The European Court of Human Rights – three stories, three lessons to learn
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is a regional human rights judicial body, established by the European Convention on Human Rights, the key human rights document of the Council of Europe containing a set of fundamental human rights and basic freedoms. Since its creation in 1959, it has delivered more than 21 600 judgments regarding alleged violations of the Convention and its protocols.
The Court is currently one of the most important actors in human rights protection within the European region as it has a jurisdiction to directly receive individual complaints submitted by persons (Stanev v. Bulgaria), groups (Roma people v. the Czech Republic) or other State Parties (Georgia v. Russia) claiming violations of the rights embodied in the Convention and at the same time has a legal power to deliver binding judgments obliging State Party to implement its decisions and compensate the injured party.
The presentation in hand seeks to carry out a short “excursion tour” into the ECtHR matter and introduce the rudiments of the ECtHR´s mandate and competence.
The first story of Mr Stanev teaches us that every individual, even person with disability deprived of a legal capacity to act and locked in the institution, maintains human dignity and basic human rights and can challenge the human rights violations and brings his or her own Government to account.
The second story shows us that systematic state marginalization and ostracism of a group of people, e.g. a national minority, is also prohibited by the European Convention of Human Rights and sanctioned by the Court. It explains that long persisting discriminative practice of national minority is never permissible, irrespective of ways of justification or even with the formal consents of the members of such minority.
And finally, the third story illustrates an additional protective aspect of the Court that allows one State Party to sue another State Party in order to protect human rights of its citizens that are, for example, forcibly and systematically expelled from state territory. Although the inter-state complaints are rare in the ECtHR case-law, they are basically only one tool (besides the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court) to address effectively international human rights violation and compensate the victims.
These stories do not only explain the Court´s purpose and functions but provide us with rewarding lessons of particular Court´s cases which may help us to better design the Asian human rights mechanism.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is a regional human rights judicial body, established by the European Convention on Human Rights, the key human rights document of the Council of Europe containing a set of fundamental human rights and basic freedoms. Since its creation in 1959, it has delivered more than 21 600 judgments regarding alleged violations of the Convention and its protocols.
The Court is currently one of the most important actors in human rights protection within the European region as it has a jurisdiction to directly receive individual complaints submitted by persons (Stanev v. Bulgaria), groups (Roma people v. the Czech Republic) or other State Parties (Georgia v. Russia) claiming violations of the rights embodied in the Convention and at the same time has a legal power to deliver binding judgments obliging State Party to implement its decisions and compensate the injured party.
The presentation in hand seeks to carry out a short “excursion tour” into the ECtHR matter and introduce the rudiments of the ECtHR´s mandate and competence.
The first story of Mr Stanev teaches us that every individual, even person with disability deprived of a legal capacity to act and locked in the institution, maintains human dignity and basic human rights and can challenge the human rights violations and brings his or her own Government to account.
The second story shows us that systematic state marginalization and ostracism of a group of people, e.g. a national minority, is also prohibited by the European Convention of Human Rights and sanctioned by the Court. It explains that long persisting discriminative practice of national minority is never permissible, irrespective of ways of justification or even with the formal consents of the members of such minority.
And finally, the third story illustrates an additional protective aspect of the Court that allows one State Party to sue another State Party in order to protect human rights of its citizens that are, for example, forcibly and systematically expelled from state territory. Although the inter-state complaints are rare in the ECtHR case-law, they are basically only one tool (besides the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court) to address effectively international human rights violation and compensate the victims.
These stories do not only explain the Court´s purpose and functions but provide us with rewarding lessons of particular Court´s cases which may help us to better design the Asian human rights mechanism.