Qualification features of the circumstances introducing activity for protection of the paragraph "b" clause 3 article 35 of the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/2523-4153.2019.162457

Keywords:

individual statement, conditions for acceptability of an individual statement, reservation, material damage

Abstract

The article analyzes the condition for acceptability of individual applications to the European Court of Human Rights, which was introduced by The Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the "substantial damage to which the applicant suffered" as well as the circumstances that introduce the reservation of paragraphs "B" clause 3 of the Art. 35 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and their qualification features.

It has been found that the European Court of Human Rights, even assuming that the applicant did not suffer material damage cannot declare as inadmissible any individual claim that raises the question: the adoption of law, interpretation of the norms of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, national right. It has been established that the respect for human rights, even if there is a presumption that the applicant did not suffer material damage, requires announcement as an admissible by the European Court of Human Rights such an individual application, since it has raised issues of a general nature regarding the observance of the norms of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: 1) the necessity to clarify the obligations of the State under the Convention; 2) to compel the respondent State to resolve a structural problem affecting the interests of other persons in the same position as the applicant. The following conditions have been identified in the presence of which respect for human rights does not require consideration of the statement by the European Court of Human Rights: 1) the relevant national legislation and practice changed, and similar issues had already been resolved in other cases that the European Court of Human Rights reviewed; 2) the relevant law was canceled and the statement had only a historical character; 3) The European Court of Human Rights or the Council of Ministers have already considered this issue as a complex issue

Author Biography

Lyudmyla Deshko, Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics Kioto str., 19, Kyiv, Ukraine, 02156

Doctor of Law, Associate Professor, Head of Department

Department of International Public Law

References

  1. Konventsiia pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod vid 4 zhovtnia 1950 r. (1998). Ofitsiinyi Visnyk Ukrainy, 13, 270–302.
  2. Protokol No. 9 do Konventsii pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod vid 6 lystopada 1990 r. Available at: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_170
  3. Protokol No. 11 do Konventsii pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod vid 11 travnia 1994 r. (1998). Ofitsiinyi visnyk Ukrainy, 13, 291.
  4. Protokol No. 14 do Konventsii pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod vid 13 travnia 2004 r. (2004). Available at: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_527
  5. Gerards, J. H., Glas, L. R. (2017). Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights system. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 35 (1), 11–30. doi: http://doi.org/10.1177/0924051917693988
  6. Rainey, B., Wicks, E., Ovey, C. (2017). The European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 728.
  7. Vogiatzis, N. (2016). The admissibility criterion under article 35(3)(b) echr: a “significant disadvantage” to human rights protection? International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 65 (1), 185–211. doi: http://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589315000573
  8. Bysaha, Yu. M., Deshko, L. M. (2016). Metodolohiia doslidzhennia konstytutsiinoho prava zvertatysia do mizhnarodnykh sudovykh ustanov ta mizhnarodnykh orhanizatsii. Naukovyi visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu. Seriia Yurydychni nauky, 21, 14–16.
  9. Mytsyk, V. V. (2010). Prava liudyny v mizhnarodnomu pravi. Mizhnarodno-pravovi mekhanizmy zakhystu. Kyiv: Vydavnychyi dim «Promeni», 722.
  10. Sevostianova, N. I. (2011). Zvernennia do Yevropeiskoho Sudu z prav liudyny yak realizatsiia prava na dostup do pravosuddia. Natsionalnyi universytet «Odeska yurydychna akademiia». Odessa, 14.
  11. Praktychnyi posibnyk shchodo pryiniatnosti zaiav (2014). Strasbourg, 97.
  12. Deshko, L. (2018). Application of Legal Entities to the European Court of Human Rights: a Significant Disadvantage as the Condition of Admissibility. Croatian International Relations Review, 24 (83), 84–103. doi: http://doi.org/10.2478/cirr-2018-0015
  13. Poiasniuvalnyi komentar do Protokolu No. 14. Yevropeiskyi sud z prav liudyny.
  14. Bysaha, Yu. M., Deshko, L. M. (2016). Mizhdystsyplinarnist yak umova rozviazannia kompleksnoi problemy shchodo konstytutsiinoho prava kozhnoho zvertatysia do mizhnarodnykh sudovykh ustanov ta mizhnarodnykh orhanizatsii. Naukovyi zbirnyk «Aktualni problemy vitchyznianoi yurysprudentsii», 4, 18–21.
  15. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «Kyrylo Zlatkov Nikolov proty Frantsii» vid 10 lystopada 2016 r. (2016). Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-168392"]}
  16. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «C.P. proty Spoluchenoho Korolivstva» vid 6 veresnia 2016 r. (2016). Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-167176"]}
  17. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «Brazzi proty Italii» vid 27 veresnia 2018 r. (2018). Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-173642"]}
  18. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «Tairer proty Spoluchenoho Korolivstva» vid 14 hrudnia 1976 r. (1976). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-104180"]}
  19. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «Finher proty Bolharii» vid 10 travnia 2011 r. (2011). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["Finger"],"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"itemid":["001-104698"]}
  20. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «Živić proty Serbii» vid 13 veresnia 2011 r. (2011). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["Živić"],"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"itemid":["001-106192"]}
  21. Praktychnyi posibnyk shchodo pryiniatnosti zaiav. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_UKR.pdf
  22. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «Ken proty Avstrii» vid 30 veresnia 1985 r. (1985). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["case of ken"], "documentcollectionid2":["grandchamber","chamber"]}
  23. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «Leher proty Frantsii» vid 30 bereznia 2009 r. (2009). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["Leger"],"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"itemid":["001-91940"]}
  24. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «Rink proty Frantsii» vid 19 zhovtnia 2010 r. (2010). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["Rink"],"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"]}
  25. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «Fedotova proty Rosii» vid 13 kvitnia 2006 r. (2006). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["Fedotova"],"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"itemid":["001-73294"]}
  26. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «Ionesku proty Rumunii» vid 2 lystopada 2004 r. (2004). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["Ionescu"],"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"itemid":["001-69537"]}
  27. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «Vasylchenko proty Rosii» vid 23 veresnia 2010 r. (2010). Available at: http://www.echr.ru/documents/doc/12090395/12090395-001.htm
  28. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «Burov proty Moldovy» vid 14 chervnia 2011 r. (2011). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["Burov"],"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"]}
  29. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «Havelka ta inshi proty Cheskoi Respubliky» vid 2 lystopada 2004 r. (2004). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["Havelka"],"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"itemid":["001-67239"]}
  30. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «Hornsbi proty Hretsii» vid 19 bereznia 1997 r. (1997). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["Hornsby"],"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"itemid":["001-58020"]}
  31. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi «Burdov proty Rosii» vid 7 travnia 2002 r. (2002). Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["Burdov"],"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"itemid":["001-60449"]}

Downloads

Published

2019-04-10

How to Cite

Deshko, L. (2019). Qualification features of the circumstances introducing activity for protection of the paragraph "b" clause 3 article 35 of the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. ScienceRise: Juridical Science, (1 (7), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.15587/2523-4153.2019.162457

Issue

No. 1 (7) (2019)

Section

Juridical Science

License

Copyright (c) 2019 Lyudmyla Deshko

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Our journal abides by the Creative Commons CC BY copyright rights and permissions for open access journals.

Authors, who are published in this journal, agree to the following conditions:

1. The authors reserve the right to authorship of the work and pass the first publication right of this work to the journal under the terms of a Creative Commons CC BY, which allows others to freely distribute the published research with the obligatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.

 2. The authors have the right to conclude separate supplement agreements that relate to non-exclusive work distribution in the form in which it has been published by the journal (for example, to upload the work to the online storage of the journal or publish it as part of a monograph), provided that the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal is included.