Suchergebnisse

In the Netherlands, an elaborate legal system of legislative protection against discrimination has been in place since 1994. Partly with the aim of implementing the Article 13 Directives, two new statutes were added to the system in 2003 (disability discrimination) and 2004 (age discrimination) and a number of amendments have been made to the existing legal framework. This has resulted in a highly complex system of legislation. The complicated differences between the scope and exceptions of the various legislative acts will be difficult for most people to comprehend. As far as content is concerned, however, the Dutch legislation generally seems to comply with the requirements of the Directives and often even provides a higher level of protection. Most issues of debate in the Dutch implementation process concern relatively minor points, such as terminology (discrimination or "distinction"?). It is clear, however, that some elements of the Dutch legislation can be considered to be incompatible with the Directives, in particular the complete exclusion of religious institutions and the clergy from the scope of application of the ETA and the decision to define the elements of harassment cumulatively instead of alternatively.

Traditionally, courts adjudicate fundamental rights cases by applying substantive tests of reasonableness or proportionality. Increasingly, however, European courts are also expressly taking account of the quality of the procedure that has led up to a fundamental rights interference. Yet this procedural review is far from uncontroversial. There still is a lack of clarity as to what 'procedural review' really means, what its potential for judicial decision-making is, how it relates and should relate to substantive review, and what its limitations are. Featuring contributions from experts in the field, this book is the first in-depth study into procedural review, considering the theoretical and conceptual issues at play, as well as the applicability of procedural review in different legal systems. It will therefore be of great importance to scholars and practitioners interested in fundamental rights adjudication in Europe, judicial reasoning and procedural justice

In fundamental rights adjudication, a court first has to determine whether the interest at stake falls within the scope of the fundamental right invoked. Whether or not an individual interest falls within the scope or ambit of one of the fundamental rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights determines whether or not the European Court of Human Rights can decide on the merits of a case. This volume brings together a variety of legal scholars in order to examine the scope of fundamental rights. Topics range from the nature of human rights and the real or imagined risk of rights inflation to theories of positive obligations and social and economic rights. It contains contributions of a theoretical nature as well as analytical overviews of the ECtHR's approach. In addition, comparisons are made with domestic, EU and international law

Confusion about the differences between the Council of Europe (the parent body of the European Court of Human Rights) and the European Union is commonplace amongst the general public. It even affects some lawyers, jurists, social scientists and students. This book will enable the reader to distinguish clearly between those human rights norms which originate in the Council of Europe and those which derive from the EU, vital for anyone interested in human rights in Europe and in the UK as it prepares to leave the EU. The main achievements of relevant institutions include securing minimum standards across the continent as they deal with increasing expansion, complexity, multidimensionality, and interpenetration of their human rights activities. The authors also identify the central challenges, particularly for the UK in the post-Brexit era where the components of each system need to be carefully distinguished and disentangled