70 years of the European Convention on Human Rights

The European Convention on Human Rights, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, was the first instrument to crystallise and give binding effect to the rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

It lays down absolute rights which can never be breached by the States, such as the right to life or the prohibition of torture, and it protects certain rights and freedoms which can only be restricted by law when necessary in a democratic society, for example the right to liberty and security or the right to respect for private and family life.

A number of rights have been added to the initial text with the adoption of additional protocols, concerning in particular the abolition of the death penalty, the protection of property, the right to free elections or freedom of movement. (ECHR)

The updated text of the Convention is available here

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld her find
Read more

Gigantic fine for unfair practices imposed on Booking.com by the Competition Authority of Hungary

Image
One of the highest fines for violation of unfair competition law has been imposed (28/4/2020) on online hotel booking platform ‘’Booking.com’’ by the Hungarian Competition Authority. The amount of the fine (approximately EUR 6 million / HUF 2.5 billion) imposed by the Authority illustrates the seriousness of the Dutch company's violations. The Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH) imposed a fine of HUF 2.5 billion on the operator of the online booking portal booking.com, and at the same time banned the Dutch company from continuing its aggressive sales methods. According to the decision of the competition authority, Booking.com B.V. engaged in unfair commercial practices against consumers by, among other things, misleadingly advertising some of its accommodations with a free cancellation option and exerting undue psychological pressure on consumers to make early bookings. As a result of the Competition Authority’s competition supervision proceeding  initiated in 2018, the autho
Read more

Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs): What and Why?

Image
By Christina Poursanidou, Lawyer Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) are considered as high-risk individuals for financial institutions and obliged entities, which justifies the application of additional Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorist Financing (CFT) preventive measures with respect to business relationships with them. But who is considered as a PEP and why being a PEP poses a risk? The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has defined a PEP as an individual who is or has been entrusted with a prominent public function, while the Article 3 par. 9 of the 4th EU AML Directive (AMLD) repeats the definition of the FATF and provides a list of particular political positions, which make somebody a PEP. It is crucial to note that both FATF and EU have included in the scope of PEPs, the family members and close associates of PEPs, which means that not only the persons with have been entrusted with prominent public function are considered as high-risk, but also their family member
Read more

The name Pablo Escobar may not be registered as an EU trade mark

Image
According to the Judgment of the General Court in Case T-255/23 (Escobar v EUIPO) the name Pablo Escobar may not be registered as an EU trade mark. The public would associate that name with drug trafficking and narco-terrorism.  On 30 September 2021, Escobar Inc., established in Puerto Rico (United States), filed an application with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for registration of the word sign Pablo Escobar as an EU trade mark for a wide range of goods and services.  The Colombian national named Pablo Escobar, who was born on 1 December 1949 and died on 2 December 1993, is presumed to be a drug lord and a narco-terrorist who founded and was the sole leader of the Medellín cartel (Colombia).  EUIPO rejected the application for registration on the ground that the mark was contrary to public policy and to accepted principles of morality. It relied on the perception of the Spanish public, as it is the most familiar with Pablo Escobar due to the links between Spa
Read more

ECHR President: Covid-19 pandemic has raised a number of important human rights issues

Image
Increased polarisation and challenges to Europe’s fundamental principles, together with the global COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to create the most difficult period we have seen in many years, according to the President of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Speaking at the court’s annual press conference in Strasbourg, ECHR President Robert Spano said that democracy, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law are increasingly being called into question at both the European and global levels. He added that the on-going pandemic has already raised a number of important human rights issues, including the proportionality of measures taken by Council of Europe member states, the legal basis of those measures and the use of domestic procedures to sanction actions or inaction. President Spano underlined that the ECHR has been able to continue its work despite the pandemic, deciding on over 39,190 applications in 2020 and holding online public hearings for the first time.
Read more

First judgment of the ECHR: Lawless v. Ireland

Image
60 years ago, on 14 November 1960, the Court delivered its first judgment, Lawless v. Ireland, with René Cassin as its President. The judgment concerned preliminary objections and procedural questions regarding the application, on which a judgment on the merits was delivered the following year. Since its inauguration the Court has delivered 23,291 judgments on just over 51,650 applications. The case was filed by Gerard Richard Lawless, who had been an IRA member, although he claimed to have left the IRA. He was arrested on 11 July 1957, as he was about to travel to Great Britain from Ireland, and subsequently detained under the special powers of indefinite detention without trial under the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1940. The case was filed by Lawless for violation, by the Irish Government, of Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights, providing rights to liberty and security, fair trial and the principle of 'no punishment without law'
Read more

A pregnant worker must be afforded a reasonable time limit in order to be able to bring an action against her dismissal (ECJ)

Image
According to the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-284/23 (Haus Jacobus) a pregnant worker must be afforded a reasonable time limit in order to be able to bring an action against her dismissal. A two-week time limit for making a request for leave to intervene appears to be insufficient.  A care-home employee challenges her dismissal before a German labour court. She relies on the prohibition of dismissal for pregnant women. The labour court considers that the action should normally be dismissed on the ground that it was brought out of time.  When the employee became aware of her pregnancy and brought the action, the ordinary time limit of three weeks following notification in writing of the dismissal, laid down by German law, had already lapsed. Furthermore, the employee failed to submit a request for leave to bring an action out of time within the additional time limit of two weeks [1] laid down by that law.  The labour court asks, however, whether the German legislation at i
Read more