Suchergebnisse

Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) protects individuals from the so-called involuntary medical treatments within the framework of the right to respect for private life. Given that the rights guaranteed under Article 8 are not absolute but qualified rights (which can be limited for the reasons enlisted in Article 8, paragraph 2), it is crucial to examine the necessity and proportionality of the measures adopted by the state when deciding on the admissibility of these limitations. In its jurisprudence, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) addressed the issue of involuntary medical treatment in a number of cases, but the issue of compulsory vaccination (of children) was addressed in only one case, Vavrička and others v the Czech Republic (2021). The decision was rendered in April 2021, at the peak of the fight against the pandemic caused by the COVID-19 disease. Having in mind the circumstances at the moment when the decision was made, the fact that the case was decided by the Grand Chamber, and the fact that applications against Greece and France had already been lodged with the Court concerning compulsory vaccination against the COVID-19 disease, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the Court had the aforesaid applications in mind when addressing the issue in Vavrička and others. The importance of the Court's decision in the case Vavrička and others and the criteria stated therein for determining the proportionality and necessity of the measure of compulsory vaccination, as well as the width of the margin of appreciation enjoyed by states, is therefore evident. The paper also presents the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Croatia on the issue of compulsory vaccination of children. For the purpose of projecting the direction in which the ECtHR will go when deciding on such cases, the author elaborates on the aforesaid applications before the Court, where the applicants claimed the violation of their Article 8 right due to the introduction of compulsory vaccination against the COVID-19 disease for certain categories of employees. Finally, although the status of compulsory vaccination against the COVID-19 disease has not been resolved before the Court yet, we may draw certain conclusions on the basis of the current direction of the Court's legal reasoning on the proportionality of the measure of compulsory vaccination of children. For this reason, great attention will be given to the doctrine of the margin of appreciation, the concept of "weighing" the rights of individuals against the protection of certain legitimate goals, and the examination of necessity and proportionality by the ECtHR.

The European Convention Human Rights system, despite being the most effective system in providing individual protection of civil and political rights, is currently facing numerous problems. One of the biggest problems is the European Court of Human Rights overload. The expansion of the Court's caseload can be attributed to a combination of several factors one of which is the extensive judicial interpretation of Convention rights to a variety of claims, which at the inception of the system states were not initially intent upon addressing. As a human rights treaty where numerous provisions have been drafted with a lack of precision the Convention is subject to interpretation that is done by the Court since the judges have to interpret and define law in concrete situations, and not just apply it. For that reason the Court has developed numerous principles of interpretation of the Convention and this paper looks at the most important ones. The interpretative principles of the Court can be divided in two groups, related to the direction in which the judicial creativity led. The first group represents judicial self-restraint principles of interpretation where the judges used one of the four following principles: intentionalism, textualism, margin of appreciation or the doctrine of fourth instance. On the other side, the judicial activist methods of interpretation, as used by the judges' of the Court are the living instrument doctrine or evolutive interpretation, the doctrine of effectiveness or innovative interpretation, and the doctrine of an autonomous concept. This paper will look at all those principles as well as at the negative consequences of the inconsistency of their use. ; Europska konvencija za zaštitu ljudskih prava najstariji je i najučinkovitiji sustav za zaštitu ljudskih prava u svijetu. No, konvencijski sustav nije bez problema. Europski sud za ljudska prava, zadužen za ispitivanje individualnih (ali i međudržavnih) tužbi, preplavljen je zahtjevima pojedinaca koji tvrde da im je povrijeđeno neko od ...

Nowadays it is widely accepted among scholars that civil and political rights are in their nature generally no different from economic and social rights, and that both categories of rights can impose three different types of duties: to respect, to protect and to fulfil. This indivisibility of rights has also been proclaimed in conclusions of various human rights conferences. Although the interconnection and indivisibility of all human rights have been stressed from the very beginning of the human rights discussion in theory, in practice they have never been equally protected. The reasons for that kind of discrepancy will be analysed in this paper. Also, the current position of civil and political rights, on the one hand, and economic and social rights on the other within regional and global human rights instruments will be looked at, and this presentation will be followed by a discussion of the theoretical approaches to differences between these two categories of rights, if any. The aim of this paper is to show that despite the theoretical indivisibility of rights, in practice they are far from indivisible. ; U današnje je vrijeme u pravnoj struci opće prihvaćeno stajalište kako građanska i politička prava u svojoj prirodi načelno nisu različita od ekonomskih i socijalnih te kako obje kategorije prava mogu nametnuti tri vrste obveza državama: obvezu poštovanja prava, obvezu zaštite prava te obvezu ispunjenja uvjeta za ostvarivanje prava. Nedjeljivost građanskih i političkih od ekonomskih i socijalnih prava proglašena je i u zaključcima brojnih konferencija o ljudskim pravima. No, iako se u pravnoj teoriji od samih početaka naglašava nedjeljivost i međuovisnost svih prava, u praksi su ona odijeljena. U ovom će se radu analizirati razlozi te nedosljednosti. Prikazat će se trenutačna pozicija građanskih i političkih te ekonomskih i socijalnih prava u najvažnijim međunarodnim i regionalnim dokumentima za zaštitu ljudskih prava. Prikazat će se i teorijski pristup tim dvjema kategorijama prava. Cilj je ovog rada ...

The paper looks at the right to a healthy environment as guaranteed by two main instruments of the Council of Europe for the protection of human rights: the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Social Charter. As an instrument on civil and political rights, the Convention contains no explicit or implicit reference to the right to a healthy environment. Nevertheless, in its jurisprudence, particularly regarding Article 8 (and in certain situations Article 2), the European Court of Human Rights has started to interpret the Convention so as to include the right to a healthy environment. On the other side, as an instrument on economic and social rights the Charter also does not explicitly include the right to a healthy environment, although it does so implicitly under Article 11(3) which obliges State parties to take appropriate measures to prevent, as far as possible, epidemic, endemic and other diseases, as well as accidents. This provision seems much more suitable for interpretation in such a way as to guarantee the right to a healthy environment than Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention that guarantee the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. Already in its conclusions in the Reporting system, the European Committee on Social Rights has started interpreting the Charter so as to guarantee the right to a healthy environment and this has continued in the Committee's decisions on collective complaints. Therefore, as will be argued, the right to a healthy environment is now included in the Charter through the interpretation of the Committee. Consequently, what this paper contends is that the right to a healthy environment is more suitable and better placed under the Charter than the Convention.

The European Convention on Human Rights, as a main Council of Europe instrument for the protection of civil and political rights, does not guarantee the right to health care. However, the European Court of Human Rights broadly interprets Convention rights, and within the context of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention it gave certain indications that it might start dealing with the issue of health care. Without going into details of all the mentioned articles, this paper will analyse cases where the Court dealt with the issue of violation of Article 3 due to non-provision of health care outside the context of detention. Namely, within the context of detention, there is a clear obligation for states to provide health care, and the Court often relies on the reports of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. What we consider important to point out is the Court's case-law on providing health care outside the context of detention, given the social character of the right to health care, which goes beyond the civil and political character of the Convention.

Europska konvencija za zaštitu ljudskih prava kao temeljni instrument Vijeća Europe za zaštitu građanskih i političkih prava ne jamči pravo na zdravstvenu zaštitu. Međutim, Europski sud za ljudska prava široko tumači Konvencijska prava te je unutar konteksta čl. 2., 3. i 8. Konvencije dao određene naznake da bi se mogao početi baviti i pitanjem zdravstvene zaštite. Bez ulaženja u detalje svih spomenutih članaka, u ovom radu bit će analizirani predmeti u kojima se Sud bavio pitanjem povrede čl. 3. zbog nepružanja zdravstvene skrbi i to izvan konteksta zadržavanja. Naime, unutar konteksta zadržavanja postoji jasna obveza državama na pružanje zdravstvene skrbi koju je Sud utvrdio djelomično se oslanjajući i na izvješća i Odbora za sprječavanje mučenja, neljudskog i ponižavajućeg ponašanja. Ono što smatramo značajnim istaknuti jest praksa Suda u odnosu na pružanje zdravstvene skrbi izvan konteksta zadržavanja, s obzirom na socijalni karakter prava na zdravstvenu zaštitu koji izlazi iz okvira građansko-političkog karaktera Konvencije. ; The European Convention on Human Rights, as a main Council of Europe instrument for the protection of civil and political rights, does not guarantee the right to health care. However, the European Court of Human Rights broadly interprets Convention rights, and within the context of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention it gave certain indications that it might start dealing with the issue of health care. Without going into details of all the mentioned articles, this paper will analyse cases where the Court dealt with the issue of violation of Article 3 due to non-provision of health care outside the context of detention. Namely, within the context of detention, there is a clear obligation for states to provide health care, and the Court often relies on the reports of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. What we consider important to point out is the Court's case-law on providing health care outside the context of detention, ...

Autorice analiziraju praksu Europskog suda za ljudska prava povezanu sa zaštitom prava na poštovanje doma iz članka 8. Europske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda s obzirom na pitanje razmjernosti. Kategorija razmjernosti promatrana je kao kriterij osiguravanja zaštite i kao materijalna pretpostavka za odlučivanje o razmjernosti miješanja države ugovornice u pravo na poštovanje doma. Istaknuti su predmeti kod kojih je iseljenje podnositelja zahtjeva uslijedilo u postupcima prisilnog namirenja stvarnopravno osiguranih tražbina i u tom je kontekstu istražena geneza kategorije razmjernosti od njezina nužnog ispitivanja do odluke prema kojoj nema potrebe za ispitivanjem razmjernosti. ; The authors discuss and analyse case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the right to respect for home under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with respect the issue of proportionality. In the paper, the proportionality category was viewed as a criterion for securing protection and as a material precondition for deciding whether the State party's interference with the right to respect for home was proportionate. The cases in which the applicant's eviction occurred after national proceedings for the enforcement of mortgages were addressed. In this context, the genesis of the proportionality category was analysed, from the cases where the Court found it necessary to examine the proportionality to the cases where the Court did not consider the proportionality test necessary. ; Die Autorinnen analysieren die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte bezüglich des Schutzes des Rechtes auf Achtung der Wohnung aus Artikel 8 der Europäischen Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten, und zwar aus der Perspektive der Proportionalität. Die Proportionalitätskategorie wird als Kriterium für die Sicherung des Schutzes und als materielle Voraussetzung für die Eingriffe des Vertragsstaates in das Recht ...