A Study of the principle of fair balance in the jurisprudence of the european court of human rights

Human Rights Law Review

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 289-317

  Mowbray, Alastair ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953889804     PISSN: 14617781     EISSN: 17441021     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngq006     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. It was so described by the Grand Chamber in Hutten-Czapska v Poland 45 EHRR 4 at para. 167.
2. A search of the Court's HUDOC database produces in excess of 100 references to the principle, available at: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp?sessionid=42269263&skin=hudoc-en [last accessed 24 February 2010].
3. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, ETS 005 ('the Convention'or ECHR).
4. Soering v United Kingdom A 161 (1989); 11 EHRR 439 at para. 89.
5. N. v United Kingdom 47 EHRR 39 at para. 44.
6. Van Dijk, Van Hoof, Rijn and Zwaak (eds), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (Antwerpen: Intersentia, 2006) at 349.
7. Case'Relating to Certain Aspects Of The Laws On The Use of Languages In Education In Belgium' v Belgium (Merits) A6(1968);1EHRR252atpara.B.5(Belgian Linguistics Case).
8. Article 14 ECHR.
9. Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, ETS 009 on enforcement of certain rights and freedoms not included in Section I of the Convention (Protocol No. 1).
10. Such as married women choosing the surname they wished to be known by, see Unal Tekeli v Turkey 42 EHRR 53.
11. For the mass interception of voice and email communications, see Liberty and Others v United Kingdom 48 EHRR 1.
12. Belgian Linguistics Case, supra n. 7 at Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Terje Wold, para. 101.
13. Sporrong and Lo« nnroth v Sweden A 52 (1982);5 EHRR 35.
14. Article 1 of Protocol.
15. Jahn and Others v GermanyApplication Nos 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, Judgment of 22 January 2004.
16. Slivenko v Latvia 39 EHRR 24.
17. May 1992, DR 73, p. 155).
18. Article 2 ECHR.
19. Boso v ItalyApplication No. 50490/99, Decision of 5 September 2002.
20. 'Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law' (emphasis added).
21. Chahal v United Kingdom 1996 -V.
22. EHRR 413.
23. For example, A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56 and Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ [2007] UKHL 45.
24. For example, A. and Others v United Kingdom 49 EHRR 29.
25. Saadi v Italy 47 EHRR 17.
26. See also Moeckli, 'Saadi v Italy: The Rules of the Game Have Not Changed', (2008) 8 Human Rights Law Review 534.
27. Under A rticle 36(2) ECHR.
28. Committee of Ministers,'Guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism', Meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (2002), available at: http://www.coe.int/T/E/Human_rights/h-inf(2002)8eng.pdf [last accessed 24 February 2010]. 40 Saadi v Italy, supra n. 34 at para. 138.
29. See, Mowbray, Cases & Materials on the European Convention on Human Rights, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) at 253-5. On 21 August 2009, Dick Marty (the Rapporteur of the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly on secret detentions) reported that his sources seemed to confirm that Lithuania, as well as Poland and Romania, had hosted a secret CIA prison.
30. D.v United Kingdom 1997-III.
31. EHRR 423.
32. N.vUnitedKingdom47 EHRR 39.
33. The provision of some medical services may be derived from implied positive obligations arising under the Convention: see, Mowbray, The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights (Oxford: Hart, 2004)at22.
34. Nikitin v Russia 41 EHRR 10.
35. See Hasan and Chaush v Bulgaria 34 EHRR 55.
36. Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v Bulgaria 41 EHRR 3.
37. A 323 (1995).
38. Zarb Adami v Malta 44 EHRR 3 at para. 73.
39. For a firm argument that the Convention does not generally protect economic and social rights, see, Warbrick, 'Economic and Social Interests and the European Convention on Human Rights', in Baderin and McCorquodale (eds), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Action (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
40. Nolan has found a lack of conceptual clarity in the Court's attitude towards the protection of economic and social rights: Nolan, 'Addressing Economic and Social Rights Violations by Non-state Actors through the Role of the State: A Comparison of Regional Approaches to the "Obligation to Protect"', (2009) 9 Human Rights Law Review 225.
41. For example, in complaints based upon Article 8 ECHR.
42. On the topic of proportionality, see McBride,'Proportionality and the European Convention on Human Rights in Ellis (ed.), The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe (Oxford: Hart, 1999) at 23.
43. Arai-Takahashi, The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2002) at 193.
44. Harris, O'Boyle, and Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2nd edn by Harris, O'Boyle, Bates and Buckley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) at 10.
45. Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz v Switzerland 34 EHRR 4.
46. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 22 July 2003, Resolution ResDH (2003) 125.
47. The first successful claim was in Ozgur Gundem v Turkey 31 EHRR 49.
48. 40 EHRR 21.
49. 33 EHRR 52.
50. See the preamble to the ECHR.