European Court of the human rights

The European Cour of the Human rights (also called CEDH or Court of Strasbourg , in opposition to the Court of justice of the European Communities) is a supranational jurisdictional body creates by the European Convention of the human rights, within the framework of the the Council of Europe.

It was created in 1959 and sits, since November 1st, 1998, with Strasbourg, in a building designed by the architect Richard Rogers.

Members

The Member States of the European Court of the human rights are:

Presidents and former presidents

A judge is elected under each of the 47 States. One of the judges is president, another is vice-president:

Rene Cassin
Luzius Wildhaber (1998-2006)
Jean-Paul Costa (2007-2010)

Mission

Its mission is to take care of the respect of the Convention of safeguard of the human rights and fundamental freedoms (official name). The European Court of the human rights is qualified when a Member State of the Council of Europe, which ratified the Convention and its Additional protocols (State left), does not respect the rights and freedoms which are recognized there.

To be able to seize the CEDH, it is necessary that the justiciable one exhausted all the grounds for appeal which are offered to him in their internal rights.

Procedure

the requests can be deposited by:

a State against another State,
a natural person against a State,
a group of private individuals, including an entity of private law equipped with the personality, against a State,
a Governmental organization against a State.

the requests are studied by a section of three judges of the Court which is determined on the admissibility and the founded good of the request. Except in the event of interetatic request, a definite decision drawing aside the request can be taken unanimously judges of the section (what is the case in the vast majority of the cases). If such is not the case, the decision belongs to a Room of 7 Judges, except if this one is deprived with the profit of a Large Room of 17 judges. The stops of a room can, under certain conditions and in particular lorqu' it acts of a reversal of jurisprudence, being carried in front of a Large Room. Site of the Council of Europe

a request is admissible provided that:

the complaint relates to a violation of one or more rights guaranteed by the Convention,
all the recourse, legal or not, of the State were exhausted and that the objections raised before the Court were raised there as a preliminary, if it is not formally in all the cases in substance (for example by calling upon a national standard which has, as regards the cause, even contained that called upon conventional right),
the Court is seized in the six months which follow the communication of the last internal decision,
another international authority was not seized (for example, the Comité of the human rights founded by the international Pact on the civil laws and political),
it is not obviously unfounded.

a request is quite founded provided that one of the rights guaranteed by the Convention or one of the protocols binding the State is violated.

the decisions of the Court once final are obligatory for the condemned State. The Committee of the ministers takes care that the State satisfies its obligations.

the reports of violation of the Convention or those of the additional protocols (usually called “judgments”), which has an important impact symbolic system, can be together with judgment of the State defendant to compensate the applicant for the damage which it underwent because of this violation (“equitable satisfaction”), as of the expenses which it engaged in the procedure.

Activity of the Court

Statistics

The States having been the subject of the greatest number of judgments are:

The jurisprudential contribution of this Court

One of the repercussions of the activities of this Court is the evolution of the legal doctrines on the Human rights themselves. It is the case of the Jurisprudence which it gradually builds on the disagreements between the State S and the private individuals who starts to be taken into account by the legal doctrines in many countries, even not Europeans. But it is not a question that of doctrines, another more concrete repercussion is the modification of the legislation following a judgment, such as for example in France with the promulgation of the law on the phone-tappings of July 10th, 1991 following a judgment of the France by the Kruslin stops and Huvig of April 24th, 1990. Moreover, since the European Convention of the human rights is directly invocable in France in front of the courts, it is possible to be prevailed of the interpretation made by the Court of Strasbourg so that the judge draws aside the contrary law with the Convention. Thus as well the administrative judge as the legal judge have each one in their turn made inoperative of the French laws because they created violations of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. Lastly, France created within the framework of its Court of appeal a " commission of re-examination of a penal decision consecutive with pronounced of a judgment of the European Court of the rights of the homme" ().

Slavery must be effectively sanctioned in internal rights (article 4)

the violations of article 4 must be severely and effectively sanctioned in internal rights:

July 26th 2005, Siliadin C. France: judgment of the France which did not respect article 4 of the Convention on the Esclavage. Paris did not condemn enough a domestic case of Esclavage on a young person Togo leaves, Siwa-Akofa Siliadin, in the years 1990.

Article 5 protects freedom

the regularity of the loss of liberty must be controlled quickly by a judge

March 24th 2005 Epple C. Germany

The interested party refused to submit with an order of the police force enjoignant to him to leave a place of festival. He affirms that its arrest and its detention by the police force are a violation of article 5 (right to freedom and safety) of the Convention. The Court considers that the duration of the police detention coupled with the delay in the control carried out by the judge sufficiently did not respect the balance which it was necessary to establish between the need for guaranteeing the execution of the obligation imposed to the applicant and the right of this one to freedom. Consequently, the Court concludes with the violation from article 5, paragraph 1, subparagraph B of the Convention. Official statement of the Clerk.

Violations of article 6

the respect of the presumption of innocence is essential on all:

February 10th 1995 and August 7th 1996, Allenet de Ribemont C. France: the Court recalls with clearness the public authorities to their duties of reserve in front of the legal action by condemning the France for violation of article 6: any marked person of an infringement is supposed innocent until its culpability was legally established. Michel Poniatowski, Minister French for the Interior, immediately after the assassination of Prince Jean de Broglie, publicly denounced as instigator of the assassination a man who finally made condemn France to Strasbourg for “attack with the presumption of innocence”, obtaining a compensation of more than two French franc million. No French court follows Michel Poniatowski by condemning this prédésigné culprit. The Court stresses that the regulations of article 6 of the European Convention of the human rights guaranteeing the presumption of innocence apply to all the levels of intervention of the public authority.

the equality of the weapons in front of the courts, whatever they are, must be assured:

March 18th 1997, Foucher C. France: the refusal of access to the penal file is a violation of the right to the equality of the weapons. Continued for a pled infringment, requiring it defended oneself only and could not reach the official reports constituting the file.
2001, Kress C. France: the Commissioner the government of the French administrative jurisdiction should not take part in deliberated. Moreover, one note of deliberated can be subjected by the parts after the delivery of its conclusions.
July 26th 2002, Meftah C. France (stop of Large Room): the Court judges that, fault of having offered to the applicant an equitable examination of his cause in front of the Court of appeal within the framework of a contradictory lawsuit, by ensuring the communication of the direction of the conclusions of prosecuting attorney and while making it possible to answer it in writing, there were, in the species, violation of article 6, paragraph 1.

the audiences of the courts must be public

June 23rd, 1981, the Account, Van Leuven and De Meyere C. Belgium: the requirement of publicity excludes that only the procedure in front of the Court of appeal, which does not know bottom of the business, is public, whereas the procedure was not public in front of the jurisdictions of the bottom; The complete text of the stop.

March 24th 2005 Osinger C. Austria: the business relates to a procedure initiated to determine which was to inherit a farm which had belonged to the brother of the applicant. The procedure of succession proceeded without any public sitting, with the contempt of article 6, paragraph 1. Official statement of the Clerk.

the decisions of the courts must be carried out

November 18th 2004 Qufaj Co.Sh.P.K C. Albania: an Albanian company obtains in call an in reparation sum for an injury. The stop becomes final and executory. The company does not manage to make apply this judgment. Seizure, the Albanian Constitutional court which declares that the execution of court orders does not concern its competence. The European Court of the Human rights judges that the inexecution by the Albanian authorities of a definite decision is a violation of article 6, paragraph 1, (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention of the human rights.

the courts must be independent

October 25th, 1994, Beaumartin C. France: the jurisdiction is not independent which, instead of interpreting itself an international agreement, leaves the decision to the Foreign Minister.

No the sorrow without law (article 7)

July 1st, 1961, Lawless C. Ireland: administrative detention for five months in 1957 of a notorious member of the WILL GO pursuant to the particular laws of 1939 and 1940 do not constitute a violation of the Convention, taking into account in particular the importance of the disorders at the time.

February 9th, 1995, Welch C. the United Kingdom: it is not possible to apply a sorrow (in the species, confiscation) which was increased by a posterior law of 1986 with reproached penal offenses.

The right to the family life and private is guaranteed by article 8

February 18th, 1991, Moustaquim C. Belgium. The distance from abroad can constitute a violation of article 8.

The protection of freedom of expression (article 10) is not absolute

paragraph 2 of article 10, which lays down restrictions on freedom of expression, does not distinguish according to nature from the expression in question, and in particular does not know exception in favor of the scientific research (see for example Commission EDH, decision on the admissibility, Marais C. France, June 24th, 1996, N° 31159/96).
January 21st 1999, Fressoz and Roire C. France (Canard Enchaîné): court said, unanimously, that there was violation of article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. Following the refusal of the direction of Peugeot, chaired by Jacques Calvet, to increase the wages claimed by the personnel, Canard Enchaîné published an article detailing the evolution of the wages of Jacques Calvet, starting from photocopies partial of its last three opinions of imposition. Following a complaint of Mr. Calvet, a penal procedure was committed against the two applicants for in particular concealment of the photocopies of the opinions of imposition of the president of Peugeot, coming from the breach of professional secrecy by a civil servant not identified. The Court grants to the applicants a sum equalizes with that which they had been condemned to pay.
November 24th 2005: July and Tourancheau C. France: the court concludes with the not-violation from article 10 (freedom of expression) from the Convention. In 1996, the daily newspaper “Libération”, whose Serge July is publication director, published an article of Patricia Tourancheau entitled “reproduced in particular elements extracted from an investigation and an instruction in progress. The judgment of the applicants by the French courts does not carry breach of liberty of expression guaranteed by article 10 “since it is a question of prohibiting the publication of all the acts of criminal procedure or correctional until the day of the audience”. The Court estimates that the interest of the applicants, Patricia Tourancheau and Serge July, to communicate and that of the public to receive information about the course of a penal procedure and on the culpability of the suspects, whereas the legal instruction was not finished, was not likely to override the considerations called upon by French justice: protection of the Presumption of innocence and the secrecy of the instruction.

Article 14 guarantees the equality between children

July 13rd 2004 C. Andorra: the Court points out that the Member States of the the Council of Europe nowadays attach importance to the equality, as regards rights of civil nature, between children resulting from the marriage and newborns except marriage. The newborns except marriage thus have a right equal to the heritage. The Court estimates that there was violation of article 14 compound with article 8. She also concludes that it is not necessary to separately examine the request under the angle of article 8 separately read Communiqué of the Clerk.

The property right is protected by article 1 from protocol 1

May 27th 2003, Motais de Narbonne C. France: compensation for 3.286 765,70 euros for the seven applicants, heirs to a person who was owner of a ground with Saint-Denis of the Meeting, which was exproprié. July 2nd, 2002, the Court judged that because of absence of installation of the ground during 19 years after expropriation, the applicants were unduly private appreciation generated by this ground. She from of deduced that they underwent an excessive load because of litigious expropriation and concludes with the violation from article 1 from the Protocol n°1 (protection of the property) from the European Convention from the human rights. The Court comes to a conclusion several months later about the question of the application of article 41 (equitable satisfaction) as for the material damage, and this unanimously Communiqué of the Clerk.

Stop concerning Russia

February 24th 2005: judgment of the Russia for violations of the human rights in Chetchnia. It will have to pour on the whole nearly 170.000 euros with six civilians tchetchenes who had seized the Court.
October 12th, 2006: new judgment of the Russia for the murder of five members of the same tchetchene family with Grozny in February 2000 (Estamirov business and other C. Russia).

Christian education

The court sanctioned Norway to have offered a primary education course on the Christianity which did not correspond to the pluralist standards established on the continent. This decision is discussed because it establishes a jurisprudence which restricts the possibiblity of the parents considerably to offer a religious instruction to their children.

Inter-Official requests

One or more States left with the Convention can deposit a request against another State.

January 18th, 1978, Ireland C. the United Kingdom: it is the first time that a judgment is handed down in a file which opposes two States; the Court concludes with the violation from article 3 from the European Convention from the human rights: prohibition of torture and the inhuman treatments or degrading.

May 10th, 2001, Cyprus C. Turkey (see the complete stop: ): the Turkey violated fourteen times the European Convention of the human rights. The cases bringing the report of violation are the fate of Cypriot missing reported Greeks, the residence and the goods of the Cypriot moved Greeks, the living conditions of the Cypriot Greeks in the north of Cyprus and the rights of Cypriot Turkish installed in the north of Cyprus.

Addresses Court

European court of the Rights of Homme
The Council of Europe
F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex

See too

Random links:

Caterham | Ghost in the Shell (video game) | San Jose de Ocoa (province) | Villetaneuse tendency | Jacques Grandchamp