No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The Future of the European Court of Human Rights—Subsidiarity, Process-Based Review and the Rule of Law
Abstract
The current era in the life of the European Convention on Human Rights is a transformative one. The author, a serving judge of the Strasbourg Court, thus finds it opportune to look back in time, consider the present and reflect on the future. In the article, it is argued that the last 40 years or so constituted the Court's 'substantive embedding phase'. This phase has now in general shifted towards a new historical era, the 'procedural embedding phase', which is analysed in detail. During this latter phase, the Court has begun to realign its project attempting to trigger increased engagement with the Convention by national authorities using a mechanism termed 'process-based review'. The overall aim is to secure a higher and more sustainable level of Convention protections within the States subject to European supervision. However, within this process-based review mechanism, national decision-makers have to be structurally capable of fulfilling the task of effectively securing human rights. This means that the foundations of the domestic legal order have to be intact. States that do not respect the rule of law cannot expect to be afforded deference under process-based review in the age of subsidiarity. © The Author(s) [2018]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
... This Chamber, composed solely of judges nominated by the reorganised National Council of the Judiciary, was criticised for not meeting the independence and legal establishment standards, as confirmed by rulings of the European Court of Human Rights 14 and the European Court of Justice. 15 The Chamber operated until 2022, when it was replaced by the Chamber of Professional Liability. 16 Additionally, the Parliament revised the rules for appointing disciplinary commissioners (judges who perform the prosecutorial role in the disciplinary proceedings against other judges), significantly increasing the Minister of Justice's authority in these matters. ...
... 44 The opportunities and dangers of using Article 18 ECHR to condemn human rights violations committed in bad faith were also pointed out by Helfer. Among the potential benefits, he included the exposure and condemnation of 'the range of repressive measures deployed by populist regimes' while the dangers 37 Spano [15], p. 473-494. 38 Çalı [1], p. 237-276. ...
... 38 Çalı [1], p. 237-276. 39 R. Spano [15], p. 480-481. 40 Ibid., p. 487-493. ...
This article examines two rulings of the European Court of Human Rights on the rights of independent Polish judges in Juszczyszyn v. Poland and Tuleya v. Poland , focusing on two key aspects. First, it addresses the Court’s finding that the Polish authorities aimed to undermine judicial independence and deter the applicants from questioning the Government’s controversial judicial reforms. Secondly, it explores the potential evolution of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding recognising the subjective right of judges under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to have their independence protected and respected by the State. The article also discusses problems concerning implementation of the two judgments.
... Diyetin kemik sağlığındaki rolü oldukça karmaşıktır. Vejetaryenların ve özellikle veganların vejetaryen olmayanlara göre daha düşük kemik mineral yoğunluğuna ve %30 daha fazla kırılma riskine sahip olduğu bildirilmektedir (118). Lakto-ovo vejetaryenler için süt ürünleri bol miktarda kalsiyum sağlamaktadır. ...
... İnsan haklarının tümü gibi gıda hakkı da öncelikle ulusal düzenler içinde korunur ve geliştirilir. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Başkanı İzlandalı Yargıç Robert Ragnar Spano'nun, Mahkeme ve taraf devletler özelinde kullandığı "ikincillik çağı" (age of subsidiarity) (118) ifadesi, uluslararası insan hakları organizasyonlarının tamamı için geçerli bir pozisyonu ifade eder. İkincilliğin büyük oranda devletlerin egemenlik kaygılarının eseri olduğu yaygın ve haklı bir kanıdır. ...
... Štai Žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvenciją (toliau -Konvencija) aiškinantis Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas (toliau -EŽTT) vis daugiau dėmesio skiria teisėkūros procedūrai. Dėmesys teisėkūros proceso kokybei yra svarbi naujojo EŽTT jurisprudencijos vystymosi etapo -Konvencijos procedūrinio įtvirtinimo -dalis (Spano, 2018). Konkrečiai, tai yra gairių nacionaliniams sprendimų priėmėjams formavimas (Spano, 2018). ...
... Dėmesys teisėkūros proceso kokybei yra svarbi naujojo EŽTT jurisprudencijos vystymosi etapo -Konvencijos procedūrinio įtvirtinimo -dalis (Spano, 2018). Konkrečiai, tai yra gairių nacionaliniams sprendimų priėmėjams formavimas (Spano, 2018). Pavyzdžiui, viena iš kertinių nuostatų Animal Defenders International prieš Jungtinę Karalystę byloje leidžia geriau suvokti procesinę subsidiarumo reikšmę nacionalinių valdžios institucijų veiksmų kontekste -"parlamento ir teismų vykdomos teises ribojančios priemonės būtinybės kontrolės kokybė yra ypatingos svarbos, atsižvelgiant ir į atitinkamos vertinimo laisvės įgyvendinimą" (Animal Defenders..., 2013). ...
In this paper, I examine the status of soft law in the official interpretation of the Lithuanian Constitution. The “living constitution” doctrine dominates the Lithuanian constitutional scholarship. I question this dominance by providing insights on the essence and application potential of the alternative methodology – the doctrine of originalism. Based on originalistic approach, I doubt the normative claim made in Lithuanian constitutional scholarship that soft law could be considered as a mandatory source of interpretation of the Lithuanian Constitution.
... The formal religious or secular status of states varies (Sullivan & Beaman, 2013), from strict separation of the state from any religious establishment, such as the French model of laïcité, to a historically established church, such as Norway or England, or to the more recent post-Communist re-establishment of religious identity, such as Poland or Hungary (Davis & Miroshnikova, 2013). Moreover, the ECtHR's judgements have implications across all forty-nine signatory countries: a decision about Norway has implications for Turkey or Portugal, even though their constitutional and educational systems are different, and indeed this decision may also affect a different aspect of religious freedom, such as employment law in, for example, France or Greece; this means that the ECtHR must also review its own jurisprudential role in balancing individual rights against the sovereignty of the signatory states (Spano, 2018). The ECtHR's decisions therefore generate considerable academic reaction and commentary, which can be classified within three broad approaches. ...
... Benhabib, 2010;Bhuta, 2014), or sociologically, though the lens of secularisation theory (Arthur, 2008;Arthur & Holdsworth, 2012). In Perry-Hazan's typology, these approaches raise both ex-post questions of competence, but also relate to the ex-ante question of the ECtHR's supra-national position (Spano, 2018), particularly since the court's role is to uphold human rights and not to argue for or against any particular constitutional position, as secular or neutral. ...
The courts' role in educational disputes is much researched, but while the legal and socio-political implications of judicial decisions are often scrutinised, judges' pedagogical assumptions have generally been overlooked. This paper focuses on educational compe-tency by considering judges' understandings of the pedagogical effect of religious symbols in classrooms. The formal judgements of two key cases in the European Court of Human Rights are treated as textual data for qualitative analysis: Dahlab v Switzerland, concerning a Muslim teacher's right to wear hijab; Italy v Lautsi, concerning whether the classroom display of crucifixes breached atheist pupils' rights. Four approaches emerged: unmediated didacticism-a direct emission of meaning by the symbolic objects; mediated didacticism-when the symbols require a spoken explanation to convey meaning; contextual factors-then other factors determine or limit the symbol's meaning; dialogical pedagogy-when education is conceived as an open encounter with different points of view. The wide variation in the judges' pedagogical assumptions is discussed, including the implications of how educational compe-tency affects the variable radiating effects of the courts' decisions. Further, the concept of educational competence is developed, particularly in relation to issues of religion and belief.
... There have been numerous developments in this field, encompassing both classical works and those addressing modern issues, written by Western authors as well as Ukrainian scholars. In this article, I draw upon the ideas of Professor Orzikh as the theoretical foundation, along with publications by his Ph.D. students, as well as the publications of European practitioners and scientists, that deal with human rights protection (see [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]). ...
... The research method applied in the study of this paper is a normative legal research method. This is a process taken to identify the relevant rule of law, legal principles, and legal doctrines in order to answer a legal issue at hand (Spano, 2018). In connection with the normative legal research method, there are two types of legal materials used in the writing of this paper, namely primary legal materials and secondary legal materials (Siregar, Siregar, & Silaban, 2020). ...
International Investment Law as a system relies heavily on the treaties applicable on a case-by-case basis. Most often these treaties are Bilateral Investment Treaties, treaties negotiated between States which offer to promote and protect investment in the two States Party. These treaties are responsible for promoting and protecting billions of dollars’ worth of investments and as such when a country as economically involved in a large region as Indonesia discontinues its existing BITs in hopes of renegotiating a “better” treaty, the situation warrants scrutiny. In 2014, the Government of Indonesia chose to terminate many of the existing BITs, and in 2018, the first of the wave of renegotiated BITs have appeared in the form of the 2018 Indonesia-Singapore BIT. The differences between the old and new BIT must be properly analyzed in order to approximate what impact these new BITs could have on the investment regime in Indonesia.
... Pero aquí solo me detendré en destacar la importancia de que la revisión judicial persiga canalizar las conversaciones nacionales sobre derechos. Un tribunal internacional canaliza esta conversación cuando, por una parte, examina si el debate político previo a la decisión mayoritaria que se impugna ha gozado de una calidad deliberativa razonable, lo que conlleva que el tribunal se preocupe más por cómo las autoridades nacionales han alcanzado una medida restrictiva de derechos que por el propio contenido de esta medida 50 . Por otra parte, también la canaliza cuando, en tanto órgano que posee la perspectiva más general dentro del sistema, maneja una lógica incremental en el momento de fiscalizar si los derechos reciben un mínimo estándar de protección nacional. ...
El artículo valora de forma crítica algunos de los argumentos que Cristina Lafont ofrece para defender que la revisión judicial de constitucionalidad o convencionalidad contribuye al autogobierno democrático. Defiende que su alternativa para una democracia sin atajos es demasiado optimista al menos en dos aspectos: 1) en la conexión que establece entre el derecho a la contestación jurídica, la revisión judicial y el autogobierno ciudadano, y 2) en su pretensión de asignar una función comunicativa a la revisión judicial sin tener que decantarse por una forma débil o fuerte de revisión judicial. Argumenta, en primer lugar, que el derecho a la contestación jurídica en la esfera constitucional ni suele ser un canal tan abierto al ciudadano como Lafont presupone ni, en contextos de fuerte pluralismo y dominación sociocultural, basta para compatibilizar la protección de los derechos de las minorías con un autogobierno democrático en el que todos se perciban como coautores. También pone en duda que la revisión judicial sea un canal que asegura la constitucionalización del debate político y el empoderamiento comunicativo de la ciudadanía, especialmente cuando se está pensado en el efecto comunicativo por las razones adecuadas. Por último, sugiere que, con independencia de que podamos evitar o no los atajos a la democracia, el autogobierno democrático no es lo único que importa en la organización legítima de una comunidad política a lo largo del tiempo. Por esta razón, y concentrándose en particular en el rol de los tribunales internacionales de derechos humanos, aboga por una forma de constitucionalismo cooperativo sin últimas palabras en el que la revisión judicial actúa como canalizadora de una conversación en progreso sobre nuestros derechos y libertades.
... Beyond these questions of implementation of ECtHR decisions, there have also been Member State initiatives, particularly in the context of the so-called Interlaken reform process (2010-2019), to change the architecture and legal basis of the ECHR and ECtHR itself -in particular, by strength ening the principle of subsidiarity and, by implication, lowering the stan dard of scrutiny applied by the Court. 831 Most notably, in 2018 Denmark spearheaded an initiative intending to massively limit the competence of the ECtHR in asylum and immigration cases to 'the most exceptional circumstances'. 832 Arguably, the message sent by this initiative has had a lasting impact on the ECtHR judges, even if it was defused in the final version of the Copenhagen Declaration. ...
The EU has become a powerful player in the area of migration. As a result, European migration policies increasingly conflict with the EU’s commitment to respect Human Rights. The book identifies the most pressing challenges, outlines the relevant legal standards, and provides recommendations for reform. Core issues are
• asylum seekers’ access to protection in the EU,
• personal liberty and free movement of migrants,
• safeguarding the rule of law in immigration proceedings,
• the prohibition of discrimination on any ground, including immigration status,
• respecting the social and family ties of migrants,
• guaranteeing minimum social rights for irregular migrants, and
• the public and private infrastructure necessary for defending the Human Rights of migrants.
//////////////////////////
Die EU ist zu einem machtvollen migrationspolitischen Akteur geworden. In der Folge gerät die europäische Migrationspolitik immer öfter in Konflikt mit ihrer Verpflichtung zur Wahrung der Menschenrechte. Der vorliegende Band benennt die dringlichsten Herausforderungen, entwickelt die einschlägigen rechtlichen Maßstäbe und unterbreitet Reformvorschläge. Zentrale Problemfelder sind
• der Zugang zum Asyl in der EU,
• die Bewegungsfreiheit von Migrant:innen,
• rechtsstaatliche Verfahrensgarantien,
• das Verbot der Diskriminierung wegen des Aufenthaltsstatus,
• die Achtung sozialer und familiärer Bindungen bei Maßnahmen der Migrationssteuerung,
• die Gewährleistung sozialer Mindestrechte für irreguläre Migrant:innen, und
• die öffentliche und zivilgesellschaftliche Infrastruktur zur Verteidigung der Menschenrechte.
... The research method applied in the study of this paper is a normative legal research method. This is a process taken to identify the relevant rule of law, legal principles, and legal doctrines in order to answer a legal issue at hand (Spano, 2018). In connection with the normative legal research method, there are two types of legal materials used in the writing of this paper, namely primary legal materials and secondary legal materials (Siregar, Siregar, & Silaban, 2020). ...
International Investment Law as a system relies heavily on the treaties applicable on a case-by-case basis. Most often these treaties are Bilateral Investment Treaties, treaties negotiated between States which offer to promote and protect investment in the two States Party. These treaties are responsible for promoting and protecting billions of dollars’ worth of investments and as such when a country as economically involved in a large region as Indonesia discontinues its existing BITs in hopes of renegotiating a “better” treaty, the situation warrants scrutiny. In 2014, the Government of Indonesia chose to terminate many of the existing BITs, and in 2018, the first of the wave of renegotiated BITs have appeared in the form of the 2018 Indonesia-Singapore BIT. The differences between the old and new BIT must be properly analyzed in order to approximate what impact these new BITs could have on the investment regime in Indonesia.
... This variant has given way to what is now termed 'process-based review' of the European Court of Human Rights. 54 This form of deference is distinct from deference on grounds that the nature of rights at stake or nature of competing interests invite due deference to national authorities as there is a heightened focus on the procedural and deliberative qualities of domestic institutions rather than the substantive issue at stake. ...
This article undertakes a survey of the changes in the structure of the interpretive doctrines of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) over time in an exploration of the aging of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention) on its 70th anniversary. It argues that the Court’s interpretive doctrines that seek to give due deference to national rights traditions, canons and institutions have become increasingly pervasive in the Court’s procedural and substantive case law in the last two decades. This, in particular, has come at a loss for interpretative doctrines that interpret the Convention as a practical and effective living pan-European instrument. This argument is built in four parts. First it offers a defence of why a study of the interpretive doctrines of the Court over time is a good proxy for studying the ECHR’s ageing process. In the second part, it discusses the rich doctrinal forms of due deference and effective interpretation in the case law of the Court – both young and mature. Part three explains how the judicialisation and expansion of the European human rights system in late 1990 s transitioned to a more heightened and sophisticated focus on due deference doctrines in the Court’s case law. Finally, part four examines whether the recent judicial innovations under the Court’s Article 18 case law and the widely celebrated success of increased ownership of the Convention by domestic courts can act as counter points to the argument that the effective interpretation principle has suffered a loss as the Convention has aged, concluding that none of this may offset the fact that the Convention at 70 is more conservative in spirit than its younger self.
... The idea of subsidiarity is premised on the engagement in good faith with the Convention principles by the domestic actors. 108 In states where judicial independence is under threat, this application in good faith may be called into doubt. In other words, the weakening of domestic courts will almost inevitably lead to a weakening of compliance with the Court's case law at a domestic level. ...
Time for the European Court of Human Rights to interpret Article 6 ECHR to encompasses a subjective right for domestic judges to their own independence – Overview of the existing case law on the principle of judicial independence – Such a right currently not present in case law – Judges are obliged to frame their complaints, while at their heart independence-related, in terms of other substantive Convention rights – Court cannot properly address one of the fundamental aspects of these cases – Lower protection for the domestic judges – Other international legal orders do include such a subjective right to a judge’s independence – Several arguments for the European Court of Human Rights to similarly acknowledge such a right under the Convention – Few difficulties in integrating such a right into the existing case law
... 142 This has been rightly identified as a shift by the ECtHR to a 'process-based review'. 143 Second, a new focus on the local would arguably be in line with the recent Protocol no. 15 to the ECHR (not yet in force) and its drafting history. 144 Protocol no. 15 to the ECHR will formally incorporate the principle of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation doctrine into the preamble of the convention. ...
It is popular to view international human rights law as universal. In a normative sense, human rights universality refers to certain qualities of human rights norms. These qualities have long been under attack, most recently by what is called here human rights nationalism. The main point made in this article is that some of the criticism levelled against normative human rights universality can be accommodated through interpretation. To this end, non-universality of human rights is judicially created (argumentative non-universality). This article offers an analysis of argumentative non-universality in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It shows that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) operationalizes argumentative non-universality through a conception of asymmetric protection, by using context as a difference-making fact and by allowing, in certain cases, for a decentralized interpretation of rights under the ECHR. As argued here, resorting to argumentative non-universality sometimes makes sense because non-universality takes seriously the fact that individual freedom is, to some extent, socially and politically conditioned. Furthermore, non-universality allows for reasonable interpretive pluralism, and it contributes to the institutional legitimacy of the ECtHR. In conclusion, the ECtHR is, rightly so, an ‘interpreter of universality’ (as quoted by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque) as it is an interpreter of the non-universality of convention rights.
Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin reform süreci Mahkeme’nin iş yükünün artması ve bu iş yükü sebebiyle etkililiğinin zarar görmesi endişesi ile başlatılmıştır. Mahkeme’nin geleceğine dair tartışma ve çalışmaların yapıldığı, koruma mekanizmasının etkililiğinin korunması ve sürdürülmesi amacının ürünü olan reform süreci, bir dizi Sözleşme’ye ek protokolün kabulü ve Üst Düzey Konferans düzenlenmesinden oluşan bir süreçtir ve halen devam eden dinamik bir yapıdadır. Çalışmamızda, reform süreci hakkında bilgi verildikten sonra, 11,14,15 ve 16 no’lu protokoller ve getirileri incelenecektir. Reform sürecinin diğer unsuru olan Üst Düzey Konferanslar ve bu konferanslar sonunda yayınlanan deklarasyonlara değinilerek, Konferansların çıktılarının neler olduğu üzerinde durulacaktır.
The SGBs and the CAS have created principles specific to the realm of sports based on the assumption that sports has a specific legal order and dispute resolution mechanisms independent from the state, namely, lex sportiva . In fact, sports law has specific principles, rules, and applications that diverge from International Human Rights Law.
But the aforementioned lex sportiva assumption cannot be extended to totally exclude human rights concerns in the field of sports, especially after the recent ECtHR rulings, starting with Mutu & Pechstein Case . Through those rulings, human rights standards infiltrate into sports law.
This article particularly focusses on one of the most contested sports law rules, namely prohibition on political statements of sportspersons, adopted by all SBGs, in the light of recent judgments of ECtHR against Turkey concerning freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR, and asserts that categorical universal ban on political speech in sports is not in conformity with the right to freedom of expression. However, after analysing relevant ECtHR judgments in detail, the article argues that by confining its review strictly to procedural grounds, the ECtHR missed the opportunity to rule the incompatibility of a blanket ban on political speech in sports with freedom of expression at an abstract level.
The article concludes that the ECtHR’s acceptance that sportspersons have the freedom of speech in political matters and that such a right cannot be suspended categorically due to the sole fact that they belong to sports community, nevertheless, indicates that blanket ban on political speech cannot be sustainable any more.
Este trabajo desarrolla una propuesta acerca de los criterios que debería acoger un tribunal internacional de derechos humanos para valorar qué grado de deferencia cabe otorgar al estado en la aplicación de un convenio regional de derechos humanos. Para ello se sugiere, en primer lugar, que el funcionamiento de una estructura internacional de protección de derechos debe regirse por criterios de legitimidad sistémica en vez de basarse en parámetros de legitimidad democrática o de compromiso. En segundo lugar, se defiende una concepción cooperativa del principio de subsidiariedad, la cual justifica la deferencia a las autoridades nacionales cuando éstas se hallen mejor situadas para adoptar una decisión sobre derechos humanos, pero, al mismo tiempo, condiciona la mejor situación del estado al cumplimiento de tres responsabilidades cooperativas: imparcialidad, cultura de la justificación y perspectiva convencional. Por último, se aplica esta concepción de la subsidiariedad para valorar críticamente dos sentencias en sede internacional, la primera, la sentencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos en el asunto S.A.S. c. Francia, la segunda, la sentencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derecho Humanos en el caso Gelman vs. Uruguay.
A proteção internacional dos direitos humanos deu origem a um complexo sistema que inclui mecanismos universais, regionais e nacionais de proteção. No âmbito da proteção regional, a Corte Europeia de Direito Humanos é a mais consolidada e com melhores índices de cumprimento de suas decisões. Neste sentido, o presente trabalho tem por objetivo identificar no procedimento europeu os fatores que contribuem para maior efetividade na implementação das decisões, a fim de verificar o que pode ser aperfeiçoado no Sistema Interamericano de Direitos Humanos. A pesquisa é documental e adota abordagem indutiva, identificando a partir do estudo dos sistemas regionais europeu e interamericano quais lições que o segundo pode absorver do primeiro para aprimorar a implementação de suas decisões. No que diz respeito ao conteúdo das decisões, verificou-se grande disparidade entre as decisões da Corte Europeia e da Corte IDH, caracterizando-se essa última por decisões que buscam a reparação integral e a transformação da realidade de seus jurisdicionados. Por fim, restou identificado que os baixos índices de cumprimento integral das decisões do SIDH não refletem em pouca efetividade da proteção regional de direitos humanos, já que mais efetiva que uma decisão integralmente cumprida é aquela que impacta mais vidas.
This book represents an exposition of ‘judicial pedagogies’ as a new concept, and discusses juridical-educational issues in detail, through an analysis of the educational claims and assumptions of judges’ decisions in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It sheds light on how, within courtrooms around the world, judges are increasingly being asked to decide upon issues of religion and belief in schooling, whether about admissions policies, curriculum planning, or pupils’ and teachers’ dress and jewellery. With key human rights principles at stake, these proceedings are often fraught, clashing with strong opinions about education and schooling. Focusing on decisions made in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the author considers how the supranational court looks at these issues, and considers the ECtHR’s role within the European Education space. Drawing upon research and scholarship surrounding these questions, the book surveys a series of educational issues, including curriculum and assessment, and takes a comparative approach in the discussion of case studies to demonstrate the variety and depth of judges’ thinking. Thus, rather than considering the national or supranational legal principles and questions as jurisprudential issues, typically about religion or human rights, it reviews them from an educational perspective – as ‘folk’ theories of teaching and learning. Finally, it considers the implications of a theory of judicial pedagogy for the courts’ educational competence in deciding on these matters, for education and educational policy research, the European education space, legal scholarship, and for legal and judicial education. Developing a novel and innovative approach to the pedagogies at play in a courtroom and providing fresh insights into the courts as agents of social change, it will appeal to scholars and researchers working across the disciplines of education, law, and religious studies.
In this book, Aileen Kavanagh offers a fresh account of how we should protect rights in a democracy. Departing from leading theoretical accounts which present the courts and legislature as rivals for constitutional supremacy, Kavanagh argues that protecting rights is a collaborative enterprise between all three branches of government - the Executive, the legislature, and the courts. On a collaborative vision of constitutionalism, protecting rights is neither the solitary task of a Herculean super-judge, nor the dignified pronouncements of an enlightened legislature. Instead, it is a complex, dynamic, and collaborative endeavour, where each branch has a distinct but complementary role to play, whilst engaging with each other in a spirit of comity and mutual respect. Connecting constitutional theory with the practice of protecting rights in a democracy, this book offers an innovative understanding of the separation of powers, grounded in the values and virtues of constitutional collaboration.
As part of their continuous effort to enhance the effectiveness and democratic legitimacy of human rights treaties, human rights treaty organs have increasingly fostered a direct relationship with various state organs, thereby penetrating the ‘states’ that traditionally have been treated as monolithic legal entities. Treaty organs review the decision-making process of each type of state organ – courts, parliaments and administrative organs – and make remedial orders that are substantially addressed to specific state organs. Such phenomena go hand in hand with the relativization of the distinction between the legal spheres in which human rights treaty organs and state organs operate. This is the first study to address such phenomena as a totality. It constructs the ‘separation of powers in a globalized democratic society’ theory, thereby proposing how each type of state organ and the treaty organs should interact under human rights treaties. Its findings contribute, first, to the harmonious achievement of the effectiveness and democratic legitimacy of human rights treaties; second, to the reform of the classical paradigm of international law, in which monolithic states are the only relevant legal entities; and third, to the long-standing debates on the relationship between international and national laws from a new angle.
We analyse applications presented to the European Court of Human Rights raising the issue of insufficient actions of States to fight climate change. First, we discuss the relevant national cases that expose three different approaches towards climate change justice cases, i.e. the cases from the Netherlands, Norway, and Germany. Second, considering the European Court of Human Rights criteria on inadmissibility and substance, we assess major issues related to the presented applications and their success.
To address the issue of persistent unemployment, the UK Government implemented a conditional welfare scheme. Prompted by Mantouvalou's argument that the scheme forces people into exploitative work, this paper addresses the ‘pressing’ question of whether the scheme is compatible with the prohibition on ‘forced or compulsory labour’ under Article 4(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is argued that, whether the scheme imposes the menace of a penalty, is involuntary, seriously exploitative or a normal civic obligation, ultimately depends on different understandings of the demands of distributive justice. Given the politically contested nature of those demands, Article 4(2) is a poor weapon to use when challenging the UK's conditional welfare scheme.
div> This study focuses on using religious attributes in the trial process of corruption cases in Indonesia, the judge’s consideration of the decency of a defendant, and the regulation of a defendant’s religious identity in the court decision. By identifying the judge’s perspective on a defendant's religious attributes and aspects of decency as an interpretative scheme and constructing their significance on it, this study also presents an analysis of the application of the principle of impartiality of judges and courts based on the Bangalore Principles. Impartiality itself is positioned as the bedrock of judicial integrity. With a field-based research method, this study reveals that religious identity has influenced judges and court decisions, especially considering mitigating factors in criminal sentencing. These findings indicate that the Bangalore Principles fall short of clear guidelines to counter such bias and a clear framework in Indonesia’s judiciary to restore its integrity.
</div
This study aims to analyze the communal dimensions of geographical indication intellectual property rights with an integrative legal perspective. This research is a normative legal research. The results of the study confirm that the character of geographic indication rights which have a communal basis is actually relevant to the legal character of the Indonesian people who view intellectual property as joint property and can be used jointly. Therefore, the character of geographical indication rights that have a communal basis in the future can be regulated through legal instruments regarding Traditional Cultural Expressions which also contain provisions regarding geographic indication rights. This actually requires the role of the state as a trigger for the birth of a conducive economic climate by optimizing intellectual property in the form of geographical indications. Future arrangements for geographic indication rights in an integrative legal perspective can be carried out by optimizing the role of the government (bureaucracy) as a social changer. The role of the bureaucracy is based on laws and policies made by the central government and local governments. It is necessary to provide incentives for communities or legal entities that have an orientation to optimize geographic indications. The existence of incentives from the government should also be optimized in the realm of local government so that people are motivated to optimize geographical indications which can be used as a means to improve the economic level of the community.
Fundamental rights protection in the European space rests on the sharing of Powers between the level of state sovereignty and the supranational level of sovereignty established by the European Convention on Human Rights. These two levels of sovereignty are not separated from each other by watertight partitions. On the contrary, there is a complementary relationship between the two levels. The governing thing in this relation is subsidiarity as a jurisprudential principle produced by the European Court of Human Rights. The principle of subsidiarity means that the protection of fundamental rights falls “primarily” to the state parties, while the Court has a “regulatory” judicial function. However, with Protocol No. 15, entered into force on 1 August 2021, the principle has been added to the text of the Convention by the states parties, and these same states have sought to preserve their sovereignty and the original characteristics of their domestic law. At this point, the essential concern of the study is to put the meaning of Protocol No. 15 on the idea of unity in the European space and the mutual development line of the Convention law and to ask several questions for the future.
In Malone v. UK (Plenary 1984), the right to an effective domestic remedy in the European Convention on Human Rights Article 13 was famously described as one of the most obscure clauses in the Convention. Since then, the European Court of Human Rights has reinforced the scope and application of the right. Through an analysis of virtually all of the Court's judgments concerning Article 13, the book exhaustively accounts for the development and current scope and content of the right. The book also provides normative recommendations on how the Court could further develop the right, most notably how it could be a tool to regulate the relationship between domestic and international protection of human rights. In doing so, the book situates itself within larger debates on the enforcement of the entire Convention such as the principle of subsidiarity and the procedural turn in the Court's case law.
Like almost no other international human rights protection system, the system of the European Convention on Human Rights is institutionally consolidated. The present contribution briefly traces the genesis and development of the European Court of Human Rights and then turns to the examination of three challenges the Court is currently faced with. In the section on the lack of implementation of judgments, the approach of the German Federal Constitutional Court to the Strasbourg case law, which contrasts principled openness towards European human rights law with emphasizing constitutional identity, is analysed. Moreover, the contribution examines how this approach has been taken up by actors in the United Kingdom and Russia. The problem of the insufficient qualification of some candidates proposed by States is addressed in the section on the election of judges. A solution might be to formally integrate the members of the Advisory Panel into the official hearing of the candidates. The section on dynamic interpretation looks at the nexus between the Court’s interpretation of the Convention and the States’ acceptance of its jurisprudence. By transferring the interpretation of the Convention to an independent international authority, States relinquish part of their power. They will only accept this transfer of power permanently if the judicial interpretation by the Strasbourg Court remains consistent, comprehensible and plausible. The Court should therefore not act as a human rights’ ‘trendsetter’ or a ‘judicial activist’. Overall, three principles are decisive for an effective international human rights protection that meets with both the general and long-term acceptance on the part of the Contracting States and the undeniable needs of individuals to have their human rights and fundamental freedoms protected against unlawful State interference. These principles are the judicial self-restraint of the Court, the subsidiarity principle and a margin of appreciation left to the Contracting States.
Is the public backlash against human rights rulings from European courts driven by substantive concerns over case outcomes, procedural concerns over sovereignty, or combinations thereof? We conducted preregistered survey experiments in Denmark, France, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom using three vignettes: a foreigner who faces extradition, a person fighting a fine for burning Qurans, and a home owner contesting eviction. Each vignette varies with respect to whether a European court disagrees with a national court (deference treatment) and whether an applicant wins a case (outcome treatment). We find little evidence that deference moves willingness to implement judgments or acceptance of court authority but ample evidence that case outcomes matter. Even nationalists and authoritarians are unmoved by European court decisions as long as they agree with the case outcome. These findings imply that nationalist opposition to European courts is more about content than the location of authority and that backlash to domestic and international courts may be driven by similar forces.
During its more than 60 years of operation, the European Court of Human Rights has proven to be a real beacon for many individuals. Through its case law, it has contributed to the development of human rights law as well as to the development of the principles of the rule of law and of democracy in Europe. However, the Court faces two central problems: the caseload it has to deal with and challenges to its authority and legitimacy. The present contribution will study the history and the achievements of the Court, and address the challenges and the Court’s response to them. The latter has particularly included measures aimed at making its working methods more effective and attempts to increase awareness of its subsidiary role within the Convention protection system, especially regarding its approach to the review of decisions of national authorities. In this context, the development of the principle of process-based review in the Court’s jurisprudence is examined. What will characterize the Convention system in the future is closer cooperation between the Court and national courts. Whether this will effectively lead to an increased protection of human rights on the ground remains to be seen. It is not only for the Court to earn such confidence through its work, but also for others to maintain a climate in which that confidence can continue to be enjoyed.
Anayasa şikâyeti veya bireysel başvuru olarak bilinen olağanüstü hukuk yolunun amacı, temel hak ve hürriyetlerin korunmasını sağlamaktır. Özellikle yargı kararlarına karşı da anayasa şikâyeti veya bireysel başvuru yoluna gidilebilmektedir. Bu ise söz konusu başvuruları incelemekle görevli anayasa mahkemeleri ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesinin (AİHM) bireysel başvuru kapsamındaki yetki ve görevinin sınırlarının belirginleştirmesini gerektirmektedir. Nitekim bireysel başvuru sisteminin kabul edildiği ülkelerde ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi uygulamasında, bireysel başvuru kapsamındaki yargı yetkisinin sınırlarını belirleyebilmek amacıyla “Dördüncü Derece Olmama” doktrini genel olarak kabul edilmiştir. Buna göre bir taraftan bireysel başvuru kapsamındaki inceleme, kanun yolu kapsamında gözetilmesi gereken hususların incelendiği bir dördüncü derece mercii denetimi değildir. Diğer taraftan ise temel hak ve hürriyetlere ilişkin müdahalelerde Anayasa’da yer alan güvence ve sınırlama ölçütlerinin uygulanması da bir dördüncü derece mercii denetimi anlamına gelmemektedir. Bu bağlamda, bireysel başvuru kapsamına giren temel hak ve özgürlüklerin ihlal edilip edilmediği konusunda Anayasa'da öngörülen güvenceler dikkate alınarak yapılacak herhangi bir inceleme, “kanun yolunda gözetilmesi gereken hususlar” olarak değerlendirilemez. Ayrıca özellikle aslında usuli güvenceler sağladığı kabul edilen adil yargılanma hakkı kapsamında dördüncü derece olup olmama çizgisi iyice muğlaklaşmaktadır. Karşılaştırmalı hukuk örnekleri ve AİHM uygulamasına koşut olarak Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi de “açıkça keyfi” veya “bariz takdir hatası” içermedikçe olağan mahkemelerin delilleri değerlendirme ve hukuk kurallarını yorumlama yetkisine müdahale edemeyeceğini sıklıkla belirtmektedir. Anayasa Mahkemesinin son kararlarında da “usul güvencelerini anlamsızlaştırma” formülü uygulanarak adil yargılanma hakkı bağlamında “keyfilik” ölçütünün açıklığa kavuşturulduğu gözlemlenmiştir.
The principle of mutual trust plays an important role in EU law, especially in the area of freedom, security and justice. In its Opinion 2/13 on the planned EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) considered the draft agreement to be incompatible with EU law, in particular because it did not sufficiently take into account the principle of mutual trust. This chapter examines whether the ECHR is, as suggested by Opinion 2/13, in fact incompatible with EU law and whether this creates an insurmountable obstacle to accession. The chapter argues that the case-law of the two European Courts, rather than confirming such inherent incompatibility, demonstrates a constructive judicial dialogue between them. This is a dialogue in which, in addition to the two supranational Courts, national courts, such as the German Federal Constitutional Court, have given their contribution. While the true nature of the principle of mutual trust in EU law remains subject to debate, close scrutiny reveals it as more of a rebuttable presumption than a full-fledged legal principle. Ultimately, the European and domestic courts involved are shown to have engaged in a useful judicial dialogue that has influenced the shaping of the principle of mutual trust in a manner that can be regarded as satisfactory from the point of view of both the ECHR and the EU.
In this paper, I discuss whether the European Convention on Human Rights provides safeguards to individuals affected by predictive analytics in crime prevention. I start with depicting a conceptual issue that worries legal scholars – the trend of law-enforcement authorities to increase their attention to crime prevention rather than traditional criminal investigations. Then, I dive into the right to privacy case-law of the European Court of Human Rights looking for the Court’s references to the threats of data processing. Lastly, I select concrete cases of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to a fair trial to show that the human rights safeguards are not yet developed to frame predictive analytics in crime prevention.
Kamu görevlileri, tâbi oldukları statü hukuku kurallarına bağlı olarak, bu kapsamda kamu idarelerine karşı sahip oldukları sadakat ve sır saklama ödevi ile kamu hizmetinden yararlananlara karşı yüklendikleri tarafsızlık ödevi gereğince, ifade özgürlüğü kullanımlarında diğer bireylerden farklı ilave bir takım sınırlamalara maruz kalabilmektedirler. Bununla birlikte ifade özgürlüğüne İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi’nin 10. maddesi ile sağlanan güvenceler ve maddede öngörülen sınırlandırma rejimi, kamu görevlilerinin ifade özgürlüğü açısından da geçerlidir. Dolayısıyla kamu görevlilerinin ifade özgürlüğüne müdahale oluşturan idari işlemlerin hukuka uygun kabul edilebilmesi için, bu işlemlerin – diğerlerinin yanı sıra- demokratik toplumda gereklilik koşuluna uygun şekilde tesis edilmeleri gerekmektedir. Bu çerçevede çalışmada, kamu görevlilerinin ifade özgürlüğüne yönelik müdahaleler açısından İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi’nin 10. maddesinin ve özellikle maddede öngörülen demokratik toplumda gereklilik koşulunun, İnsan Hakları Avrupa Mahkemesi tarafından ne şekilde yorumlandığı ve uygulandığı incelenecektir. Akabinde kamu görevlilerinin ifade özgürlüğünü ilgilendiren yakın tarihli kararlarından hareketle, Danıştay’ın konu hakkındaki yaklaşımının İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi’nin gereklilikleri ile uyum arz edip etmediği sorusuna cevap aranılacaktır.
In this book, Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou argues that, from the legal perspective, the formula 'European public order' is excessively vague and does not have an identifiable meaning; therefore, it should not be used by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in its reasoning. However, European public order can also be understood as an analytical concept which does not require a clearly defined content. In this sense, the ECtHR can impact European public order but cannot strategically shape it. The Court's impact is a by-product of individual cases which create a feedback loop with the contracting states. European public order is influenced as a result of interaction between the Court and the contracting parties. This book uses a wide range of sources and evidence to substantiate its core arguments: from a comprehensive analysis of the Court's case law to research interviews with the judges of the ECtHR.
Tento příspěvek je koncipován jako odpověď autorů monografie Domestic Judicial Treatment of European Court of Human Rights Case Law: Beyond Compliance (KOSAŘ, D. et al. Routledge, 2020) na reakce komentátorů v tomto sympoziu. Rekapitulujeme východiska monografie a rozvíjíme některé v knize obsažené argumenty s ohledem na připomínky komentátorů. Článek reflektuje poznámky a stěžejní body, které komentátoři nadnesli: v první části se věnuje přesnějšímu vysvětlení metodologických východisek našeho přístupu k soudcovskému zacházení s judikaturou ESLP, ve druhé části se hlouběji zamýšlí nad tím, jak by bylo možné integrovat připomínky komentátorů, a následně otevírá diskusi, jak dál postupovat ve výzkumu vnitrostátního života EÚLP a judikatury ESLP.
The rule of law is a principle of constitutional importance under the European Convention on Human Rights. For decades, it has guided the work of the Strasbourg Court. The article discusses the principle’s ideological core as a fundamental component of “European public order” and its three normative dimensions, as they find their expression in the case-law of the Court. The author then discusses in detail the rule of law’s most important structural principle under the Convention, the independence of the judiciary.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is an international court operating in the international legal order. Its judgments are not given direct effect in national law. In this sense we have a system of legal pluralism between international and national law. But the ECtHR has constitutional effects in national law through the weight placed on the Court’s practice by national courts. Therefore, constitutional principles are applicable in the interaction between the ECtHR and national courts. This article discusses the transnational constitutional aspects of the Court, and how this should guide the roles of, respectively, the ECtHR and national courts.
Law, Democracy and the European Court of Human Rights examines the political rights jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. It discusses how the Court supports a liberal representative and substantive model of democracy, and outlines the potential for the Court to interpret the Convention so as to support more deliberative, participatory and inclusive democratic practices. The book commences with an overview of different theories of democracy and then discusses the origins of the Council of Europe and the Convention and presents the basic principles on the interpretation and application of the Convention. Subsequent chapters explore issues around free expression, free assembly and association, the scope of the electoral rights, the right to vote, the right to run for election and issues about electoral systems. Issues discussed include rights relating to referendums, voting rights for prisoners and non-nationals, trade union rights and freedom of information.
Law, Democracy and the European Court of Human Rights examines the political rights jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. It discusses how the Court supports a liberal representative and substantive model of democracy, and outlines the potential for the Court to interpret the Convention so as to support more deliberative, participatory and inclusive democratic practices. The book commences with an overview of different theories of democracy and then discusses the origins of the Council of Europe and the Convention and presents the basic principles on the interpretation and application of the Convention. Subsequent chapters explore issues around free expression, free assembly and association, the scope of the electoral rights, the right to vote, the right to run for election and issues about electoral systems. Issues discussed include rights relating to referendums, voting rights for prisoners and non-nationals, trade union rights and freedom of information.
In den letzten Jahrzehnten hat sich in Lateinamerika ein neuer Kontext für die Durchsetzung von Menschenrechten herausgebildet. Die organisatorische Entwicklung des Interamerikanischen Menschenrechtsschutzsystems (IAS), die Verabschiedung neuer Verfassungen durch die nationalen Gesetzgeber und die Anwendung innovativer Verfassungsauslegungen durch die maßgeblichen Gerichte in der Region haben zur Entstehung eines kosmopolitischen lateinamerikanischen Konstitutionalismus geführt. In diesem neuen Kontext hat der Interamerikanische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (IACtHR) damit begonnen, die gerichtliche Überprüfung innerstaatlicher Gesetze zu praktizieren, d.h. er hat bei mehreren Gelegenheiten nationale Behörden angewiesen, innerstaatliche Gesetze wegen ihrer Unvereinbarkeit mit der Amerikanischen Menschenrechtskonvention (ACHR) für ungültig zu erklären. Angesichts der zunehmenden Konflikte zwischen nationalen und internationalen Menschenrechtsautoritäten zielt diese Studie darauf ab, den legitimsten und effektivsten Ansatz für die Praxis der interamerikanischen Konventionskontrolle zu finden. Ausgehend von der Debatte über die innerstaatliche richterliche Normenkontrolle werden zunächst die Gründe für die Praxis einer starken internationalen Normenkontrolle untersucht. Anschließend adressiert diese Studie Theorien, die versucht haben, die interamerikanische Konventionskontrolle zu schwächen. Diese Theorien haben sich häufig für die Übernahme des nationalen Ermessensspielraums auf der Grundlage der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte ausgesprochen. Schließlich plädiert die vorliegende Studie für eine kontextbasierte Theorie der interamerikanischen gerichtlichen Überprüfung und versucht, den nationalen Ermessensspielraum mit dem kosmopolitischen Konstitutionalismus Lateinamerikas in Einklang zu bringen.
The European Court of Human Rights increasingly deals with migrants’ complaints about destitution in their host state under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment). This case law has been criticized for not being consistent and/or for not providing migrants with enough protection. Based on a systematic case law search, in this article, I analyse Article 3 case law on migrants’ destitution from a new perspective: the concept of freedom as non-domination, as developed in (neo) republican theory. It will argue that, seen through this lens, many tendencies in the Court’s case law can be explained and constructed as consistent, and it is submitted that in this way the Court does provide migrants with important protection against unfreedom. Nevertheless, I also argue in the article that the case law could be improved in a number of ways in order to provide more effective and robust protection against domination.
With only one case decided in climate change matters, Norway’s litigation landscape appears at its inception. Albeit a loss for the promoting NGOs and supportive civil society in terms of the remedies requested, the climate change lawsuit was effective in catalyzing public debate on fossil fuel policies and the role of courts. Yet, the subject matter of the case, a challenge to oil and gas licenses, proved fairly contentious as Norway’s economy is largely reliant on fossil fuel extraction. Such circumstance allows for an analysis of three clusters of climate change claims that individuals are in the position to lodge with Norwegian courts, against either public bodies or private actors, in either mitigation or adaptation matters. Notwithstanding some shortcomings, it appears that individuals can seek avenues of involvement in climate change matters through effective litigation. One of the most promising avenues rests with rights-based lawsuits, which would be buttressed by Norway’s constitutional protection of the right to a healthy environment, children’s rights, and the rights of future generations.
Are international institutions more prone to face backlash politics than domestic ones? Are international institutions easy targets for satisfying domestic political interests? Using the case of the recent criticism of the European Court of Human Rights, the article explores whether international institutions are more susceptible to face backlash politics than domestic ones due to the dual nature of international politics. The empirical study, focusing on the reform of the European Court of Human Rights through the 2018 Copenhagen Declaration, suggests that pre-existing commitments to international institutions might be given up rapidly when significant domestic interests collide with international institutions and their practices. The analysis, however, also shows that backlash politics against international institutions is transformed when seeking institutional reform. Entering a collective bargaining process, backlash objectives are changed by the logic of diplomatic negotiation, academic scrutiny and the interests of the other member states and civil society. This suggests that the two-level logic of ordinary international politics has a mediating effect on domestically fuelled backlash campaigns.
Samandrag: Klimasøksmål Arktis er det fyrste og einaste klimasøksmålet i Noreg. I søksmålet løfta saksøkjarane fram sterk kritikk mot det dei oppfatta som ein paradoksal politikk i Noreg med å utvinne petroleum i Barentshavet. Mellom andre merknader påpeika saksøkjarane at dei økonomiske vurderingane regjeringa hadde gjort søraust i Barentshavet, inneheldt ei rekkje feil. Argumentet kan verke avgjerande i saka. Ifølgje uavhengige forskarar kjem det ikkje til å vere lønnsamt frå eit samfunnsøkonomisk perspektiv å opne nye felt i Barentshavet med konsekvensen at vedtaket om å opne nye felt kan bli uforsvarleg. Dette blei handsama i Oslo tingrett sin dom i 2018 og i Borgarting lagmannsrett sin dom i 2020. Likevel konkluderte tingretten og lagmannsretten med at vurderingane til regjeringa kunne forsvarast trass i feila. Men retten gjorde ikkje ei rettsleg vurdering av nokon av dei og dette aspektet har lege relativt skjult i kommentarane kring domane. Ved å ta utgangspunkt i Klimasøksmål Arktis siktar denne artikkelen på å oppnå eit litt klarare bilete av rettsprøvinga av økonomiske vurderingar i klimarettssaker. På dette feltet er rettslege instrument lite teoretiserte, noko som er problematisk ikkje berre for norsk rett, men for retten generelt. Komparativ rett kan verke som eit tolkingsmoment ved konsekvensutgreiingar og balanseringar av klimainteresser og økonomiske interesser i høve til kvarandre. Refleksjon kring dette kan gje djupare innsikt i moglegheiter og avgrensingar ved rettsprøvinga og forklare nokre av utfordringane med rettsmekling i klimarettssaker.
Recent examples of the process-based application of the Ü ner and Maslov criteria in cases dealing with the expulsion of foreign nationals convicted of crimes are the Second Section's inadmissibility decisions in Hamesevic v Denmark Application No 25748/15, Admissibility
Recent examples of the process-based application of the Ü ner and Maslov criteria in cases dealing with
the expulsion of foreign nationals convicted of crimes are the Second Section's inadmissibility decisions
in Hamesevic v Denmark Application No 25748/15, Admissibility, 16 May 2017 and Alam v Denmark
Application No 33809/15, Admissibility, 6 June 2017.
Terentyev v Russia Application No 25147/09, Merits and Just Satisfaction
- See
See, for example, Annen v Germany Application No 3690/10, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 26 November
2015; Terentyev v Russia Application No 25147/09, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 26 January 2017;
Belcacemi and Oussar v Belgium Application No 37798/13, Merits and Just Satisfaction
Dakir v Belgium Application No 4619/12, 11 July 2017; Belcacemi and Oussar v Belgium Application No
37798/13, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 11 July 2017.
See here the Scottish Referendum case brought under Article 3 of Protocol No 1, Moohan and Gillon v United Kingdom Applications Nos 22962/15 and 23345/15, Admissibility
See here the Scottish Referendum case brought under Article 3 of Protocol No 1, Moohan and Gillon v
United Kingdom Applications Nos 22962/15 and 23345/15, Admissibility, 13 June 2017; and the Turkish
Constitutional Referendum case brought under the same provision, Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi v Turkey
Application No 48818/17, Admissibility, 21 November 2017.
General Principles and Constitutions as Sources of Human Rights Law
- Lafferty O'boyle
O'Boyle and Lafferty, 'General Principles and Constitutions as Sources of Human Rights Law' in Shelton
(ed.), The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law (2013).