Suchergebnisse

Every year, the European Court of Human Rights delivers a large number of judgments and an even greater number of decisions, thus adding to its already formidable body of case-law. This can make it difficult for people outside the Court to know which cases break new ground or address new issues. An increasingly important aspect of the Court's work has thus become to identify such cases and to disseminate them in a convenient and accessible format. The annual Overview series, available in English and French, seeks to respond to that need by focusing on the most important cases the Court deals with each year. All the cases are selected by the Court's Jurisconsult's Directorate on the basis of their jurisprudential interest. In addition to the cases chosen for publication in the Court's Reports of Judgments and Decisions, they include a number of other cases that raise issues of general interest, establish new principles, or develop or clarify the case-law. The approach has been to draw attention to the salient points, allowing the reader to appreciate the jurisprudential significance of a particular case

Should prisoners have voting rights? Should terminally ill patients have a right to assisted suicide? Should same-sex couples have a right to marry and adopt? The book examines how such questions can be resolved within the framework of the European Convention of Human Rights. 'European consensus' is a tool of interpretation used by the European Court of Human Rights as a means to identify evolution in the laws and practices of national legal systems when addressing morally sensitive or politically controversial human rights questions. If European consensus exists, the Court can establish new human rights standards that will be binding across European states. The chapters of the book are structured around three themes: a) conceptualisation of European consensus, its modus operandi and its effects; b) critical evaluation of its legitimacy and of its outputs; c) comparison with similar methods of judicial interpretation in other legal systems.

In Al-Saadoon and Others v. Secretary of State for Defence, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales has found that the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) can be activated extraterritorially simply through the use by State agents of physical force against an individual. This article explains the judgment and places it in the context of the development of the law both in the United Kingdom and at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). While it remains subject to appeal domestically and its approach may not be followed by the ECtHR, it demonstrates a general trajectory towards greater application of the ECHR and other human rights instruments. In light of this, the article proceeds briefly to consider the impact of the judgment on armed forces. Although that impact should not be overstated, a wider range of the activities of armed forces would undoubtedly be drawn into the ongoing debate concerning the interaction between international human rights law and international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict).

The reflection about the fundamental rights of entities is not so new as we might be tempted to believe. However, the reflection raises the question by its antithetical. Natural persons appear to be the only beneficiaries of such rights. They were the centre of all doctrinal attention. The intimacy of the relationship between man and the concept of human rights, from which flows the fundamental rights, easily justified the exclusion of entities. The idea of including groups and organizations, which seemed unthinkable will be accepted in fine, indeed will become indispensable to an effective democracy, dear to the European system of human rights and our study. Entities undoubtedly play a vital role in the achievement of a democratic society, particularly through the press or the actions of political parties. They contribute enormously to a country's economy by the actions of commercial enterprises or other businesses, and even to the development and fufillment of individuals through associations whose missions are many and vary. We can not reasonably refuse such a subject of law the protection of the Convention. Beside, it is with the strength of the evidence that these entities have benefited from various provisions of the Convention. Groups for political purposes or unions cannot accomplish peacefully their mission without the protection of Article 11 of the convention enshrining the freedom of association and peaceful protest. Also, entities deprived of exercising the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, as defined in Article I of Additional Protocol No. 1, cannot thrive in an area where the public authority intervains regularly. Safeguarding these rights, with others, is therefore vital for corporations. Decryption of rights and freedoms guaranteed to them by the european legislation calls to observe systematically the different movements of European jurisprudence. To do this, our thinking prefers a dogmatic approach, based on the particularity of legal entities to the end of assertaining their rights and ...

The reflection about the fundamental rights of entities is not so new as we might be tempted to believe. However, the reflection raises the question by its antithetical. Natural persons appear to be the only beneficiaries of such rights. They were the centre of all doctrinal attention. The intimacy of the relationship between man and the concept of human rights, from which flows the fundamental rights, easily justified the exclusion of entities. The idea of including groups and organizations, which seemed unthinkable will be accepted in fine, indeed will become indispensable to an effective democracy, dear to the European system of human rights and our study. Entities undoubtedly play a vital role in the achievement of a democratic society, particularly through the press or the actions of political parties. They contribute enormously to a country's economy by the actions of commercial enterprises or other businesses, and even to the development and fufillment of individuals through associations whose missions are many and vary. We can not reasonably refuse such a subject of law the protection of the Convention. Beside, it is with the strength of the evidence that these entities have benefited from various provisions of the Convention. Groups for political purposes or unions cannot accomplish peacefully their mission without the protection of Article 11 of the convention enshrining the freedom of association and peaceful protest. Also, entities deprived of exercising the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, as defined in Article I of Additional Protocol No. 1, cannot thrive in an area where the public authority intervains regularly. Safeguarding these rights, with others, is therefore vital for corporations. Decryption of rights and freedoms guaranteed to them by the european legislation calls to observe systematically the different movements of European jurisprudence. To do this, our thinking prefers a dogmatic approach, based on the particularity of legal entities to the end of assertaining their rights and ...

To play a cooperative and constructive role in the Convention system, national courts must be able and willing to do so. Ability to cooperate is certainly an important issue, involving language problems and other questions of access to information. It is my conviction that the long-term viability and strength of the Convention system depend on a division of labor based on dialogue and procedural as well as substantive subsidiarity, and I would like to draw attention to the way dialogue between the courts in th4e exercise of their respective jurisdictions and the principle of subsidiarity are interconnected. Adapted from the source document.