Article 10 was alleged by the applicants as a ground for their action, as a matter of course, in view of the fact that the target of the attack was a media entity. Article 10 lays down the dictum that every person is entitled to the freedom to express or to speak out his mind albeit the same may be restrained according to the limitations which statutes of the Contracting States prescribe. Lastly, Article 13 of the Convention mandates that those whose rights and liberties are violated or encroached upon under the provisions of the Convention must be afforded an effective remedy or relief even if the perpetrators have acted in an official capacity. (European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. COUNCIL OF EUROPE. European Treaties. Press for Change [internet]). The focal issue in this discussion is the statement of the Court which declares that it is the obligation of the Court to consider the special character of the Convention pertaining to its role in the maintenance of European public order for the purpose of protecting persons or individuals. It also points out that the Convention has been covenanted to ensure that the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties, meaning the treaty signatories, are observed. The latter principle is evident in the setting up of the European Commission of Human Rights and of the Court, both specified in Article 19 of the Convention. Since the principal matter which was resolved by the Court refers to the admissibility of the application, the arguments and debate presented in this treatise will center on that question. Some comments and opinions from literary sources will be considered for inclusion here. The Convention It is necessary to have knowledge of the history of the Convention in assessing the case... With all the foregoing backdrops, this essay will proceed to the questions of who are the people covered by the Convention and what cases does it cover. It will finally likewise be queried as to when the Convention applies. In short, there is a need to know what circumstances are embraced under the operation of the Convention. In the legal sense, the inquiry has to be directed into the jurisdiction of the Court which the Convention had created. Stated in another way, it has to be determined when, where and over whom does the Court exercise its judicial powers under the Convention in conjunction with the rules and principles of international law. Article 1 of the Convention is very specific. It provides that the signatories to the treaty are under obligation to secure to all the people within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms enumerated in Section 1 of the Convention. Were the applicants covered as persons within the jurisdiction of the High Contracting Parties when the bombardment of the radio-television network was carried out? The answer is definitely in the negative. They were not. During the time of the bombing of the Radio-Television Serbia headquarters, Banković and his co-applicants and their deceased relatives, Serbia was not a member of the Convention and, therefore, they were not within the reach of the jurisdiction of the Court. The bombing party, NATO, was also found by the Court as not having Serbia within its (NATO’s) effective control or that of its members.
A paper "The Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights" is tasked to criticize, evaluate, assess and interpret the case application of Banković and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States, the action was filed in October 1999. On November, 14, 2000, it was forwarded…
More specifically, in the case of R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex p Datafin  1 All ER 564, the Court of Appeal was faced with a dilemma of deciding whether it was the source of the powers of the organization which was the crucial factor or the nature of the body itself and the public consequences of its decisions.
e the protection of the law."1
When P.D.S's wife submitted claims to the local authorities on the forced disappearance of her husband and son, it was the duty of the local authorities to take immediate action. It is obligatory on the state to make sure that enforced disappearance constitutes as an offense according to the state laws, which is clearly stated in the Article 4 of Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which states that "each state party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that enforced disappearance constitutes an offence under its criminal law." 2
In the United Kingdom there is an increased recognition by the courts of the individual interests of persons likely to be aggrieved by the decisions of the administrative bodies. This view is being taken by the democratic government consequent to their acceptance of the principles of good administration which implies that any decision by the administration needs to be taken only after adopting fair procedures that have the effect of explaining the reasons to the individuals or an association of persons why such a decision is being taken.
The objective of said Act was to harmonize the domestic law of the United Kingdom with the European Convention on Human Rights. To reaffirm the commitment of the UK to human rights and civil liberties, it is now possible under the said Act to file a claim for violation of the ECHR without going to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Supreme Court Act 1981 s 31(3) requires a claimant for judicial review to establish a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates. In criminal proceedings the only claimants with sufficient interest are the Crown and the defendant: R v Home Secretary ex p Bulger .
Geoff Daniels, in protest against the visit of the Zimbabwean government delegation to GDXS plc. The party plans to utilise this opportunity to publicly undermine the workings of the Zimbabwean government and voice the ideologies of the Party.
Under the provisions of Section 14, the chief officer is at liberty to impose certain conditionalities on a public assembly, if it is deemed necessary to do so, in the interests of public order and to reduce risk of damage to property and the lives of the commuters, due to the public assembly.
The courts must consider which principles should be applied to the circumstances suffered by Davies & Jones against Sporting Sunday and whether they are appropriate to be invoked in acquiring an interim injunction.
The claimants can obtain an injunction by stating that Sporting Sunday has breached the law of confidence by its disclosure of private information, an act, which according to Lord Nicholls,1 constitutes an 'invasion of privacy.' In granting an injunction, the judges have to consider whether the claim is reasonable or subject to the restrictions of the law.
There is no question that each of us has a concern for the welfare and well-being of all children, whether we are parents or not. Children are very special gifts from God and it is our responsibility to nurture and care for them. The question often arises as to what is the level of the duty of care which we as a society are committed to.
The case study analysis will be conducted from two dimensions; firstly, the position of Sparkle Solutions and secondly Dalton (person being held as a criminal or charged with burglary attempt. In addition, the courts where the appeals can be
These acts that constitute a crime must be directed against a civilian population as is the case in minoropolis, the government forces swept through the city indiscriminately sending off and persecuting innocent
5 pages (1250 words)Case Study
Hire a pro to write a paper under your requirements!
Win a special DISCOUNT!
Put in your e-mail and click the button with your lucky finger
Apply my DISCOUNT
Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you!Try us!
Let us find you another Case Study on topic The Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights for FREE!