Search results

The object of this research is the reconstruction of the existing legal response by European Union states to the phenomenon of immigration. It seeks to analyse the process of conferral of protection.

One main dimension is selected and discussed: the case law of the national courts. The study focuses on the legal status of immigrants resulting from the intervention of these national courts.

The research shows that although the courts have conferred an increasing protection on immigrants, this has not challenged the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the states to decide, according to their discretionary prerogatives, which immigrants are allowed to enter and stay in their territories. Notwithstanding the differences in the general constitutional and legal structures, the research also shows that the courts of the three countries considered – France, Germany and Spain – have progressively moved towards converging solutions in protecting immigrants.

The research contributes to a better understanding of the different legal orders analysed.

The fastest growing sector of the prison population is older people. Although the numbers are still relatively small (just under 2,500 in 2007), it would seem that the ‘sameness’ principle within prisons renders older prisoners invisible. The health of older prisoners is a matter of concern ‐ research indicates that you age 10 years faster in prison (Uzoaba, 1998) which can compound the problems that may be associated with ageing. The provision of health and social care do not match those for older people outside of the prison system. This article considers the legal issues surrounding the treatment of older prisoners. It recognises that restrictions on liberty are a component of the prison system; however, it questions whether the consequences of ‘sameness’ infringe the legal rights of older prisons. It recommends a statutory presumption of equivalence of care, which can only be rebutted expressly or by necessary implication.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the international regional system of the preservation of the right to health in the European human rights system through the work of the ECtHR, to analyse the case law of the ECHR based on the human right to health. This purpose determines the following tasks: to identify the features of the realization of the right to health in the European mechanism of human rights protection; to study the mechanism of realization of the right to health in the activity of the ECtHR; to describe the case law of the ECtHR in terms of the right to health.

The “black letter” law methodology is used to focus attention on conducting research on the letter of the law and the desire to conduct a descriptive analysis of legal norms, based on primary sources.

On the basis of the conducted researches, it is possible to draw a conclusion that the ECHR, albeit implicitly, refers to the right to health as well.

The right to health is included in the catalogue of the most important universally recognized human rights and is most often considered as an integral part of socio-economic human rights, but there is no special universal or regional mechanism for protecting this category of rights.

Some countries prohibit the imposition of life imprisonment on women but allow it for men for the same offence (e.g. Albania, Azerbaijan, Russia and Belarus). In Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia (2017) the European Court of Human Rights rejected the claim that it was discriminatory to punish two Russian men convicted of murder to life imprisonment. Other than a handful of legal commentaries there have been no in-depth analyses of the case, in particular on the dangers of using gender stereotyping to limit life imprisonment. To address this gap, this chapter draws on criminological works on the gendered experience of life imprisonment, legal analyses of perpetual incarceration under human rights law and ECHR case law on gender stereotyping and on life imprisonment. This study critically discusses the Court’s assessment of gender stereotypes in the context of life imprisonment and considers whether its approach constitutes any improvement for women. In so doing, it illuminates how well-intended efforts to curtail some extreme forms of penal practices such as perpetual incarceration may have unintended and perverse consequences for women specifically and the landscape of punishment more generally.

The object of the paper is to analyse the justifications for the modification of police powers in response to terrorist threats, placing this issue in a European context.

The paper consists of a critical examination of provisions relating to terrorism emanating from the European Union and the Council of Europe (European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)), and the relevant English law on police powers of stop and search, arrest, and detention.

Nothing in European law requires the amendments to police powers contained in English law; European law requires respect for human rights, even in dealing with terrorism; a shoot‐to‐kill policy is prohibited by the ECHR; and balance is an unsatisfactory method of resolving conflicts in this area.

The research was limited in its scope to certain areas of police powers, and to certain fundamental European documents. Future research should consider the issue in relation to wider areas.

It challenges the idea of balance between liberty and security, proposing a test based on necessity instead.

Turkey is required by the international and EU instruments and domestic law to address the issue of whistle-blowing and the protection of whistle-blowers. The purpose of this paper is to analyse Turkish legislation which is applicable to work-related whistle-blowing, the conflict between the worker’s right to “blow the whistle” and the obligation to loyalty and confidentiality. The consequences of groundless or deliberate false disclosures are considered. Comparisons are made with international conventions, the COE Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)7 and the Proposed EU Directive on the Protection of Whistleblowers and ECtHR precedents.

In the first part, this paper reviews the definition of whistle-blowing and whistle-blower. The second part outlines the impact of international and EU Law on Turkish legislation. The third part reviews the Turkish legal framework applicable to whistle-blowing.

Whistle-blowing in the public interest is suggested as a tool to combat corruption worldwide. There is no doubt that some whistle-blowers have been beneficial to society. However without democratic structures to take into account the assessment of the quality of the information, the type of the disclosure and the category of the reporting person, there are downsides to excessive whistle-blowing. Therefore, whistle-blowing should be discussed in the context of democratic societies, and a balanced approach should be adopted to ensure the position of not only whistle-blowers but also the people affected by the reports.

The paper offers new insights into the limits of work-related whistle-blowing within the context of freedom of expression and the right of employees and public officials to petition. The protection of whistle-blowers and the consequences of groundless or deliberate false disclosures under Turkish Law from a comparative perspective are considered.

The purpose of this article is to discuss the implications of government responses to COVID-19 for older people. Governments in England and in Wales faced complex decisions when responding to COVID-19. This paper considers the impact of their actions on the human rights of older people. It argues that there is a case to answer of potential breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although it is too early to come to firm conclusions as more scientific and medical evidence is required, some actions by governments seem to be based on using age as a basis for decision-making. Human rights are complex, and it is important that claims of violations satisfy the Convention, the Human Rights Act 1998, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and other international instruments.

The paper considers the legal framework of the European Convention and its relevance to Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) and older people. Case law, academic research, guidance and media coverage form the basis of the research.

The governments have a strong case to answer. In defending their positions against allegations of discrimination against older people, they need to produce strong and convincing evidence including medical and scientific evidence that formed the basis of their decisions.

This paper is based on original research into human rights, older people and COVID-19.