Search
Search Results
-
A New Admissibility Criteria – the „Significant Disadvantage” in the Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights
131-138Views:99Since 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.
-
The Concept of the Right to Food in Public International Law
86-99Views:148According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), at least 868 million people are undernourished nowadays. Combating against hunger and malnutrition shall not only be a moral duty, but a legally binding human rights obligation. The right to food is recognized firstly within the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948, as part of the right to an adequate standard of living, however nowadays it is considered to be a substantive right. This study deals with the key aspects of the right to adequate food in public international law, including its definition, content and enforcement, as well.
-
Luxembourg v Strasbourg – Legal Impediments in the Process of the Accession of the EU to the ECHR
101-119Views:114The 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
128-150Views:270The 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.
-
Human Rights as Fundamental Sources of Patients’ Rights in Light of the Development of Hungarian and German Laws
157-168Views:234Medical practice affects human life and health, which are not just some of the key social values, but actually express the existence of a human being. Therefore, it is a requirement to set the legal standards to guarantee the preservation and respect of human rights during medical treatment. Patients’ rights provide specific types of human rights in the area of patient care. The German legal system grants the preservation of these rights in a contractual framework that cannot be breached. In Hungary, patients’ rights are listed in the Public Health Act. Despite the diverse methods in regulating patients’ rights, the underlying public policy considerations are the same in both systems. The goal of this study is to provide a comparative analysis on the development of the German and the Hungarian regulation of patients’ rights focusing on the consideration of human rights.
-
Opinion or statement of fact?
48-68Views:234Press correction is a special way to defend personality rights on the basis of civil law. Its main objective is that if someone states or rumours a false fact or makes a fact appear untrue about a person in a given publication, the affected person has the right to submit his claim – as soon as possible – in order to have a rectifying communication be given out in the particular publication showing which part of the injurious publication states false, unfounded facts or makes a fact appear untrue and what is the reality. If the publisher does not satisfy its duty to correct the injurious publication voluntarily, the affected person – in a short period – has the right to enforce his claim for press correction in an accelerated judicial procedure which allows only restricted production of evidence.
The most frequent question of the press correctional lawsuits is whether the content of the publication turns out to be a statement of fact or an opinion. The opinion, assessment, critique and debates about society, politics or art cannot serve as a basis for press correction. The statement of fact is a declaration about a given momentum of reality, the assertion or rumour that something has happened in a certain way or that something really exists. In opposition to the statement of fact, the opinion expresses a value judgement or critique, and false facts cannot be concluded from it even indirectly. It is hard to define on an objective basis if a declaration is a statement of fact or an opinion. As life creates a wide range of various situations, the developing legal interpretation by the judicial practice has a great impact especially as regards the distinction between a statement of fact and an opinion, the interpretation of the publication or the determination of the content and form of the press correction.
-
The Legal Practice of Harassment by Threatening: A zaklatás második alapesetének joggyakorlata, különös tekintettel a halmazati és elhatárolási kérdésekre
219-238Views:145The Criminal Code of Hungary has contained the criminal offence of harassment since 2008 (Art. 222 of the current Criminal Code). The criminal definition contains three different statutory conducts: (1) disturbing or bothering behaviours (2) „dangerous threat” and (3) „awakening appearance of danger”. Many examples in Hungarian legal practice show that the prosecutors and judges face huge difficulties in the interpretation of these types of harassment. The main questions are: Which behaviours can fulfil the statutory elements of „harassment by threatening”? How can we define „threat” and „awakening appearance of danger” as a conduct? How can they be distinguished? Which other delimitation questions arise? this paper aims to answer these questions.
-
Customary Law Obligations and Dispute Resolution Methods under International Law relating to Conflicts over the Shared Use of Transboundary Aquifers
23-48Views:192Our paper aims at analyzing the current stance of public international law concerning the utilization and management of transboundary aquifers. 97% of the Earth’s drinking-water supplies are locked up in aquifers placing the question in the spotlight as to, which ways States should utilize and apportion them in a manner consistent with public international law? The paper argues that bilateral and regional agreements ensure most effectively States’ mutual cooperation regarding transboundary aquifers, and they are also essential in providing for clear dispute resolution mechanisms. The paper addresses the obligations of States under international law and examines the efficiency of the possible international dispute resolution methods regarding international water conflicts. The paper also provides an overview of all existing bi- and multilateral aquifer agreements and draws some comparative remarks.