Search results

Freedom of expression and association are essentials to guarantee the opening of the democratic system, but they can also be exercised to undermine its foundations. For this reason, the Council of Europe was determined to establish a system capable of dealing with anti-democratic threats. This spirit is reflected in the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights, when evaluating whether a particular political agenda can take part in the democratic process, has established a dual requirement: that the means used to implement it are pacific and that the political project advocated is democratic. Therefore, the democratic defence of an anti-democratic project can be legitimately excluded. According to it, the Court has formulated in Refah Partisi v. Turkey a doctrine of preventive defence of democracy that raises complex and sensitive questions.

The purpose of this Article is to analyse evolutionary trends in the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). To achieve this goal, a wide range of general philosophical methods were used. The Article submits that the ECHR has shown a growing commitment to the evolutionary method of interpretation, using the doctrine of a "living instrument", the ECHR, which is particularly important for Member States with specific problems, although this method limits the scope in the discretion of the State. It is concluded that the interpretative methodology used by the ECHR involves the use of its methods, including increasingly developing methods of consensus, efficiency, judicial activism, comparison, innovative interpretation, autonomous method, and "balance" method. This demonstrates, inter alia, the unlimited potential to improve the ECHR's interpretation of conventional standards. In the context of modern transformations in the direction of proactive international justice, judicial activism objectively departs from a formal application of legal norms and reflects the ECHR's desire to protect the fundamental human rights of individuals and communicatethem.

The relevance of the problem under study is due to the need to monitoring the general situation to respect to human rights. The establishment, provision and realization of human rights is an important indicator in a state, which indicates its democracy, sociality, as well as the fact that such a state is legal. Purpose of the article in the study the issues of legal protection of vulnerable categories of population in the context of formation of active human rights policy of state aimed at increasing the capacity of socially vulnerable groups and reducing the risks of growing social tensions in society. The leading method for studying this problem is the legal sociological method, which allows us to study the effectiveness of state and legal regulation of human rights protection. The article presents an analysis of the results of the European experience in combating intolerance and discrimination. Its types main determined have been. Highlighted the criteria by which discrimination is prohibited. The legal system of human rights protection mechanisms is analyzed. The article presents scientific categories: discrimination, hate crimes, vulnerable groups. The practical significance lies in the development of proposals for improving domestic legislation.

The objective of the research is to analyze the main violations of children's rights within the European Convention on Human Rights to highlight the basic positions of the European Court of Human Rights ECHR on their protection, as well as to determine the advisability of applying the practice of this court by the European states. The methodological basis of the work consists of different methods, such as analysis and synthesis, dialectical, logical-legal and formal-legal. The result of this work allowed identifying the role of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of European law and its importance for the protection of the rights of the child, interpreting the legal positions established in the pertinent decisions of the said court and comparing them, to justify the need for your careful observation of the practice of the ECHR in the application of the law. It is concluded that the practice of the ECHR is recognized as a source of law in most states. And although the Ukrainian legal tradition does not recognize the status of judicial precedent as a source of law, such precedents are actively used in everyday legal activity.

Under uncertain conditions, the introduction of a state of emergency and quarantine measures, the scope of human rights may be subject to state interference and some rights cannot be exercised at all. The aim of the work is to examine the problem of the exercise of the right to freedom of movement and personal integrity in the context of COVID-19 through the practice of the European Court of Human Rights ECTHR. The theme of the study is the social relations that arise in the exercise of the right to freedom of movement and personal integrity in the COVID-19 pandemic. Research methods are the dialectical method, the method of system analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, modeling, comparison, generalization, and formalization. As a result of the study, the problems of the realization of the right to freedom of movement and personal inviolability in COVID-19 were analyzed through the prism of ECtHR decisions. The international experience of regulating the right to circular under quarantine conditions was clarified and suggested ways to solve this problem to protect human dignity.

The article deals with the problems of application of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the selection of precautionary measures in criminal cases in accordance with Ukrainian law. Since the procedural legislation of Ukraine is currently not perfect in the framework of the establishment and regulation of the application of precautionary measures, the decisions of the ECHR serve as an indispensable regulator of this issue. The objective of the work is to study the peculiarities of the application of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the selection of precautionary measures in criminal proceedings. The subject of the investigation is the jurisprudence of the ECHR in the context of the choice of precautionary measures in the criminal process. The research methodology included and combined the dialectical method, logical and legal method, analysis, synthesis. By way of conclusion, the study shows that the practice of the ECHR is mandatory to take into account not only the courts but also the investigators and prosecutors, who legally have the right to request the court to apply such precautionary measures.

The aim of this study was to analyze the practical aspects involved in filing applications to the European Court of Human Rights in the context of armed aggression against Ukraine. The achievement of the objective also involves the resolution of the following tasks: the analysis of the works of scientists who studied various aspects of human rights protection; international legal acts, as well as the legislation of Ukraine; the determination of the problems that exist at the present stage in the mechanism of human rights protection at the international level, and; the determination of the level of its effectiveness and the possibility of its application in Ukraine in the conditions of a military conflict. Specifically, the subject of the study is the prospect of implementation of the mechanism of appeal of citizens to the European Court for the Protection of Human Rights. The methodological basis of the research consisted in the dialectical combination of general scientific and special legal methods. It is concluded that, in view of the new socio-economic and political realities emerging in the modern world, it is necessary to update the whole system of human rights protection at the international level.

This article analyzes the European Court of Humans Rights' jurisprudence on right to vote (article 3 of Protocol n.º I ). For this purpose, it must be acknowledged a subjective dimension too which defines the legal status of citizen in its relations with the public authorities that can be specified in the principle of universal, equal and free suffrage, an objective dimension as an structural element of Democracy and what creates positive obligations to public authorities in order to implement the content of the right: «to ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature». However, the development of positive obligations on the basis of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 goes no further than this. So, the Court considers that this provision does not require the States to implement a specific electoral system or electoral rules because the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation when assessing restrictions of these rights. ; Este artículo analiza la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos sobre el sufragio activo (artículo 3 del Protocolo I). Para ello, partimos de la consideración de que en este derecho debe reconocerse además de una dimensión subjetiva, que define la posición jurídica de los ciudadanos en su relación con los poderes públicos y se concreta en los principios de sufragio universal, libre e igual, una dimensión objetiva en tanto que elemento esencial del Estado Democrático, lo que origina una obligación positiva de los poderes públicos para la realización de su contenido: la libre expresión del pueblo en las elecciones del cuerpo legislativo. Sin embargo, el desarrollo de las obligaciones positivas del Estado no ha agotado todas sus posibilidades de manera que el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos reconoce un amplio margen de apreciación de los Estados en la definición de los sistemas electorales y de las normas del procedimiento electoral.This article analyzes the European Court of Humans Rights' jurisprudence on right to vote (article 3 of Protocol n.º I ). For this purpose, it must be acknowledged a subjective dimension too which defines the legal status of citizen in its relations with the public authorities that can be specified in the principle of universal, equal and free suffrage, an objective dimension as an structural element of Democracy and what creates positive obligations to public authorities in order to implement the content of the right: «to ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature». However, the development of positive obligations on the basis of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 goes no further than this. So, the Court considers that this provision does not require the States to implement a specific electoral system or electoral rules because the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation when assessing restrictions of these rights.

With a view to upholding fundamental (social) rights in Europe in times of economic crisis, attention is to be paid to the assessment of regressive implementation of social rights during the recent period, under the applicable international instruments for the protection of human rights. The present contribution focuses on the divergent decisions by the European Committee of Social Rights and the European Court of Human Rights on 'austerity measures', bearing in mind the 'complementarity' between the two underlying treaties ‒ the European Social Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights. While the different grounds of violation available in the two treaties may explain divergent outcomes, arguably the most relevant factor concerns the interpretative method(s) followed by each body, especially the varying degree of deference accorded to the national authorities in the sphere of economic and social policy. --- Dans la perspective de maintenir et respecter les droits (sociaux) fondamentaux en temps de crise économique, il y a lieu de considérer l'évaluation des restrictions récemment apportées à la jouissance de ces droits, par rapport aux instruments internationaux de protection des droits de l'homme. La présente contribution analyse les décisions divergentes du Comité européen des droits sociaux et de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme envers ces mesures 'd'austérité', tout en rappelant la 'complementarité' qui avait été envisagée entre la Charte sociale européenne et la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme. Si des conclusions divergentes peuvent s'expliquer en raison des différents motifs de la violation dans les deux traités, la question qui relève le plus a probablement trait aux méthodes interprétatives adoptées par le Comité et la Cour, surtout en ce qui concerne le différent degré de déférence accordé aux autorités nationales dans la sphère des politiques économique et sociale.

RESUMEN. Las libertades de expresión y de asociación son esenciales para garantizar la apertura del sistema democrático, pero también pueden ser utilizadas para minar sus fundamentos. Por esta razón, el Consejo de Europa decidió establecer un sistema capaz de defenderse frente a posibles amenazas antidemocráticas. Y este espíritu quedó reflejado en el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos. El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, a la hora de evaluar si un determinado programa político puede tomar parte en el proceso democrático, ha establecido una doble exigencia: que los medios utilizados sean pacíficos y que el proyecto político propugnado sea democrático. Por tanto, puede excluirse legítimamente la defensa democrática de un proyecto antidemocrático. En virtud de ello, el Tribunal ha formulado en Refah Partisi v. Turkey una doctrina de la defensa preventiva de la democracia que suscita complejas y delicadas cuestiones. ; ABSTRACT. Freedom of expression and association are essentials to guarantee the opening of the democratic system, but they can also be exercised to undermine its foundations. For this reason, the Council of Europe was determined to establish a system capable of defending itself from the antidemocratic threats. And this spirit is reflected in the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights, when evaluating whether a particular political agenda can take part in the democratic process, has established a dual requirement: that the means used to implement it are pacific and that the political project advocated is democratic. Therefore, the democratic defense of an undemocratic project can be legitimately excluded. According to it, the Court has formulated in Refah Partisi v. Turkey a doctrine of preventive defense of democracy that raises complex and sensitive questions.

The prospect of integrating the different legal systems for protecting fundamental rights in Europe calls for the European Union to adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights with the aim of mitigating the divergences and tensions between the European Courts, as well as those arising between the European and national courts. In addition, by doing so a minimum standard for protecting fundamental rights in Europe is defined, to which not only constitutional law but also, with equal standing, European Union law must be subject. ; La perspectiva de integración de los diferentes ordenamientos jurídicos en la protección de los derechos fundamentales en Europa exige que la Unión Europea se adhiera el CEDH con el fin de paliar las divergencias y tensiones entre tribunales europeos, así como de éstos con los nacionales. Asimismo quedará con ello definido el estándar mínimo de protección de los derechos fundamentales en el ámbito europeo, al que deberán someterse, de forma necesaria, no solamente los ordenamientos constitucionales sino, igualmente, el ordenamiento de la Unión Europea.

Este artículo analiza los rasgos generales de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos en relación con el artículo 9 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, sobre la libertad religiosa, agrupándolos en tres niveles. En primer lugar, el Tribunal entiende la libertad religiosa en el sentido clásico liberal, como un derecho individual que garantiza una protección frente a la coacción del Estado o de otros individuos. Por otra parte, el concepto de igualdad asociado a la libertad religiosa es asumido en su sentido formal, es decir, sin incluir prestaciones positivas o de derechos especiales para los grupos religiosos en situación de desventaja. Finalmente, la jurisprudencia europea deja a los Estados un margen de apreciación bastante amplio al momento de establecer restricciones al derecho en cuestión. ; This article analyzes the general characteristics of the European Human Rights Court case-law about religious freedom (article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights). First, according to the Court, religious freedom is, in a liberal classical sense, an individual right which guarantees protection against coercion from the State or from other individuals. Second, the idea of equality associated to religious freedom is considered in a formal way, so it does not include the recognition of positive benefits or special rights to disadvantaged groups. Finally, European case-law gives the States a wide margin of appreciation in order to impose limitations on this right.

This article tackles the treatment of the right to asylum from a dual perspective: on the one hand, the international treaties that regulate it and, on the other, the rules of EU law approved in the field of asylum. Particular emphasis is placed on the interpretation of this right by both the Court of Justice of the EU and the European Court of Human Rights, and how the latter has outlined certain aspects related to the limits that certain fundamental rights impose on the application of the Common European Asylum System. ; Este artículo estudia el tratamiento del derecho de asilo desde una doble perspectiva: de un lado, los tratados internacionales que lo regulan y, de otra, las normas del Derecho de la Unión aprobadas en materia de asilo. Se hace en él especial hincapié en la interpretación que de ese derecho han llevado a cabo tanto el Tribunal de Justicia de la UE como el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, y cómo éste ha perfilado algunos aspectos más bien relacionados con los límites que determinados derechos aplicación del sistema europeo común de asilo.

This article seeks to examine the methods that the ECHR has developed to provide justice in complex cases of forced disappearances where a number of human rights violations occur simultaneously, often in the midst of massive and systematic collective human repression. Such cases can present situations where the State or government in question denies responsibility, shuns cooperation by not submitting substantial documents or information, and inadequately conducts domestic investigations. Diverse methods applied by the ECHR are studied without acknowledgement of any systematic state practice to justice in specific cases: inferences that are often decisive in establishing a State's responsibility; unacknowledged detention as a very grave violation of the right to liberty and security of person, and, in certain circumstances, as life threatening; the presumption of death; positive obligations to protect life and liberty; recognition of close relatives as indirect victims. ; Partiendo de la complejidad de las en cuanto violación múltiple de diversos derechos, a menudo en contextos de vulneraciones masivas y sistemáticas de los mismos; y de las dificultades a las que se enfrenta el TEDH en estos casos: negación de la responsabilidad de los agentes del Estado, falta de cooperación de los Gobiernos que no facilitan documentos e informaciones clave y ausencia de investigaciones internas adecuadas, el artículo analiza las diversas vías que ha desarrollado el Tribunal, aun sin reconocer la existencia de una práctica estatal sistemática, para hacer justicia en los casos concretos: las inferencias, a menudo decisivas para establecer la responsabilidad del Estado; la detención no reconocida como violación especialmente grave del derecho a la a la seguridad y, en determinados contextos, como amenaza para la vida; la presunción de muerte; las obligaciones positivas de proteger la libertad; los familiares como víctimas indirectas.

The dual protection of human rights provided by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe is the starting point of this article, which focuses its analysis on a specific issue: the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and the controversial decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which chose in December 2014 to give an advisory opinion against this possibility materialising. ; La doble protección de los derechos humanos que en Europa brindan el Convenio de Derechos Humanos y la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales es el punto de partida de este artículo, que centra su análisis en una cuestión concreta: la adhesión de la Unión Europea al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos y la polémica decisión del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión que optó en diciembre de 2014 por dar un dictamen consultivo contrario a que esa posibilidad se materializara.