scholarly journals papel del artículo 8 CEDH en la construcción del margen de apreciación nacional y la doctrina de las obligaciones positivas del Estado

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lara Redondo Saceda
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
The Right

El artículo 8 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos –que protege los derechos al respeto la vida privada y familiar, el domicilio y la correspondencia– se ha configurado en estos setenta años de Convenio como uno de los escenarios habituales del desarrollo del margen de apreciación nacional y la doctrina de las obligaciones positivas del Estado. Esto parece justificarse en el contenido y estructura de este artículo y en las restricciones y limitaciones al ejercicio de estos derechos establecidas por su párrafo segundo. En este marco, el objetivo de este artículo es analizar cuál ha sido el papel del artículo 8 CEDH en el desarrollo de estos estándares interpretativos y cómo ha influido en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights –which protects the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence– has been configured as a traditional place for the development of the margin of appreciation and the doctrine of State’s positive obligations. The scope and structure of this article and its limitation clause in the second paragraph seem to justify these developments. In this context, the objective of this article is to analyse the role of Article 8 ECHR in the development of these interpretative standards and its influence in the European Court of Human Rights case-law.

An Emerging Right to a “Gay” Family Life? The CaseOliari v. Italyin a Comparative Perspective

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 451-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Ragone ◽  
Valentina Volpe
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
European Court ◽  
National Perspective ◽  
The Right

This Article analyses, through the lens of comparative law, theOliari and others v. Italyjudgment, which was issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in July 2015. TheOliaricase is important for being the first judgment in which the ECtHR established the granting of legal “recognition and protection” to same-sex couples as a positive obligation for the Member States of the Council of Europe on the basis of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In order to understand the role of judicial bodies in the progressive protection of homosexual rights, this Article combines an analysis of European case law with the national perspective. As it concerns the supranational facet, the authors illustrateOliari's reasoning and situate the case in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. Elements of both continuity and innovation emerge from the analysis, as well as a relevant dimension of judicial dialogue supporting the incremental recognition of gay rights in Europe. As it concerns the national facet, this specific case was initially dealt with at the domestic level and was the object of judgment 138/2010 by the Italian Constitutional Court. The judgment is critically put into perspective through the examination of the jurisprudence of other European Constitutional Courts (France, Portugal and Spain) that were called on to decide similar cases in the same period. Therefore, the Article offers a comparative analysis of theOliarijudgment clarifying its relevance and speculating on the potential value of this case for the future recognition of the right to a “gay” family life in Europe.

Allowing the Right Margin: The European Court of Human Rights and The National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review?

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 381-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean Spielmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Essential Question ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Law

AbstractThe doctrine of the national margin of appreciation is well established in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In applying this essentially judge-made doctrine, the Court imposes self-restraint on its power of review, accepting that domestic authorities are best placed to settle a dispute. The areas in which the doctrine has most often been applied will be presented here, looking at various examples from case law. After a brief overview of the doctrine’s origin, the analysis will focus on the situations in which the margin has been allowed or denied. Does it relate merely to factual and domestic-law aspects of a case? What is the scope of the margin of appreciation when it comes to interpreting provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights? What impact does an interference (whether disproportionate or not) with a guaranteed right have on the margin allowed? Is there a second-degree or ‘reverse’ margin of appreciation, whereby discretionary powers can be distributed between executive and judicial authorities at domestic level? Lastly it is noteworthy that Protocol No 14, now ratified by all Council of Europe Member States, enshrines in Article 12—at least to some extent—an obligation to apply a margin of appreciation. One essential question remains: by allowing any margin of a certain width, is the European Court simply waiving its power of review or is it attributing responsibility to the domestic courts in the interest of a healthy subsidiarity?

scholarly journals Crisis económica y derechos humanos. Una nota de jurisprudencia

2015 ◽  
pp. 399
Author(s):  
Luis López Guerra
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Complete Separation ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Social Relevance ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

En estrecha conexión con la crisis económica, se ha presentado un considerable número de demandas ante el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos solicitando la protección de derechos económicos y sociales. Aún cuando el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos se ocupa de los llamados derechos «de la primera generación», la jurisprudencia del Tribunal, a partir de Airey c. Irlanda ha mantenido que no existe una completa separación entre derechos civiles y derechos sociales. Aplicando esta jurisprudencia, el Tribunal, en los últimos años, ha emitido diversas sentencias en que se considera que los derechos del Convenio también imponen obligaciones a los estados en materias de relevancia económica y social, como la cuantía de las pensiones, el derecho a la vivienda familiar o el tratamiento de los inmigrantes.Closely related to the economic crisis, a considerable number of requests for protection of economic and social rights have been filed at the European Court of Human Rights. Although the European Convention on Human Rights addresses the so-called «first generation» rights, Court case law since Airey vs. Ireland has maintained that a complete separation of civil and social rights cannot be made. In applying that case law, over the last few years the Court has issued several judgments underscoring that Convention rights also impose obligations on the States in matters of economic and social relevance, such as the amount of pensions, the right to a family home or the treatment of immigrants.

The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights as Guardians of Fair Criminal Proceedings in Europe

2019 ◽  
pp. 88-114
Author(s):  
Bettina Weisser
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights

This chapter discusses the role of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) in safeguarding fair criminal proceedings in Europe. In particular, it analyzes the procedure-related guarantee of a fair trial and its various implications as they are laid down in Article 6 ECHR and shaped by the case law of the Court. The chapter first provides an overview of the general procedural guarantees under Article 6, section 1, focusing on the independence and impartiality of the tribunal, right to a fair hearing (equality of arms, the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination, entrapment), public hearing, and hearing within a reasonable time. It then considers procedural rights in criminal proceedings under sections 2 and 3 of Article 6, along with the presumption of innocence under section 2 and specifically listed minimum rights in criminal proceedings under section 3.

scholarly journals El margen nacional de apreciación y el contenido de la libertad de pensamiento, conciencia y religión en el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos = The national margin of appreciation and the content of freedom of thought, conscience and religion in the European Convention on Human Rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 68
Author(s):  
Sergio Alejandro Fernández Parra
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
Frequent Use ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
Freedom Of Thought ◽  
The Right ◽  
Margin Control

Resumen: En el presente escrito se estudiará la figura del margen nacional de apreciación y su aplicación por parte del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Este estudio tiene como objeto demostrar que la utilización frecuente de esta figura impide que exista una interpretación uniforme del derecho a la libertad de pensamiento, conciencia y religión en el Sistema Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Para probar la hipótesis planteada, la figura aludida será comparada con el control de convencionalidad y la forma en que se ha aplicado esta última figura por parte de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Esto último se realizará con el fin de evidenciar las falencias interpretativas y de protección de los derechos que genera la utilización del margen nacional de apreciación. Palabras clave: margen nacional de apreciación, control de convencionalidad, Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, libertad de pensamiento, conciencia y religión, Estado laico. Abstract: This paper will study the figure of the national margin of appreciation and its application by the European Court of Human Rights. The purpose of this study is to show that the frequent use of this figure prevents a uniform interpretation of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion in the European System of Human Rights. To test this hypothesis, the aforementioned figure will be compared with the control of conventionality and the way in which the latter figure has been applied by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The latter in order to highlight the interpretative and protection flaws of the rights generated by the use of the national margin of appreciation. Keywords: National appreciation margin, control of conventionality, European Court of Human Rights, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, secular State.

scholarly journals Role of the European Court of Human Rights in realization of social security right

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-63
Author(s):  
Lyusya Mozhechuk ◽  
Andriy Samotuha
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Occupational Injuries ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The article deals with the role of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in protecting the right to social security. There is the analysis of the case law of the ECtHR on the violation of the right to social security, namely the right to receive a pension, which the ECtHR classifies as property rights. The authors have outlined the ways to improve the practice of the ECtHR in this area in modern national and world socio-economic conditions. According to available estimates, around 50 per cent of the global population has access to some form of social security, while only 20 per cent enjoy adequate social security coverage. Ensuring an ap-propriate mechanism for the protection of human and civil rights is a priority for every country. However, according to case law, the number of complaints of violations or non-recognition of their rights is growing every year. An important role in the protection of human rights in today's conditions is played by an international judicial body - the European Court of Human Rights. In Ukraine, where socio-economic rights are recognized at the constitutional level, their guarantee content in the current laws is still not clearly defined, and therefore, as evidenced by the practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, legal mechanisms their protection, in particular the means of judicial control remain ineffective. The right to social security is the right to access and retention of benefits, both in cash and in kind, without discrimination in order to protect, in particular, against (a) lack of income from work caused by illness, disability, maternity, occupational injuries , unemployment, old age or death of a family member; (b) inaccessible access to medical care; (c) insufficient family support, especially for children and adult dependents. It is well known that the European Convention does not contain many socio-economic rights as such (with a few exceptions - protection of property and the right to education). Thus , the former president of the ECtHR Jean-Paul Costa specifically pointed to another important European human rights treaty – the European Social Charter. Human rights are a universal value, and their protection is the task of every state. The European Court of Human Rights plays an important role in protecting human rights in modern conditions. The functioning of such an international judicial institution can not only solve a problem of protection of violated rights, but also affect the development of the judicial system of each state. The main principle of realization and judicial protection of social rights is non-discrimination on the grounds of sex, age, race, national and social origin of the individual, and the role of auxiliary institutions of the Council of Europe in generalizing and improving the ECtHR’s activity has been emphasized.

Defense Rights in European Legal Systems under the Influence of the European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 163-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Weigend
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
European Union Member States

This chapter focuses on the role of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in interpreting the defense rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and other European legal systems. In particular, it considers one aspect of European Union Member States’ compliance with ECtHR case law: the rights of suspects and defendants under Article 6 ECHR. The chapter first discusses the right of a suspect to be informed about the accusation against him, the right to legal assistance at the early stages of the criminal process, the privilege against self-incrimination, and the right to examine adverse witnesses. It then explores how the European Court’s jurisprudence has been received by the legislation and judge-made law in France and Germany. It shows that Article 6 ECHR and the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on various clauses of that article exerted an influence on domestic laws, at least in France and Germany.

Algunas reflexiones en torno a la sentencia Negrepontis-Giannisis contra Grecia y la jurisprudencia reciente del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos en materia de reconocimiento de decisiones judiciales extranjeras

2014 ◽  
pp. 3027-3042
Author(s):  
Juan M. VELÁZQUEZ GARDETA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Public ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

LABURPENA: Giza Eskubideen Europako Auzitegiaren Negrepontis-Giannisis vs. Grezia epaiak atzerriko erabakiak libre zirkulatzeko bidea zabaldu du, prozesu zuzen bat izateko eskubidetik etorria, Giza Eskubideen Europako Hitzarmeneko 6.1 artikuluan aitortua. GEEAren jurisprudentzia-lerro horren eboluzioa abiatzen da Wagner eta J.M.W.L. vs. Luxenburgo eta McDonald vs. Frantzia erabakiekin, baina guk aipatzen duguna aurrerapausoa handia da, eskubidea ez zaiolako lotzen beste zuzenbide substantibo bati, eta berezko eskubidea dela planteatzen da. Gainera, ohar aipagarriak egiten dira atzerriko epai judizialak geldiarazteko ordena publikoko salbuespenari buruz, eta haien eragina leuntzen da. Oso interesgarria da EBko arautegien aplikazio-esparrutik ihes egiten duten erabakietan aplikatzeko, non exequaturra desagertzen den ad hoc prozedura gisa, baina eragindako alderdiak hura ez aitortzeko aukera mantentzen da. Ildo horretan, GEEAk Negrepontis-en erabilitako argudioak garrantzi berezikoak dira, kontuan hartuz GEEHk inspiratzen duela Batasuneko Zuzenbidea eta auzitegiak egiten duen artikuluen interpretazioa. RESUMEN: El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos abre en su sentencia Negrepontis-Giannisis c. Grecia una vía de ampliación de las posibilidades a la libre circulación de decisiones extranjeras como un derecho derivado del derecho a un proceso equitativo reconocido en el art. 6.1 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos. La evolución de esta línea jurisprudencial del TEDH arranca con las decisiones Wagner y J.M.W.L. c. Luxemburgo y McDonald c. Francia pero en la que nos ocupa se produce un avance considerable porque no se ata el derecho al reconocimiento a otro derecho sustantivo sino que se plantea como un derecho en sí mismo. Además se establecen notables consideraciones en cuanto a la excepción de orden público como freno a la ejecución de decisiones judiciales extranjeras y se suaviza su efecto. Es especialmente interesante para su aplicación en aquellas decisiones que escapan del ámbito de aplicación de los correspondientes reglamentos de la UE donde desaparece el exequátur como procedimiento ad hoc pero se mantiene la posibilidad de oposición al reconocimiento por la parte afectada. En este sentido, los argumentos utilizados por el TEDH en Negrepontis son de especial relevancia, teniendo en cuenta el carácter inspirador del Derecho de la Unión que tiene el CEDH y por ende de la interpretación que dicho tribunal haga de su articulado. ABSTRACT: The European Court of Human Rights in its judgment Negrepontis-Giannisis v. Greece opens the extension of the possibilities for a free movement of foreign decisions as a right derived from the right to a fair hearing of article 6.1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The evolution of this case law trend of the ECHR begins with decisions Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg and McDonald v. France but in the judgment we are now analyzing a considerable development is made because the right to the recognizition is not linked to other substantive right but it is considered as a right itself. Besides remarkable considerations are established as far as the exception to the public order is concerned as a brake to the execution of foreign judicial decisions and it softens its effect. It is especially interesting for its application in those decisions that go beyond the scope of application of the corresponding regulations of the EU where the exequatur as an ad hoc procedure is missing but it maintains the possibility of opposition to the recognizition by the affected party. In this sense, the reasoning of the ECHR in Negrepontis is of special relevance, taking into account the inspiring character of the European Law forthe ECHR and hence the interpretation of that Tribunal of its articles.

Discriminación racial y ejercicio del derecho a la instrucción en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. El caso de la minoría gitana

2012 ◽  
pp. 247-291
Author(s):  
Lucía CASADO CASADO
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

LABURPENA: Lan honetan, lehen-lehenik, hurbilpen orokor bat egingo dugu Giza Eskubideak eta Oinarrizko Askatasunak Babesteko Europako Hitzarmenak jasotzen dituen diskriminazio-debekuaren eta hezkuntzarako eskubidearen eraketari; eta ondoren, arraza-diskriminazioaren debekuak hezkuntzarako eskubidearekin duen lotura aztertuko dugu, Giza Eskubideen Europako Auzitegiaren jurisprudentziaren esparruan. Horretarako, eremu horretako lau epai esanguratsuri helduko diegu: Giza Eskubideak eta beste batzuk Txekiar Errepublikaren aurka kasua, bi epai sortarazi dituena (bata Bigarren Sekzioarena, eta bestea Sala Nagusiarena); Sampanis eta beste batzuk Greziaren aurka kasua, eta Orsus eta beste batzuk Kroaziaren aurka kasua. Kasu horietan planteatzen den auzia da ea estatu jakin batzuek ijito etniako umeak eskolaratzeko abiarazi dituzten neurriak diskriminatzaileak diren ala ez. Horretaz gainera, gogoeta batzuk egingo ditugu alor horretako jurisprudentziaren bilakaeraz eta beraren ondorioez. RESUMEN: este trabajo, tras realizar una aproximación general a la configuración de la prohibición de discriminación y al derecho a la instrucción en el Convenio Europeo para la protección de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales, analiza la prohibición de discriminación racial en conexión con el ejercicio del derecho a la instrucción en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Para ello, examina cuatro sentencias relevantes recaídas en este ámbito (casos D.H. y otros contra República Checa, que ha dado lugar a dos sentencias —una de la Sección 2.ª y otra de la Gran Sala—; Sampanis y otros contra Grecia; y Orsus y otros contra Croacia), en las que se plantea si las medidas adoptadas por determinados Estados en relación con la escolarización de niños de etnia gitana son o no discriminatorias. También se realizan algunas consideraciones en torno a la evolución jurisprudencial en este ámbito y sus consecuencias. ABSTRACT: After a general approximation to the configuration of the prohibition of discrimination and of the right of instruction by the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, this work analyzes the prohibition of racial discrimination in relation with the exercise of the right of instruction within the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. For this purpose, four relevant judgments on the subject (cases D.H and others against the Czech Republic, which produced two rulings: one by the Second section and other by the Grand Chamber; Sampanis against Greece; and Orsus and others against Croatia) where it arose whether the measures adopted by some States in relation to the schooling of kids from the gypsy ethnic group are or not discriminatory are studied. Some considerations regarding the evolution by the case law regarding this area are also carried out and their consequences.

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document