I. Describe how the system has changed since the Convention was adopted in 1950 up until today in broad terms.
Prior to the 1970s, the Convention was led by a committee made up of foreign ministers from each state, who had the authority to verify and clarify conventions or agreements as well as make recommendations to state governments. Its primary purpose was to secure the freedoms such as the right to life, to a fair hearing, to respect private and/or family life; and protection of property, and freedom of expression, thought, conscience, and religion. It promised to preserve the following: the right to life, freedom from torture or terrible punishment, freedom from slavery, the right for liberty and security, the right to educate every citizen, and marriage equality. The Convention remained rather moderate in its early years, as its leaders wished to first gain the trust of governments now suspicious of any institution of enforcement.
The Convention first focused their efforts on drafting and negotiating certain economic and social rights. A European Social Charter was introduced in 1965, adding these categories to those already in place: the right to social welfare services, equal opportunity employment, safe working conditions, and the right of the elderly to social protection. During the 1970s, it gained credibility, thus admitting more applications. Along with this increased trust came the First Protocol and Protocol 2, which added rights to property, education, and free elections, and included the determination that only the Committee of Ministers can request advisory opinions, respectively. Following the first two are many others, including Protocol 4 prohibiting imprisonment for debt, Protocol 6 limiting the death penalty to wartime—a penalty later abolished by Protocol 7, which added a right to appeal a deciison in criminal matters, compensation for wrongful conviction, prohibition of double jeopardy, and spousal or marriage equality.
The individual complaint system for Europe was designed and structured from the 1950s up until 1998. The European Commission on Human Rights first stated that they would be in charge of determining whether comlaints would be heard on merits, screening for admissibility, and determining whether there are any plausible arguments regarding the violation of rights. As of 1998, the European Convention on Human Rights had built a supranational institutional system aimed at protecting and promoting human rights. This system provides individuals and states with the right to petition for redress of human rights breaches. Up until 1998, the Commission and the European Court of Human Rights both enjoyed jurisdiction under the Convention. Additionally, the protection of human rights expanded with the introduction of the European Court of Human Rights in 1950.
The structure of the European Commission on Human Rights—paired with the principles of the Margin of Appreciation and the Living Instruments doctrines—is what gives the commission the ability to focus efforts to areas that are a priority in its jurisdiction. The first principle states that domestic courts will still have a fair amount of power simply by being a member of the Council of Europe, even if they fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. This ultimately allows the court enough authority to accomplish its goals without infringing upon the power of the domestic courts.
Since its creation, the European Court of Human Rights has offered more accesibility to individuals, meaning that more value is placed upon the protection of rights to citizens. Since the court appeals XX anyone, they XXX cover a XXXX XXXXX XX XXXXXX, XXX more people XXXXXXX, reaching directly to those XXXXXXXXXXX within its XXXXXXXXXXXX. XXX XXXXX XXXXX XX present relevant, XXXXXXXX, XXX XXXXXX protection of human rights concerns upon which XXXXX courts cannot XXXXXX, giving the chance XXX XXXXXXXX to XXX XXXXX grievances XX heard, XXXXXXXXX, and XXXXXXXX.
II. How do you XXX XXXX a XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX the system XXXX the XXXXXXXXXX protocols 15 and 16 XXXXXXX but XXX XXX in force? What is expected to XX XXXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXX new XXXXXXXXX?
XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX are Protocols 15&XXXXX;XXXXX reduces the application deadline after a national decision, in addiiton XX changing the retirement age of XXXXXX XXXX seventy to seventy-four—and an optional XXXXXXXX XX, allowing XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX that the Court provide XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX on the interpreations and XXXXXXXXXXXX XX the XXXXXXXXXX. XX XXXXXXXX XX is XXXXXXXX by each of the forty-XXXXX member XXXXXX, these states XXXX be responsible XXX ensuring XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX enjoying their XXXXXX and freedoms.
A draft XX XXXXXXX X, Protocol XX XXXXX that, XXXXXXXX XXX Court considers a margin XX XXXXXXXXXXXX with XXXXX parties XXX XXXXXXXXXX rights, it XXX XXX been determined XXXX XXXX doctrine does XXX or can not XXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXXX XX the XXXXXX of aspects XX those XXXXXX. The margin of XXXXXXXXXXXX tehrefore “XXXXXXX on XXX circumstances XX the XXXX XXX the XXXXXX and XXXXXXXX engaged” (Draft Protocol XX). XXX same XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX for a XXXXXX XX appreciation XX the same that XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX the doctrine XX XXX margin of XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX not or XXX not aply at XXX in respect XX Convention rights or XXXXXXX of XXXXXX. When a margin XX XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX, the XXXXX will XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX that the margin is XXX XXXX, and XX XXXXX times XXXXXXXX whether it XX too narrow. XXXXXXXX XX XX XXXX XX interpretation contrrary XX XXX idea or ideals XX XXX Court’s practice, XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX it XX asserted to XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX of the Convention XXXXXX XXX freedom XXXXXX XXXXX a margin of XXXXXXXXXXXX&XXXXX; (Draft XXXXXXXX 15). If XXXX is the XXXX, XXXX the Convention is essentially ignoring XXXX XX margin XX appreciation XXXXXX in regards XX XXX implementation XX provisions XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX with XXXXXXX, punishment, or XXXXXXX.
XXXXXXXX XX initially XXXXXXX an imbalance between the XXXXXXX to XXX XXXXXXXX proceedings in instances where XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XX XXX XX XXX parties to XXXXXX domestic XXXXXXXXXXX. XX XXX edited XXXXX to XXXXXXX that XXX XXXXXXX to the XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX are to XX invited to XXXXXX written and oral XXXXXXXXXXXXX, or participate in any XXXXXXX.
XXX. What XX you XXXXX will XX XXX effect of XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX possibilities?
The effect(s) XX Protocols 15 and XX, XX approved, the first XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX allow domestic courts to handle any human XXXXXX XXXXXXXX, while the second would allow the court to give advisory XXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXXX first XXXX—XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX opinions counting XXXXXX a state’s XXXXX XXXXXX of XXXXX XXXXXX breaches or violations&XXXXX;and XXXXXXX enforcement a XXXXXXXX issue. Particular XXXXX XXXXX XX referred XX national XXXXXXXXX courts, followed with a XXXXXX by the judges. Member XXXXX XXXXXX would XX responsible XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXX of the XXXXXX; these XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XX XXXXXXX resolution at the state XXXXX.
References
XXXXXXXX Court of Human Rights, XXXX,XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX://echr-online.XXXX/XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX. X XXXX 2015.
Janis, XXXX W, European Human XXXXXX XXX: XXXX and Material, 2000.
XXXXX NGO XXXXXXXX XX XXX drafting of XXXXXXXXX XX XXX XX XX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX
XXX XXXXXXXXXX of XXXXX Rights and Fundamental XXXXXXXX, XXXX, available XX http://www.airecentre.XXX/XXXX/XXXXX/Joint_Ngo_Submission_on_Protocols_15_and_16_to_ECHR_16_Nov_2012.XXX. X XXXX 2015.
XXXXXXXXXXX Dzehtsiarou,XXXXXXXX Consensus and XXX Evolutive XXXXXXXXXXXXXX of the
XXXXXXXX Convention on Human Rights, 12 German XXX Journal XXXX-XXXX (2011),XXXXXXXXX athttp://www.germanlawjournal.XXX/XXXXX.XXX?pageID=11&XXXXX=1382.4 June 2015.
Reform of the XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX, XXXX, Applying and supervising the XXXX,
XXXXXXXXX XX http://XXX.coe.XXX/t/XXXX/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/XXXX/XXXXXXXXXXXX/XXXXXXXXXXXXX.pdf. 5 XXXX 2015.
Steiner, Henry J. XXX Alston, Phillip, XXXXXXXXXXXXX Human XXXXXX in XXXXXXX: XXX, Politics,
XXXXXX, 2000, XXXXXX University Press.
Sy, XXXXX,XXXXXXX XXX fundamental rights in XXX Union, European Parliament
(XXXX),available XX http://XXX.XXXXXXXX.XXXXXX.eu/XXXXXXXXXXXXX/XX/displayFtu.XXXX?XXXXX=FTU_2.X.X.XXXX. X June 2015.
XXXXXXXX X
XXX XXXX of XXXXXXXXX XXX Others v. Sweden
I. Give a XXXXX background to the XXXX XXXXXXXXX the determination of complainants XXX their right to file a XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXX European Court XX XXXXX XXXXXX, include also XXXXXXXXX the formal grounds to be XXXXXXX to file a XXXXXXXXX.
XXX applicants were convicted XX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX a group of persons XXXX XXXXXXXX XX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX that XXXXXXX 10 XX XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, arguing XXXX XXXXX leaflets XXX XXX portray XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX for homosexuals. The XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XX argue that a restriction on their freedom XX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXX and has XX legal XXXXX XXX claim. They claimed XXXX their reasoning for distributing XXX XXXXXXXX XXX XX spark a XXXXXX XXXXX the lack of objectivity in XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX. XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX XX the XXXXX at XXXXX XXXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XX violation XX XXXXXXX XX had taken XXXXX. The XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX that Article 10 XXXXXXXX all XXXXXXXXXXX, whether it&XXXXX;s perceived XX XX good or XXX.
The judges concurred XX a few XXXXXX. XXX was XXXXXXX XX by Judge XXXXXXXXX, who said XXXX XX equate XXX XXXXXXXX with XXXX speech, in XXX XXXXXXX XX the case XXX, XXXXX require XXXX XXXX justification. A XXXXXX was XXX idea XXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX in XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX.
The Swedish Supreme Court should XXXX XXXXXXXXX a XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX XXX XXXX of XXX speech, and XXXXXXX or not there XXX a specific motive or aim behind it. Another XXX that XXX XXXXXXX Supreme XXXXX’s XXXXXXX statements were XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX or offensive XXXXXXXXXXX a XXXX XXXXX test, one XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXXX XXX in XXXXXXX of expression XX XXXX as in XXX freedom of XXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXX offends.
This is XXX XXXXX time the XXXXX has XXXXX on Article XX, particularly in the XXXXXXXX of the XXXXXXX XX expression XXX XXXX-XXX speeech. Every applicant XXX fined and given a suspended sentence, XXXXXXX XXX other, XXX was sentenced to XXXXXXXXX. When XXX XXXXXXX Supreme XXXXX approached the topic of whether or XXX interference was a necessity, it XXX XXXXX XXX approved that the XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX&XXXXX;s XXXXXXX to express XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX also hammering the XXXX that, XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXX rights XXXX obligations. One XXXX obligation XX to XXXXX statements XXXX are XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XX others, XXXXX constitutes an XXXXXXX on an indiividual’s XXXXXX.
XX. What violation of XXXXXX XX complainants claim and XXXX legal basis XX XXXX XXXX XXX their XXXXXX?
The XXXXX basis for XXX XXXXX XX the evidence XXXXXXXXX by XXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX and gender XXXXXXXX should be XXXXXXX in XXX same XXX as race, ethnicity, XXX religion. These three XXX already XXXXXXX XX hate speech and XXXXX laws, as they XXX XXXXXXXXX XX an XXXXXXXXXX’s sense XX self, and is XXXXX XXXX XX a marker of group XXXXXXXX (Sy XXXX). XXX judges concluded XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXX XXXXXXXX should be protected, XX this XXXX is XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXX &XXXXX;XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXX jurispudence in this XXXX,” (Sy XXXX) XX XXXX XX XXX XXXXX&XXXXX;s duty XX give practical and effective XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX human XXXXXX violations.
XXX applicants in question had XXXXXXX a XXXXXXXXX school&XXXXX;XXX their own&XXXXX;XXX XXXXXXXXXXX leaflets XXXX XXXXXXX homosexuality as a “XXXXXXX XXXXXX proclivity” XXXX XXX a “morally XXXXXXXXXXX effect on XXX substance XX society&XXXXX; (XX, XXXX). The leaflets were purposefully left in, on, or XXXXXX XXXXXXX XX XXXXX, impressionable&XXXXX;sometimes XX a fault&XXXXX;students. XX was found that XX applicants XXXXXXXX or XXX XXXXXXXXXX attended that XXXXXX, so that they were XXXXX given XXX initial XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX for XXXX access to that XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX that XXXX had a XXXXX XX XXXXXXX XX expression, in XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX 10 of XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXX Rights.
At its conclusion, the judges made XXXX XX note XXXX XXXXXXX XX the LGBT community XXXX XXXXXXXXX throughout the XXXXX; and that, in educational XXXXXXXXXXXX XXX organizations, exists a &XXXXX;XXXX XXXXXXX XX homophobic XXX transphobic bullying and XXXXXXXXXXXXXX,” XXXXX is an XXXXXXXXX acknowledgement XXXX attempting XX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX in XXX XXXX XX freedom XX XXXXXXXXXX (XX 2007). Through its XXXXXXXX, XXX XXXXX reaffirms XXX idea XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XX sexual XXXXXXXXXXX XXX gender XXXXXXXX XXXXXX be taken XX seriously as XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX on XXXX, origin or XXXXXX.
XXX. XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XX XXX case XXX what must be XXXXXXXXXX XXX a XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XX the XXXXXXX XX expression XX XX XX hand.
The outcome for XXXX case XXX XXXXXXX XX(X) XX XXX Convention, XXXXX XXXXXX XXXX everyone XXX the XXXXX to XXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXX in Article XX(2), or formalities, conditions, XXXXXXXXXXXX, or penalties as described by XXX law XXX necessary for a XXXX-functioning XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX, particularly XXX XXXX protects its XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX the protection XX the XXXXXXXXXX or rights of XXXXXX. The XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX &XXXXX;discrimination based XX sexual orientation is as serious XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX based XX &XXXXX;race, XXXXXX or colour’&XXXXX;.6 Based XX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, the Court held XXXX no XXXXXXXXX XX Article 10 XXX XXXXX place.
Spielmann criticised the XXX XXXXXXXXX more XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX’ had any XXXXXXXXXX XXX to XXXXXXX, XXXXXX or incite hatred against XXXXXXX XX XXX basis of their sexual orientation. He XXXXXX that the &XXXXX;unwarrantably XXXXXXXXX” XXXX XXXXXXX XX the XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX far too XXXXX and does XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX adequate XXXXXXXXXX to the XXXXXXX of expression.
In addition XX XXX XXXX XX to XXX seriousness of discrimination based on XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX or XXXXXX XXXXXXXX; XXX Court also noted XXXX XXX penalties XXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXXXX were not XXXXXXXXX XX XXX means, and XXXX did not XXXXXX XXXXXXX 10. The XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX that the XXXX to be applied is XXXXXXX or XXX the restriction on XXX applicants&XXXXX; freedom XX expression XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX to XXX legitimate aim of XXXXXXXXXX XXX reputation and XXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXX in a XXXXX. It XXX conceded in the case XXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX of XXX applicants XXXXXXXXXXX a XXXXXXXXXXX on XXXXX freedom of XXXXXXXXXX. The issue XXX whether such XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XX justified XX XXX XXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXXX in Article 10(2). XXX the first XXXX, the Court applies XXXXXXXXXXX XXX principles developed in XXXXXXXX XX XXXX XXXXXX in the XXXXXXX XX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX and gender identity.
When making a decision, XXX Court must consider the circumstances XX the XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXXXXXX imposed, while simultaneously XXXXXXXXXXX XXX content of XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX. XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XX the XXXXXXXXXX XXX that: it XXXX XXXXX at a school, XXXXX considered XXX penalty to be imposed, and XXXX none XX XXX applicants were imprisoned. In XXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX of XXX expression, XXX applicants XXXXXXX the XXXXXXX was XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX unworthy XX protection; and, although the XXXXXXXX did XXX directly XXXXXX individuals to embrace or XXXXXX XXX hateful XXXX, XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX. In XXXXXXXXXX with this is XXX Court&XXXXX;s XXXXXXXXX that XXXXXXX on XXXXXXXXXXX to XXXXXX XXXXXX or violence XXXX not necessarily entail a XXXX XXX XXXXXX XX those XXXXXX. The definition XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXX idea that a XXXXXX or persons XXX XX attacked.
It XX easy XX XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX cannot XXXXXX XX protected in XXXXX single circumstance, XXXXXXXXX because humans are inclined XX coin information or ideas with which XXXX XX not XXXXX as XXXXXXXXXX unacceptable, and XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX expression. XX XX XXXXXXXXXX for individuals XX XXXXXXX and regular XXXXX own XXXXXXX in order XX XXXX XXXX aware XX XXXX XXXXX XX speech are protected XXX which are not. XXXXXXX of this, the Court XXX XXX grounds to XXXXXXX the XXXX based on its XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX XX XXXXXX speech XXXX is deemed unworthy of XXXXXXXXXX.
XXXXXXXXX Timmer, Anti-Gay XXXX XXXXXX: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden (2/XX/2012),
XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX://XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.com/2012/02/14/anti-gay-XXXX-speech-vejdeland-and-XXXXXX-v-XXXXXX. X June 2015.
XXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or XXXXXXXXXX
Distr, XXXXXXXXX Against Torture, (11/26/2008), XXXXXXXX at http://www1.umn.edu/XXXXXXXX/cat/XXXXXXXXX/XXX-XXXX.html. X XXXX 2015.
Court backs XXXXXX in homophobic leaflets dispute, XXXXXXXX Convention of Human XXXXXX
(X/X/2012), XXXXXXXXX XX XXXX://XXX.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.XXX/2012/XX/court-backs-sweden-in-homophobic-leaflet-dispute/. X XXXX XXXX.
Discrimination XXX XXXX speech on the XXXXX XX sexual orientation: is it protected XX freedom XX
expression?, Human Rights Law Centre (X/9/XXXX), available XX XXXX://hrlc.org.XX/XXXXXXXXX-XXX-v-XXXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-242-X-february-XXXX. 4 XXXX XXXX.
XXXXXXX, XXXXXX. Strasbourg rules on XXXX-gay speech XXX XXX XXXXX XXXX (3/13/XXXX), UK Human
XXXXXX Blog, available at http://ukhumanrightsblog.XXX/2012/03/13/strasbourg-XXXXX-on-XXXX-XXX-XXXXXX-for-XXX-XXXXX-XXXX. 5 June XXXX.
XXXXXXXXX and Others v. Sweden: Hate XXXXXX XXX Article XX XXXX, Alliance Defense XXXX,
2012, XXXXXXXXX XX hXXX://www.XXXXXXXX.XXX/files/2012-04-XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.XXX. X XXXX 2015.