Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression and information. A fundamental aspect of this right is the freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas, even if the receiver of such information does not share the same opinions or views as the provider.
The UK government, nevertheless, stated in 2004 that it "agrees in principle that the ECHR should contain a provision against discrimination that is free-standing and not parasitic on the other Convention rights". [67] The first judgment that found a violation of Protocol No. 12, Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, was delivered in 2009.
Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland (2024) was a landmark [1] European Court of Human Rights case in which the court ruled that Switzerland violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to adequately address climate change.
ECHR Right of petition to ECtHR Protocol 1 (Rights to property, education and elections) Protocol 4 (Civil imprisonment, freedom of movement, expulsion) Protocol 6 (Prohibition of death penalty in peacetime) Protocol 7 (Fair trial rights, spousal equality) Protocol 12 (Right of non-discrimination)
Original file (1,275 × 1,650 pixels, file size: 4.03 MB, MIME type: application/pdf, 56 pages) This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons . Information from its description page there is shown below.
The ECHR in Strasbourg Prior to the entry into force on 1 June 2010 of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU could not accede to the convention, and thus the European Court of Human Rights did not have jurisdiction to rule on cases brought against the EU.
Name Country Position [2] Term began Term ends [3]; Marko Bošnjak Slovenia President: 30 May 2016: 30 May 2025: Arnfinn Bårdsen Norway Vice-President: 1 January 2019: 1 January 2028
He challenged the State's failure to provide him with free legal aid, claiming that it was contrary to both the Constitution of Ireland and the European Convention on Human Rights. In her judgment, Ms. Justice Laffoy applied the rule of avoidance and concluded that, in the absence of any express statement in the Act to the contrary, the court ...