The boundaries problem of the 1950 European Convention dynamic interpretation on Human Rights on the example of ensuring the social rights of convicts

Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research


Release:

2021, Vol. 7. № 1 (25)

Title: 
The boundaries problem of the 1950 European Convention dynamic interpretation on Human Rights on the example of ensuring the social rights of convicts


For citation: Klyuchnikov A. Yu. 2021. “The boundaries problem of the 1950 European Convention dynamic interpretation on Human Rights on the example of ensuring the social rights of convicts”. Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research, vol. 7, no. 1 (25), pp. 112-125. DOI: 10.21684/2411-7897-2021-7-1-112-125

About the author:

Andrew Yu. Klyuchnikov, Cand. Sci. (Jur.), Associate Professor, Associate Professor, Department of Constitutional and International Law, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (Lipetsk Branch); Judge, Lipetsk Pravoberezhniy District Court; andrew19871961@mail.ru

Abstract:

The 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is an instrument for the dynamic development of the human rights system in the member states of the European Council. Such an active formation of the latter is due to the activities of the European Court of Human Rights. However, the case-law of the court is not always accepted in national jurisdictions, especially when it comes to the most sensitive areas of life in modern societies. As the goal of the research, the author sets out the identification of the current approach of this international court to the problem of social rights of convicts, especially in the context of ensuring their social rights. The material for the research was the case-law of the ECHR on the social rights of citizens - with special attention to the rights of persons in places of isolation from society, the legal positions of domestic researchers on the problem posed. The author uses traditional research methods - general scientific and special, with an emphasis on historical, social and legal methods. The paper describes the stages of the international soft law sources formation on penitentiary rules and the impact on this of the ECHR practice in the context of the discrimination standarts prohibition regarding the right of ownership and violation of the forced (compulsory) labor prohibition. A common European standard “the right of a convicted person to retire” has not yet been developed, which has been confirmed in the practice of the ECHR. This decision is due to the need to maintain the effectiveness of the entire convention system, the policy of compromises with states. Through the dynamic interpretation of the ECHR, this right is recognized as an element of the convention rights protection, the convict should be granted an increasing amount of social rights.

References:

  1. Barsukova V. N. 2019. “Facts and Assessments from the Point of View of Protecting the Honor and Dignity of the Individual”. Saratov State Law Academy Herald, No. 6 (131), pp. 28-34. [In Russian]
  2. Klyuchnikov A. Yu. 2020. “Revealing Activism in Law Enforcement Approaches of Judges of the European Court of Human Rights”. Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research. Vol. 6, no. 1 (21), pp. 129-139. [In Russian]
  3. Neshataeva V. O. 2017. “The Role of International Courts in the Formation of the Law of Cultural Values”. Sud’ya. No. 11, pp. 44-50. [In Russian]

  4. Orekhov O. S. 2009. “About ‘the Doctrine of the Discretion of States’ in Practice of International Bodies”. Moscow Journal of International Law. No. 2 (74), pp. 244-262. [In Russian]

  5. Grand Chamber of ECHR Judgment of 15 November 2001 in case No. 25196/94 “Iwańczuk v. Poland”. 2002. In: Bulletin of the European court of human rights. Russian edition. No. 2. [In Russian]

  6. Grand Chamber of ECHR Judgment of 11 July 2006 in case No. 54810/00 “Jalloh v. Germany”. 2007. In: Bulletin of the European court of human rights. Russian edition. No. 8. [In Russian]

  7. Grand Chamber of ECHR Judgment of 4 December 2007 in case No. 44362/04 “Dickson v. the United Kingdom”. 2008. In: Bulletin of the European court of human rights. Russian edition. No. 7, pp. 82-85. [In Russian]

  8. ECHR Judgment of 6 October 2005 in case No. 74025/01 “Hirst v. The United Kingdom” (No. 2). 2006. In: Bulletin of the European court of human rights. Russian edition. No. 7. [In Russian]

  9. ECHR Judgment of 21 June 2007 in case No. 37213/02 “Kantyrev v. Russia”. 2008. In: Russian Chronicle of the European Court. No. 2. [In Russian]

  10. ECHR Judgment of 20 October 2011 in cases No. 5774/10, No. 5985/10 “Mandic and Jovic v. Slovenia”. 2011. In: Bulletin of the European court of human rights. Russian edition. No. 11. [In Russian]

  11. ECHR Judgment of 17 April 2012 in case No. 20071/07 “Piechowicz v. Poland”. 2013. In: Bulletin of the European court of human rights. Russian edition. No. 10. [In Russian]

  12. Decision of the ECHR of 18 February 2009 on the admissibility of the complaint in case No. 55707/00 “Andrejeva v. Latvia” (paragraph 79). In: Bulletin of the European court of human rights. Russian edition. No. 6, 2009. [In Russian]

  13. Terekhova L. A. 2016. “Application of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the practice of Russian courts”. Omsk State University Herald. Series: Law. No. 2 (47), pp. 138-146. [In Russian]

  14. Advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 14, 1989 in case OC-10/89 “Interpretation of the American Declaration of Human Rights and Duties, based on Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights”. In: IACHR. Series A. No. 10, p. 37.

  15. Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa). 1971. ICJ Reports. No. 31, p. 53. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/53.

  16. Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights of 06.04.1968 in case No. 3134/67, 3172/67, 3188-3206 / 67 “Twenty-one Detained Persons v. Germany”. In: Collection 27. Pp. 97-116.

  17. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 31 August 2001 in the case of “Mayagma (Sumo) Awas Tigny Community v. Nicaragua” In: Series C. No. 79, p. 146.

  18. ECHR Judgment of 18 January 1978 in case No. 5310/71 “Ireland v. the United Kingdom” (paragraph 239). In: ECHR. Series A. No. 25, p. 90.

  19. ECHR Judgment of 13 June 1979 in case No. 6833/74 “Marckx v. Belgium” (paragraph 41). 1979-1980. In: ECHR. Series A. No. 31, 2 EHRR 330.

  20. ECHR Judgment of 23 March 1993 in case No. 15318/89 “Loizidou v. Turkey” (paragraphs 70-71) (preliminary objections). In: ECHR. Series A. No. 310, p. 20.

  21. ECHR Judgment of 27 March 1998 in case No. 20458/92 “Petrovic v. Austria” (paragraph 38). In: ECHR. Reports 1998-II. P. 62.

  22. ECHR Judgment of 12 December 2001 in case No. 52207/99 “Bankovic and Others v. Belgium”. In: ECHR. Reports 2001-XI.

  23. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany “Bundesverfassungsgericht” of 1 June 1998, 2bvr441. P. 90.

  24. Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Austria of 27 February 1990 in case ObS 10. SSV-NF4. 66/90. P. 31.

  25. Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Austria of 16 March 1999 in case ObS 10. SSV-NF52. P. 99.

  26. UN Human Rights Committee Judgment of 2 September 2002 in case No. 829/1998 «Roger Judge v. Canada». 1998. In: UN Doc, CCP/C78 /D/829/1998.