los derechos humanos, que tienen lugar a partir de la Segunda Guerra Mundial.Despite the reluctance of the State Parties of the ECHR to cede actual portions of their sovereignty or, more specifically, of their state ius punendi in favour of the Council of Europe; the issue of the ECHR sentences execution (given to the fact that this is carried out by the Committee of Ministers, a political, intergovernmental and non-judicial organ, dissociating then the tasks of judging and executing what has been judge); the lack of revocation powers by the ECHR regarding the resolutions and internal decisions relating to the violations of the Convention; the lack of an inventory of the fundamental rights included in ius cogens (i.e. imperative) international tools, and the only pragmatic non-compulsory Resolutions and Recommendations (e.g. European Prison Rules), we must admit that the ECHR has been worthily fulfilling its mandate of protecting the rights and freedoms contained in the Convention and, specially, regarding the rights of those deprived of liberty and consequently, of the inmates. The analysis of the extensive ECHR caselaw infers that the safeguards of the rights of inmates enshrined in the European Council, in order to be real and effective, instead of theoretical or illusory, must have been extended, shaped and completed by a set of judiciary safeguards. This has been possible thanks to a Praetorian judiciary system which must be considered as a real Praetorian work by the ECHR and which has been the object of many amending Protocols. Thus, it can be easily concluded that the level of protection of the human rights achieved by the Council of Europe is unparalleled if compared with other universal or local systems similarly conceived as a result of the human right penitentiary and internationalisation systems developed after the Second World War.

scholarly journals Supervision of the execution of The European Court of Human Rights’ case law

2021 ◽  
pp. 33-36
Author(s):  
Corina Siman ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Political ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
European System ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Executive Body

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms empowers the decision-making and executive body of the Council of Europe, id est the Committee of Ministers, to supervise the execution of the European Court of Human Rights’ case law. The mechanism thus established possesses a certain specificity, which is inherent to the European system of protection of fundamental rights. Therefore, both the political nature of the Committee of Ministers and the elements that form the process of monitoring the implementation of the content of the Strasbourg Court’s judgments and decisions are of interest.

scholarly journals Reflexiones sobre la libertad de testar y la stedh de 13 de julio de 2004

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Carol Rosés
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Spanish Constitution ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
Direct Form ◽  
The Will ◽  
Private Autonomy ◽  
Fundamental Rights And Freedoms

La STEDH de 13 de julio de 2004 –dictada en un litigio que tiene su origen en una demanda presentada contra el Principado de Andorra– elude abordar de forma directa el hipotético conflicto entre libertad de testar y principio de igualdad y,en cambio, reelabora la voluntad del testador a la luz del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, lo cual supone un ataque a la esencia misma de la sucesión testada. Aunque con carácter de obiter dicta entiende que cualquier relación jurídica de Derecho privado deberá ser interpretada de conformidad con el Convenio, afirmación que cuestiona la propia autonomía privada. Si bien en España, como en otros muchos Estados miembros del Consejo de Europa, las sentencias del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos no son directamente ejecutivas, sí es cierto que a la luz del artículo 10.2 de la Constitución Española tanto el principio de igualdad como los demás derechos fundamentales y libertades deberán ser interpretados de conformidad con los acuerdos internacionales ratificados por España, siendo ésta precisamente la vía que conduce a la efectividad de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, creando, en el caso que nos ocupa, una situación, cuanto menos, preocupante.The ECHR Judgment of 13 July 2004 –dictated in a litigation that has his origin in a demand presented against the Principality of Andorra– eludes to approach of direct form the hypothetical conflict between freedom of testamentary disposition and beginning of equality, with the consequence that there re-elaborates the will of the testator in the light of the European Agreement of Human rights, which supposes an assault to the essence itself of the testate succession. Though with character of obiter dicta he understands that any juridical relation of private Law will have to be interpreted of conformity with the Agreement, affirmation that questions the own private autonomy. Though in Spain, since in other many members states of the Council of Europe, the judgments of the European Court of Human rights are not directly executive, yes it is true that in the light of the article 10.2 of the Spanish Constitution both the beginning of equality and other fundamental rights and freedoms will have to be interpreted of conformity with the international agreements ratified by Spain. Therefore, this one is precisely the route that he leads to the efficiency of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, creating, in the case that occupies us, a situation worrying.

scholarly journals Últimas tendencias de un modelo de protección antidiscriminatoria en constante evolución

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Hernández Llinás
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Controversial Issue ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

El objeto central del presente trabajo es el comentario de un caso recientemente resuelto por el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, el asunto J.D. y A. contra Reino Unido. Las particularidades de este caso nos permiten comprobar algunas debilidades y fortalezas de la doctrina del Tribunal de Estrasburgo en materia de igualdad y no discriminación, un ámbito de incuestionable valor en el espacio europeo de derechos, así como destacar la emergencia de nuevos planteamientos tuitivos en relación con la siempre controvertida figura de la discriminación por indiferenciación. The main purpose of this essay is to analyse the judgement recently delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in J.D. and A. versus United Kingdom case. This case enables us to highlight some strengths and weaknesses of the Court’s non-discrimination case-law, as well as to draw attention to a new protective approach that the Court takes when it comes to remedy the effects of discrimination by undifferentiation, an always controversial issue. Given the arrival of an increasing number of cases related to article 14 CEDH and the Court’s broader interpretation of such article within the last decade, taking a closer look to its case-law on the matter seems to be of interest to study the development of common standards on the protection of human rights within the Council of Europe.

scholarly journals Contra la normalización de la ilegalidad: la protección judicial de los extranjeros frente a las expulsiones colectivas y las devoluciones “en caliente” | Against the Normalization of Illegality: the Judicial Protection of Foreigners Facing Collective Expulsions and Police “Push-Backs”

2017 ◽  
pp. 195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ángeles Solanes Corella
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Migration Flows ◽  
Judicial Protection

Resumen: Las expulsiones colectivas de extranjeros, aun estando prohibidas por el derecho internacional, son una práctica que sistemáticamente se ha aplicado en el ámbito del control de los flujos migratorios. En el caso de España, en su frontera sur terrestre, se han generalizado las denominadas “devoluciones en caliente”. Las vulneraciones de derechos que conllevan estas medidas son incompatibles con el Convenio Europeo para la Protección de los Derechos Humanos y de las Libertades Fundamentales, del que derivan obligaciones concretas para los Estados parte. Este trabajo, propone un análisis crítico de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos para delimitar cuándo se produce una expulsión colectiva. Con ello se pretende evitar la aparente normalización de una medida que es ilegal e insistir en los mecanismos garantistas de los derechos de los extranjeros. Abstract: The collective expulsion of foreigners, although prohibited by International Law, is a practice that has been systematically applied in the field of control of migration flows. In the case of Spain, on its southern land border, the so-called police "push-backs" have become widespread. The violations of rights entailed by these measures are incompatible with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, from which obligations derive for the States Parties. This paper proposes a critical analysis of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights to delimit when a collective expulsion occurs. This is intended to avoid the apparent normalization of a measure that is illegal and to insist on mechanisms that guarantee the rights of foreigners.

Human Rights Protection Under the Council of Europe - The System and its Documentation

1991 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Ellen G. Schaffer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Second World War ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Second World

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Western Europe moved to create an organization that would unite the countries of Europe. One of the Council of Europe's (COE) principal goals was to establish and safeguard the fundamental human and political rights of its peoples. Following in the spirit of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the members drafted the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, better known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya Samovich
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Educational Organizations ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Procedure ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

The manual is devoted to making individual complaints to the European Court of human rights: peculiarities of realization of the right to appeal, conditions of admissibility and the judicial procedure of the European Court of Human Rights. The author analyses some “autonomous concepts” used in the court's case law and touches upon the possibility of limiting the right to judicial protection. The article deals with the formation and development of the individual's rights to international judicial protection, as well as the protection of human rights in universal quasi-judicial international bodies and regional judicial institutions of the European Union and the Organization of American States. This publication includes a material containing an analysis of recent changes in the legal regulation of the Institute of individual complaints. The manual is recommended for students of educational organizations of higher education, studying in the areas of bachelor's and master's degree “Jurisprudence”.

22. Europe

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greer Steven
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Key Characteristics ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
State Organizations

This chapter examines the origins, historical development, and key characteristics of the various inter-state organizations engaged in human rights activities in Europe. Having briefly described the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, it examines the Council of Europe and the European Union, including the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Between Informal Dialogue and Official Criticism

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 409-420
Author(s):  
Anna Podolska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Proceedings

Abstract There are various forms of jurisdictional dialogue. In addition to drawing from the case law of another court or seeking direct assistance of such another court in passing the judgment, we can notice in practice situations when by issuing a verdict the courts are communicating with each other. The rulings of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the free movement of judgments in the European Union and protection of fundamental rights are the example of such activities. Each of these bodies was interpreting separately the extent to which the mechanisms of recognising and executing the judgments may interfere with the level of protection of fundamental rights. A common conclusion concerns assigning the priority to protection of fundamental rights, while individual bodies were determining differently the standards of such protection. The analysed judgments can be construed as a communication between these bodies. Although no direct discussion takes place between these courts, this is still a form of interaction which affects the development of the case law and understanding of the boundaries of mutual recognition of judgments and protection of human rights within judicial proceedings.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document