Suchergebnisse

The issue of religious symbols in the public space has given rise to widespread debate on the scope of freedom of religion and of the State's neutrality in various countries around the world. Over the years, it has become a source of vigorous legal and political controversy. In Europe in particular, this question chiefly concerns the wearing of headscarves. Bans (often formulated as either bans on headgear or as general bans on religious symbols or dress) have been introduced by many countries and in many areas of life. Islamic dress tends to be commonly perceived (at least in the west) as being associated with the subordination of young girls and women and the perceived link with what is commonly termed "Islamic fundamentalism". The wearing of religious symbols has been discussed both from a socio-political as well as legal perspective. These developments, particularly attempts to change a cultural reticence to publicly express faith into a legal obligation to refrain from religious expression in certain circumstances, have brought major challenges for European human rights law, most notably in relation to the wearing of religious dress. Although most European legal systems provide protection for religious freedom and to religious minorities, the scope of this protection is affected by many factors, such as history, (constitutional) traditions and social factors. In essence, the term European human rights culture developed in the interplay of jurisprudence between The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The text explores the two recent CJEU rulings and juxtaposes it against the recent developments in the ECtHR jurisprudence, focusing on how CJEU departs from the established manner set out by the ECtHR of dealing with cases involving the limitations on fundamental rights. The purpose of this is to present a reflection of the recent state of the European human rights culture, which has, in the past years, become very dynamic.

In Al-Skeini v the United Kingdom, the European Court on Human Rights clarified the scope ratione loci of the European Convention on Human Rights. Without fully abandoning the territorial concept of jurisdiction, which it had affirmed in the 2001 Bankovic decision, the Court inched somewhat closer to the personal model of jurisdiction. After Al-Skeini, an ECHR Contracting State's exercise of public powers over a given territory, even in the absence of full effective control, may bring persons present in that territory within the State's jurisdiction. The Court did not, however, pronounce itself on the applicability of the ECHR in case (agents of ) a Contracting State exercise governmental authority over persons abroad without exercising public powers over the territory where these persons are located.

In Al-Skeini v the United Kingdom, the European Court on Human Rights clarified the scope ratione loci of the European Convention on Human Rights. Without fully abandoning the territorial concept of jurisdiction, which it had affirmed in the 2001 Bankovic decision, the Court inched somewhat closer to the personal model of jurisdiction. After Al-Skeini, an ECHR Contracting State's exercise of public powers over a given territory, even in the absence of full effective control, may bring persons present in that territory within the State's jurisdiction. The Court did not, however, pronounce itself on the applicability of the ECHR in case (agents of ) a Contracting State exercise governmental authority over persons abroad without exercising public powers over the territory where these persons are located.

This article examines recently enacted legislation in the Russian Federation designed to regulate so-called 'homosexual propaganda.' Through an analysis of the extant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (Eur. Ct. H.R.) in respect of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, the article considers the extent to which the existence and enforcement of 'homosexual propaganda' laws can be said to violate rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The article demonstrates weaknesses in current Eur. Ct. H.R.'s jurisprudence specifically in relation to Arts. 10, 11 and 14 of the ECHR and argues that it requires significant evolution to better protect sexual minorities in Russia and elsewhere.

The constitutional framework of the European Union (EU) today contains an impressive set of human rights provisions. The treaties declare that the Union is founded on respect for human rights, give a legally binding effect to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and authorize the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).The Treaties require all Member States to accept these values and include a mechanism of sanctions for existing Member States that seriously and persistently violate such rights. Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) contains the legal basis for a strong EU anti-discrimination regime, while the main basis for the EU human rights framework is Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).The purpose of this paper is to present the procedure for EU accession to the ECHR, as well as the latest changes in mutual negotiations. It is an accession that aims to accept the European Union and its institutions as contracting parties against which applications can be filed and proceedings initiated for possible human rights violations provided by the ECHR.The process is long overdue and takes a long time, but should eventually lead to the EU's eventual accession to the ECHR. The authors of this paper, in addition to explaining the accession procedure, also present their views and opinions regarding further negotiations between the two parties.

The article is pertaining to the relationship between the European Convention on Human Rights and the Polish national law. Upon the introduction of the system of economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1997, the article considers what rules determine the relationship between the application of the law by Polish courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The paper concludes by showing how Polish courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg refer to the right of property. It's one of the fundamental human rights, when they examine a case. It occurs that clauses, which limit this right, are sometimes understood in a different way by Polish courts and the European Court of Human Rights. Regarding the above, the case of Waldemar Nowakowski v. Poland of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is discussed. Furthermore, the article presents how the Polish Government executes the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg delivered in the above-mentioned case.

This article reviews the interpretation of section 6(2)(a)ii of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act which makes an administrator "biased or reasonably suspected of bias" a ground of judicial review. In this regard, the paper reviews the determination of administrative bias in South Africa especially highlighting the concept of institutional bias. The paper notes that inspite of the formulation of the bias ground of review the test for administrative bias is the reasonable apprehension test laid down in the case of President of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union(2) which on close examination is not the same thing. Accordingly the paper urges an alternative interpretation that is based on the reasonable suspicion test enunciated in BTR Industries South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Metal and Allied Workers Union and R v Roberts. Within this context, the paper constructs a model for interpreting the bias ground of review that combines the reasonable suspicion test as interpreted in BTR Industries and R v Roberts, the possibility of the waiver of administrative bias, the curative mechanism of administrative appeal as well as some level of judicial review exemplified by the jurisprudence of article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights, especially in the light of the contemplation of the South African Magistrate Court as a jurisdictional route of judicial review.

In July 2011, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued its judgment in Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom. This case prompted the court to reconsider its conflicting lines of case law on the extraterritorial application of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). In its decision, the court validated both the "effective control of an area" and "State agent authority" models of analysis, which had until Al-Skeini both been employed by the court at different times to analyze the ECHR's extraterritorial application. Ultimately, however, the court ruled under an augmented version of the "State agent authority" model—adding a requirement that the state using force exercise some amorphous "public powers" over the extraterritorial area for ECHR Article 1 jurisdiction to attach. As a result, this decision, while greatly anticipated, has posed more questions for international lawyers as to the ECHR's extraterritorial application than it has answered.

The consequences of a prolonged non-accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights following Opinion 2/13 of the Court of Justice of the European Union may very well affect the longer-term effectiveness and viability of the Convention system. This contribution gives a succinct analysis of the institutional link between the Convention system and the EU legal order, and of the more recent interaction between the two systems, arguing that both were on what seemed to be a collision course until recently. The author stresses the continued need for an institutionalised arrangement between both regional courts working in the same geographic area interpreting similar human rights standards.

Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights has become a crucial instrument to stimulate and compel the national authorities of the 47 member states not only to abstain from interferences restricting media freedom and investigative journalism, but also to promote transparency, media pluralism and internet freedom. This paper explores some of the characteristics and developments of the European Court's case law regarding media, journalism, internet freedom, newsgathering, whistleblowing and access to information. The perspective of the analysis is that effectively guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression and information helps developing the quality of democracy, the protection of other human rights and ultimately contributes to realise a more sustainable, and hence a better, world to live in. ; Investigative journalism, Media and internet freedom, Access to information, Whistleblowing

The Protection of the right to education has been the subject of endness debates troughout thepreparatory work on the European Convention of Human Rights. While the idea of a right to educationfor all was quite evident in the mind of the drafters of the European Convention of Human Rights, therespect for religious and philosophical convictions of parents, who come first in the education of theirchildren, has been more controversial. Theses doubts explain the inscription of this right in Article 2 ofthe Protocol to the Convention on 20 March 1952. Its importance mustn't be overlooked. Described asa « matrix right », the right to education contributes to a concrete and effective guarantee of the rightsand freedoms protected by the European Convention of Human Rights. It ensures personal blossomingand the right to make up their own minds. Therefore, everybody can claim this right, whether it be apupil or a student, regardless of the institution (public or private school, primary school or furthereducation). Aware of this key issue to protect a democratic society, the European Court of HumanRights has interpreted article 2 of the Protocol in order to reach a fair balance between the nationalmargin of appreciation and the protection of the right to education. That's the reason why the Courtrequires States to achieve some positive obligations especially to enable everyone to use existingeducation means. Through the guarantee to an equal access of everyone to education institutions, theEuropean Court of Human Rights also encourages national authorities to observe the distinctivefeatures of each individual. In order to do so, the authorities must remain neutral both in educationalinstitutions and their curriculum. No pupil or student must feel excluded or chastised because of hispersonal convictions. Then, securing the universal right to education implies securing the right to apluralistic education. ; La protection du droit à l'instruction a fait l'objet de longues discussions lors des travaux préparatoiresà la ...

The subject of the study is the changes taking place in the legislation on property protection in Eastern European states due to the influence of pilot judgments. Special attention is paid to the relevant principles of property rights established by the case-law of the ECtHR

First published online: 24 June 2020 ; The aim of this analysis is to direct the attention of legal scholars and legislators towards the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia. This topic will sooner or later make inroads into the legal systems of all Council of Europe Member States, to the extent that is has not already. Two principles are at stake here: the protection of human life, on the one hand, and self-determination, on the other. The unconditional adherence to the principle of protection of life would entail that life should always be protected, even against the will of the person concerned. The unconditional adherence to the principle of self-determination would entail that each individual should have the right to die upon request, provided that their decision is based on their free will and informed. This article clarifies that, in their absoluteness, both alternatives should be rejected, and seeks to provide a reading of the limits of Member States' margin of discretion in end-of-life issues.

Problem setting. According to the Law of Ukraine # 3477-IV «On implementation of judgments and application of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights», 23.02.2006 (Art. 17) the courts of Ukraine apply the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocols (hereinafter – Convention, ECHR) and the case-law of the European Court of Human Right (hereinafter – the Court, ECtHR) as the source of law. By the Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine # 431, 10.09.2014 the Government Commissioner on ECtHR matters has been authorized to co-ordinate «the implementation of the Court's judgments, which are the interpretation of norms of Convention and its inalienable part, contain the norms of law and are subject to application in the way of implementation of international treaties». Such positions clearly show the aspiration of Ukraine to strengthen the role of European standards of human rights in national legal order. At the same time the case-law of the ECtHR covers not only the numerous legal standards related to concrete rights and freedoms, but also the doctrinal approaches to the interpretation and application of the ECHR which lay the foundation of the Court's jurisprudence. There is lack of studies of such doctrinal approaches in Ukraine while the conditions of their application at the national level are generally unknown. Resent research and publications analyses. Such doctrinal approaches are well developed in the ECtHR case-law and are deeply explored by European scholars (i. e. R. Bernhardt, D. Gomien, D. Harris, G. Letsas, R. St. J. Macdonald, S. Maringele, F. Matscher, J. McBride, H. Petzold, M. de Salvia, L. Zwaak). Meanwhile a few Ukrainian researchers have paid attention to the problem of principles and methods of interpretation and application of the ECHR (L. Gouseynov, T. Doudash, V. Marmazov, P. Rabinovich, S. Fedic, L. Tsvigoun, S. Shevchouc and some others). The deep analysis of the doctrines, which are developed due to the Court's case-law are absent in Ukrainian jurisprudence. Paper objective. Main objective of the article is to study the doctrine of state's positive obligations to secure the conventional rights and the legal grounds of such obligations under the ECHR law in correlation with the other doctrinal approaches which are used by the ECtHR in the perspective of their implementation on the national level. Paper main body. As the basic concepts and principles (also known as the methods of interpretation and application of the Convention) official on-line resources of the Council of Europe indicate: dynamic purposive interpretation (the concept of "Convention as a Living Instrument"), the autonomous concepts, negative and positive obligations, subsidiarity, proportionality, just satisfaction, "margin of appreciation" of the state, equality of arms, horizontal application of rights and their hierarchy. Among them there are several doctrines (the doctrines of dynamic purposive interpretation, "margin of appreciation" of the state, autonomous concepts and the state's positive obligations) which have been recognized and developed due to the Court's jurisprudence. They accumulate the «unwritten law» of the Convention (as they are not mentioned in the text of ECHR) and aim to ensure the sequence and logic system of promotion and protection of human rights. They are closely interrelated and interdependent. These doctrines are more about the scope and character of the state's obligations under the Convention, rather then the subject to direct application in court proceedings on domestic level. Meanwhile these doctrines provide the means of assessment of compliance of the national policies and legal practice in the field of fundamental rights and freedoms with the European standards. Conclusions of the research. Thus the principle doctrinal approaches to the interpretation and application of the human rights and fundamental freedoms ensure the conceptual and methodological unity of the law of the Convention. Due to the Court's case-law these doctrines obtained official recognition, international authority, validity and credibility as well as the normative (regulative) features. So they shall be incorporated to the national legal order. For that they shall be well-known to all kinds of the state agents (legislative body, state administration and law-enforcement bodies and judiciary) who shall fulfill their duties with respect to the doctrinal standards. Key words: human rights, state's positive obligations, "margin of appreciation" of the state, purposive dynamic interpretation, case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. ; Раскрыто основное содержание доктрины позитивных обязательств государства по гарантированию закреплённых в Конвенции прав и свобод, правовые основания таких обязательств; а также их корреляция с иными доктринальными подходами, на которые опирается Европейский суд по правам человека при толковании и применении Европейской конвенции по правам человека (телеологического динамического толкования, «границ усмотрения» государства, «автономных понятий» и др.) в свете перспектив их практического внедрения на национальном уровне ; Розкрито основний зміст доктрини позитивних зобов'язань держави щодо гарантування викладених у Конвенції прав і свобод та правові підстави таких зобов'язань, а також її кореляція з іншими доктринальними підходами, на які спирається Європейський суд з прав людини при тлумаченні та застосуванні Європейської конвенції з прав людини (телеологічного динамічного тлумачення, «меж розсуду» держави, «автономних понять» та ін.) у світлі перспектив їх практичного впровадження на національному рівні.

Problem setting. According to the Law of Ukraine # 3477-IV «On implementation of judgments and application of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights», 23.02.2006 (Art. 17) the courts of Ukraine apply the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocols (hereinafter – Convention, ECHR) and the case-law of the European Court of Human Right (hereinafter – the Court, ECtHR) as the source of law. By the Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine # 431, 10.09.2014 the Government Commissioner on ECtHR matters has been authorized to co-ordinate «the implementation of the Court's judgments, which are the interpretation of norms of Convention and its inalienable part, contain the norms of law and are subject to application in the way of implementation of international treaties». Such positions clearly show the aspiration of Ukraine to strengthen the role of European standards of human rights in national legal order. At the same time the case-law of the ECtHR covers not only the numerous legal standards related to concrete rights and freedoms, but also the doctrinal approaches to the interpretation and application of the ECHR which lay the foundation of the Court's jurisprudence. There is lack of studies of such doctrinal approaches in Ukraine while the conditions of their application at the national level are generally unknown. Resent research and publications analyses. Such doctrinal approaches are well developed in the ECtHR case-law and are deeply explored by European scholars (i. e. R. Bernhardt, D. Gomien, D. Harris, G. Letsas, R. St. J. Macdonald, S. Maringele, F. Matscher, J. McBride, H. Petzold, M. de Salvia, L. Zwaak). Meanwhile a few Ukrainian researchers have paid attention to the problem of principles and methods of interpretation and application of the ECHR (L. Gouseynov, T. Doudash, V. Marmazov, P. Rabinovich, S. Fedic, L. Tsvigoun, S. Shevchouc and some others). The deep analysis of the doctrines, which are developed due to the Court's case-law are absent in Ukrainian jurisprudence. Paper objective. Main objective of the article is to study the doctrine of state's positive obligations to secure the conventional rights and the legal grounds of such obligations under the ECHR law in correlation with the other doctrinal approaches which are used by the ECtHR in the perspective of their implementation on the national level. Paper main body. As the basic concepts and principles (also known as the methods of interpretation and application of the Convention) official on-line resources of the Council of Europe indicate: dynamic purposive interpretation (the concept of "Convention as a Living Instrument"), the autonomous concepts, negative and positive obligations, subsidiarity, proportionality, just satisfaction, "margin of appreciation" of the state, equality of arms, horizontal application of rights and their hierarchy. Among them there are several doctrines (the doctrines of dynamic purposive interpretation, "margin of appreciation" of the state, autonomous concepts and the state's positive obligations) which have been recognized and developed due to the Court's jurisprudence. They accumulate the «unwritten law» of the Convention (as they are not mentioned in the text of ECHR) and aim to ensure the sequence and logic system of promotion and protection of human rights. They are closely interrelated and interdependent. These doctrines are more about the scope and character of the state's obligations under the Convention, rather then the subject to direct application in court proceedings on domestic level. Meanwhile these doctrines provide the means of assessment of compliance of the national policies and legal practice in the field of fundamental rights and freedoms with the European standards. Conclusions of the research. Thus the principle doctrinal approaches to the interpretation and application of the human rights and fundamental freedoms ensure the conceptual and methodological unity of the law of the Convention. Due to the Court's case-law these doctrines obtained official recognition, international authority, validity and credibility as well as the normative (regulative) features. So they shall be incorporated to the national legal order. For that they shall be well-known to all kinds of the state agents (legislative body, state administration and law-enforcement bodies and judiciary) who shall fulfill their duties with respect to the doctrinal standards. Key words: human rights, state's positive obligations, "margin of appreciation" of the state, purposive dynamic interpretation, case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. ; Раскрыто основное содержание доктрины позитивных обязательств государства по гарантированию закреплённых в Конвенции прав и свобод, правовые основания таких обязательств; а также их корреляция с иными доктринальными подходами, на которые опирается Европейский суд по правам человека при толковании и применении Европейской конвенции по правам человека (телеологического динамического толкования, «границ усмотрения» государства, «автономных понятий» и др.) в свете перспектив их практического внедрения на национальном уровне ; Розкрито основний зміст доктрини позитивних зобов'язань держави щодо гарантування викладених у Конвенції прав і свобод та правові підстави таких зобов'язань, а також її кореляція з іншими доктринальними підходами, на які спирається Європейський суд з прав людини при тлумаченні та застосуванні Європейської конвенції з прав людини (телеологічного динамічного тлумачення, «меж розсуду» держави, «автономних понять» та ін.) у світлі перспектив їх практичного впровадження на національному рівні.