Echr violations by article and by state pdf
File Name: echr violations by article and by state .zip
- I. The Relationship Betweenthe Two European Courts
- European Convention on Human Rights
- COVID-19 and the European Convention on Human Rights
The number of non-compliance judgments of the Court varies considerably. Some states have been found to violate rules more than times, while the number of non-compliance judgments is in the single digits for others. Since we know a lot about non- compliance in the EU, but not much about the same phenomenon in other regional organizations, this article examines why some countries receive more ECHR judgments than others. Powerful countries, states with limited administrative capacities, and countries without active civil societies tend to have higher shares of ECHR non-compliance judgments. Moreover, the paper argues that under conditions of low legalization, autocratic countries are more likely to block cases from turning into ECHR judgments than countries with higher democracy scores.
I. The Relationship Betweenthe Two European Courts
Drafted in by the then newly formed Council of Europe ,  the convention entered into force on 3 September All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity. Any person who feels their rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can take a case to the Court. Judgments finding violations are binding on the States concerned and they are obliged to execute them. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe monitors the execution of judgements, particularly to ensure payment of the amounts awarded by the Court to the applicants in compensation for the damage they have sustained.
This post provides, in broad strokes, an overview of human rights litigation via the inter-State application procedure under the European Convention on Human Rights ECHR , as well as its strengths and challenges. Certainly, compared to some , individual applications, the number looks small. However, the inter-State applications have had an impact for a large number of individuals. Many of the cases also had important political ramifications and shaped the present supervisory architecture of the Convention. The ECtHR full list of inter-State cases reveals a considerable rise of applications, with currently eight pending sets of proceedings: the armed conflict between Georgia and the Russian Federation is before the Court in Georgia v Russia II. The case has reached the merits stage, the admissibility decision was taken back in
It is certainly true that the juridical system on the protection of human rights in Europe is rather complex. Against this background, the current article highlights issues with respect to the sharing of competence over fundamental rights by the two courts. In general, the two European Courts have developed aharmonious and co-operative relationship. Since the judgements in Bosphorus 3 and in M. Relevant caselaw on criminal matters however, reveals an insistence of the Luxembourg Court in deviating from Strasbourg caselaw in order to preserve the autonomy and effectiveness of EU legislative measures, even over human rights standards set by the ECtHR. Additionally, Art.
European Convention on Human Rights
How to publish with Brill. Fonts, Scripts and Unicode. Brill MyBook. Ordering from Brill. Author Newsletter.
Show full item record.
COVID-19 and the European Convention on Human Rights
Our life has changed. The main if not the only topic that everyone is interested in is the ongoing pandemic. The World Health Organisation is one of the most popular international organisations at the moment. This crisis will undoubtably have a significant impact on how we live, travel and perceive our governments. These long-term effects will clearly be a subject of numerous dissertations, articles and monographs. This blogpost will make a very brief overview of the role of the European Convention on Human Rights in assessment of this crisis. When the situation calms down it would be very interesting to analyse the exact wording and utility of these declarations.
The State response to the COVID pandemic has been varied procedurally, operationally, and in terms of overall success. Nevertheless, key procedural and operational factors contributing to an effective State response e. In almost every case of an ineffective response such as that of the UK in March, or the US, one or more of these factors has been lacking. The relevant human rights in the context of COVID relate primarily to the right to accessible and quality healthcare. This means that it is not a right that demands immediate fulfilment. However, General Comment 14 provides that the core obligations to take effective steps towards full realisation and to ensure non-discrimination while upholding the right to health are immediate imperatives to the State para. Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v Portugal , para.
The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed. This Article means that it is a violation of the ECHR for a state to restrict a listed human right for any reason other than the one formally given and allowed under the Convention; "there can be no inherent or implied limitations on the rights guaranteed. Each limitation must be expressed and have an explicit purpose". In terms of comparison to other human rights instruments, this Article is reasonably unique: there is no such provision in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The restrictions that, pursuant to this Convention, may be placed on the enjoyment or exercise of the rights or freedoms recognized herein may not be applied except in accordance with the laws enacted for reasons of general interest and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions have been established. Article 18 must always operate in tandem with another article of the ECHR, although that Article need not necessarily be violated, as explained by the Court in Gusinskiy v Russia: .
Cases in which the Court held there would be a violation of Article 2 and/or 3 if the applicant was removed to a State where he/she was at risk.