Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Occhiello -- Dedica -- Table of Contents -- Foreword -- Table of Abbreviations -- Table of Cases -- 1. Introduction to the Human Right to Life -- 2. The Reach of the ECtHR's Jurisdiction -- 3. The Obligation to Protect 'Everyone's Right to Life' by Law -- 4. Death Penalty: From Permission to Prohibition -- 5. Permitted Uses of Lethal Force -- Appendices -- Select Bibliography.

Preliminary Material /H.-C. Günther and A.A. Robiglio -- Introduction /H.-C. Günther -- Chapter I. Haben die Wörter "人 (ren, Mensch)\' in der Frühlings- und Herbstzeit/im Zeitalter der Kämpfenden Reiche (770–221 volumes Chr) sowie "homme\' im neuzeitlichen und modernen Französischen stets die umfassende Bedeutung "Mensch" im Sinne der Universalen Erklärung der Menschenrechte vom 10. Dezember 1948? /Harro von Senger -- Chapter II. Der Mensch Zwischen Selbsterkenntnis und Erkenntnis des Selbst in buddhistisch-christlicher Perspektive /Michael Fuss -- Chapter III. Gottesebenbildlichkeit und Gottesstellvertreterschaft in islamischen Menschenrechtsbegründungen /L. Richter-Bernburg -- Chapter IV. Das stoische Gesetz der Natur und seine Rezeption bei Cicero /Robert Bees -- Chapter V. La donna romana, fra vita reale e letteratura /Paolo Fedeli -- Chapter VI. Enea e Turno: il duello finale /Paolo Fedeli -- Chapter VII. Das Leiden der Liebe: Zur Unveränderlichkeit und Leidensfähigkeit des christlichen Gottes /Markus Enders -- Chapter VIII. Humanization In Late Antique And Byzantine Philosophy /Dominic J. O' Meara -- Chapter IX. Individual Rights And Common Good: Henry Of Ghent And The Scholastic Origins Of Human Rights /Pasquale Porro -- Chapter X. Aristotelian \'Scientia\' And The Medieval \'Artes\' /Charles Lohr -- Chapter XI. Nicholas Of Cusa And The Anthropology Of Peace /Paul Richard Blum -- Chapter XII. Giordano Bruno's Criticism Of Globalization /Elisabeth Blum -- Chapter XIII. La dignité de l'homme chez Dante: une question preliminaire /Andrea A. Robiglio -- Chapter XIV. Figuren des Menschen bei Dante: Ulisse /Ruedi Imbach -- Chapter XV. Dante's Commedia And Goethe's Faust. Similarities And Differences /Vittorio Hösle -- Chapter XVI. A Jesuit Comedy On The Morality Of Soldiers /Paul Richard Blum -- Chapter XVII. Kunst und Technik Bei Martin Heidegger /Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann -- Chapter XVIII. Martin Heideggers Auslegung des Menschen als Zoon logon echon bei Aristoteles /Bodgan Minca -- Chapter XIX. Sein Zum Tode: Tolstoj Versus Heidegger /Tatiana Shchyttsova -- Chapter XX. Europe Between Agony And Hope: Christianity, History And Violence In María Zambrano /Giusi Strummiello -- Chapter XXI. Intergeneratives oder gemeinschaftliches Leben? Eine radikalphänomenologische Skizze /Rolf Kühn -- Chapter XXII. Brain-Computer-Interface (BCI) In Paralysis /Niels Birbaumer , Ander Ramos Murguialday , Moritz Wildgruber and Leonardo G. Cohen -- Chapter XXIII. Intelligent Technical Systems: Can They Surpass Human Skills? /Dieter Roller -- List Of Contributors /H.-C. Günther and A.A. Robiglio -- Index /H.-C. Günther and A.A. Robiglio.

While dealing with the current migration challenges, the European Union is revealing the overall weakness of its institutional and political architecture, consequently failing to give practical implementation to all those fundamental rights, contained in several widely shared international and regional legal instruments, on which its own legitimacy and credibility as human rights protector are based. Instead of putting its common values and policies in practice through the elaboration of a coherent supranational strategy, the Union is diverting its action to a deal-making approach grounded on the collaboration with third countries or origin or transit, apparently directed to the externalization of its responsibilities in migration and asylum field. This approach risks however to undermine the protection of asylum seekers' rights and interests. The most indicative example of this tendency is given by the Statement that on 18 March 2016 the EU Heads of State or Government negotiated with the Turkish counterpart in order to manage the increasing influx of asylum seekers and irregular migrants coming mainly from the Middle East's States and reaching the Greek islands via Turkey, that masks, with the pretext of preventing the smuggling routes, a greater desire to halt the entries in the EU territory through a stronger control of borders and a semi-automatic return mechanism. This research is aimed in the first place at clarifying the legal nature of the Statement and more specifically whether it has to be considered or not as a binding deal and if yes who is/are the subject/s responsible for its enactment on the EU side. In the second place, the objective is that of putting in evidence the possible violations of human rights and European Migration Law that the execution of the commitments agreed would entail, the inherent deficiencies of the Greek asylum system and the necessity for the EU to develop a common strategy for migration management which is effectively compliant with its own rules and values. Moreover, the Statement is analysed in the light of the new proposed reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and in particular of the Asylum Procedures Directive (APD), that risks further jeopardise asylum seekers' guarantees through a massive application of the 'safe third country' and 'first country of asylum' concepts. This unavoidably leads to question whether Turkey, beyond the efforts made in the alignment of its domestic legislation to the EU acquis, can be considered in practice as a 'safe country' in accordance with the EU standards, to where Syrians and migrants of other nationalities can be returned without incurring in the violation of their fundamental rights, such as the non-refoulement principle and the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In view of this current challenge, the EU should reflect on its role as a key unitary player on the international stage and build an alternative model of solidarity among Member States, which is fairer, more efficient and does not weaken asylum seekers' safeguard. Furthermore, also when acting on the external dimension the Union should endorse a strategy that is consistent with the principles and objectives affirmed by its primary Law, which should inspire not only Member States' policies at the internal level, but also the cooperation with third parties, ensuring a full respect of migrants' human rights.

The essay deals with the issue of the protection of fundamental rights from a perspective of multilevel constitutionalism. It focuses on the relations between the Italian Constitution, the European Convention of human rights (ECHR) and the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. In particular, the paper identifies in the "twin decisions" no. 348 and 349 of 2007, adopted by the Italian Constitutional Court and concerning the classification of the ECHR in the hierarchy of the sources of law, a real turning point. In compliance with the reformed art. 117, paragraph 1, of the Italian Constitution, in the above mentioned decisions the Court stated that the ECHR is hierarchically inferior to the Constitution but superior to the ordinary legislation; this implies that an ordinary law incompatible with the ECHR disregards art. 117, par. 1, of the Constitution and therefore is to be declared unconstitutional by the Court. The position of the Nice Charter is different. The Lisbon Treaty has regulated the Charter as legally binding; as a consequence, the Charter takes precedence over the Italian Constitution itself, with the only limitation represented by the supreme principles of the constitutional system and by the inalienable human rights (so-called "theory of the counter-limits"). Some questions on the compatibility of the different ways of protection of fundamental rights according to the Italian Constitution and the Nice Charter therefore arise. ; Il saggio analizza la problematica della tutela dei diritti fondamentali nella prospettiva del costituzionalismo multilivello. In particolare, esso si concentra sul rapporto tra la Costituzione italiana e rispettivamente la Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo e la Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea. Sul primo versante, viene evidenziata la svolta determinata dalle "sentenze gemelle" nn. 348 e 349 del 2007 della Corte costituzionale in merito all'inquadramento giuridico della CEDU nella gerarchia delle fonti. In proposito, la Consulta ha affermato che, in virtù del nuovo art. 117, co. 1, Cost., la CEDU si pone quale "norma interposta" nel giudizio di legittimità costituzionale, con la conseguenza che una legge ordinaria in contrasto con essa debba essere dichiarata costituzionalmente illegittima. Diverso è invece il trattamento della Carta di Nizza. Con il Trattato di Lisbona essa ha acquisito forza giuridica vincolante analoga a quella dei Trattati, per cui essa si pone al vertice del sistema delle fonti, con l'unico limite dei principi supremi dell'ordinamento costituzionale e dei diritti inalienabili della persona umana (teoria dei controlimiti). Ciò pone il problema del raffronto tra le diverse modalità di tutela dei diritti fondamentali nella Costituzione italiana e nella Carta di Nizza, sia con riguardo ai classici diritti di libertà sia con riguardo ai diritti sociali. ; Autorka analizuje problematykę ochrony praw fundamentalnych w perspektywie konstytucjonalizmu wielopoziomowego. W szczególności uwaga skierowana jest na Konstytucję Republiki Włoskiej w relacji do Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka i Obywatela oraz Karty Praw Podstawowych Unii Europejskiej. Jeśli chodzi o pierwszy z dwóch dokumentów europejskich, podkreśla się istotność "wyroków bliźniaczych" nr348 i 349 z 2007 roku wydanych przez włoski Sąd Konstytucyjny w odniesieniu do ulokowania EKPC w hierarchii źródeł prawa. W szczególności Sąd Konstytucyjny podkreślił, że na mocy nowego artykułu 117 ust. 1 Konstytucji Republiki Włoskiej, EKPC jawi się w ocenie zgodności z konstytucją jako "norma wtrącona", co w konsekwencji sprawia, że jakakolwiek ustawa będąca w kolizji z EKPC musi zostać oceniona jako niekonstytucyjna. Nieco inaczej ma się sprawa z Kartą Praw Podstawowych UE. Traktatem z Lizbony zyskała ona moc wiążącą analogiczną do mocy samych Traktatów, co sprawia, iż lokuje się ona na szczycie systemu źródeł prawa podlegając jednocześnie ograniczeniom wynikającym z wewnętrznego porządku konstytucyjnego i niezbywalnych praw człowieka (teoria kontrograniczeń). Rodzi to konieczność skonfrontowania ze sobą różnych sposobów ochrony praw podstawowych w Konstytucji Republiki Włoskiej i w Karcie Praw Podstawowych UE , i to zarówno w odniesieniu do klasycznych praw wolnościowych, jak i praw socjalnych.Tłumaczenie: C. Bronowski

The essay deals with the issue of the protection of fundamental rights from a perspective of multilevel constitutionalism. It focuses on the relations between the Italian Constitution, the European Convention of human rights (ECHR) and the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. In particular, the paper identifies in the "twin decisions" no. 348 and 349 of 2007, adopted by the Italian Constitutional Court and concerning the classification of the ECHR in the hierarchy of the sources of law, a real turning point. In compliance with the reformed art. 117, paragraph 1, of the Italian Constitution, in the above mentioned decisions the Court stated that the ECHR is hierarchically inferior to the Constitution but superior to the ordinary legislation; this implies that an ordinary law incompatible with the ECHR disregards art. 117, par. 1, of the Constitution and therefore is to be declared unconstitutional by the Court. The position of the Nice Charter is different. The Lisbon Treaty has regulated the Charter as legally binding; as a consequence, the Charter takes precedence over the Italian Constitution itself, with the only limitation represented by the supreme principles of the constitutional system and by the inalienable human rights (so-called "theory of the counter-limits"). Some questions on the compatibility of the different ways of protection of fundamental rights according to the Italian Constitution and the Nice Charter therefore arise. ; Il saggio analizza la problematica della tutela dei diritti fondamentali nella prospettiva del costituzionalismo multilivello. In particolare, esso si concentra sul rapporto tra la Costituzione italiana e rispettivamente la Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo e la Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea. Sul primo versante, viene evidenziata la svolta determinata dalle "sentenze gemelle" nn. 348 e 349 del 2007 della Corte costituzionale in merito all'inquadramento giuridico della CEDU nella gerarchia delle fonti. In proposito, la Consulta ha affermato che, in virtù del nuovo art. 117, co. 1, Cost., la CEDU si pone quale "norma interposta" nel giudizio di legittimità costituzionale, con la conseguenza che una legge ordinaria in contrasto con essa debba essere dichiarata costituzionalmente illegittima. Diverso è invece il trattamento della Carta di Nizza. Con il Trattato di Lisbona essa ha acquisito forza giuridica vincolante analoga a quella dei Trattati, per cui essa si pone al vertice del sistema delle fonti, con l'unico limite dei principi supremi dell'ordinamento costituzionale e dei diritti inalienabili della persona umana (teoria dei controlimiti). Ciò pone il problema del raffronto tra le diverse modalità di tutela dei diritti fondamentali nella Costituzione italiana e nella Carta di Nizza, sia con riguardo ai classici diritti di libertà sia con riguardo ai diritti sociali. ; Autorka analizuje problematykę ochrony praw fundamentalnych w perspektywie konstytucjonalizmu wielopoziomowego. W szczególności uwaga skierowana jest na Konstytucję Republiki Włoskiej w relacji do Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka i Obywatela oraz Karty Praw Podstawowych Unii Europejskiej. Jeśli chodzi o pierwszy z dwóch dokumentów europejskich, podkreśla się istotność "wyroków bliźniaczych" nr348 i 349 z 2007 roku wydanych przez włoski Sąd Konstytucyjny w odniesieniu do ulokowania EKPC w hierarchii źródeł prawa. W szczególności Sąd Konstytucyjny podkreślił, że na mocy nowego artykułu 117 ust. 1 Konstytucji Republiki Włoskiej, EKPC jawi się w ocenie zgodności z konstytucją jako "norma wtrącona", co w konsekwencji sprawia, że jakakolwiek ustawa będąca w kolizji z EKPC musi zostać oceniona jako niekonstytucyjna. Nieco inaczej ma się sprawa z Kartą Praw Podstawowych UE. Traktatem z Lizbony zyskała ona moc wiążącą analogiczną do mocy samych Traktatów, co sprawia, iż lokuje się ona na szczycie systemu źródeł prawa podlegając jednocześnie ograniczeniom wynikającym z wewnętrznego porządku konstytucyjnego i niezbywalnych praw człowieka (teoria kontrograniczeń). Rodzi to konieczność skonfrontowania ze sobą różnych sposobów ochrony praw podstawowych w Konstytucji Republiki Włoskiej i w Karcie Praw Podstawowych UE , i to zarówno w odniesieniu do klasycznych praw wolnościowych, jak i praw socjalnych.Tłumaczenie: C. Bronowski

THE RIGHT OF DISABLED PERSONS TO ACCESS TO PRIVATE PLACES OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IN THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS The European Court of Human Rights has rejected a complaint of disability discrimination lodged by a person on wheelchair to whom was denied the access to a cinema to see a given film in Geneva because of safety reason concerning his disability (Glaisen v. Switzerland). The complaint relied on Articles 8, 10 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The Court affirmed that none of the aforementioned Articles can be invoked because (i) the denial of the right of access was limited to a specific cinema, and (ii) the notion of discrimination existing in Suisse law did not violate the ECHR because positive obligation to remove physical barriers does not apply to buildings opened to the public constructed before the Swiss Discrimination Act (2004). Pointing out that under UN Convention of the rights of persons with disability (CRPD) access to a cinema is considered as a cultural activity, the Court decision has created a misalignment between ECHR and CRDP introducing some (significant) limitations to the right to access of disabled persons to places open to the public. In this context, CRPD plays a crucial role in prohibiting all kind of juridical and factual discrimination, without distinction between access to public or private places, as the latter is an essential precondition to the full and effective enjoyment of all human rights (civil, political, economic, social and cultural). In the concluding remarks, the paper points out that the Court decision may "legitimate" Member States of the Council of Europe to disability discrimination by laws (or practices) and/or to delay the removal physical barriers, thus lowering the level of protection of disabled persons also in European Union law.

Cover -- Quartino -- Dedication -- Table of contents -- List of abbreviations -- Introduction -- Part I - Defining state secrecy -- Chapter 1 - State secrecy in domestic legal systems -- Chapter 2 - State secrecy in the international legal system -- Part II - State secrecy and the international protection of human rights -- Chapter 3 - State secrecy and treaty monitoring bodies'practice -- Chapter 4 - State secrecy beyond treaties: towards a customary norm prohibiting recourse to state secrecy to conceal gross human rights violations? -- Part III - Theoretical and practical issues arising from the horizoantal and vertical interaction among norms and legal orders -- Chapter 5 - From state to international organisation secrecy -- Chapter VI - To disclose or not to disclose state secrets? The dilemmas of interstate cooperation in the field of intelligence, diplomacy, and mutual legal assistence -- General conclusions -- Bibliography -- Printed by.

URL del artículo en la web de la Revista: https://www.upo.es/revistas/index.php/lex_social/article/view/3483 ; Il testo, contributo a un convegno organizzato da Massimo La Torre a Catanzaro nel giugno 2017 propone un minimo di idealismo per il futuro dei diritti umani sociali nell¿UE. Si parte dai rischi di esauribilità di tolleranza e solidarietà che minacciano l¿universalità dei diritti. Per affrontare le sfide opposte del fondamentalismo e del nichilismo dei diritti, occorre prendere sul serio il dovere di mitezza come precondizione morale dei principi e valori fondamentali della costituzione dai quali derivano gli altri doveri costituzionali. La lunga storia costituzionale di tolleranza e solidarietà non finisce oggi. Il graduabile dovere di solidarietà offre garanzie multilevel alla sostenibilità dei diritti. In particolare, il nuovo Pilastro Europeo dei Diritti Sociali offre un¿opportunità di rafforzamento della solidarietà sociale europea che potrebbe essere necessario per il consolidamento del Fiscal compact. Un minimo di ottimismo porta a concludere che i diritti umani non possono non essere anche diritti sociali e che i diritti sociali non possono non essere anche diritti umani ; The paper, contribution to a congress organized by Massimo La Torre in Catanzaro in June 2017, proposes a minimum of idealism for the future of social human rights within the EU. Starting point is that risks of exhausted tolerance and solidarity seem to undermine the universality of human rights as a basis of the European fundamental rights discourse. Fundamentalism and nihilism need to be faced by taking more seriously the duty of meekness as a moral precondition of the fundamental principles and values of the constitution that imply other constitutional duties. The long constitutional history of tolerance and solidarity is not yet finished. The gradual duty of solidarity grants multilevel guarantees to the sustainability of the social human rights. The new Social Rights Pillar of the EU could offer an opportunity for strengthening European social solidarity that could be necessary and required for the consolidation of the Fiscal compact. A minimum of optimism brings to the conclusion that human rights need to be also social rights and social rights need to be also human rights. ; Universidad Pablo de Olavide

Una volta fatta la scelta per una prospettiva metodica d'ispirazione assiologico-sostanziale al fine dell'opportuno inquadramento delle relazioni tra Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo e diritto interno, lo scritto s'interroga se e fino a che punto a questa indicazione si conforma la giurisprudenza costituzionale relativa alle relazioni stesse, specie nei suoi più recenti svolgimenti. Si mettono pertanto in evidenza le perduranti oscillazioni della giurisprudenza che, in alcune sue espressioni (a partire dalla sent. n. 317 del 2009), sembra porre a base della sistemazione delle norme, convenzionali e nazionali, il criterio della più intensa tutela, mentre in altre espressioni seguita ad ambientare in prospettiva formale-astratta i rapporti in parola. Nella parte finale dello scritto, si svolgono alcune osservazioni critiche a riguardo della preclusione fatta ai giudici comuni dalla Corte costituzionale per ciò che attiene all'applicazione diretta della Convenzione, quanto meno con riguardo a taluni casi specificamente esaminati. Chiudono lo studio alcune notazioni aventi ad oggetto i riflessi di ordine istituzionale dello stato attuale delle relazioni tra Corte costituzionale e Corte EDU, nonché il significato che se ne può trarre al piano della teoria della Costituzione.The paper, moving from a methodological remark which underlines the importance of a value based approach, explores the most recent case law of the constitutional court with regard the relationship between the European Convention of Human Rights and the national, especially constitutional, legal order. More particular the first part of the paper argues as in the last relevant decisions, the Constitutional Court, on the one hand, has combined a value based approach aimed to find the highest possible protection to the fundamental right at stake, with, on the other hand, a reaction to the new aggressive approach of the European Court of Human Rights. The second part of the paper criticizes the rigid refuse of the constitutional court, to admit, at least in certain, particular cases, that the common judge could put aside the national legislation in contrast with the European Convention of Human Rights.

The essay focuses on the dialogue between Parliaments and Courts with a particular interest on the role that representative assemblies can play in protecting human rights in relation with the Courts' activity. Due to their democratic legitimacy, parliaments fulfill a particularly relevant function in protecting and promoting human rights, and they should fulfill it more and more. Hence, the importance in each legal system to define efficient mechanism of parliamentary control on human rights in the light of jurisprudence of the Courts and in particular of the Court of Strasburg. Among the most significant experiences, the English experience and the role played by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998 are analyzed.