جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

The European Court of Human Rights, which is also referred to as the Strasbourg Court, as a court that has international jurisdiction in the field of human rights on a regional scale, has repeatedly faced the issue of "Hijab" in its rulings. The approach of that court is that governments have the right to limit the hijab in public institutions, especially schools. The following article tries to criticize the performance of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the restriction of the hijab in public institutions from the perspective of the international human rights system. Ragham's hypothesis is that the European Court of Human Rights, influenced by the supremacy of state hegemony, by issuing a ruling to restrict the hijab, not only did not guarantee human rights, but violated them. In order to verify its hypothesis, the upcoming research has been carried out with a descriptive-analytical method based on the collection of information in a library form. The following article has proven that this action of the European Court of Human Rights violates the principle of freedom that the first generation of human rights goes back to. By adopting this approach, the aforesaid court violated the principle of religious freedom which is accepted in the International Bill of Rights and also has a customary dress, and also violated Article 9 of the European Charter of Human Rights, which according to a mission For which the court is drawn, it is considered a violation of the purpose.

In the past two decades, Europe has had numerous conflicts resulting from the clash between freedom of expression and religious insults. The European legal system considers freedom of expression as one of the fundamentals of a democratic society and a basic condition for individual progress and self-actualization. The central approach of the European Court of Human Rights is that freedom of expression includes not only non-insulting statements but also offensive, shocking, or provocative statements. However, this court seeks to resolve the conflict between freedom of expression and blasphemy and create a balance among different interests. On the one hand, under “protecting others’ rights,” the court spoke of banning severely insulting statements that cause significant distress to religious followers. On the other hand, from a societal perspective, the court considered the risk of a public outcry from religious societies due to religious insults. Recently, however, the court gave significant weight to the political, scientific, and artistic aspects of expression when balancing freedom of expression against religious sensitivities, thereby expanding freedom of expression’s scope. Nonetheless, the threat to public order remains a key factor in the court's decisions to restrict statements containing religious insults. This study used a qualitative method based on content analysis with a descriptive-analytical approach and employing library and internet sources.

Since in recent decades, some European countries have placed restrictions on Muslim women's clothing, it is necessary to explain the status of women's freedom of clothing in the context of international law. This study using the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and international instruments and obligations in this field, tries to challenge the inconsistency of restrictions on the religious clothing of Muslim women and explain the need to ensure the right to freedom of religious clothing. The main question of the present paper is that the opposition to religious clothing and hijab of women in European countries is contrary to international law and human rights or not? This paper concludes with a descriptive-analytical method and library resources including the examination of existing instruments that the prohibition of religious clothing is a violation of human rights and their religious freedom, and such a prohibition is based more on political and social pressures than on solid legal principles.

Asylum-seeking has emerged as a critical social issue at the international level in recent decades. Every year, millions of refugees leave their home countries or places of residence, seeking refuge in other countries to escape economic, military, political, and social crises. Refugees embark on the arduous asylum process due to the fear of torture and persecution in their home country or place of residence, in pursuit of a life that aligns with the minimum standards of human rights. While some successfully obtain refugee status from the host country, some face deportation or repatriation after going through the legal process. In some cases, they may even be returned to a third country, where persecution awaits based on justified evidence. Returning them to their former country is certainly the worst-case scenario for asylum seekers or refugees. The international community has established a legal framework for refugee protection through the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol. Certain rules and principles outlined in these documents are so fundamental that no reservations can be made to them. A notable example is the principle of non-refoulement which prevents the return of refugees to their home country or a third state where persecution is feared.The present study tried to answer the following question: What prevents the return or deportation of a refugee to their home country or a third state? While the treaties do not explicitly answer this question, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights provides valuable insights into the meaning and legal nature of this principle, as well as methods for assessing the status of a refugee when deciding on repatriation. Although the European Court of Human Rights lacks the authority to review and apply the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, member states of the Council of Europe are obligated to ensure the respect of rights outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights for all individuals within their jurisdiction, including refugees and asylum seekers. At the intersection of the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the European Court of Human Rights examines general conditions in the state concerned and the individual applicant’s situation to determine factors preventing repatriation or expulsion.  To this end, the Court has set specific limits on the right of states to expel refugees and asylum seekers from their borders. The Court indirectly supports the principle of non-refoulement, aiming to ensure respect and prevent violations of relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly Article (3) which prohibits torture. This implies that the reservation cannot be applied to the principle of non-refoulement, which extends beyond the scope of the 1951 Convention.

Literature Review:

While there are many articles addressing refugee protection and the non-refoulement principle under the European Convention on Human Rights, they have not explicitly delved into the prohibition of reservation to the non-refoulement principle. Therefore, the current study can be regarded as innovative in both its subject matter and content.

Adopting a descriptive–analytical method, the present research examined national and international legal literature, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, and pertinent international treaties.

The European Court of Human Rights, functioning as a monitoring mechanism for the European Convention on Human Rights, has encountered numerous cases involving asylum seekers seeking refugee status. Its jurisprudence has significantly contributed to the development and evolution of laws pertaining to refugee protection. By establishing a connection between the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the Court has effectively offered indirect support to refugees, safeguarding them against deportation, extradition, and repatriation. Its jurisprudence firmly prohibits the application of reservations to the non-refoulement principle.

The discourse of good governance in the field of public law and international law is one of the new topics in the administration of the country, which is initially defined as the exercise of political, economic and administrative power to manage public affairs at all levels in a good, efficient and appropriate manner. However, this new concept neither among academics nor domestic and international bodies has clear definition, dimensions or territory. Each definition usually looks at some aspects of it, and finally it is not clear what effects and Elements it has. There is also disagreement about its legal nature. Among the international bodies, the European Court of Human Rights has one of the most prominent case law in recognizing and explaining good governance, which itself has gradually evolved. Examining the procedure of the court, while giving a better understanding of the concept of good governance, shows that the concept of good governance has been developed in the case law of the ECtHR and has been introduced as a legal principle with binding obligations and specific dimensions and areas. To the extent that in the light of that case law, provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which make no reference to good governance, have also been developed.

When rights are recognized for people, but the simultaneous application of two rights causes damage to one or both rights, we face the problem of conflict of rights. There are three main approaches to solve such conflict: The first approach is to create meta-rules such as conflict resolution rules, which provide indicators to the public and finally to the judge to clearly understand the priority of one right over another. The three main forms of meta-rules are balancing, equilibrium and hierarchy. The second approach is to accept six criteria to resolve human rights conflicts, which have been used repeatedly by the European Court of Human Rights. From these six criteria, one or more criteria can be used depending on the situation governing the conflicting rights. The third approach is to apply the minimum restriction criterion. This means that any method that imposes the least amount of restrictions on two rights is the best method of conflict resolution. This article evaluates the possible solutions with a descriptive-analytical method by explaining the theories and relying on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which has been created under The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) is a supervising organ for rights enshrined in the convention that belongs to the member states’ nationals. The court for more than a half century has received various claims often from individuals. This claims eventually faced states with a series of decisions that their compliance was compulsory. Thus, it is evident that court due to its position and authority always has been abled to affect member states domestic legal systems. The court has had various structural, organizational, legislative, executive and judicial effects on the internal human rights regimes of member states of the Council of Europe. However, there are some critiques regarding court’s qualitative impact on promotion of human rights in domestic level, the court has normatively been tremendously effective on the efficiency of convention rules in domestic level and has made the convention more dynamic.

Context and When examined issues related to family, the concept and types of the family is assumed as an obvious fact. However, with deep fundamental differences between different perspectives, may be this types offered by each of the schools of thought and law do not match together. As far as in some cases, this discrepancy has progressed to the point of general contradiction. In this regard, in order to create a common understanding of the different concepts and types of the family in Islam and the West, in this paper case law of the European Court of Human Rights will be studied. Which is one of the most important human rights judicial institutions and its case law and practice in the field of international law has the legal validity. In this article the case law of the European Court of Human Rights has been examined as an example of thinking based on secular ideas. Also, the view of Islam on the issues raised in the cases of the Court was studied to explain the issue.Research  The present article, with a legal approach and based on an analytical exploratory research, seeks to answer the question that; what is the types of the family in western societies? And what do the findings, which are based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, what does it have to do with Islamic culture? After studying the procedure of the European Court of Human Rights and the Islamic perspective, we found that: The scope of relationships that include the legal protection of the right to family life based on the court's practice is much narrower than the concept of family or Rahem in Islam, which is under the special protection of Islamic legislator and these relationships cannot be severed under any justification. Some of these relationships are consistent with what is supported and emphasized in Islam under the title of “Sele Arham"[1]; such as the relationship between spouses, parents and children, grandparents, sisters, brothers and aunts and uncles.  Among these, some of these relationships are not only unacceptable in Islam, rather, heavy punishments are also enforced. Such as free relationship based on sexual orientation outside marriage contract and illegitimate relationship which in case of approving such relationship under ‘family’, it would lead to family breakdown and degeneration as defined by Islam and tradition and would cause disorder in nurturing children and future generations. Finally, the important point to consider is that from Islamic viewpoint, family is defined based on the lineal and marriage and the existence or absence of the aforementioned basic elements are not effective in approving or disapproving relationship within family life. However, the European Court of Human Rights procedure despite the importance of genetic relations(lineal) and relations based on marriage, the basic elements within the court procedure are determining and effective when identifying and approving relations based on family life  in such a way that in certain cases  when there are basic elements for clarifying family at court without genetic relations,  the relationship is  described  as family and even in some other cases  in spite of genetic relations,  in case of absence of basic elements, the relationship is not regarded within family life  but recognized as private life. In fact, it is the humanistic approach that in court procedure the mutual enjoyment is considered as a basic element in family and based on this notion by overlooking legal frameworks such as the principle of marriage between man and woman within family, attempts are made to change these frameworks and offer newly emerging definitions on family. Unlike the Islamic view, the concept and examples of family within the western views are variable and are described based on social norms. Hence, the courts unlike the Islamic viewpoint do not consider marriage only based on religious teachings for family formation and development as it has been stressed upon many times. Therefore, considering the absence of compatibility of this thinking with religious obligations, and the intertwining of public morality with the Iranian public interests within Islamic topics, the enforcement by the governance and its compatibility with human rights issues in Iran, it has led to protect the Islamic views for our country. Since issues such as white marriage and homosexuality and other illegal sexual orientation can in no way be compatible with the Islamic doctrine and it would seriously contradict public morality and our national interests. 1. The Principle of Continuity Devotion to Family.

Protecting "national security" is one of the reasons that allows governments to limit the enjoyment of civil and political rights by individuals, organizations, and parties. Compliance with the requirements of this concept, such as the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, is a reassuring tool for governments to protect their existence, vital interests, and territorial integrity. Despite this, in those governments where national security is organized on a one-dimensional and power-oriented structure, the rights and interests of opponents, including minority groups, may be violated under the pretext of observing "national security". The main question of this article is: “How the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the concept of "national security" in the aforementioned cases?” The present research is written in a descriptive-analytical method using library and internet sources. The author's hypothesis is that the judicial procedure has been devoted to editing and revising this concept to change and adjust it from a one-dimensional and government-oriented concept to a multi-dimensional and people-oriented concept, in such a way that the interests and aspirations of all groups and communities living in a country are provided based on the components of national security in that government.

The present article is based on the analysis of the cases of the European Court of Human Rights and an impartial study of the functions and positive and negative effects of free abortion -with minimal restrictions- regardless of the moral, Philosophical or religious basis; to find out which of the two perspectives on the widespread limitation of abortion, or its widespread licensing, can be most beneficial in practice for the family or society as a whole.The present article is based on the analysis of the cases of the European Court of Human Rights and an impartial study of the functions and positive and negative effects of free abortion -with minimal restrictions- regardless of the moral, Philosophical or religious basis; to find out which of the two perspectives on the widespread limitation of abortion, or its widespread licensing, can be most beneficial in practice for the family or society as a whole.This study first shed light on the European Court of Human Rights' approach to abortion, and under two headings, in an analytical and functionalist manner, enumerates the positive and negative effects of abortion on society. Gender-based abortions, abortion and the exploitation of women, tourism and the abortion industry are just a few of the abusive functions of the free abortion in society that have even gradually reduced the European Court of Human Rights' practice to restricting abortion laws; in conflict with the mother's wishes, the life of the fetus, the rights of the potential father, and other factors, the European Court of Human Rights has preferred a balance between all the interests involved rather than the wishes of the mother.

The margin of appreciation as an established doctrine in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is a methodology for precise examination of decisions of national authorities by international courts. According to this doctrine, national authorities are in a better position than international judges to decide on the better application of the European Convention on Human Rights.  In this article, the doctrine has been examined from both theoretical and practical perspectives. It has also been discussed whether the doctrine is applicable in international legal obligation of states. Although in the field of human rights the margin of appreciation for states has sometimes been approved, it cannot be extended to all international legal obligations.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is seen as the most important human rights judicial body not only in Europe but also around the world. However, with its decisions in such cases as Bahrami and Saramati, the ECHR has reduced its popularity and authority as a defender of human rights. Nonetheless, by applying the criterion of "effective control" instead of "ultimate control" for assigning responsibility to international organizations in the Bosporus case, the court seems to have recovered its credibility. This is so despite some well-founded criticism of the Court's decision in this case. This is the topic that the present article seeks to explain by analyzing the ECHR' judgement in the Bosporus Airways v. Ireland case.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), with substantial supports for asylum seekers, has been a diligent advocate of the asylum seekers’ human rights. The refugee crisis that has gripped the EU since 2011 has challenged the Common European Union Asylum System. This paper, through a descriptive-analytical method, aims to answer the question to what extent the refugee crisis affected the ECtHR interpretation of the European Human Rights Convention concerning asylum seekers? Therefore, four areas of human rights were analyzed, which are prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment (article 3 of the Convention), family reunification (article 8 of the Convention), the right of freedom and security (article 5 of the Convention), and the prohibition of collective expulsion (article 4 of Protocol no.4). The results illustrated that the refugee crisis made the ECtHR increase the scope of its interpretation concerning the asylum seekers’ human rights and demonstrated the conflict between human rights and the Common European Asylum System. Moreover, the member states must respect the human rights of asylum seekers when implementing the Common European Union Asylum System and, In the event of a possible breach, cease the implementation of the Common European Union Asylum System.

The proliferation of Coronavirus around the world and the need to maintain the health of individuals in society have forced many governments to impose restrictions on citizens' rights by imposing social distances, quarantine and closure of educational, economic and sports centers. One important action of governments in combating the spread of coronavirus is the digital tracking of people infected by coronavirus in some countries. This article seeks to answer the following questions. First of all, due to application of this policy in which aspect or aspects of protection of privacy can the states intervene? Second, given that the imposition of restrictions must be done where necessary, the question arises as to whether the restrictions imposed as a result of the digital tracking of people infected or suspected of having the corona virus and its transmission to other members of the community were commensurate with the need to maintain the health of members of the community. An examination of the various measures taken in countries around the world shows that the restrictions imposed on privacy can be justified by simultaneously respecting the health of the citizens of the community as well as the provisions of international human rights law.

Individuals have an exclusive right to their image about which they can make decisions. The Iranian legal system mainly uses criminal sanctions to ensure respect for the right to image. However, civil liability seems to be a more effective remedy for the injured party and the restoration of his/her situation to before the violation. The European Court of Human Rights also uses civil liability law to compensate damages caused by the violation of the right to image. In the present article, using the library research method, an attempt is made to study the elements of civil liability for the violation of the right to image and the appropriate compensation for such a violation in the Iranian legal system. Overall, it can be argued that considering the effect of the violation to the injured party and depending on whether and which financial or non-financial rights are harmed, both financial and non-financial methods can be used for compensation. As in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, these two methods can be used in the Iranian legal system, depending on the circumstances of the case.

AbstractThe right to freedom of assembly has been emphasized in international instruments as a human right. Findings of international human rights tribunals have complemented the international Instruments as judicial procedure. No international human rights tribunal on a global scale has been established among the international tribunals. However, among the international tribunals on a regional scale, some courts have established procedures on freedom of assembly. This article through a descriptive-analytical method seeks to examine restriction criteria for the freedom of assembly in the procedure of European Court of Human Rights. The research hypothesis in the article is that the European Court of Human Rights has accepted the minimum restrictions on freedom of assembly by states by meeting criteria higher than those set out in Article 11 of the Convention. The article after elaborating the judicial Procedure of this Court concludes that: First, national security considerations in exceptional circumstances can restrict freedom of assembly; Second, the freedom of assembly has priority over reasonable violation of public order; Third, the freedom of assembly should not restrict the rights and freedoms of other civilians (except as normal); Forth, states should tolerate organizers of associations.

Rescuing people from distress at sea is one of events to the Coastal State is involved. But some EU member states in recent years not only do not save people from distress at sea, but also they have begun overseas controls, interception asylum seekers and returning them from the High Seas, Exclusive Economic Zone and territorial sea to home or third state. Purpose and subject of this article is to study different dimensions of the Coastal State obligations in rescuing people from distress from the European Court of Human Rights’ view. The research method is analytical descriptive, based on requirements of the UNCLOS, the Asylum Convention and the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence. Main research question is what is the International Law of the Sea approach to interception asylum seekers rescued from distress at sea? Research findings show that rescuing people from distress at sea based on the International Law of the Sea teachings is the Coastal State obligations and the rights of survivors. But the Coastal State’s approach is severe ban in the ECHR’ jurisprudence to overseas control and interception of ships carrying asylum seekers in distress at the High Sea to return them to the home or third state from the High Seas has led to ignoring its obligations and the rights of survivors in the UNCLOS.

Detained witnesses of the Congolese government applied for non-extradition to their repective government, seeking asulum in the Netherlands and declaring illegal the continuation of the detention by claiming with the danger of life after their testimony against the government before the the International Criminal Court. The primary branch of the Court in the interpretation of articles 68(1) and 93(7) of the Statute and their relationship with article 21(3) of the Statute holds that the custody tribunal will continue to detain the witnesses until the end of the Dutch administration's application for their asylum. Nevertheless, the Court opens a prospect before the Dutch court in order to continue to detain the witnesses in contravention of the international commitments of the Dutch government to protect the freedom of individuals in its territory. Dutch primary branch disqualifies decision makers from arresting witnesses, but the Dutch court of appeal reverse the European Court of Human Rights' recent judicial review in its fourth witness case. Finally, the Court of appeal judges affirm proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights and the Dutch court of appeal, taking into account the provisions of the Statute.

Human rights is an important component of international law today. Dealing with and acting against the fundamental human rights breaches of states as one of the actors in international law is a task that has not yet been achieved in the global arena. However, regional judicial mechanisms have been able to partially meet this demand. The European continent has managed to develop an advanced judicial structure to combat human rights abuses within its borders. However, sovereignty, in its traditional sense, which does not accept any interference within its borders, may create conflicts in the way of dealing with human rights violation. In the article the question: Is the focus of the regional judicial mechanism in Europe is on sovereignty or human rights? has been answered. To this end, the important cases before the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the content of the founding documents and the manner in-which the judicial system operates, were examined, and it was concluded that: The focus of the regional judicial mechanism in Europe, as the pioneer of the use of regional legal instruments on human rights issues, is more on human rights than sovereignty.