Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The European Court of Human Rights acknowledged a violation of the fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights, also, in the uncertainty – for the owner – about the future of the property, and in the absence of an allowance.
The ECHR in Strasbourg. Prior to the entry into force on 1 June 2010 of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU could not accede to the convention, and thus the European Court of Human Rights did not have jurisdiction to rule on cases brought against the EU.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression and information. A fundamental aspect of this right is the freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas, even if the receiver of such information does not share the same opinions or views as the provider.
The living instrument doctrine is a method of judicial interpretation developed and used by the European Court of Human Rights to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights in light of present-day conditions. [1] [2] [3] The doctrine was first articulated in Tyrer v.
ECHR may refer to: European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights , the international court which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights
ECHR Right of petition to ECtHR Protocol 1 (Rights to property, education and elections) Protocol 4 (Civil imprisonment, freedom of movement, expulsion) Protocol 6 (Prohibition of death penalty in peacetime) Protocol 7 (Fair trial rights, spousal equality) Protocol 12 (Right of non-discrimination)
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit ...
He challenged the State's failure to provide him with free legal aid, claiming that it was contrary to both the Constitution of Ireland and the European Convention on Human Rights. In her judgment, Ms. Justice Laffoy applied the rule of avoidance and concluded that, in the absence of any express statement in the Act to the contrary, the court ...