Top

Published in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

2. The ECHR: In Brief Perspective

Author : Toms Krūmiņš

Published in: Arbitration and Human Rights

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The present chapter provides a succinct overview of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), its enforcement machinery, general rules of applicability and its underlying principles of interpretation—all geared towards better understanding the relationship between arbitration and the ECHR, while often trying to connect the said issues with the more specific point of focus of this book, i.e. exclusion of setting-aside proceedings. While not intended as a comprehensive overview of the ECHR, it nevertheless introduces the reader to the most basic elements of the ECHR.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Introduction

next chapter Arbitration and the ECHR

Rainey B et al. (2014), p. 3.

Preamble of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In recent years, separate categories of third and fourth generation human rights have also been developed. More on the evolution of human rights, please see, e.g., Pocar (2015) and Macklem (2015).

See, e.g. Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, App. No. 13427/87, ECtHR, 9 December 1994, para. 62; Regent Company v. Ukraine, App. No. 773/03, ECtHR, 3 April 2008, para. 61; Kin-Stib and Majkić v. Serbia, App. No. 12312/05, ECtHR, 20 April 2010, paras. 83–85.

Protocols to the ECHR. http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/search-on-treaties/-/conventions/treaty/results/subject/3. Accessed 21 May 2020.

Preamble of the ICCPR.

See Sect. 2.5.

Art. 19 of the ECHR.

Former Art. 19 of the ECHR.

Former Art. 30 of the ECHR. For more detail see Rainey et al. (2014), p. 8, Mikaelsen (1980), pp. 15–17; Zwart (1994), pp. 26–27.

Rainey et al. (2014), p. 8.

Ibid., p. 20.

Protocol 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, restructuring the control machinery established thereby. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168007cda9. Accessed 21 May 2020.

Art. 34 of the ECHR.

Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, Apps. No. 46827/99, 46951/99, ECtHR, 4 February 2005, at 122.

Emberland (2006), pp. 3–4.

Van den Muijsenbergh and Rezai (2012), p. 48.

Emberland (2006), p. 35.

The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom, App. No. 6538/74, ECtHR, 26 April 1979.

See, e.g., cases reported in European Court of Human Rights, Factsheet—Companies: victims or culprits, July 2013. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Companies_ENG.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2020.

See Sect. 3.3.2.

Generally on the exhaustion of domestic legal remedies see, e.g. Rainey et al. (2014), pp. 34–36; Harris et al. (2014), pp. 47–61. European Court on Human Rights: Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2020.

The ECHR has in numerous cases refused to hear arbitration-related applications arguing that by failing to apply for the setting aside of an arbitral award the applicant has failed to exhaust all domestic legal remedies. See, e.g. R. v. Switzerland, App. No. 10881/84, ECmHR, 4 March 1987; Hedland v. Sweden, App. No. 24118/94, ECmHR, 9 April 1997. In case the applicable national arbitration law does not even provide for a possibility of setting aside an arbitral award (e.g. the case of Latvia), such an argumentation would not be applicable.

Art. 35(2)(a) of the ECHR. For more information see, e.g., European Court on Human Rights: Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, pp. 34–35. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2020. See also Harris et al. (2014), p. 73.

Art. 35(2)(b) of the ECHR. For more information see, e.g., Rainey et al. (2014), pp. 39–40. See also European Court on Human Rights: Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, pp. 35–37. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2020.

Art. 35(3)(a) of the ECHR. For more information see, e.g., Harris et al. (2014), pp. 79–81. See also European Court on Human Rights: Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, pp. 37–40. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2020.

Art. 34 of the ECHR. More on the ‘victim’ requirement see, e.g., Zwart (1994), pp. 50–71.

X v. United Kingdom, App. No. 6956/75, ECmHR, 10 December 1976; Durini v. Italy, App. No. 19217/91, ECmHR, 12 January 1994.

Harris et al. (2014), p. 81.

Jaksic (2007), p. 162.

See Sect. 2.5.

Harris et al. (2014), p. 82, Jaksic (2007), Samuel (2004), p. 426, Petrochilos (2004), p. 112.

Jakob Boss Söhn KG v. the Federal Republic of Germany, App. No. 18479/91, ECmHR, 2 December 1991.

Ibid.

See in more detail Sect. 3.2.

See, e.g., Jarrosson (1989), p. 574, Krings and Matray (1982), p. 256, Giunio (2000), p. 39. Generally, see Sect. 3.2.

Jarrosson (1989), p. 592, Benedettelli (2015), p. 633.

See Sect. 3.2.

Rainey et al. (2014), pp. 87–89. See also European Court on Human Rights: Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, pp. 46–52. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2020.

More in detail on ratione loci see, e.g., Rainey et al. (2014), pp. 89–102. See also European Court on Human Rights: Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, pp. 45–46. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2020.

Harris et al. (2014), p. 78.

See, e.g., Firma Heinz Schiebler KG v. the Federal Republic of Germany, App. No. 18805/91, ECmHR, 2 December 1991; Jakob Boss Söhn KG v. the Federal Republic of Germany, App. No. 18479/91, ECmHR, 2 December 1991; Nordström-Janzon and Nordström-Lehtinen v. the Netherlands, App. No. 28101/95, ECmHR, 27 November 1996; Pastore v. Italy, App. No. 46483/99, ECtHR, 25 May 1999; Suovaniemi and others v. Finland, App. No. 31737/96, ECtHR., 23 February 1999; R v. Switzerland, App. No. 10881/84, ECmHR, 4 March 1987; Tabbane v. Switzerland, App. No. 41069/12, ECtHR, 1 March 2016 and others.

Harris et al. (2014), p. 78, Rainey et al. (2014), p. 40.

European Court on Human Rights: Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, p. 82. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2020.

See, e.g., Korolev v. Russia, App. No. 25551/05, ECtHR, 1 July 2010; Savu v. Romania, App. No. 29218/05, ECtHR, 11 October 2011; Kiousi v. Greece, App. No. 52036/09, ECtHR, 20 September 2011; Rinck v. France, App. No. 18774/09, ECtHR, 19 October 2010.

Shefer v. Russia, App. No. 45175/04, ECtHR, 13 March 2012, paras. 17–18 where the Court acknowledged that ‘the question of whether the applicant has suffered a ‘significant disadvantage’ is at the core of this admissibility criterion [...] The general principle de minimis non curat praetor underlies the logic of Article 35 § 3 (b), which strives to warrant consideration by an international court of only those cases where violation of a right has reached a minimum level of severity. Violations which are purely technical and insignificant outside a formalistic framework do not merit European supervision [...] The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case’.

1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%201155/volume-1155-i-18232-english.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2020.

Harris et al. (2014), p. 65. The Vienna Convention entered into force on 27 January 1980, however, the Court had referred to the general principles of interpretation enshrined in the Vienna Convention already earlier in, e.g. Golder v. United Kingdom, App. No. 4451/70, ECtHR, 21 February 1975, paras. 29–30.

See, in particular, Saadi v. United Kingdom, App. No. 13229/03, ECtHR [GC], 29 January 2008, para. 62 where the Court summarized its approach regarding interpretation of the ECHR in the following way: ‘[u]nder the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Court is required to ascertain the ordinary meaning to be given to the words in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the provision from which they are drawn [...] The Court must have regard to the fact that the context of the provision is a treaty for the effective protection of individual human rights and that the Convention must be read as a whole, and interpreted in such a way as to promote internal consistency and harmony between its various provisions [...] The Court must also take into account any relevant rules and principles of international law applicable in relations between the Contracting Parties [...] Recourse may also be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory works to the Convention, either to confirm a meaning determined in accordance with the above steps, or to establish the meaning where it would otherwise be ambiguous, obscure or manifestly absurd or unreasonable [...]’.

Soering v. United Kingdom, App. No. 15038/88, ECtHR, 7 July 1989, para. 87.

Rainey et al. (2014), p. 7.

Golder v. United Kingdom, App. No. 4451/70, ECtHR, 21 February 1975, at 36 where the Court considered that ‘the right of access [to a court] constitutes an element which is inherent in the right stated by [Article 6(1)]. This is not an extensive interpretation forcing new obligations on the Contracting States: it is based on the very terms of the first sentence of [Article 6(1)] read in its context and having regard to the object and purpose of the Convention, a lawmaking treaty [...] and to general principles of law.’.

See, e.g., Kuzmenko v. Ukraine, App. No. 49526/07, ECtHR, 9 March 2017, para. 25; Baka v. Hungary, App. No. 20261/12, ECtHR [GC], 23 June 2016, para. 120; Cudak v. Lithuania, App. No. 15869/02, ECtHR [GC], 23 March 2010, para. 54; Markovic and others v. Italy, App. No. 1398/03, ECtHR [GC], 14 December 2006, para. 92.

For example, when the Convention was signed in 1950 it was hard to envisage that overseeing the protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, would become the every-day life of the Convention’s controlling mechanisms. See, e.g., the extensive report on internet cases prepared by the Research Division of the ECHR. European Court of Human Rights, Research Division, Internet: Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights (June 2015). http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Research_report_internet_ENG.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2020.

Benedettelli (2015), p. 641.

Generally on the principle of evolutive interpretation see, e.g., Rainey et al. (2014), pp. 73–78.

Tyrer v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5856/72, ECtHR, 25 April 1978, para. 31.

See, e.g., Mitzinger v. Germany, App. No. 29762/10, ECtHR, 9 February 2017, para. 41; Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom, Apps. No. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, ECtHR [GC], 15 March 2012, para. 53; Bayatyan v. Armenia, App. No. 23459/03, ECtHR [GC], 7 July 2011, para. 102; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom App. No.28957/95, ECtHR [GC], 11 July 2002, para. 75; Kress v. France, App. No. 39594/98, ECtHR [GC], 7 June 2001, para. 70.

Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, App. No. 30141/04, ECtHR, 24 June 2006, at 93 stating that ‘a rapid evolution of social attitudes towards same-sex couples has taken place in many member States [and] a considerable number of member States have afforded legal recognition to same-sex couples’.

S. and Marper v. United Kingdom, Apps. No. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECtHR [GC], 4 December 2008 where the Court referred to the consensus in the great majority of the Member States: ‘the strong consensus existing among the Contracting States in this respect is of considerable importance and narrows the margin of appreciation left to the respondent State in the assessment of the permissible limits of the interference with private life in this sphere. The Court considers that any State claiming a pioneer role in the development of new technologies bears special responsibility for striking the right balance in this regard.’.

Christine Goodwin v. United Kingdom, App. No. 28957/95, ECtHR [GC], 11 July 2002, paras. 84–85.

Harris et al. (2014), p. 11.

See, among others, Yourow (1996), Arai-Takahashi (2001), Legg (2012).

Harris et al. (2014), p. 17.

Handyside v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72, ECtHR, 7 December 1976, paras. 48–49.

See, e.g., Evans v. United Kingdom, App. No. 6339/05, ECtHR [GC], 10 April 2007; Hämäläinen v. Finland, App. No. 37359/09, ECtHR [GC], 16 July 2014; Dickson v. United Kingdom, App. No. 44362/04, ECtHR [GC], 4 December 2007; Kart v. Turkey, App. No. 8917/05, ECtHR [GC], 3 December 2009; Sahin v. Germany, App. No. 30943/96, ECtHR [GC], 8 July 2003; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 9214/80; 9473/81; 9474/81, ECtHR, 28 May 1985; Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, App. No. 9267/81, ECtHR, 2 March 1987.

See, e.g., Golder v. the United Kingdom, para. 38; Philis v. Greece, Apps. No. 12750/87; 13780/88; 14003/88, ECtHR, 27 August 1991, para. 59; De Geouffre de la Pradelle v. France, App. No. 12964/87, ECtHR, 16 December 1992, para. 28; Stanev v. Bulgaria, App. No. 36760/06, ECtHR [GC], 17 January 2012, para. 241.

Golder v. United Kingdom, App. No. 4451/70, ECtHR, 21 February 1975, para. 38 quoting the so-called Belgian linguistics case, Apps. No. 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64, ECtHR, 23 July 1968, para. 5.

Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 8225/78, ECtHR, 28 May 1985, para. 57.

See, e.g., Fayed v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 17101/90, ECtHR, 21 September 1994, para. 65; Markovic and Others v. Italy, App. No. 1398/03, ECtHR, 14 December 2006, para. 99; Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, para. 57.

Hämäläinen v. Finland, App. No. 37359/09, ECtHR [GC], 16 July 2014, para. 109.

Evans v. United Kingdom, App. No. 6339/05, ECtHR [GC], 10 April 2007, para. 77.

D.H. and others v. Czech Republic, App. No. 57325/00, ECtHR, 13 November 2007.

Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, App. No. 7525/76, ECtHR, 22 October 1981, para. 52.

Brannigan and McBride v. United Kingdom, Apps. No. 14553/89, 14554/89, ECtHR, 26 May 1993.

Klass and others v. Germany, App. No. 5029/71, ECtHR, 6 September 1978; Leander v. Sweden, App. No. 9248/81, ECtHR, 26 March 1987.

Handyside v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72, ECtHR, 7 December 1976.

Evans v. United Kingdom, App. No. 6339/05, ECtHR [GC], 10 April 2007, para. 77. In Petrovic v. Austria, App. No. 20458/92, ECtHR, 27 March 1998, the Court considered that ‘[t]he scope of the margin of appreciation will vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and its background; in this respect, one of the relevant factors may be the existence or non-existence of common ground between the laws of the Contracting States’.

See, e.g., Transado-Transportes Fluviais Do Sado, S.A. v. Portugal, App. No. 35943/02, ECtHR, 16 December 2003; Tabbane v. Switzerland, App. No. 41069/12, ECtHR, 1 March 2016.

See, e.g., Fayed v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 17101/90, ECtHR, 21 September 1990, para. 65; Markovic and Others v. Italy, App. No. 1398/03, ECtHR, 14 December 2006, para. 99; Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, para. 57.

Harris et al. (2014), p. 13 citing Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, App. No. 9267/81, ECtHR, 2 March 1987; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 17101/90, ECtHR, 21 September 1994; Rees v. United Kingdom, App. No. 9432/81, ECtHR, 17 October 1986 and Gaskin v. United Kingdom, App. No. 10454/83, ECtHR, 7 July 1989.

Tabbane v. Switzerland, App. No. 41069/12, ECtHR, 1 March 2016, para. 34.

Soering v. United Kingdom, App. No. 15038/88, ECtHR, 7 July 1989, para 89.

Tabbane v. Switzerland, App. No. 41069/12, ECtHR, 1 March 2016, para. 34.

See, e.g. Lithgow and others v. United Kingdom, Apps. No. 9006/80; 9262/81; 9263/81; 9265/81; 9266/81; 9313/81; 9405/81, ECtHR, 8 July 1986, para. 117; James and others v. United Kingdom, App. No. 8793/79, ECtHR, 21 February 1986, para 64 where ‘confronted with a text whose interpretation has given rise to such disagreement, the Court considers it proper to have recourse to the travaux préparatoires as a supplementary means of interpretation (see Article 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).’ See also Nolan and K. v. Russia, App. No. 2512/04, ECtHR, 12 February 2012.

Stec and others v. United Kingdom, Apps. No. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECtHR [GC], 12 April 2006; Saadi v. United Kingdom, App. No. 13229/03, ECtHR [GC], 29 January 2008, para. 62; Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom, Apps. No. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, ECtHR [GC], 15 March 2012, para. 54 where the Court held that ‘the Convention must be read as a whole, and interpreted in such a way as to promote internal consistency and harmony between its various provisions’.

See, e.g., Allen v. United Kingdom, App. No. 25424/09, ECtHR [GC], 12 July 2013, para. 95; König v. Germany, App. No. 6232/73, ECtHR, 28 June 1978, para 88.

See, e.g. Salduz v. Turkey, App. No. 36391/02, ECtHR [GC], 27 November 2008, para. 51; Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, App. No. 13972/88, ECtHR, 24 November 1993, para. 38.

Generally on the tripartite obligations of States see, e.g., Shue (1996), Harris et al. (2014), p. 22, Koch (2009), pp. 14–21.

Harris et al. (2014), p. 22.

Ibid., p. 21.

As argued by the applicants in the so-called Belgian linguistics case, Apps. No. 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64, ECtHR, 23 July 1968. Later the ECtHR has more precisely defined positive obligations as ‘a positive duty on the State to take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure the applicants’ rights’. See Powell and Rayner v. United Kingdom, App. No. 9310/81, ECtHR, 21 February 1990, para. 41.

See, among others, Marckx v. Belgium, App. No. 6833/74, ECtHR, 13 June 1979, para. 31; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom, Apps. No. 9214/80; 9473/81; 9474/81, ECtHR, 28 May 1985, para. 67; Airey v. Ireland, App. No. 6289/73, ECtHR, 9 October 1979, para. 32. More recently see, e.g., Söderman v. Sweden, App. No. 5786/08, ECtHR [GC], 12 November 2013, para. 78; A.-M.V. v. Finland, App. No. 53251/13, ECtHR, 23 March 2017, para. 71.

See, e.g. Kart v. Turkey, App. No. 8917/05, ECtHR [GC], 3 December 2009, para. 79. Generally, see Sect. 3.3.1.1.

See, e.g., art. 13 of the ECHR and the right to an effective remedy.

Belgian linguistics case, Apps. No. 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64, ECtHR, 23 July 1968, para. 3 where the Court held that ‘[t]he negative formulation [‘no person shall be denied the right to education’] indicate [...] that the Contracting Parties do not recognise such a right to education as would require them to establish at their own expense, or to subsidise, education of any particular type or at any particular level. However, it cannot be concluded from this that the State has no positive obligation to ensure respect for such a right as is protected by Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2). As a ‘right’ does exist, it is secured, by virtue of Article 1 (art. 1) of the Convention, to everyone within the jurisdiction of a Contracting State’.

Akandji-Kombe J (2007) Positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights: A guide to the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human rights handbooks, No. 7, p. 6. Council of Europe, Directorate General of Human Rights.

See, e.g. Powell and Rayner v. United Kingdom, App. No. 9310/81, ECtHR, 21 February 1990, para. 41.

Akandji-Kombe J (2007) Positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights: A guide to the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human rights handbooks, No. 7, pp. 6–7. Council of Europe, Directorate General of Human Rights.

100

For example, in Airey v. Ireland, App. No. 6289/73, ECtHR, 9 October 1979, para. 32 the Court stressed that ‘in addition to this primarily negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in an effective respect for private or family life’. Similar conclusions have been drawn also in more recent cases. See, e.g. Malec v. Poland, App. No. 28623/12, ECtHR, 28 June 2016, para. 66; A.-M.V. v. Finland, App. No. 53251/13, ECtHR, 23 March 2017, para. 71.

101

Salduz v. Turkey, App. No. 36391/02, ECtHR [GC], 27 November 2008, para. 51. More recently see, e.g. Cudak v. Lithuania, App. No. 15869/02, ECtHR [GC], 23 March 2010, para. 65; Carmel Saliba v. Malta, App. No. 24221/13, ECtHR, 29 November 2016, para. 65.

102

See, e.g. C.N. and V. v. France, App. No. 67724/09, ECtHR, 11 October 2012, para. 108; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, App. No. 23965/04, ECtHR, 7 January 2010, para. 285; Young, James and Webster v. United Kingdom, Apps. No. 7601/76, 7806/77, ECtHR, 13 August 1981, para. 49.

103

See, e.g. Golder v. United Kingdom, App. No. 4451/70, ECtHR, 21 February 1975, para. 38; Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, 26083/94, ECtHR [GC], 18 February 1999, para. 59; Sabeh El Leil v. France, App. No. 34869/05, ECtHR [GC], 29 June 2011, para. 47.

104

See Sect. 3.3.1.1.

105

See, e.g. Sabeh El Leil v. France, App. No. 34869/05, ECtHR [GC], 29 June 2011, para. 46.

106

Akandji-Kombe J (2007) Positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights: A guide to the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human rights handbooks, No. 7, p. 15. Council of Europe, Directorate General of Human Rights.

107

See, e.g. Clapham (2006).

108

See, e.g. Harris et al. (2014), p. 23.

109

Article 34 of the ECHR. See also, among others, Durini v. Italy, App. No. 19217/91, ECmHR, 12 January 1994.

110

Ziemele I (2009) Human Rights Violation by Private Persons and Entities: The Case-Law of International Human Rights Courts and Monitoring Bodies, p. 12. EUI Working Papers, Academy of European Law.

111

See, e.g. Söderman v. Sweden, App. No. 5786/08, ECtHR [GC], 12 November 2013, para. 78; Mikulić v. Croatia, App. No. 53176/99, ECtHR, 7 February 2002, para. 57; Phinikaridou v. Cyprus, App. No. 2389/02, ECtHR, 20 December 2007, para. 47; Putistin v. Ukraine, App. No. 16882/03, ECtHR, 21 November 2013, para. 34.

112

Akandji-Kombe J (2007) Positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights: A guide to the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human rights handbooks, No. 7, p. 14. Council of Europe, Directorate General of Human Rights.

113

See, e.g. Phinikaridou v. Cyprus, App. No. 2389/02, ECtHR, 20 December 2007, para. 47. See also Putistin v. Ukraine, App. No. 16882/03, ECtHR, 21 November 2013, para. 34; Van Kuck v. Germany, App. No. 35968/97, ECtHR, 12 June 2003, para. 70.

Arai-Takahashi Y (2001) The margin of appreciation Doctrine and the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECHR. Intersentia

Benedettelli MV (2015) Human rights as a litigation tool in international arbitration: reflecting on the ECHR experience. Arbitr Int 31(4):631–659

Clapham A (2006) Human rights obligations of non-state actors. Oxford University Press, United KingdomCrossRef

Emberland M (2006) The human rights of companies: exploring the structure of ECHR protection. Oxford University Press, United KingdomCrossRef

Giunio M (2000) Right to a fair trial and efficiency of arbitral proceedings. Croat Arbitr Yearb 7:31

Harris D et al (2014) Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick: law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, United Kingdom

Jaksic A (2007) Procedural guarantees of human rights in arbitration proceedings: a still unsettled problem? J. Int. Arb. 24(2):159

Jarrosson C (1989) L’arbitrage et la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Rev Arbitr 4:573–607

Koch IE (2009) Human rights as indivisible rights: the protection of socio-economic demands under the European Convention on Human Rights. Martinus Nijhoff

Krings E, Matray L (1982) Le juge et l’arbitre. Rev. dr. int. et dr. comp. 227

Legg A (2012) The margin of appreciation in international human rights law: deference and proportionality. Oxford University Press, United KingdomCrossRef

Macklem P (2015) Human rights in international law: three generations or one? Lond Rev Int Law 3(1):61–92CrossRef

Mikaelsen L (1980) European Protection of Human Rights: the practice and procedure of the European Commission of Human Rights on the admissibility of applications from individuals and states. Stijthoff & Noordhoff

Petrochilos G (2004) Procedural law in international arbitration. Oxford University Press, United Kingdom

Pocar F (2015) Some thoughts on the universal declaration of human rights and the generations of human rights. Intercultural Hum Rights L Rev 10:45

Rainey B et al (2014) Jacobs, White, and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, United KingdomCrossRef

Samuel A (2004) Arbitration, alternative dispute resolution generally and the European Convention on Human Rights: an Anglo-Centric view. J Int Arbitr 21(5):413, 426

Shue H (1996) Basic rights: subsistence, affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press

Van den Muijsenbergh W, Rezai S (2012) Corporations and the European Convention on Human Rights. Pacific McGeorge Glob Bus Dev Law J 25(1):43

Yourow HC (1996) The margin of appreciation Doctrine in the dynamics of European Human Rights Jurisprudence. Martinus Nijhoff

Zwart T (1994) The admissibility of human rights petitions: the case law of the European Commission of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht/Boston/London

Title: The ECHR: In Brief Perspective
Author: Toms Krūmiņš
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Arbitration and Human Rights
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-54236-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-54237-5

Copyright Year: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54237-5_2