Markin v. Russia

2021 ◽  
Vol 194 ◽  
pp. 92-172
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Gender Stereotypes ◽  
Military Personnel ◽  
Parental Leave ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Special Circumstances

92Human rights — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex — Right to private and family life — Armed forces — Parental leave — Female military personnel parental leave entitlement not extending to male military personnel — Whether refusal to grant applicant parental leave amounting to discrimination on grounds of sex — Gender stereotypes — Right of individual petition — Russian Government raising preliminary objections — Whether Russia violating Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8, and Article 34, of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Russian law — Entitlement to parental leave — Difference in treatment between military servicemen and servicewomen — Whether special circumstances for human rights — Whether safeguarding standards of protection under Convention of interest for other States Parties to Convention — Importance of issues raised — Gender stereotyping — National security

European Norms on the Protection of Human Rights: On the Development of Russian Human Rights Legislation

2004 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
European Standards ◽  
Principles And Standards ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Special Circumstances

AbstractThis article examines the problems concerning the observance by the Russian Federation of European conventions, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture. In recent years, there has been a signifi cant breakthrough in the development of Russian legislation in light of human rights' principles and standards laid down by the Council of Europe. At the same time, the implementation of European standards in the law enforcement area has been carried out at a distinctly slow pace, particularly in relation to the criminal–executive system (where the first tentative steps towards the reform of penitentiary institutions have only been recently taken), the rights of migrants and refugees, the protection of the rights of armed forces personnel, and human rights in Chechnya. This article analyses the problems involved in the legal and judicial protection of human rights in Russia as well as issues concerning the restriction of citizens' rights in special circumstances (such as war or a state of emergency) and the protection of social rights. Lastly, the creation of a unifi ed legal space for human rights in the Russian Federation will also be discussed.

Re Review of Constitutionality of Article 11 and Article 392(4) Items 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 194 ◽  
pp. 487-502
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

487Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Judgments of European Court of Human Rights — Execution of judgments of European Court of Human Rights — Russian judgments — Whether European Court of Human Rights’ judgments providing grounds for reconsideration of decision in a civil case where opposing decision of Constitutional Court existing — Russian law — Article 392(4) of Russian Civil Procedure Code — The law of the Russian Federation

Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal

2021 ◽  
Vol 194 ◽  
pp. 226-276
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Sexual Life ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Gender Based ◽  
Relationship Of

226Human rights — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex — Right to private and family life — Domestic proceedings establishing liability for medical malpractice — Whether compensation awarded adequate — Applicability of Article 14 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 taken in conjunction with Article 8 — Gender equality — Stereotypes — Age discrimination — Physical disability — Private sexual life — Whether Portugal violating Article 14 read together with Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — United Nations Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1970 (“CEDAW”) — CEDAW Committee observations — Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, 2011 — United Nations Human Rights Council report — Judgment of Portuguese court — Liability for medical malpractice and adequate compensation — Reasoning of court — Gender-based stereotyping — Whether Portugal violating Article 14 read together with Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950Damages — Compensation — Non-pecuniary damage — Pecuniary damages — Medical malpractice — Applicant suffering physical injury following operation — Judgment of Portuguese court — Compensation awarded reduced — Reasoning of court — Gender stereotyping — Whether discriminatory — Appropriate compensation

Regina (RF) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mind and Another Intervening)

2021 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 578-599
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Disabled Persons ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
United Nations Convention

578Human rights — Rights of persons with disabilities — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006, Article 19 — Distinction between categories of disabled persons — Connection of benefit payments to functional need and level of impairment — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 14 — Relationship with Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 — Discrimination against classes of disabled people — Whether measure objectively justified — Whether measure manifestly without reasonable foundation — Whether domestic regulations breaching international treaties — Whether domestic regulations unlawfulRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 — Domestic regulations making distinction with respect to psychological distress — Less favourable treatment of those suffering from psychological distress — Whether domestic regulations in breach of international treaties — Whether domestic regulations unlawful — Whether duty to consult — The law of England

ON and DP v. Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 194 ◽  
pp. 463-486
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Gender Stereotypes ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Lesbian Women ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Rule Application ◽  
United Nations Convention

463Human rights — Women’s rights — Elimination of discrimination against women — Sexual orientation — Exhaustion of domestic remedies — Due diligence obligations — Obligation to investigate — Requirement of prompt and impartial investigation — Protection of lesbian women from violence — Gender stereotypes — Committee case law and general recommendations — Remedies — Whether Russian Federation violating Articles 1, 2 and 5 of United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979International tribunals — Jurisdiction and admissibility — United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women — Local remedies rule — Application in light of time bar under national law

The Right to ‘Special Food' under Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights

2012 ◽  
pp. 101-125
Author(s):  
Maria Clara Maffei
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Military Personnel ◽  
Family Life ◽  
The State ◽  
Cultural Value ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Dietary Choices ◽  
The Right ◽  
Religious Aspects

The article analyzes some paradigmatic cases concerning the religious or cultural value of food which have been brought to the attention of the monitoring bodies instituted by the European Convention on Human Rights. Problems may arise in particular when individuals (e.g. prisoners, hospitalized people, military personnel, children at school) have to rely upon the State to provide sustenance. However, the Convention contains no reference to cultural or religious aspects of food nor to cultural rights in general. From this analysis it emerges that a right to "cultural" food could be framed in "wider" rights (e.g. freedom of thought, conscience and religion, right to respect for private and family life, protection of property, prohibition of torture) as it is an aspect of them. While it is clear that not all dietary choices deserve protection and abuses should be avoided, the different interests of the State should be balanced against the interests of individuals who need special food for religious, conscience or cultural reasons. The balance has to be fair and this includes the possibility for States to offer valid dietary alternatives, although in some cases, as for many other human rights, States will continue to be able to restrict the rights of individuals on different grounds.

Georgia v. Russia (I)

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-173
Author(s):  
Bjorn Arp
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber

On July 3, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) rendered its judgment in Georgia v. Russia, concerning Russia’s collective expulsion of a large number of Georgian nationals between October 2006 and January 2007. The Court held that Russia had violated several provisions of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention or ECHR), in particular Article of Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR (prohibition of collective expulsions). Because the Russian government had failed to cooperate with the Court by providing relevant information, the Court also found a violation of Article 38 of the ECHR, which obliges states to furnish “all necessary facilities” for the effective conduct of the Court’s investigation of the case. The Court deferred its decision on the question of “just satisfaction” under Article 41 pending further submissions by the parties. This was the first of three interstate proceedings that Georgia has brought against Russia under the special procedure of Article 33, and it is the first decision on the merits of these cases.

Human rights and the moralities of property

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 176-185
Author(s):  
Bonnie Holligan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Existing Structures ◽  
European Court ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
Environment Agency ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The Uk

Purpose Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of Mott) v. Environment Agency, the purpose of this study is to explore the interface between property, environment and human rights. It examines the space within human rights jurisprudence for a richer notion of property that can accommodate social and environmental obligation and non-anthropocentric values. Design/methodology/approach In this study, a theoretical lens is applied to human rights doctrine. A central question is the extent to which there is room within the discourse on Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) to the European Convention on Human Rights for a more relational and ecocentric approach. The paper engages with the jurisprudence of the UK courts and that of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the works of scholars such as Jennifer Nedelsky and Nicole Graham. Findings It is concluded that although the judgment in Mott demonstrates the potential for A1P1 to function as a means for rights-holders to obtain a voice in environmental decision-making processes, it highlights the tendency of property to preserve existing structures and arrangements. When assessing whether an individual is asked to bear an excessive burden, great weight was given in Mott to values associated with livelihood. What did not feature in the (brief) judgment was the consideration of the ecological context in which Mr Mott’s rights were embedded and the extent to which this context might have inherently restricted his ability to enjoy his property. The dispute demonstrates the limitations of existing property institutions and discourses in managing ecological conflict and fostering positive relationships and management practices. Originality/value This study contributes to the doctrinal literature on A1P1, providing a new perspective on the role of human rights jurisprudence in managing environmental conflict. It is original in its examination of human rights discourse in light of relational and ecocentric theories of property, providing a critique of existing values and paradigms. Evaluating the doctrinal reasoning in Mott with reference to this theoretical framework, it provides fresh insight into the limitations of the Supreme Court’s approach. It points to the need for more explicit incorporation of environmental values and contexts in human rights reasoning.

Advocacy beyond litigation: Examining Russian NGO efforts on implementation of European Court of Human Rights judgments

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 255-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
North Caucasus ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
The North ◽  
European Court ◽  
Police Detention ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Impact

This article examines the ways in which various Russian NGOs, involved in litigation at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), have worked to advocate for improved domestic implementation of rulings made by the Court. The paper traces these advocacy activities in four key problem areas for Russia’s implementation of the Convention: (1) domestic judges’ knowledge and citation of the European Convention or ECtHR case law; (2) the execution of domestic court judgments by Russian state bureaucratic bodies; (3) extrajudicial disappearances and killings in anti-terrorist military operations in the North Caucasus; and (4) torture or inhumane treatment in police detention. The author finds that the impact Russian NGOs can have upon domestic implementation depends greatly upon the professional cultures and incentives of the actors involved as well as whether or not prevention of violations is compatible with other high-level Russian government agendas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document