No description available.

While there exists in the literature on refugees’ rights a broad consensus on the existence of an overlapping and common ground between IHRL and IRL, gaps continue to exist in state implementation of these two legal systems. Concepts of sovereignty and border control continue to take predominance when refugees are the rights-bearers, and this tendency is more pronounced in the event of complementary protection. This thesis investigated the recent creation of a temporary protection status in the Danish Aliens Act by legal method and political case study to understand the interrelation of these systems, as manifested by the ECHR and the Refugee Convention. The legal analysis revealed the amendments’ misinterpretation of the principle of good faith of treaty interpretation. The political reasoning behind the amendment was used to shed light on domestic alignment with international law, in order to clarify the political and moral function of human rights. It was suggested that the main challenge to such misinterpretations remains the separation of human rights with its inherent moral purpose.

Le « ministère public » est aussi appelé parquet, expression par la quelle on désigne l'ensemble des magistrats qui dans une juridiction sont chargés a la fois de poursuivre les infractions pour défendre les intérêts de la société, et de protéger l'individu. Les magistrats debouts sont toujours une partie essentielle en matière pénale, parfois en matière civile. D'après les jurisprudences constitutionnelles française et taïwanaise, ils relèvent de l'autorité judiciaire.Mais le péché originel réside dans le principe de la subordination hiérarchique parce qu'il s'oppose au principe de l'indépendance. Ce paradoxe a émergé de l'arrêt de la CEDH, l'arrêt Medvedyev, qui affirmé que les procureurs français ne sont pas une autorité judiciaire. Cet arrêt a entraîné une polémique sur le statut et l'évolution du ministère public français.L'étude de l'institution du ministère public en droit comparé met en relief deux aspects fondamentaux :Le premier est l'aspect organique du ministère public et la deuxième est celui de son évolution.Quelle est à l'heure actuelle la structure du ministère public ? Est-ce que le procureurs vont garder le statut de magistrat ou est-ce qu'il vont évoluer vers un statut administratif après l'arrêt Medvedyev ? Est-ce que le procureurs français et taïwanais appartiendront dans le futur à l'autorité judiciaire ou devront-ils être indépendants ? Quel est l'avenir des ministère public français et taïwanais ? / The «prosecution »is also called parquet expression by any means all judges in a jurisdiction which are loaded both prosecute offenses to defend the interests of the society, and protect the individual. Judges are standing still an essential part in criminal matters, sometimes in civil matters. In constitutional jurisprudence after French and Taiwanese, they belong to the judicial authority. But original sin lies in the principle of hierarchical subordination because he opposes the principle of independence. This paradox has emerged from the judgment of the R, judgment Medvedyev, who said the French prosecutors are not judicial. This decision led to a controversy over the status and evolution of ministrère French public.The study of the institution of the prosecution in comparative law highlights two fundamental aspects:The first is the organic aspect of the prosecution and the second is its evolution.What is the current structure of the public ministry?Is that the prosecutors will keep the status of magistrate or is it going to change the administrative status after the case of Medvedyev?Is that the French and Taiwanese prosecutors in the future belong to the judiciary or will they be independent? What is the future of French and Taiwanese prosecutors?

La thèse traite de la protection de la propriété privée, d’une part dans le droit et la pratique de la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme, et d’autre part dans le droit constitutionnel et la pratique des systèmes tchèque et français. Elle fournit une enquête comparative sur la portée des clauses respectives de protection de la propriété et de leur interprétation juridique dans le but de faire ressortir les éléments aussi bien convergents que divergents des approches normatives et jurisprudentielles de la protection de la propriété en tant que droit de l’Homme. L’objectif principal de cette enquête a été d’examiner et de comparer le traitement de la propriété dans la la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et dans les Constitutions de la France et de la République tchèque. Le sujet de la recherche est traité sous la forme d’une recherche dans plusieurs domaines spécifiques: les fondements théoriques et philosophiques, le sens et la portée des garanties assorties à la propriété et leur interprétation juridique, les limites et les privations de propriété, et les approches constitutionnelles quant à leur mise en oeuvre dans le droit et la pratique de la Convention. / The thesis deals with the protection of private property in the law and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Czech and French constitutional law and practice. It provides a comparative inquiry into the scope of the respective property protection clauses and their judicial interpretation with a view to extracting convergent and divergent elements of the normative and jurisprudential approaches to the protection of private property as a human right. The main focus of the inquiry is to examine and compare the treatment of property in the European Convention on Human Rights and in constitutional law of France and the Czech Republic. The topic is analysed by virtue of research into several specific areas: the philosophical and theoretical foundations; the meaning and scope of the property guarantees and their judicial interpretation, limitations and deprivations of property; and the constitutional approaches to the implementation of the law and practice of the Convention.

La liberté de religion prend de plus en plus d’importance dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Bien que le centre de gravité historique de ce droit fondamental réside dans sa dimension individuelle, les juges sont fréquemment confrontés à des aspects « institutionnels » ou communautaires de la liberté de religion : des droits revenant aux groupements religieux comme tels. En quête des prémisses de cette liberté, le chapitre 1er retrace les apports spécifiques du christianisme, du judaïsme et de l’islam en la matière. Les principaux instruments de droit international, universels et européens, ainsi que la jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne, sont abordés au chapitre 2 du point de vue de la liberté de religion collective et institutionnelle comme la toile de fond nécessaire à l’activité de la Cour de Strasbourg. Le chapitre 3 examine l’article 9 de la CEDH ainsi que d’autres articles protégeant des droits connexes à la liberté de religion avant de se pencher sur la notion de groupement religieux, dont la distinction d’avec les sectes (dangereuses) s’avère souvent problématique. Les deux derniers chapitres sont consacrés à une étude systématique de la jurisprudence de Strasbourg depuis l’admission, en 1979, de la première requête d’une « église requérante ». Le versant procédural, puis les droits substantiels sont successivement abordés. Leurs contenus seront analysés selon un double axe : d’abord, la liberté d’ « existence » du groupement, puis les plus nombreuses facettes de sa liberté d’ « action » ou de son « autonomie ». / Freedom of religion is becoming increasingly important in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Although the historical centre of gravity of this fundamental right lies in its individual dimension, judges are frequently confronted with “institutional” or communal aspects of freedom of religion: the rights of religious groups as such. Within the scope of the search for the premises of this freedom, chapter 1 explains the specific contributions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam in this respect. The principal instruments of international law, both universal and European, as well as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union are discussed in chapter 2 in terms of collective and institutional religious freedom as the background necessary to the Strasbourg Court’s activities. Chapter 3 examines article 9 of the ECHR as well as other articles protecting any rights related to freedom of religion and subsequently addresses the notion of religious groups, whose distinction from (dangerous) sects is often problematic. The two final chapters are dedicated to a systematic examination of the case law of the Strasbourg Court since the admission in 1979 of the first application by an “applicant church”. The procedural aspect and the substantive rights are discussed successively. Their contents will be analysed on the basis of a double axis: firstly a group’s freedom to “exist”, secondly the more numerous aspects of its freedom to “act” or its “autonomy”.

<p>Abstract</p><p>This study will shed light on the meaning of article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code and its</p><p>inconformity with fundamental principles of the European Union and fundamental human</p><p>rights. The trial of Nobel Prize winner, Mr Orhan Pamuk and the killing of Mr Hrant Dink in</p><p>January 2007 have both put focus on the notorious article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code.</p><p>The purpose of the study is to answer the main question; In what way does article 301 of the</p><p>Turkish Penal Code infringe the freedom of expression outlined in article 10 of the European</p><p>Convention on Human Rights and what should the European Union do about it?</p><p>The conclusion is that article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code infringes the right to freedom of</p><p>expression stated in article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It does</p><p>undermine the essence of the right by invoking a wide range of self-censorship, by its</p><p>ambiguous language and by the way it is applied. The restrictions are interpreted broadly and</p><p>leave nothing but an arbitrary article left to apply for the courts. The European Union holds</p><p>the power to influence Turkey and can therefore enforce an abolition of article 301 of the</p><p>Turkish Penal Code. Time will tell if Turkey will fully safeguard freedom of expression as it</p><p>is stated in article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and in the praxis of the</p><p>European Court of Human rights and the European Court of Justice.</p>

Abstract This study will shed light on the meaning of article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code and its inconformity with fundamental principles of the European Union and fundamental human rights. The trial of Nobel Prize winner, Mr Orhan Pamuk and the killing of Mr Hrant Dink in January 2007 have both put focus on the notorious article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code. The purpose of the study is to answer the main question; In what way does article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code infringe the freedom of expression outlined in article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and what should the European Union do about it? The conclusion is that article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code infringes the right to freedom of expression stated in article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It does undermine the essence of the right by invoking a wide range of self-censorship, by its ambiguous language and by the way it is applied. The restrictions are interpreted broadly and leave nothing but an arbitrary article left to apply for the courts. The European Union holds the power to influence Turkey and can therefore enforce an abolition of article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code. Time will tell if Turkey will fully safeguard freedom of expression as it is stated in article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and in the praxis of the European Court of Human rights and the European Court of Justice.

Magistro baigiamajame darbe analizuojami esminiai ir probleminiai Europos Sąjungos prisijungimo prie Žmogaus teisių ir laisvių apsaugos konvencijos teisiniai aspektai bei klausimai. Prisijungimo klausimas net 30 metų buvo diskusijų objektu ir buvo vertinamas nevienareikšmiškai, tačiau Po Lisabonos sutarties, kuri įpareigojo ES prisijungti prie Konvencijos ir Keturioliktojo protokolo įsigaliojimo diskusijos dėl prisijungimo poreikio pasiekė kritinį tašką. Be to 2013 metų balandžio mėnesį buvo patvirtintas galutinis Europos Sąjungos prisijungimo prie Žmogaus teisių konvencijos sutarties projektas, kuris numatė visas prisijungimui reikalingas sąlygas ir procedūras. Darbe keliama hipotezė, kad Europos Sąjungos prisijungimas prie Konvencijos sąlygos efektyvesnę žmogaus teisių apsaugą ES. Darbą sudaro 5 dalys. Pirmoje dalyje analizuojama žmogaus teisių apsaugos raida Europos Sąjungoje, Konvencijos statuso pokyčiai ES teisinėje sistemoje nuo Bendrijų įkūrimo iki Lisabonos sutarties įsigaliojimo. Be to yra apžvelgiamas kelias link Prisijungimo sutarties projekto patvirtinimo. Prieinama prie išvados, kad nors šiai dienai Konvencija yra tik neįpareigojantis įkvėpimo šaltinis, EŽTK svarba ir jos ypatingumas yra pripažinti ES Sutartyse, be to Konvencijoje įtvirtintos teisės ir laisvės yra pripažįstamos pagrindiniais ES teisės principais. Būtina paminėta ir dviejų teismų išvystytą ekvivalentinės apsaugos doktriną, kuri gali būti traktuojama, kaip bendradarbiavimo dviejų teisinių... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The Master’s thesis analyses the legal aspects and major issues in the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. This issue is of great relevance and has been deliberated on for 30 years. Since the treaty of Lisbon entered into force in 2009 the accession to the ECHR is an obligation to the Union. Furthermore, the final version of the draft accession agreement was concluded in April 2013. This agreement provided all the conditions and procedures required for the accession. The thesis raises a hypothesis that the European Union's accession to the Convention shall result in more effective protection of human rights in the EU. The master thesis consists of 5 parts. The first part analysis the evolution of human rights protection in the European Union and the changes in the status of the Convention within the EU legal system from the establishment of the European Communities until the Lisbon Treaty entered into force. The way towards the acceptance of Draft Agreement on the Accession is also being discussed in this part. A conclusion is made that for now the Convention is only a legally non-binding inspiration for the protection of human rights, however, the importance and specificities of ECHR are established in the EU Treaties. Moreover, rights and freedoms established in the Convention are considered to be one of the main principles of EU law. Another thing that needs to be noted is the doctrine of equivalent protection developed by the two... [to full text]

Après une introduction historique sur l'évolution du système de la CEDH, cette thèse s'intéresse au thème des «violations structurelles» dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme en raison d'un contexte de crise de la CEDH, essentiellement dûe à une charge de travail excessive. Les violations structurelles ne sont certes pas un phénomène nouveau dans l'histoire de la Convention et dans la jurisprudence internationale des droits de l’homme, en particulier celle de la Cour interaméricaine des droits de l'homme. C'est pourquoi ce thème permet d'aborder plusieurs questions de taille : l'exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne dans les ordres juridiques internes, l'avenir du système de la CEDH et encore la nature «constitutionnelle» de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme. L'ensemble de cette recherche met en évidence la tension récente entre «justice individuelle» et «justice collective» à la lumière du débat sur la «constitutionnalisation» du droit européen des droits de l'homme, dont le thème représente ici le fil conducteur. / After an historical introduction on the evolution of the ECHR system, this thesis deals with the theme of "structural violations" in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the context of the crisis of the ECHR, principally due to an excessive workload. Structural violations are not a new phenomenon in the history of the Convention and in the jurisprudence of international human rights, especially that of the Inter-American Court. The theme is therefore an opportunity to tackle key issues: the European Court's execution of judgements in internal legal orders, the future of the ECHR system, but also the "constitutional" nature of the European Court of Human Rights. All of this highlights the recent tension between "individual justice" and "collective justice" in the debate on the "constitutionalization" of European Human Rights Law, which is here the common thread. / Dopo un’introduzione storica sull’evoluzione del sistema CEDU, il lavoro affronta il tema delle « violazioni strutturali » nella giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo, nel quadro della crisi del modello CEDU, dovuta principalmente all’eccessivo carico di lavoro. Si tratta di un fenomeno non nuovo nella storia della Convenzione e nella giurisprudenza internazionale dei diritti umani, specie in quella della Corte interamericana. Il tema rappresenta inoltre lo spunto per affrontare questioni problematiche: il profilo dell’esecuzione delle sentenze della Corte europea negli ordinamenti interni, il futuro dello stesso sistema CEDU e la natura “costituzionale” della Corte EDU. Tutto questo evidenzia anche la recente tensione tra “giustizia individuale” e “giustizia collettiva”, nell’ambito del dibattito sulla “costituzionalizzazione” del diritto europeo dei diritti dell’uomo, fil rouge dell’intera trattazione.

2000-talet markerade födelsen av en ny sorts terrorism. Sedan dess har Europa fått utstå frekventa terrorattacker vilket resulterat i att länder antagit strängare lagar och kontrollåtgärder för att bekämpa terrorismen. Mot bakgrund av detta är uppsatsens syfte att försöka svara på om strängare anti-terrorlagstiftning i Frankrike och Storbritannien kan medföra omfattande begränsningar i människors grundläggande fri-och rättigheter. Genom att använda sig utav en rättsdogmatisk metod och en komparativ metod har uppsatsen kritiskt granskat internationella konventioner, lagstiftningar, rättsfall, vetenskapliga artiklar och doktrin i syfte att besvara följande frågeställningar; vad krävs för att länder ska kunna deklarera allmänt nödläge och således ha en lagstadgad rättighet att derogera från eller begränsa vissa mänskliga rättigheter? Vilka rättsliga åtgärder gällande preventiv häktning och andra kontrollåtgärder har Frankrike och Storbritannien tagit i syfte att bekämpa terrorism och riskerar dess inskränkningar att kränka artikel 5 EKMR? Hur regleras rätten till icke-diskriminering i artikel 14 EKMR?  Uppsatsen har också försökt att svara på om de eventuella begränsningarna av människors rättigheter kan försvaras genom John Finnis rättsteori och tankar om mänskliga rättigheter.                             Den första slutsatsen som nås i uppsatsen är att terrorism kan utgöra ett accepterat allmänt nödläge enligt artikel 15 EKMR då det uppfyller artikelns rekvisit. Därmed är både Frankrikes och Storbritanniens deklarerande av allmänt nödläge accepterat och lagligt enligt artikel 15 EKMR. Uppsatsens andra slutsats slår fast att Frankrikes och Storbritanniens lagstiftningar gällande preventiv häktning kan utgöra en möjlig kränkning av artikel 5 EKMR då lagstiftningarna saknar kravet på förutsägbarhet. Studien har också påvisat att lagstiftningarna gällande preventiva häktningar riskerar att användas för generella misstankar om terrorism vilket också kan utgöra en möjlig kränkning av artikel 5 EKMR. Uppsatsen sista slutsats är att dessa lagstiftningar riskerar att diskriminera vissa samhällsgrupper om de tillämpas på ett felaktigt sätt, t.ex. endast mot icke-medborgare. / The 21st century marked the birth of a new kind of terrorism. Since then, Europe has suffered frequent terrorist attacks, resulting in countries adopting stricter laws and control measures to combat terrorism. The aim of this thesis is therefore to investigate if stricter anti-terrorist legislation in France and Great Britain can lead to unlawful limitations on human rights. The thesis critically examines international conventions, legislation, case law, articles, and doctrine by using an investigative approach and a comparative method to answer the following questions; what is required for countries to declare a state of emergency and thus have a statutory right to derogate from or limit certain human rights? What legal measures regarding preventive detention and other control measures have France and Great Britain adopted to combat terrorism and does the limitations violate Article 5 of the ECHR? How is the right to non-discrimination regulated in Article 14 of the ECHR? The thesis also aims to clarify if any limitations of human rights can be justified by the legal theories of John Finnis.                                                                                                                               In conclusion, the thesis reveals that terrorism can constitute a state of emergency according to Article 15 of the ECHR.  Thus, both France and Great Britain's declarations of states of emergency are accepted and legal in accordance with Article 15 of the ECHR. Furthermore, the thesis states that the legislation in France and Great Britain, which regulate preventive detention, may constitute a possible violation of article 5 ECHR, due to its lack of predictability. The thesis has also shown that the legislation regarding preventive detention may constitute a violation of article 5 ECHR if its applied wrongfully and thus, may also constitute a violation of article 14 ECHR.