scholarly journals Evolutionary trends in the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights

Author(s):  
Svitlana Karvatska ◽  
Mariia Blikhar ◽  
Nataliia Huralenko

The purpose of this Article is to analyse evolutionary trends in the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). To achieve this goal, a wide range of general philosophical methods were used. The Article submits that the ECHR has shown a growing commitment to the evolutionary method of interpretation, using the doctrine of a "living instrument", the ECHR, which is particularly important for Member States with specific problems, although this method limits the scope in the discretion of the State. It is concluded that the interpretative methodology used by the ECHR involves the use of its methods, including increasingly developing methods of consensus, efficiency, judicial activism, comparison, innovative interpretation, autonomous method, and "balance" method. This demonstrates, inter alia, the unlimited potential to improve the ECHR's interpretation of conventional standards. In the context of modern transformations in the direction of proactive international justice, judicial activism objectively departs from a formal application of legal norms and reflects the ECHR's desire to protect the fundamental human rights of individuals and communicatethem.

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Nedim Begović

Abstract The article analyses the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on accommodation of Islamic observances in the workplace. The author argues that the Court has not hitherto provided adequate incentives to the states party to the European Convention on Human Rights to accommodate the religious needs of Muslim employees in the workplace. Given this finding, the author proposes that the accommodation of Islam in the workplace should, as a matter of priority, be provided within a national legal framework. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, this could be achieved through an instrument of contracting agreement between the state and the Islamic Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina.


2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 601-620
Author(s):  
Vladislava Stoyanova

AbstractThe European Court of Human Rights has consistently reiterated that positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights arise when state authorities know or ought to have known about the risk of harm. This article attempts to describe and assess the role of state knowledge in the framework of positive obligations, and to situate the Court’s approach to knowledge about risk within an intelligible framework of analysis. The main argument is that the assessment of state knowledge is imbued with normative considerations. The assessment of whether the state ‘ought to have known’ is intertwined with, first, concerns that positive obligations should not impose unreasonable burden on the state and, second, the establishment of causal links between state omissions and harm.


2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 1764-1785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Greene

The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) is as much a political as it is a legal document. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) constantly walks the delicate tight rope between vindicating human rights and respecting the sovereignty of contracting states. This balancing act is particularly sensitive when a situation of “exceptional and imminent danger” exists. In such instances of national security the state may need to act in a manner beyond the parameters of normalcy in order to neutralize the threat and protect both itself and its citizens. Article 15 of the ECHR therefore allows states to derogate from its obligations under the convention when a state of emergency is declared. On foot of a notice of derogation, a state has more discretion and flexibility to act accordingly to respond to a threat without being constrained by its obligations under the treaty. However, it is also in these conditions that human rights are at their most vulnerable as the state's response may encroach severely on individuals' rights and the liberal-democratic order of the state.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 198-209
Author(s):  
Stephanie E. Berry

Abstract The European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) use of the margin of appreciation (MoA) in cases concerning religious clothing is well-documented. This article paints a more complete picture of the use of the doctrine in cases falling within Article 9 and Article 2, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (echr). The ECtHR’s use of the normative MoA often appears to be superfluous as it does not seem to extend past the Article 9(2) echr, limitations clause. In contrast, the systemic MoA allows almost complete deference to the State, which has the potential to undermine the religious freedom of minorities.


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 266-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Leigh

This article analyses recent trends in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights concerned with the right to freedom of thought, belief and religion (Article 9, European Convention on Human Rights) and the right of parents to respect by the state for their religious and philosophical views in the education of their children (Article 2, Protocol 1).1 These developments include notable decisions concerned with protection from religious persecution in Georgia, with religious education in Norway and Turkey and with the display of crucifixes in state schools in Italy. It is apparent that the European Convention religious liberty jurisprudence increasingly stresses the role of the state as a neutral protector of religious freedom. For individuals religious freedom is now also recognised to include not only the right to manifest their religious belief but also freedom from having to declare their religious affiliation. As the religious liberty jurisprudence comes of age, other significant developments, for example in relation to conscientious objection to military service, can be anticipated.


Author(s):  
Taras Pashuk

The author analyses the concept of abuse of procedural rights with reference to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In their applications to the ECtHR the applicants often claim that the violations the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR) were accompanied by various abuses by the domestic authorities. Such abuses may be of procedural nature and those matters are examined by the ECtHR quite often because the Convention is primarily aimed at protecting an individual from State arbitrariness. At the same time, the problem of abuse of procedural rights may arise before the ECtHR, when such acts were committed by an applicant. This aspect of the problem is being examined in the present article. In this regard the issue of abuse of procedural rights appears in the case-law of the ECtHR in the context of the complaints concerning the alleged violations of rights under the ECHR. This may happen when the State measures to address such a negative phenomenon (for example, penalty for the abuse of procedural right) may at the same time affect the fundamental rights under the Convention. Apart from that, this issue may arise in the context of the application of restrictive measures by the ECtHR itself due to applicants’ abuse of their right of individual petition to the ECtHR. The main features of the abuse of procedural rights arising from the case-law of the ECtHR are the following: (1) using the procedural right contrary to its purpose (in view of multiple purposes of human conduct, this condition implies the need to establish a dominant purpose in the procedural conduct of the person); (2) the presence of damage resulting from such procedural conduct; (3) the exceptional nature of such procedural conduct (implying the necessity to focus on the explicit and obvious facts of procedural abuses). The combination of these features should be used cumulatively in order to determine correctly the limits of applicability of this concept and distinguish it from other related concepts, such as legitimate use of procedural right, refusal to use the procedural right, good-faith mistake in procedural conduct. In addition, the lack of legislative regulation of this institution in the law on criminal procedure of Ukraine calls for the development of judicial practice under Article 185-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine as regards the administrative liability for contempt of court. It is argued that the provisions of Article 185-3 of that Code, if given appropriate judicial interpretation, can cover a wide range of procedural abuses. Keywords: abuse of procedural right, realisation of subjective right, contempt of court.


Author(s):  
O.O. Shafi ◽  
K.V. Lyashenko

The article examines the problems of euthanasia and the realization of the human right to suicide with the help of others in the context of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The authors focused on finding the necessary compromise between protecting the patient's right to life, which is a positive commitment of the state, and protecting the patient's right to respect for private life and individual independence. The main positions of the European Court of Human Rights on the possibility of use in euthanasia and in which cases are analyzed step by step. In each case, it was described under what conditions the applicants had applied to the Court and what the difference was between the cases. It is emphasized what the Court relied on in resolving each individual case. It is stated how the Court interprets the possibility of applying Article 2 of the Convention in a negative light and in what cases and under what conditions the Court considers it necessary to apply the principle of “ratione personae”. It is indicated what is the main difference between active and passive euthanasia, and in which countries any of the forms of termination of life of a sick person is allowed, regulated and clearly regulated. It is noted that the issue of application or discontinuation of treatment was considered taking into account many objective factors that are taken into account in each case. Also, attention is paid to the analysis of the court's position on the importance of the role of the state in matters of termination of life, where countries should be given discretion in deciding on disconnection from artificial life support. Separately, the main risks of legitimizing euthanasia are emphasized, in particular, the authors point to the need to improve and comply with the imperative norms in each country to ensure the fulfillment of the positive responsibilities of each state.


2019 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 19-39
Author(s):  
Aleksander Cieśliński

ADMISSIBILITY OF TAXATION OF THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED FROM THE STATE TREASURY IN THE LIGHT OF PROTECTIVE STANDARDS OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTSThe purpose of this paper is to analyze the legal admissibility of taxing the compensation received by a commercial company from the State Treasury which is responsible for the damage suffered by the company. Such damage may be caused by State officials in the performance of their duties, including the tax authorities. It seems completely obvious that the victim should expect full compensation. Unfortunately, such sums are classified by the Polish tax law as any other income received by the tax payer and no exception is provided, which results in an actual reduction of its value.However, it may raise serious doubts if one takes into account legal obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the well developed case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Even though the Convention is usually not considered to be a legal act that could protect commercial interests of business entities, one should not forget about its very important Article 1 of Protocol 1, providing protection of property also for legal persons. In this particular case, it is not the amount of tax collected that should be seen as the property that has been taken away, as under this provision domestic authorities are entitled to enforce such laws as they deem necessary to control the use of property to secure the payment of taxes. What makes it so special is this context of compensation and that is why an evaluation of the interpretation of the term “possessions” and the appropriate understanding of the essence of the taxpayer’s right is one the major topics of this paper. The biggest challenge, however, is related to the margin of appreciation left to the Contracting Parties as to the measures that might be undertaken for the sake of the abovementioned purpose, especially seeing as in the area of taxation the Court seems to be particularly tolerant. Therefore, special emphasis is put on the principle of proportionality and its meaning for the analyzed case.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-355
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi

The right to a fair trial is guaranteed under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In an effort to protect this right, the European Court of Human Rights has, inter alia, set criteria to determine whether or not the admission of a confession in domestic courts violated the right to a fair trial. This jurisprudence also shows that the Court has established two broad guidelines that govern the admissibility of confessions obtained through human rights violations. The first guideline is that confessions obtained in violation of absolute rights and in particular in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights must be excluded, because their admission will always render the trial unfair. The second guideline is that a confession obtained in violation of a non-absolute right may be admitted without violating the right to a fair trial if the State had a compelling reason or reasons to restrict the right in question. The Court has also dealt with the issue of the admissibility of real evidence obtained through human rights violations. The purpose of this article is to highlight the Court’s jurisprudence.


2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-369
Author(s):  
Veronika Fikfak

AbstractThis article studies how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, the Court) adjusts damages for human rights violations. The article empirically analyses 13 years of ECtHR’s case law in relation to Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (torture, inhuman and degrading treatment), and 5 (arbitrary detention) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, the Convention). The goal is to understand whether the statements made by the Court about the aims pursued through just satisfaction are confirmed in practice. Through an empirical quantitative study relating to non-pecuniary damages, the article analyses the practice of the Court in awarding non-pecuniary damages for human rights violations and compares it to the competing visions of the ECtHR’s function. In particular, I am interested in determining whether just satisfaction is aimed at redressing the suffering of the victim, her circumstances and vulnerability, or whether the focus is more on the respondent state, its conduct and its past human rights record. The answers to these questions will contribute to the debate whether the ECtHR’s role is one of delivering ‘individual justice’ or whether the Court is – as an international court enforcing an international treaty – focused on the ‘state’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document