Navalnyy v. Russia (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-370
Author(s):  
Corina Heri
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Political Activism ◽  
Recent Change ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Administrative Sanctions

On November 15, 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued its judgment in Navalnyy v. Russia. The applicant in the case argued that the Russian authorities had targeted him for arrest and administrative sanctions because of his political activism. In its judgment, the Grand Chamber confirmed its recent change in approach to Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including the normalization of the provision's scope and burden of proof. However, it displayed continued uncertainty about how to deal with measures based on a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate purposes.

scholarly journals Khlaifia and Others v. Italy

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-280
Author(s):  
Jill I. Goldenziel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Detention Centers ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Arab Spring ◽  
Domestic Law

In Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber or Court) released a landmark opinion with broad implications for how states must respect the individual rights of migrants. In the judgment, issued on December 15, 2016, the Court held that Italy's treatment of migrants after the Arab Spring violated the requirement of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that migrants receive procedural guarantees that enable them to challenge their detention and expulsion. The Court also held that Italy's treatment of migrants in detention centers did not violate the ECHR's prohibition on cruel and inhuman treatment, in part due to the emergency circumstances involved. The Court further held that Italy's return of migrants to Tunisia did not violate the prohibition on collective expulsion in Article 4 of Protocol 4 of the ECHR. Enforcement of the judgment would require many European states to provide a clear basis in domestic law for the detention of migrants and asylum-seekers. Given the global diffusion of state practices involving migrants, and other states’ desires to restrict migration, this case has broad implications for delineating the obligations of states to migrants and the rights of migrants within receiving countries.

Exploring the penumbra of punishment under the ECHR

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-375
Author(s):  
Agnė Andrijauskaitė
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hard Core ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Public Resources ◽  
Administrative Measure ◽  
Structured Analysis ◽  
Individual Protection ◽  
Administrative Sanctions

Administrative sanctions can be said to dwell in the periphery of punishment because they do not require setting the wheels of criminal procedure in motion. This allows States to save public resources as well as helps them to escape closer scrutiny at the judicial level. At the same time, the imposition of administrative sanctions usually curtails individual guarantees. Against this background, this article examines where the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) draws the line between measures belonging to the ‘hard core of criminal law’ and the periphery. After a presentation of gradual broadening of the ‘criminal limb’ guarantees of Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights to administrative measure of a punitive nature, it explores where do these guarantees meet their limits by taking the approach adopted in the landmark Jussila judgment as a point of departure. Subsequently, a structured analysis of the selected ECtHR case law in which this approach has been applied or – at least – invoked is provided. The article is finished with a reflection on the current interpretation of the said penumbra of punishment, which, among other things, identifies the possible gaps of individual protection, and the outlook for the future.

European Court of Human Rights

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerem Altiparmak ◽  
Onur Karahanogullari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Muslim Students ◽  
Fourth Section ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
European Court ◽  
Freedom Of Thought ◽  
Grand Chamber

On 10 November 2005 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (‘Court’) decided the long-running headscarf battle between Muslim students and Turkish universities in the Şahin judgment. On appeal, it held that the prohibition against wearing headscarves on university premises did not violate Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘Convention’) on freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It thereby confirmed the decision of the Fourth Section of the Court of 29 June 2004.

Overruling ‘the Salduz Doctrine’ in Beuze v Belgium: The ECtHR’s further retreat from the Salduz principles on the right to access to lawyer

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-362
Author(s):  
Ergul Celiksoy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Increasing Trend ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

In November 2018, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Beuze v Belgium. Relying on Ibrahim and Others v the United Kingdom, the Grand Chamber held that the Salduz principles require a two-stage test of analysis, and hence, ruled out that systematic statutory restriction of a general and mandatory nature would in itself constitute an automatic violation of Article 6 § 3(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Beuze judgment appears to be very controversial, since the Grand Chamber failed to put forward any convincing reason why it departed from previous case law, particularly Dayanan v Turkey and other judgments against Turkey. In their separate opinion, the concurring Judges in Beuze were concerned that the Beuze judgment overruled ‘ Salduz itself and all other cases that have applied the Salduz test’, and thus, ‘actually distorts and changes the Salduz principle and devalues the right that the Court established previously’. This article analyses the Beuze judgment in the light of the Court’s recent jurisprudence in order to examine whether it contradicts and dilutes the principles previously set out. Further, it discusses the implications of the new standards established in Ibrahim and Others and in subsequent cases, particularly Beuze. Particular attention is paid to the questions of how ‘fair’ is the application of overall fairness assessment in every case, how may the Court’s changing direction of approach concerning the right to access to a lawyer affect the increasing trend of recognition thereof, as a rule, by the contracting states, and finally, to what extent the new principles, especially those established in Beuze, comply with Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer.

Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy. Application No. 27765/09

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 417-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irini Papanicolopulu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
Maritime Search And Rescue ◽  
The Right

In a unanimous judgment in the case Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) held that Italy’s “push back” operations interdicting intending migrants and refugees at sea and returning them to Libya amounted to a violation of the prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR or Convention), the prohibition of collective expulsions under Article 4 of Protocol 4 to the Convention, and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention. Hirsi Jamaa is the Court’s first judgment on the interception of migrants at sea and it addresses issues concerning the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, as well as the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Winning the Battle by Losing the War: The Lautsi Case and the Holy Alliance between American Conservative Evangelicals, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Vatican to Reshape European Identity

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pasquale Annicchino
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Russian Orthodox ◽  
Orthodox Church ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
Russian Orthodox Church ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Pyrrhic Victory

The compulsory display of crucifixes in Italian public schools does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. The victory before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the Lautsi judgment of a variegated coalition of actors ranging from the strong alliance between the Vatican and the Italian Government to the Russia of the New Orthodoxy as well as to American Conservative Evangelicals, promises to change our understanding of church-state relationship in Europe and signals the emergence of a ‘new ecumenism’ in which the religious groups of different traditions work together toward common political goals. But was this judgment a real success for the Holy Alliance that successfully overturned the first Lautsi decision? I will argue that the March 2011 decision may result in a pyrrhic victory. The continuous reliance on State support to defend majority religious privileges may endanger, rather than benefit, religious vitality.

scholarly journals An evolving conception of discrimination in Europe

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Abel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Czech Republic ◽  
Ethnic Origin ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Segregated Schools ◽  
South Wales ◽  
European Court ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
Grand Chamber

CESAA 19th ANNUAL EUROPE ESSAY COMPETITION 2011 - Postgraduate winner: Simone Abel (University of New South Wales)In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights’ Grand Chamber handed down its judgment in DH and Others v Czech Republic. The case arose out of the disproportionately high number of Roma children assigned places in segregated schools for children with intellectual disabilities in the Czech Republic. It was alleged that this practice discriminated against Roma children who had normal, or even above normal, intelligence levels. The applicants claimed that they had been discriminated against in the enjoyment of their right to education on account of their race or ethnic origin  TheCourt made a finding of indirect discrimination against the Czech government. Commentators have hailed this as a landmark judgment that expands the conception of discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights. This paper will discuss how this finding differs from the First Chamber’s judgment and other ECHR caselaw to alter the conception of discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights.

6 Responsibility, 6.4 Admissibility of the Application by Vlastimir and Borka Banković, Živana Stojanović, Mirjana Stoimenovski, Dragana Koksimović, and Dragan Suković against Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom , European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber Decision, [2001]

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scovazzi Tullio
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Czech Republic ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Radio Station ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber

The Bankovic case is one of few cases in which the European Court of Human Rights took a position that, without an acceptable explanation, restricts the application of rights granted by the European Convention on Human Rights. The application was submitted by individuals who put forward that in 1999 seventeen states parties violated art. 2 (right to life) of the Convention by bombing by aircraft the television and radio station in Belgrade. As a consequence of this NATO directed operation sixteen civilians were killed and another sixteen were seriously injured. The Court found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the case, as at that time Yugoslavia was not a party to the Convention. The Court gave a too restrictive interpretation of the word ‘jurisdiction’ to basically conclude that the Convention applies only within the territory of states parties. The Bankovic decision has been contradicted by subsequent judgments.

Marriage, Family, Discrimination & Contradiction: An Evaluation of the Legacy and Future of the European Court of Human Rights' Jurisprudence on LGBT Rights

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 1746-1763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Lucy Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Registration System ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
European Court ◽  
Opposite Sex ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has been considering whether same-sex couples should have the rights to marry and to be recognized as a family under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) for over thirty years. In the 1980s the European Commission of Human Rights (the Commission) and the ECtHR respectively rejected the notion that same-sex relationships constituted a “family life” under Article 8 of the ECHR, and that post-operative transgendered persons had the right to marry under Article 12. However, throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the new millennium, the ECtHR handed down a body of judgments that incrementally liberalized these rights (albeit not always smoothly) in favor of LGBT persons. This evolution culminated in part on 24 June 2010, when the ECtHR passed judgment inSchalk and Kopf v. Austria.In that case the First Section of the ECtHR made a number of major, but seemingly contradictory rulings. For the first time in its history, the ECtHR ruled that same-sex relationships expressly constitute a “family life” under Article 8, and that the right to marry under Article 12 was not confined to opposite-sex couples in “all circumstances.” However, the ECtHR simultaneously ruled that Member States are under no obligation to protect that “family life,” by providing same-sex couples with access to marriage under Article 12, or an alternative registration system under Articles 8 and 14. The Grand Chamber denied the applicants' subsequent request for a referral.

Medical Negligence, Systemic Deficiency, or Denial of Emergency Healthcare? Reflections on the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber Judgment in Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal of 19 December 2017 and Previous Case-law

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-43
Author(s):  
Julia Kapelańska-Pręgowska
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Medical Negligence ◽  
European Court ◽  
State Obligations ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Hard Cases

Abstract On 19 December 2017 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal case. The judgment may be described as one of the hard cases dealing with a healthcare context, as it aimed to clarify the scope of positive substantive state obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the conditions of international responsibility. This article explores the judgment against the wider background of the previous case-law of the Court. It focuses on the question of the classification of healthcare problems into three categories: medical negligence, systemic deficiency, and denial of emergency healthcare, and reflects upon their ratione materiae justiciability before the European Court of Human Rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document