Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights prescribes that everyone has the right to respect for his or her private life. A restriction of this right presupposes that the law of the Contracting State achieves certain requirements which include the need for the restrictive measure to be necessary in a democratic society. This thesis examines the case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding secret surveillance. The thesis concludes that the European Court has established further requirements regarding these particularly intrusive measures, which consist of various minimum safeguards concerning the substantive national law. Sweden introduced a new method of secret surveillance, hemlig dataavläsning, in April 2020. This new covert surveillance measure enables the authorities to breach the systems of different types of technical equipment, to retrieve stored personal information within. The main purpose of this thesis is to analyse and determine if the Swedish law of secret data interception meets the requirement set out in the case law. The thesis concludes that the Swedish law does not meet all the requirements set out by the European Court of Human Rights. The Swedish law does not with sufficient clarity define the offences which justifies the application of the covert surveillance. The law also prescribes an authorization procedure which lack sufficient safeguards regarding the independence of the decision-making authority. Furthermore, the law does not regulate the technology and methods used for the action, and there is no legal requirement for the national court to take these into account in its decision-making. Lastly, the Swedish legislation stipulates that the individual does not need to be notified about the surveillance if there is any confidentiality regarding the information about the surveillance one year after the preliminary investigation. In these cases, the supervisory authority must safeguard the interests of the individual, which due to the lack of legally binding decisions, are not sufficient. Finally, the thesis outlines various solutions to address these problems, which consist of inter alia: that the Swedish law should set higher requirements for the severity of crimes that can justify the use of the secret coercive measure; the removal of the interim decisions of prosecutors; a legal requirement that the court in its assessment must consider and decide on the technology used to execute the surveillance; and lastly, a legal requirement that the individual should be notified about the surveillance as soon as this is possible, or alternatively, an increase of power to the supervisory authority.

No description available.

No description available.

This essay is based on a case of a Swedish student with dyslexia who was denied the right to his aid during the national exam in Swedish. The purpose of the study is to shed light on the problems in how practice is interpreted and how future cases can behandled. In order to examine the current law in discrimination that dyslectics experience within the school system. The study has used the legal dogmatic method,the right as it is “de lege lata'' as well as “de lege ferenda”, as the right should be. The study has concluded that even if the student is not denied the right to a free education,the study wishes to draw attention to the fact that the student may have been exposed to discrimination based on the European Convention Art.14. What the study has discovered by analyzing the material is that the adaptations offered to the student did not compensate for the absence of the compensatory aid for the national test.

No description available.

No description available.

Uppsatsens huvudsyfte har varit att analysera om upplåtelseförbudet som återfinns i 31 § RNL kan anses vara förenligt med egendoms- och diskrimineringsskyddet i RF och EKMR i förhållande till samebyarnas rätt till småviltsjakt och fiske i fjällen. För att ge en bättre kontext till huvudsyftet har uppsatsen också redogjort för renskötselrättens rättsliga grund i urminnes hävd, dess civilrättsliga karaktär och att samebyarna, genom renskötselrätten, äger exklusiv rätt till småviltsjakt- och fiske i fjällen. Uppsatsen har också belyst bakgrunden till det nuvarande upplåtelseförbudet. Resultatet visar att upplåtelseförbudet varit i princip oförändrat sedan 1886 och att samerna vid denna tidpunkt ansågs oförmögna att förfoga över upplåtelser av bland annat jakt och fiske. Analysen talar för att lagstiftarens mening i denna fråga kan antas ha påverkats av 1800-talets härskande bild av samerna som ett lägre stående folk. Det framgår av analysen att samerna som urfolk och minoritet omfattas av ett starkt rättsskydd nationellt såväl som internationellt, och att svenska staten måste tillförsäkra samernas rätt till bland annat självbestämmande och icke-diskriminerande lagstiftning. Analysen pekar mot att RNL:s reglering kan antas strida mot egendoms- och diskrimineringsskyddet enligt RF och EKMR.

<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.

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.