DOCSLIB.ORG

Protecting Other People's Rights Or Our

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Protecting Other People's Rights Or Our Protecting other people’s rights or our own? The UK and the ECHR Helen Hardman, University of Glasgow Magna Carta is considered the blueprint for the first human rights conventions: the Universal declaration on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and, crucially, the UK played a fundamental role in their design. These treaties were drawn up at the international and European level through the realisation, following two world wars, that rights need protecting across borders to prevent conflict. Contracting parties expressed their shared values in the ECHR for the purpose of maintaining peace in Europe.1 In this vein, many envisaged the ECHR would operate as an inter-state ‘collective pact against totalitarianism’ to be invoked against states only in extreme cases. Others, however, conceived it as a European Bill of Rights.2 Ultimately, the provisions in the ECHR, as first articulated, reflect the pragmatism of compromise between the states parties to devise and launch ‘workable institutions’ rather than theoretical debates about the relationship between the individual and state and society.3 Since then, states have opted to recognise additional rights through ratifying supplementary protocols to the Convention, although not all states have ratified each of these, and the “Court has been cautious not to interpret the Convention contrary to the will of the states.”4 In the context of Magna Carta, the tension between balancing executive powers (over the issue of security) with the public’s civil rights first occurred in 1341 when Edward III enacted a law that granted broader powers of arrest and imprisonment without trial Numerous complaints that the law contravened the right to a fair trial, as articulated in Art.29/39 of Magna Carta, were heeded and the law was repealed .5 In 1369 Edward III introduced a statute which required that every law enacted must be compatible with the rights enshrined in Magna Carta.6 600 years later, the 1998 Human Rights Act updated and renewed the tradition of the Magna Carta7 by incorporating the European Convention into UK law.8 However, since 2004 the European Court has issued a number of judgments to the UK Government that have led to conflict over the issue of parliamentary sovereignty: and a refusal to implement the European Court’s judgments over voting rights for prisoners and review of 1 A. Mowbray (2014), ‘Between the will of the contracting parties and the needs of today’ in E Brems and J. Gerards (eds), Shaping rights in the ECHR: the role of the European Court of Human Rights in determining the scope of human rights Cambridge University Press, pp. 17-37, 20, citing Greer 2006: 56 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid, p.36. 5 R. Turner (2003), Magna Carta through the ages, Pearson, pp.122-124. 6Ibid, p. 116. 7Ibid, pp.195-196 8 S. Besson (2008), ‘The reception process in Ireland and the United Kingdom’ in H. Keller and A. Stone Sweet, A Europe of Rights: the impact of the ECHR on national legal systems, Oxford University Press, pp.31-32. 1 sentences to life imprisonment. As Colin Murray (2013) and others have demonstrated, these judgments do not diverge from the UK’s legal traditions on these issues. Nonetheless, in October 2014 the Conservative Party pledged to repeal the UK Human Rights Act and withdraw the UK from its obligations under the European Convention. This paper investigates how stakeholders in the UK and other Council of Europe states view the UK government’s failure to comply with the European Convention and the implications of the UK’s stance for the Convention system, the UK and other states. The research is based on desk-research and interviews conducted between 2012 and 2015 with representatives from Council of Europe institutions, academics, parliamentarians and NGOs from a variety of states across Europe. Celebration of Magna Carta and current Human Rights protection in the UK In 2015 the Government arranged a number of events to commemorate 800 years of Magna Carta, because traditionally the UK puts great store by the rule of law, compliance with international law and claims to have a leading role in the world that field. Some in the legal community, however, have remarked that the Government is celebrating this tradition “with one or two blind spots:”9 They consider that the right to a fair trial as first articulated in Magna Carta (and now provided under Article 6 of the ECHR) has come under attack in the UK as the result of cuts to legal aid and higher court fees, essentially making litigation increasingly prohibitive for the majority of people in the UK. The sharp increase in court fees exceed actual court costs10 and are designed to generate revenue, so these are best interpreted as a form of taxation.11 Since 1975, access to justice has been interpreted as an integral part of the right to a fair trial,12 and so these regulations might be the next issue to arrive at the Strasbourg Court.13 The channel of judicial review, also equates with individuals’ right of access to justice as provided under Article 6 of the ECHR.14 Moreover, the courts’ capacity to challenge decisions made by Government through this mechanism is a fundamental basis to the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances between these. This is another mechanism which was threatened in 2014 by a bill introduced by the Minister of Justice and Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, to remove judges’ discretion to decide whether a case merited judicial review.15 The bill was rejected by the House of Lords, including a number of Conservative peers, one of whom asserted: “It is unacceptable if we have a system whereby if the government has acted illegally it can’t be brought to account in the courts. The British defence of 9 Interview with * London, February 2015 10 J. Rozenberg (2015), ‘Dramatic increases in court fees causing deep concern, say senior judges’, The Guardian, 19.1.2015 http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jan/19/dramatic-increases-court-fees-deep- concern-senior-judges 11 Interview with * London, February 2015 12 Interview with * London, February 2015, See: ECtHR, Golder v UK, 4451/70, 21.2.1975, para. 21 13 Interview with * London, February.2015 14 House of Lords, House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights (2014), The implications for access to justice of the Government's proposals to reform judicial review, 13th Report, Session 2013-2014, 9.4.2014, p.17, para.44 15 HC Bill 192, Criminal Justice and Courts Bill 2 freedom is judicial review.” 16 The Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, the cross-party committee of MPs and peers that scrutinise the compatibility of legislation with the ECHR, strongly criticised the proposed curtailment of judicial review and asserted that the new legal aid regulations will have a chilling effect.17 The committee asserted in their report that reforms introduced by Chris Grayling demonstrated the inherent conflict of interests in the combination of the political role of the Secretary of State for Justice and the duty of the Lord Chancellor to protect the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary since the two roles were merged in 2005.18 “In our view, the Government’s proposals on judicial review expose the conflict inherent in the combined roles of the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice which raises issues which should be considered by a number of parliamentary committees. We think the time is approaching for there to be a thoroughgoing review of the effect of combining in one person the roles of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and of the consequent restructuring of departmental responsibilities between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.”19 Because of these incursions on the right to a fair trial, a significant proportion of the legal community have objected to the Government’s Magna Carta celebrations,20 which are interpreted as part of a broader narrative by some in Government to justify the repeal of the Human Rights Act and the UK’s withdrawal from the ECHR. The particular issue with which this debate over the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR began was the Government’s disagreement in 2011 with the European Court’s judgments that the blanket ban on voting for prisoners in the Representation of the People Act 1983 was in breach of the ECHR.21 The sudden standoff between the UK Government and the Council of Europe over this issue was unprecedented.22 16 A. Travis (2014), ‘House of Lords votes against Grayling’s plans to restrict judicial review’ The Guardian, 27.10.2014 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/27/house-of-lords-defeat-chris- grayling-judicial-review-plan 17 House of Lords, House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights (2014), The implications for access to justice of the Government's proposals to reform judicial review, 13th Report, Session 2013-2014, 9.4.2014, pp.22-27 18 A. Patrick (2014), ‘Not in our name: Parliamentary committee rejects Government’s case for Judicial Review reform’, UK Human Rights blog, 30.4.2014 http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/04/30/not-in-our-name-parliamentary-committee-rejects- governments-case-for-judicial-review-reform-angela-patrick/ 19 House of Lords, House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights (2014), The implications for access to justice of the Government's proposals to reform judicial review, 13th Report, Session 2013-2014, 9.4.2014, p.3. 20 O. Boycott (2015), ‘Justice campaigners propose boycott of Magna Carta anniversary summit’, The Guardian, 1.2.2015 http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/feb/01/global-law-summit-magna-carta-boycott 21 ECtHR, Hirst v United Kingdom, no.2 (74025/01) 30.3.2004; Greens and M.T.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Father of the House Sarah Priddy
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 06399, 17 December 2019 By Richard Kelly Father of the House Sarah Priddy Inside: 1. Seniority of Members 2. History www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 06399, 17 December 2019 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Seniority of Members 4 1.1 Determining seniority 4 Examples 4 1.2 Duties of the Father of the House 5 1.3 Baby of the House 5 2. History 6 2.1 Origin of the term 6 2.2 Early usage 6 2.3 Fathers of the House 7 2.4 Previous qualifications 7 2.5 Possible elections for Father of the House 8 Appendix: Fathers of the House, since 1901 9 3 Father of the House Summary The Father of the House is a title that is by tradition bestowed on the senior Member of the House, which is nowadays held to be the Member who has the longest unbroken service in the Commons. The Father of the House in the current (2019) Parliament is Sir Peter Bottomley, who was first elected to the House in a by-election in 1975. Under Standing Order No 1, as long as the Father of the House is not a Minister, he takes the Chair when the House elects a Speaker. He has no other formal duties. There is evidence of the title having been used in the 18th century. However, the origin of the term is not clear and it is likely that different qualifications were used in the past. The Father of the House is not necessarily the oldest Member.
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Left's Views on Israel: from the Establishment of the Jewish State To
    ‘The Left’s Views on Israel: From the establishment of the Jewish state to the intifada’ Thesis submitted by June Edmunds for PhD examination at the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 UMI Number: U615796 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615796 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 F 7377 POLITI 58^S8i ABSTRACT The British left has confronted a dilemma in forming its attitude towards Israel in the postwar period. The establishment of the Jewish state seemed to force people on the left to choose between competing nationalisms - Israeli, Arab and later, Palestinian. Over time, a number of key developments sharpened the dilemma. My central focus is the evolution of thinking about Israel and the Middle East in the British Labour Party. I examine four critical periods: the creation of Israel in 1948; the Suez war in 1956; the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and the 1980s, covering mainly the Israeli invasion of Lebanon but also the intifada. In each case, entrenched attitudes were called into question and longer-term shifts were triggered in the aftermath.
    [Show full text]
  • Conseil De L'europe Council of Europe Cour Européenne Des Droits De L
    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Applications nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 29 June 2007 2 O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT In the case of O’Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Luzius Wildhaber, Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Rıza Türmen, Volodymyr Butkevych, Josep Casadevall, Matti Pellonpää, Snejana Botoucharova, Stanislav Pavlovschi, Lech Garlicki, Javier Borrego Borrego, Alvina Gyulumyan, Ljiljana Mijović, Egbert Myjer, Ján Šikuta, judges, and Vincent Berger, Jurisconsult, Having deliberated in private on 27 September 2006 and on 23 May 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two British nationals, Mr Gerard O’Halloran and Mr Idris Richard Francis (“the applicants”), on 3 April 2002 and 15 November 2001 respectively. 2. The applicants, one of whom had been granted legal aid, were represented by Mr J. Welch of Liberty, London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 3. Mr O’Halloran alleged that he had been convicted solely or mainly on account of the statement he had been compelled to provide under threat of a penalty similar to the offence itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Recall of Mps
    House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Recall of MPs First Report of Session 2012–13 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 June 2012 HC 373 [incorporating HC 1758-i-iv, Session 2010-12] Published on 28 June 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider political and constitutional reform. Current membership Mr Graham Allen MP (Labour, Nottingham North) (Chair) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Sheila Gilmore MP (Labour, Edinburgh East) Andrew Griffiths MP (Conservative, Burton) Fabian Hamilton MP (Labour, Leeds North East) Simon Hart MP (Conservative, Camarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) Tristram Hunt MP (Labour, Stoke on Trent Central) Mrs Eleanor Laing MP (Conservative, Epping Forest) Mr Andrew Turner MP (Conservative, Isle of Wight) Stephen Williams MP (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West) Powers The Committee’s powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in Temporary Standing Order (Political and Constitutional Reform Committee). These are available on the Internet via http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmstords.htm. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/pcrc. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2020 Minutes
    Minutes from British-Japan Parliamentary Group AGM Date: Monday 24th February 2020 Attending: Lord Bates, Lord Sassoon, Lord Pendry, Yvonne Forargue MP, Peter Bottomley MP, Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill, Lord Gilbert, Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Baroness Hooper, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, Viscount Trenchard, Alex Sobel MP, Gary Sambrook MP, Heather Wheeler MP, Nigel Evans MP, David Simmons MP, Sir George Howarth, Kevin Hollinrake MP, Lord Howell, Sir Mark Hendrick MP, Craig Williams MP, Dr Lisa Cameron MP, Sir Mark Hendrick MP, Baroness D’Souza and Jeremy Hunt MP. Apologies received from: Viscount Waverley, Ian Paisley MP, Pauline Latham MP, Baroness Goudie, Rosie Cooper MP, Sir Graham Brady MP, Gareth Bacon MP, Lord Lansley, John Spellar MP, Flick Drummond MP, Douglas Chapman MP, Lord Campbell, Paul Howell MP, Dr Ben Spencer and Deidre Brock MP. The meeting was called to order at 1630. Election of Chair: Mr Nigel Evans MP, Proposed the Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP. Mr Hunt was elected unanimously. Election of Secretary: Only one nomination was received in the name of Sir Mark Hendrick MP. Sir Mark was elected unopposed (Proposed by the Chair). Election of Vice-Chairs: The following were proposed by the Chair and elected unanimously; Craig Williams MP (Con), Dr Lisa Cameron MP (SNP), Gary Sambrook MP (Con), Viscount Trenchard (Con), Lord Moynihan (Con), Lord Holmes (Unaffiliated), Viscount Waverley (Ind), Baroness Finlay (Ind), John Spellar MP (Lab), Lord Bates (Con), Sir Graham Brady MP (Con), Heather Wheeler MP (Con), Chris Elmore MP (Lab), David Morris MP (Con), Ian Paisley MP (DUP), Baroness Hooper (Con), Judith Cummins MP (Lab), Lord Pendry (Lab), Deidre Block (SNP) and Dr Ben Spencer MP (Con).
    [Show full text]
  • United Kingdom Youth Parliament Debate 11Th November 2016 House of Commons
    United Kingdom Youth Parliament Debate 11th November 2016 House of Commons 1 Youth Parliament11 NOVEMBER 2016 Youth Parliament 2 we get into our formal proceedings. Let us hope that Youth Parliament it is a great day. We now have a countdown of just over 40 seconds. I have already spotted a parliamentary colleague Friday 11 November 2016 here, Christina Rees, the hon. Member for Neath, whose parliamentary assistant will be addressing the Chamber erelong. Christina, welcome to you. [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] 11 am 10.54 am The Youth Parliament observed a two-minute silence. Mr Speaker: Welcome to the eighth sitting of the UK Thank you, colleagues. I call the Leader of the House [Applause.] Youth Parliament in the House of Commons Chamber. of Commons, Mr David Lidington. This marks the beginning of UK Parliament Week, a programme of events and activities which connects The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David people with the United Kingdom Parliament. This year, Lidington): I thank you, Mr Speaker, and Members of more than 250 activities and events are taking place the YouthParliament. I think you and I would probably across the UK. The issues to be debated today were agree that the initial greetings we have received make a chosen by the annual Make Your Mark ballot of 11 to welcome contrast from the reception we may, at times, 18-year-olds. The British Youth Council reported that, get from our colleagues here during normal working once again, the number of votes has increased, with sessions. 978,216 young people casting a vote this year.
    [Show full text]
  • General Election Results, 29 MARCH 2001 1 May 1997
    RESEARCH PAPER 01/38 General Election results, 29 MARCH 2001 1 May 1997 This paper summarises the results of the 1997 General Election. It is a re-issue of Research Paper 97/49 but contains validated voting figures and also additional tables showing results by constituency. Full results of by-elections in this Parliament are available in Research Paper 01/36 By-elections since the 1997 General Election while more summarised results of General Elections since 1945 and other elections in the UK since 1997 are available in Research Paper 01/37 UK Election Statistics: 1945-2000. Bryn Morgan SOCIAL & GENERAL STATISTICS SECTION HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY Recent Library Research Papers include: 01/23 The Transplant of Human Organs Bill [Bill 17 of 2000-2001] 14.03.01 01/24 Direct taxes: rates & allowances 2001-02 14.03.01 01/25 Unemployment by constituency, February 2001 14.03.01 01/26 The Regulatory Reform Bill: Background to Red tape issues 14.03.01 01/27 The Regulatory Reform Bill: order-making power & parliamentary aspects 14.03.01 01/28 Police Service Strength: England & Wales (31 March 1977 to 30 September 2000) 16.03.01 01/29 The Special Needs and Disability Bill [HL] [Bill 55 of 2000-2001] 16.03.01 01/30 Election of a Commons Speaker (2nd Edition) 19.03.01 01/31 The National Lottery (Amendment) Bill [Bill 15 of 2000-2001] 22.03.01 01/32 The Social Security Fraud Bill [Bill 60 of 2000-2001] 21.03.01 01/33 The Adoption and Children Bill [Bill 66 of 2000-2001] 23.03.01 01/34 The Private Security Industry Bill [Bill 67 of 2000-2001] 26.03.01 01/35 Foot and Mouth Disease 27.03.01 01/36 By-elections 1997-2000 28.03.01 01/37 UK election statistics 1945-2000 29.03.01 Research Papers are available as PDF files: • to members of the general public on the Parliamentary web site, URL: http://www.parliament.uk • within Parliament to users of the Parliamentary Intranet, URL: http://hcl1.hclibrary.parliament.uk Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and their personal staff.
    [Show full text]
  • Contents Theresa May - the Prime Minister
    Contents Theresa May - The Prime Minister .......................................................................................................... 5 Nancy Astor - The first female Member of Parliament to take her seat ................................................ 6 Anne Jenkin - Co-founder Women 2 Win ............................................................................................... 7 Margaret Thatcher – Britain’s first woman Prime Minister .................................................................... 8 Penny Mordaunt – First woman Minister of State for the Armed Forces at the Ministry of Defence ... 9 Lucy Baldwin - Midwifery and safer birth campaigner ......................................................................... 10 Hazel Byford – Conservative Women’s Organisation Chairman 1990 - 1993....................................... 11 Emmeline Pankhurst – Leader of the British Suffragette Movement .................................................. 12 Andrea Leadsom – Leader of House of Commons ................................................................................ 13 Florence Horsbrugh - First woman to move the Address in reply to the King's Speech ...................... 14 Helen Whately – Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party ............................................................. 15 Gillian Shephard – Chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers ............................................... 16 Dorothy Brant – Suffragette who brought women into Conservative Associations ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2013 Prov
    European Court of Human Rights Annual Report 2013 Provisional Version Registry of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg, 2014 All or part of this document may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment of the source “Annual Report 2013 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”. Photographs: Council of Europe Cover: the Human Rights Building (Architects: Richard Rogers Partnership and Atelier Claude Bucher) – Photograph: Michel Christen, Council of Europe CONTENTS Foreword 5 I. The Court in 2013 7 II. Composition of the Court 15 III. Composition of the Sections 19 IV. Speech given by Mr Dean Spielmann, President of the European Court of Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 23 V. Speech given by Ms Christiane Taubira, Garde des Sceaux, French Minister of Justice, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 31 VI. Speech given by Mr Theodor Meron, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, President of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 39 VII. President’s Diary 49 VIII. Activities of the Grand Chamber, Sections and single- judge formations 59 IX. Case-law information, training and outreach 63 X. Summary of the main judgments and decisions delivered by the Court in 2013 77 XI. Cases reported in the Court’s Case-law Information Notes in 2013 147 XII. Statistical information 191 Events in total (2012-2013) 193 Pending cases allocated
    [Show full text]
  • Case of Jussila V. Finland
    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Case of Jussila v. Finland (Application no. 73053/01) Judgment Strasbourg, 23 November 2006 CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT O F HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF JUSSILA v. FINLAND (Application no. 73053/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 November 2006 2 JUSSILA v. FINLAND JUDGMENT In the case of Jussila v. Finland, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Nicolas Bratza, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Peer Lorenzen, Lucius Caflisch, Loukis Loucaides, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Volodymyr Butkevych, Josep Casadevall, Matti Pellonpää, Kristaq Traja, Mindia Ugrekhelidze, Antonella Mularoni, Elisabet Fura-Sandström, Ljiljana Mijović, Dean Spielmann, Ján Šikuta, judges, and Erik Fribergh, Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 5 July and 25 October 2006, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 73053/01) against the Republic of Finland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Finnish national, Mr Esa Jussila (“the applicant”), on 21 June 2001. 2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr P. Lappalainen, a lawyer practising in Nokia. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr A. Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 3. The applicant alleged that he had not received a fair hearing in the proceedings in which a tax surcharge was imposed as he had not been given an oral hearing.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2012 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”
    European Court of Human Rights Annual Report 2012 Provisional Version Registry of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg, 2013 All or part of this document may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment of the source “Annual Report 2012 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”. Photographs: Council of Europe Cover: the Human Rights Building (Architects: Richard Rogers Partnership and Atelier Claude Bucher) – Photograph: Michel Christen, Council of Europe – Graphic design: Publications Unit of the Registry of the Court CONTENTS Foreword 5 I. The Court in 2012 9 II. Composition of the Court 17 III. Composition of the Sections 21 IV. Speech given by Sir Nicolas Bratza, President of the European Court of Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 27 January 2012 29 V. Speech given by Mr Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 27 January 2012 39 VI. Visits 51 VII. Activities of the Grand Chamber, Sections and single- judge formations 57 VIII. Publication of information on the Court and its case-law 61 IX. Short survey of the main judgments and decisions delivered by the Court in 2012 71 X. Cases reported in the Court’s Case-law Information Notes in 2012 103 XI. Statistical information 147 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2012 (respondent States) 149 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2012 (main respondent States) 150 Court’s workload by state of proceedings and application type at 31 December 2012 151 Violations by Article and by respondent State (2012) 152 Violations by Article and by respondent State (2012) (continued) 153 Applications allocated to a judicial formation (1999-2012) 154 Judgments (1999-2012) 155 European Court of Human Rights – Annual Report 2012 Allocated applications by State and by population (2009-2012) 156 4 FOREWORD The year 2012 almost exactly corresponded to the term of office of my predecessor Sir Nicolas Bratza.
    [Show full text]