Germany's Dialogue with Strasbourg: Extrapolating theBundesverfassungsgericht'sRelationship with the European Court of Human Rights in the Preventive Detention Decision

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 757-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birgit Peters
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Level ◽  
National Court ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Proper Role ◽  
European Court ◽  
New Applications ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Sheer Number

Within the Council of Europe, the relationship between the ECtHR and the member states is crucial for the survival and effective functioning of the Court. The ECtHR is currently overwhelmed by applications, the bulk of which emanate from a relatively small number of states, notably Russia, Rumania, Turkey, and the Ukraine. The backlog of cases will soon be toppling the vertiginous mark of 160,000, the adjudication of which alone would take the Court more than six years. The sheer number of cases exemplifies the system's urgent need for reform. Lately, discussions have been heavily influenced by considerations of subsidiarity, which the earlier Interlaken Declaration-as well as the recent Brighton Conference-emphasized as the key for the future relationship between the ECtHR and member states. Discussions about the principle's proper role in the relationship between member states and the ECHR, however, are far from over. This is due to questions regarding the principle itself, as well as to the factual realities dominating in the ECtHR-national court relationship. The principle often focuses on a strict separation of competences at two different levels, the national and the international, and many understandings of that principle require that the two levels stand in a more or less hierarchical relationship. This is difficult to assume in the Council of Europe context, where, compared to the EU, neither the doctrine of direct effect nor the principle of primacy in application reigns. Moreover, Strasbourg's emphasis on subsidiarity appears to focus on the responsibility of the member states to remedy human rights violations. In line with that argument, scholars have opined that the ECHR system should focus on an approach in which the ECtHR would be involved only if there are good reasons to depart from interpretation at the national level. Nonetheless, others recently doubted the overall usefulness of such an understanding of subsidiarity, since those member states responsible for the lion's share of new applications to the ECHR often neither possess a functioning judiciary nor functioning judicial or executive institutions, in general.

scholarly journals Protection against violence and discrimination: The case of Roma victims in member states of the council of Europe

Temida ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axelle Reiter
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
National Level ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Protective Measures ◽  
Member States ◽  
Structural Problems ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Monitoring

This article focuses on the key role and contribution of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in protecting the rights of Roma against systemic patterns of violence and discrimination. It investigates the suitability of individual applications in front of international monitoring organs as a litigation strategy to address structural problems emerging at the national level, such as widespread attacks against members of vulnerable minority groups, and puts forward that this strategy has demonstrated to be successful in the case of Roma. The analysis shows that complaints introduced before the ECHR have at the same time helped in providing redress to individual victims, uncovering patterns of systemic abuses, offering solutions to prevent their resurgence, effectively encouraging the adoption of protective measures domestically, and developing the competences of international supervisory mechanisms. As such, it constitutes the most effective avenue so far to right those societal wrongs.

scholarly journals 4 The Court and Domestic and International Legal Systems

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nussberger Angelika
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Member States ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter assesses the relationship between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and domestic and international legal systems. With the ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Member States accept to be bound by final judgments of the Court and to implement them in their domestic legal systems. The Convention system does not make any difference as to the set-up of the national legal system or to the hierarchical position accorded to the Convention in national law. This is in line with a purist international law perspective, summarized in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of the Law on Treaties: ‘A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.’ However, from the constitutional law perspective of the Member States, the situation is much more multi-faceted and complex. While it is generally accepted that the Court's judgments are binding and have to be implemented, the relationship between the Convention and the national constitutions as well as between their respective guardians, the Court on the one hand and national constitutional or supreme courts on the other hand, is not seen as one-way and hierarchical, but nuanced and differentiated. Implementation of judgments is accepted to be a duty, but not necessarily without exceptions. The chapter then considers the relationship between the ECtHR and the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Cyberlibel Cases before the European Court of Human Rights: Estimating Possible Outcomes

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-20
Author(s):  
Dragos Cucereanu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Defamation Law ◽  
The Way

Internet defamation, or cyberlibel, has become an increasingly widespread and alarming side of online expression. This has lead to controversies concerning the way of responding to this new challenge in defamation law. Such controversies persist, as law makers and courts in the Council of Europe Member States vary in their solutions. The author searches for uniformity in regulating cyberlibel in Europe, by estimating how the European Court of Human Rights could decide such cases, based on analogy with its previous case law, as well as the law and practice of those States that have addressed the issue. It concludes that the Court may take into consideration the specificity of Internet, while mostly in line with its previous case law, by further developing it. The article proposes a list of criteria that might help deciding cyberlibel cases, and analyses specific ways of determining their applicability and effect.

Normative fault-lines of trans-national human rights jurisprudence: National pride and religious prejudice in the European legal space

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 469-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
DANIEL AUGENSTEIN
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Cohesion ◽  
Religious Pluralism ◽  
Religious Diversity ◽  
National Level ◽  
Religious Minority ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Space ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThe article explores the relationship between religious pluralism and national-majoritarian models of social cohesion in European human rights jurisprudence. Comparing the German, French and British interpretation of the ‘social cohesion limitation’ of freedom of religion it contends that, at the national level, concerns for social cohesion are fuelled by attitudes towards religious diversity that range from indifference to intolerance and that are difficult to reconcile with the normative premises of religious pluralism in a democratic society. The second section of the article traces the relationship between religious pluralism and social cohesion in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The analysis suggests that the diversity of national-majoritarian approaches to social cohesion in Europe prevents the Court from ensuring an effective trans-national protection of religious pluralism. The third section turns to the controversial Lautsi judgments of the European Court of Human Rights to place the Court’s approach to religious minority protection in the context of trans-national judicial politics in the European legal space. The concluding section suggests an alternative approach to religious pluralism and social cohesion that vindicates religious diversity and does justice to the counter-majoritarian telos of human rights protection.

Present and Future Relations between the ECJ and the ECtHR

ICL Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosmarie Doblhoff-Dier ◽  
Sandra Kusmierczyk
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The Road ◽  
European Court ◽  
On The Road ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractBy acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the EU’s role as supranational player in the complex human rights architecture of Europe will be finally recognized. On 5 April 2013, the negotiators of the accession procedure of the European Union to the ECHR agreed on a package of draft accession instruments. Constituting a mile­stone on the road to accession, the now revised Accession Agreement still leaves vast room for discussion. By critically scrutinizing some of its modalities, this article will evaluate its impact on the human rights jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Eu­ropean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the relationship between both courts. To this end, it will address the somewhat disproportionate involvement of the European Union in the future jurisdiction of the ECtHR and in the decision making of the Council of Europe in matters linked to the ECHR. Furthermore, it will focus on the compatibility of the Draft Agree­ment with the principle of autonomous interpretation of European Union Law: a highly rel­evant discussion for the ECJ’s future Opinion under Article 218 (11) TFEU on the compatibil­ity of the finalized draft agreement with the Treaties - the next hurdle for accession.

scholarly journals The Permissibility of Limiting Rights and Freedoms in the European and National Legal System Due to Health Protection

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 51-89
Author(s):  
Robert Krzysztof Tabaszewski
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Universal System ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Correct Application

The article concerns the permissibility of limiting human rights and freedoms in European and national systems due to the protection of individual and public health. The author's goal was to analyse the current practice of states in the application of human rights limitation clauses in the European system of human rights protection. This is an important issue because the practice of limitation and margin of appreciation enjoyed by the member states of the Council of Europe is subject to scrutiny by means of complaints addressed to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which examines the correct application of individual limitation clauses contained in the 1950 Convention. Human health is one of the main prerequisites for which it is possible to limit other human rights and freedoms. In the context of numerous epidemiological threats and natural disasters of a cross-border nature, assessing rights and freedoms becomes one of the most important issues in the field of public international law, constitutional law and public health law. Against the background of existing solutions in the universal system, the practice of the member states of the European Union and the Council of Europe was examined by comparing it with the views of the doctrine and the results of my research.

scholarly journals Pilot Judgments Delivered by the European Court of Human Rights against Romania

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 38-46
Author(s):  
Crina Mihaela Verga ◽  
◽  
◽  
◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject

The article defines first the concept of pilot decision. Then it details the procedure employed in case of systemic or systematic violations of any right provided by the European Convention on Human Rights. Some relevant pilot judgments against certain member states of the Council of Europe are highlighted. Next, two pilot judgments delivered against Romania (Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania and Rezmives and Others v. Romania) are thoroughly examined. Finally, some relevant opinions on the subject are expressed. The issue is very topical for the Romanian state and the specialists in the field, precisely because of the consequences determined by the two analyzed pilot judgments.

scholarly journals The International Legal Nature of the Interaction between the Judicial Authorities of the Member States of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 155-164
Author(s):  
Anna PRYSIAZHNA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Theoretical Understanding ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Nature

The current stage of development of international relations and international law is characterized by the active growth of interstate cooperation and the emergence of new more integrated forms of such cooperation. A special manifestation of this modern phenomenon is observed in the field of judicial cooperation. Moreover, the emergence in the modern world of international universal and regional courts and the gradual increase in their number, has become one of the prerequisites for a new form of international judicial cooperation — the interaction of national courts with international regional courts. In this regard, the greatest interest for the theoretical analysis of international legal regulation of judicial interaction is the study of the experience of such interaction in the European space, which operates the «oldest» international regional courts — the Court of Justice of the European Union, which was established in 1952 and was called the Court of Justice of t he European Coal and Steel Community and the European Court of Human Rights, established in 1959. The legal nature and forms of interaction of national courts of European states with the named international regional courts are of special interest for scientific analysis, which is explained both by considerable experience of judicial cooperation accumulated by them and novelty of legal forms and mechanisms of cooperation requiring theoretical understanding. Without exaggeration, the reopening of proceedings based on judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is one of the most effective, and often the only, measures to restore violated individual rights and improve the practice of national courts and ensure full and effective enforcement of ECHR judgments. The basis of cooperation between the courts of the member states of the Council of Europe and the ECHR is the provisions of the Convention, which makes the decision of the ECHR binding. The judicial authorities of the member states of the Council of Europe are obliged to apply the convention law of the Council of Europe, as well as the case law of the ECHR, which is the only source of cooperation between the courts of the member states of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights.

The Principle of Legality and Administrative Punishment under the ECHR: A Fused Protection

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-51
Author(s):  
Agno Andrijauskaito
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
European Court ◽  
Administrative Punishment ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
The Relationship

The principle of legality permeates the entire legal system based on the rule of law. It is especially well-pronounced in criminal law. However, what are its content, scope and implications when it comes to prescribing and punishing for offences which are supposedly less reprehensible, namely – administrative offences? How precisely should they or the sanctions that they stipulate be defined in legal provisions? Furthermore, is there any room for interpretation while imposing sanctions by public bodies? This article seeks to delve into these vexed questions by examining the relationship between the principle of legality and administrative punishment within the framework of the Council of Europe ('CoE') and the implications stemming therefrom. This will be done by dissecting the rationale and notion of this principle in the normative sources of the CoE with a special emphasis on Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and its (autonomous) application in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as well as by identifying the shortcomings of the current perception of the legality principle in the context of administrative punishment.

scholarly journals Human Rights and Protection against Eviction in Anti-social Behaviour Cases in the Netherlands and Germany

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michel Vols ◽  
Marvin Kiehl ◽  
Julian Sidoli del Ceno
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Social Behaviour ◽  
Minimum Level ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court

The European Court of Human Rights requires that any person at the risk of losing their home should be able to have the proportionality of the eviction determined by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles under Article 8 echr. Consequently, member states of the Council of Europe are obliged to implement a minimum level of protection against the loss of the home. This paper analyses how the requirements are implemented in Dutch and German tenancy law with a focus on eviction cases concerning anti-social behaviour. With the help of a comparative analysis several methods of implementing the European requirements are identified. The Netherlands and Germany seem to comply technically with the requirements because of national built-in proportionality checks. However, it is questionable whether the European requirements really improve the position of tenants or whether they should be characterised primarily as a procedural hurdle that courts have to meet.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document