Der Rechtspfleger aus der Perspektive des öffentlichen Rechts

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Wenzel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Functional Status ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Servant ◽  
Administration Of Justice

A judicial officer in Germany is a public servant but, at the same time, has a special functional status: as an independent and unbiased court official, a judicial officer fulfils tasks relating to the administration of justice, which were formerly carried out by judges. This role results in a certain fundamental conflict as, in different contexts, it raises the question of whether a judicial officer should be treated according to the principles of public service law or as a judge. This study focuses on the problems that arise from this lack of clarity. It analyses to what extent the function of judicial officers approaches that of judges, as legislators intend, and comprehensively examines the position and role of a judicial officer. In doing so, it focuses on ordinary law, constitutional law and art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It demonstrates that if one considers the different norms in isolation, the role of judicial officers does correspond to the general principles of public law.

RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN ENGLISH LAW

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-108
Author(s):  
Philip Sales
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
English Law

AbstractThis paper examines the role of rights and fundamental rights in English public law and private law in recent times. It argues that the idea of fundamental rights has been more significant in the filed of public law and seeks to explain why. It compares the operation of domestic fundamental rights with the rights in the European Convention of Human Rights and suggests a methodology for identifying the existence and scope of the former. The paper considers the possible legal effects which might follow from repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Right to Avoid Procreation and the Regulation of Pregnancy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janne Rothmar Herrmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Perspective ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Moral Obligations ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
European Consensus ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Right

This chapter discusses the right to avoid procreation and the regulation of pregnancy from a European perspective. The legal basis for a right to avoid procreation can be said to fall within the scope of several provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), an instrument that is binding for all European countries. Here, Article 12 of the ECHR gives men and women of marriageable age the right to marry and found a family in accordance with the national laws governing this right. However, Article 12 protects some elements of the right not to procreate, but for couples only. The lack of common European consensus in this area highlights how matters relating to the right to decide on the number and spacing of children touch on aspects that differ from country to country even in what could appear to be a homogenous region. In fact, the cultural, moral, and historical milieus that surround these rights differ considerably with diverse national perceptions of the role of the family, gender equality, religious and moral obligations, and so on.

Strengthening the Protection of Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention in Immigration Control Proceedings

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 273-286
Author(s):  
Matthew Seet
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Immigration Control ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Stateless Person

There is a growing movement (globally and in Europe) addressing statelessness, and the July 2014 decision of Kim v Russia illustrates the role of the Strasbourg Court as a guardian of one of the most important fundamental rights of the ‘legally invisible’ in Europe. The court held that Russia’s two-year detention of a stateless person with a view to expulsion violated his right to liberty and security under Article 5(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights. This comment argues that Kim v Russia represents an important step forward by the Strasbourg Court in safeguarding the stateless person’s right to liberty and security of person under echr doctrine, by highlighting and addressing the special vulnerability of stateless persons to prolonged, indefinite and cyclical detention in immigration control proceedings, although the court should have gone further and indicated general measures explicitly recommending for Russia to introduce statelessness determination procedures.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, in the House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department ◽  
The Relationship

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, House of Lords. The case considered whether the Secretary of State, and prison governors, could restrict prisoners’ access to journalists investigating alleged miscarriages of justice. In addition to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10 issues this raises, Lord Hoffmann also in obiter dicta discussed the relationship between the Human Rights Act 1998, parliamentary sovereignty, and the concept of legality. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Handyside v United Kingdom (1979–80) 1 EHRR 737, European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Domestic Law

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Handyside v United Kingdom (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737, European Court of Human Rights. This case concerned a book which breached the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The publisher, Handyside, contended that the domestic law (the 1959 Act) breached his Article 10 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The case introduced the concept of the ‘margin of appreciation’ accorded to states as regards the implementation of convention rights. The case predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Mosely v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 774, European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Mosely v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 774, European Court of Human Rights. This case provides an exemplar of the challenges of balancing Article 8 and Article 10 rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of press regulation. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

4. Interpreting the Convention

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey ◽  
Elizabeth Wicks ◽  
Andclare Ovey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Public International Law

This chapter analyses the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It explains that there are key themes which have dominated the interpretation of the Convention: the purposive and the evolutive interpretations. The chapter describes the approach of the Strasbourg Court to the interpretation of the ECHR and evaluates the influence of the Vienna Convention. It suggests that the interpretation of the Convention builds on the rules of public international law on the interpretation of treaties and has remained broadly consistent with those principles, and that the role of the Strasbourg Court is casuistic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document