Search

Search Results

• A New Admissibility Criteria – the „Significant Disadvantage” in the Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights

  131-138

  Sándor Szemesi

  Views:

  132

  Since its adoption in 1950, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has established one of the best mechanism for the international protection of human rights. Because of the continuous increase of the European Court of Human Rights’ workload, the modification of the Court’s procedure was needed. During this reform, a new admissibility requirement is inserted in Article 35 of the Convention, which empowers the Court to declare inadmissible applications where the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage. This new admissibility criteria is applicable since 1 June 2010 (when Protocol No. 14. entered into force). The study examines the travaux preparatoires and the current text of the Protocol, and analyzes the case-law of the Court concerning this new criteria.

• Minority Rights and the European Court of Human Rights

  138-160

  Csenge Merkel

  Views:

  192

  This paper aims to present the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) regarding minorities’ rights. Even though minority rights as such are not listed in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the ECtHR has developed an evolving minority rights protection under it. This paper describes the concrete cases of minority rights protection and shows how the case law evolved throughout the years. The ECtHR recognized the right to self-identification, the right to culture, the right to use minority languages, the right of assembly and the freedom of expression regarding minorities. This paper argues that there might be a shift towards a greater diversity protection in the future under the ECHR.
  

• Hungarian legislative changes induced by the case-law of European Court of Human Rights

  109-122

  Andrea Klemencsics

  Views:

  168

  Indisputably, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has an effect on national legal systems. In this study I examine the type of this effect in the Hungarian legal system through the case law of the year 2014, and as an outcome, I would like to demonstrate that the ECtHR has both direct and indirect impacts on the national legislation in Hungary. As a result of the judgments’ direct impact, changes are made in the national legislation, meanwhile the indirect impact can only be detected in the decisions of the Hungarian Constitutional Court or domestic courts. Obviously, the direct impact is the most significant and most noticeable, however, the significance of indirect impact has been gradually increasing in the recent period. Based on this idea, I would like to point out that both effects are present in the Hungarian legislation, and seem to show an increasing trend, although the judicial bodies mean an exception in this practice. Nonetheless, according to the European practice, the judicial bodies will most likely refer to the international norm and the case law of the ECtHR in the near future.

• Luxembourg v Strasbourg – Legal Impediments in the Process of the Accession of the EU to the ECHR

  101-119

  Zoltán Angyal

  Lilla Nóra Kiss

  Views:

  149

  The accession of the European Union (EU) to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has been on the agenda of the EU for long. Although the Lisbon Treaty settles this question in theory by obliging the EU to accede, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) resorted to its rights laid down in the Treaties and published its Opinion 2/13 on the matter by the full Court. This opinion scrutinizes the draft document concerning accession. According to the opinion the EU cannot accede to the ECHR in the present form because the draft document is not in compliance with the special characteristics and features of EU law, therefore it would require the amendment or reorganisation of the whole EU legal system. By this judgement the ECJ outlines the legal impediments in the way of the accession. The main objective of our article – after summarizing the brief history and legal framework of the accession – is to present and evaluate the critical elements of accession determined by the ECJ and predict the decision’s possible consequences.

• The Effect of the Jurisprudence of the ECHR on the Hungarian Criminal Procedure Act

  128-150

  Krisztián Szabó

  Views:

  308

  The case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human rights set the minimum level for the protection of fundamental rights that has to be guaranteed by all contracting parties, although national laws can establish higher standards. Point II of the general explanations of Bill No. T/13972 on the new Act on Criminal Procedure states that “meeting the requirements of the Fundamental Law of Hungary and the obligations of international law and EU law obviously mean a safeguarding minimum.” In Hungary the case law of the ECHR is reflected more and more both in the judgements of Hungarian courts and in the guidelines of higher courts but the difficulties of establishing interpretations in harmony with ECHR case law are common. The paper analyses the judgments of the ECHR in Hungarian cases between 2013 and 2016 related to pretrial detention, effective defence and the circumstances of restraint.

• The right to strike in the case-law of the ECtHR

  115-133

  Katalin Bagdi

  Views:

  242

  The right to strike has been long recognized as an important labour right in the European countries protected by constitutions and international conventions on labour and social rights. However, these international conventions mainly contain mere declarations to only pursue the right to strike and do not have an effective protection mechanism. Nevertheless, in the last few decades a human rights perspective on labour law gained ground and thus international organizations and international courts started to derive labour rights like the right to strike from civil and political rights and therefore some of these labour rights enjoy the same level of protection as the first generation human rights. In its recent judgements, the European Court of Human Rights stated that the right to strike is protected under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and developed a case law on the requirements of a lawful strike action, secondary strike actions and the restrictions of the right to strike.

• Judicial Review in Emergency Situations: the Relevant Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

  200-218

  Gábor Mészáros

  Views:

  153

  Emergencies are mostly sudden, and in most cases states need special measures to deal with them. For this reason liberal democracies have standing constitutional or special legal powers to derogate human rights for the sake of order. Those democracies that do not have such powers, use impromptu ones. It is possible for authoritarian governments to abuse emergency powers in order to stay in power, to derogate human rights and to silence the opposition. Therefore it is essential for a liberal democracy to have strict limits for the duration, circumstance and scope of emergency powers. There are human rights regimes (for example: the European Convention on Human Rights) which have to respect the member states’ duty and responsibility in such cases. This article tries to examine this special case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The question is whether a European Human Rights regime is capable of becoming the guardian of human rights in cases of national emergencies, or the sovereignty of states also means that there is very narrow margin to prove legality above security?

• Basic Trial Rights and Trial Ethics in Criminal Proceedings

  32-55

  Viktor Bérces

  Views:

  194

  The number of criminal court trials is constantly decreasing, as the domestic legislature has introduced a number of legal institutions aimed at diverting criminal cases from the court system, or avoiding charging. Nevertheless, there will always be crimes, the adjudication of which cannot dispense with impeachment based on direct judicial investigation. The trial is undoubtedly the "highlight" of the criminal proceedings, since it is here that the adversarial process takes place in its entirety, and here the defense counsel and the prosecutor have the opportunity to form opinions on factual and legal issues in each other's personal presence. The amendment of the Criminal Procedure Act naturally raised many questions, such as who in the near future will actually control the evidence taken in court proceedings, and what basic procedural rights should be provided to the participants of the proceedings. In this study, I would like to reflect primarily on these questions, based on some ECtHR decisions.