Suchergebnisse

Este é um estudo de caso qualitativo, realizado em 2018 numa cidade do interior mineiro, num Centro de Atenção Psicossocial para adultos, com o objetivo de analisar os papéis ocupacionais de um familiar, cuidador principal de um filho com esquizofrenia. Utilizou-se a Lista de Identificação de Papéis Ocupacionais e entrevista semiestruturada para coleta de dados e aplicada a análise de conteúdo temática. Observou-se impacto nos papéis ocupacionais do pai ao tornar-se cuidador, em razão da sobrecarga emocional, social e financeira vivenciada durante o processo de cuidado e pela burocracia da administração pública. Os papeis de cuidador, membro de família e passatempo se apresentaram como presentes e possíveis de seguirem no futuro. Ser cuidador de uma pessoa com transtorno mental mostrou acarretar a perda de vários papéis ocupacionais.

Nosso objetivo é compreender a comensalidade como um fenômeno da sociedade, que se modifica no mundo contemporâneo, a partir da obra O pai Goriot, de Balzac. A história se passa em uma pensão de um bairro decadente de Paris, chamada Casa Vauquer. Nesse ambiente, a mesa aparece como palco de práticas alimentares, bem como de desentendimentos e desarmonias na vida em grupo ou em comunidade. Que comunidade é essa? Para pensá-la utilizaremos as noções de comunidade inconfessável e inoperante de Maurice Blanchot e Jean-Luc Nancy. Essas comunidades não são possíveis na comunhão, mas sim no estranhamento. Com essa base pensamos na mesa da Casa Vauquer como um espaço de hostilidade e hospitalidade, que apresenta marcas do individual e do coletivo e onde prevalecem conflitos e desordens.

On April 8, 2021, the Grand Chamber of European Court of Human Rights delivered an eagerly awaited judgment in the case of Vavřička and Others v. The Czech Republic. It addressed the question of mandatory vaccination in the light of the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

On June 13, 2021, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in Fedotova and Others v. Russia. The ECtHR found that Russia was in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for not allowing same-sex couples to have their partnerships legally recognized. The decision reflects the ECtHR's firm position: the formal recognition of partnership shall not depend on the partners' sex, and the complete exclusion of same-sex couples cannot be justified with opposing public sentiments or the need to protect traditional families. While the Fedotova ruling is the first judgment that challenged the discriminatory legislative framework in a country belonging to the Eastern Bloc of the Council of Europe, it is not unprecedented. In its judgment, the ECtHR applied the standards entrenched in the case law on the rights of same-sex partners and, although it did not address the issue of marriage equality under Article 12 of the ECHR, it did conclude that the applicants' rights under Article 8 had been violated.

In February 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in favor of Germany in the case Hanan v. Germany, concerning a 2009 NATO airstrike in Kunduz (Afghanistan) resulting in the deaths of many civilians.

In a January 31, 2019 decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, or Court) held that Russia, the respondent state, should pay Georgia, the applicant state, 10 million euros as just satisfaction for violations committed by Russia against Georgian nationals; these violations had previously been established in the Court's main judgment in 2014 (Georgia v. Russia). The Court also held that Georgia should distribute this amount to approximately fifteen hundred Georgian victims, which had been identified in the Court's main judgment in 2014. In this important decision, the ECtHR continued to build on its recent case law, in holding that just satisfaction, in the form of monetary compensation, was appropriate and available in an interstate dispute.

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, or the Court) in Mammadov v. Azerbaijan was the first "infringement procedure" judgment pursuant to Article 46(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, or the Convention). This procedure was introduced to the Convention by Protocol 14, which entered into force in 2010. The idea behind it was that the Committee of Ministers—the body of the Council of Europe that supervises the execution of judgments of the ECtHR—could return the case to the Court to confirm that the responded state had failed to enforce it. Although there are quite a few instances of non-execution, this procedure has not been in use because it is difficult to initiate and its results are uncertain. The Mammadov judgment was a test of the effectiveness of infringement procedures, but it failed to provide a definitive answer as to whether such procedures were effective in terms of state implementation of ECtHR judgments. The applicant in this case was a political prisoner and the Committee of Ministers fruitlessly tried for a number of years to force Azerbaijan to release him. Soon after the Article 46(4) request reached the Court, the Azerbaijani authorities conditionally released the applicant. That said, all other negative consequences of his criminal conviction, such as an inability to run for election, have yet to be removed, so the judgment has not been implemented in full.

In E.S. v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a criminal conviction for making disparaging comments about the Prophet Muhammad, intimating in particular that he was a pedophile, did not violate the speaker's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

On November 15, 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued its judgment in Navalnyy v. Russia. The applicant in the case argued that the Russian authorities had targeted him for arrest and administrative sanctions because of his political activism. In its judgment, the Grand Chamber confirmed its recent change in approach to Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including the normalization of the provision's scope and burden of proof. However, it displayed continued uncertainty about how to deal with measures based on a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate purposes.