Suchergebnisse

On September 20, 1967, the Governments of Denmark, Norway and Sweden instituted an action against Greece before the European Commission of Human Rights. The Netherlands took the same step on September 27, 1967. These proceedings were brought in response to a resolution adopted on June 23, 1967, by the Standing Committee of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe which, on behalf of the Assembly, expressed "the wish that the Governments of the Contracting Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights refer the Greek case, either separately or jointly, to the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 24 of the Convention."

AbstractInA Cosmopolitan Legal Order: Kant, Constitutional Justice and the European Convention on Human Rights, Alec Stone Sweet and Clare Ryan argue that there has been the emergence of, and increasing prospects for, a cosmopolitan legal order based on the Convention. This symposium aims to engage with, and to better explore, the theoretical implications and practical legal ramifications of their argument. In doing so, this first article acts as a general introduction to the symposium, laying out the major arguments of the book as well as arguments presented by the symposium contributors. Moving beyond the summative, this introduction also situatesA Cosmopolitan Legal Oderwithin broader debates in global constitutionalism, while defending its use of Kant's cosmopolitan theory. Lastly, it explores some of the key implications and challenges that arise from the symposium itself, rooting these insights within the current context of anti-globalism, nationalism, populism and neo-sovereigntism, and the corresponding necessity for a more transitional and pluralistic response as offered inA Cosmopolitan Legal Order.

The concept of 'legitimate expectation' is one which has developed to different degrees in the domestic laws of contracting states of the Council of Europe. The European Court of Human Rights tends to use the term is two related contexts. First, the Court refers to legitimate expectation as a way of expanding the scope of 'possessions' within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol 1 (P1-1) of the European Convention of Human Rights in order to bring an issue within the purview of the Court. Second, the Court uses the term to refer to a person's expectations as to the future peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The failure by the Court to define clearly what it means by the term 'legitimate expectation' and its use in two different (if related) ways has led to significant confusion in the Court's jurisprudence as it concerns social security.