Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-553
Author(s):  
Vladislava Stoyanova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Article 5

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Grand Chamber decided in Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary that the holding of the applicants, who were asylum-seekers, in the “transit zone” between Hungary and Serbia did not amount to deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). On this point, the Grand Chamber overruled the unanimously adopted Chamber judgment. At the same time, the Grand Chamber ruled that Hungary had violated Article 3 ECHR since Hungary did not assess the risk of ill-treatment for the applicants in Serbia.

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.

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.

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.

scholarly journals The United Kingdom’s Coronavirus Act, deprivations of liberty, and the right to liberty and security of the person

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Pugh
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

Abstract In response to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic the UK government has passed the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CA). Among other things, this act extends existing statutory powers to impose restrictions of liberty for public health purposes. The extension of such powers naturally raises concerns about whether their use will be compatible with human rights law. In particular, it is unclear whether their use will fall within the public heath exception to the Article 5 right to liberty and security of the person in the European Convention of Human Rights. In this paper, I outline key features of the CA, and briefly consider how the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the public health exception to Article 5 rights. This analysis suggests two grounds on which restrictions of liberty enforced some under the CA might be vulnerable to claims of Article 5 rights violations. First, the absence of specified time limits on certain restrictions of liberty means that they may fail the requirement of legal certainty championed by the European Court in its interpretation of the public health exception. Second, the Coronavirus Act’s extension of powers to individuals lacking public health expertise may undermine the extent to which the act will ensure that deprivations of liberty are necessary and proportionate.

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 MIGRANTS IN DETENTION: APPROACH OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

TEME ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 957
Author(s):  
Veljko Turanjanin ◽  
Snežana Soković
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Main Part ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
The Mediterranean ◽  
Migration Crisis ◽  
The One ◽  
Article 5

The Mediterranean migrant crisis is not calming down and in the last six decades the nature and character of these migrations has changed. The authors deal with the one of the aspects of their position – detention. This work is divided into several parts. In the first part, the authors explore the problem of the migration crisis. After that, they explain in detail an Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The main part of this work is devoted to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights related to the migrant’s detention.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document