Human rights are the rights that one has simply because one is human. This deceptively simple idea has profound social and political consequences. Human rights, because they rest on nothing more than being human, are universal, equal, and inalienable. They are held by all human beings, universally. One either is or is not human and thus has or does not have human rights. And one can no more lose these rights than one can stop being a human being — no matter how inhuman the treatment one may suffer. One is entitled to human rights and is empowered by them. Human rights, being held by every person against the state and society, provide a framework for political organization and a standard of political legitimacy. In a context in which they are systematically denied, claims of human rights may be positively revolutionary. Even in societies where human rights are generally well respected, they provide constant pressure on governments to meet their standards. Human rights, however, are but one path to implement a particular conception of social justice. In fact, the idea of human rights — the notion that all human beings, simply because they are human, have certain inalienable rights that they may exercise against society and their rulers — was foreign to all major pre-modern Western and non-Western societies.

          Nearly all pre-modern societies saw rulers as obliged to govern wisely and for the common good. This mandate, however, arose from divine commandment, natural law, tradition, or contingent political arrangements. It did not rest on the rights (entitlement) of all human beings to be ruled justly. In a well-ordered society, the people were to benefit from the political obligations of rulers. But the people had no natural or human rights that could be exercised against unjust rulers.

            Human rights entered the mainstream of political theory and practice in 17th-century Europe. John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, published in 1688 in the wake of Britain's Glorious Revolution, which overthrew King James II, presented the first fully developed theory of natural rights.

          Locke's theory begins with a pre-social state of nature in which equal individuals have natural rights to life, liberty, and estates. In the absence of government, however, these rights are of little value. They are almost impossible to protect by individual action, and disputes over rights are themselves a powerful cause of conflict. Therefore, people form societies, and societies establish governments, to enable themselves to enjoy their natural rights.

          Government, according to Locke, is based on a social contract between rulers and ruled. Citizens are obliged to obey only if the government protects their human rights, which are morally prior to and above the claims and interests of the government. Government is legitimate to the extent that it systematically protects and furthers the enjoyment of the human rights of its citizens.

          The idea of human rights initially was associated with the middle classes. Against the claims of high birth and traditional privilege, the rising bourgeoisie of early modern Europe advanced political claims based on natural human equality and inalienable natural rights. This bourgeois political revolution, however, had severe limits. For example, Locke, despite the apparent universalism of the language of natural rights, actually developed a theory for the protection of the rights of propertied European males. Women, along with "savages," servants, and wage labourers of either sex, were not recognized as rights-holders.

            But once the notion of equal and inalienable rights held by all was advanced, the burden of proof shifted to those who would deny such rights to others. Claims of privilege could be rationalized by, for example, arguments of racial superiority or assertions of superior acquired virtue. Privilege could be, and regularly was, protected through force. But having accepted the idea of human rights, dominant elites found it increasingly difficult to escape the logic of human rights. Many of the great political struggles of the past two  centuries have revolved around expanding the recognized subjects of human rights beyond a small, propertied elite provoked intense controversy in most European countries in the 19th century. The claims of working men for fair wages, for the right to organize themselves, and for safe and humane working conditions led to often violent political conflict until World War I in most of Europe, and much longer than that in the United States. Ending the systematic denial of human rights inherent in colonialism was a major global political issue during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. And struggles to eliminate discrimination based on race and gender have been prominent in many countries over the past 30 years.

          In all of these situations, dispossessed groups used the rights they did enjoy to press for legal recognition of the rights being denied them. For example, workers used their votes, along with what freedom of the press and freedom of association were allowed them, to press for eliminating legal discrimination based on wealth or property. They also demanded new rights that would bring true liberty, equality, and security to working men (and later women). Racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, women, and peoples suffering under colonial rule have likewise used what rights were allowed them to press for full recognition and participation as equal members of society. In each case, the essence of their argument was that we, no less than you, are human beings. As such, we are entitled to the same basic rights as you and to equal concern and respect from the state. And in each case, acceptance of such arguments has led to radical social and political changes.                                

            In the past decade, the revolutionary force of the demand for human rights has become unusually clear. Across the globe, regimes that had cynically manipulated the language of human rights have been sent packing by citizens that insisted on taking human rights seriously. A significant cause of the collapse of the Soviet empire was the growing unwillingness of Communist bloc citizens to accept the systematic denial of internationally recognized human rights. In South and Central America, repressive military governments fell throughout the 1980s. In Asia and Africa, liberalization and democratization have been more irregular but nevertheless real, and in some countries (South Korea and South Africa, for example) quite striking.

            The spread of human rights is neither natural nor inevitable. Regression is possible, even likely in some cases. The world's remaining repressive dictatorships may prove quite long lived. But the lesson of the past decade would seem to be that wherever people are given the chance to choose, they choose internationally recognized human rights. And whatever the shortcomings of current practice, we live in a world in which fewer governments than ever before seem able to deny their people that choice.

deceptively simple —оманливо проста

consequences — наслідки

inalienable —невідчужуваний

lose the rights —втрачати права

be entitled to — мати право

hold rights —володіти правами

right-holder —носій права

deny rights —відмовляти

 в правах

claim — вимагати

respect rights —поважати права

pressure on governments —тиск на уряди

implement a conception of social justice

 — втілювати  в життя концепцію соціальної

справедливості

exercise rights — здійснювати права

obliged to govern wisely and for the common

good —зобов’язані правити мудро і на загальне

благо

divine commandment — божа заповідь

contingent political arrangements — імовірні

політичні домовленості

well-ordered society — добре упорядковане

 суспільство

benefit from the political obligations of rulers —

отримувати користь від політичних зобов'язань

 правителів

treatise —трактат, монографія

estate — маєток, майно

іn the absence of government — за відсутності

уряду

disputes over rights — спори з приводу прав

therefore — отже, тому

morally prior to and above the claims and

 interests of the government — морально вагоміші

 та вищі, ніж вимоги i інтереси уряду

legitimate government — законний уряд

advance political claims — висувати політичні

 вимоги

despite the apparent universalism — попри явну

універсальність

be recognized as right-holders —визнаватися

носіями прав

burden of proof —тягар доведення

racial superiority — расова вищість

assertions — твердження

acquired virtue — набуті достоїнства

escape the logic of human rights — уникнути

логіки прав людини

expand the recognized subjects of human

rights — розширити коло визнаних суб’єктів

прав людини

provoke  controversy — викликати суперечки

major global political issue — основна світова

політична проблема

eliminate discrimination based on race and gender

— ліквідувати дискримінацію за ознаками раси та

статі

dispossessed groups — групи, позбавлені прав

to press for eliminating discrimination — вимагати ліквідації дискримінації

likewise —так само

equal concern and respect — однакова турбота

і повага

collapse of the Soviet empire — падіння

радянської імперії

deny internationally recognized human rights —

відмовляти в міжнародно визнаних правах людини

nevertheless — все-таки, проте

spread of human rights —

поширення прав людини

choose internationally recognized

human rights — обирати міжнародно

визнані права людини

shortcomings — недоліки

     In the post Cold War world nearly all states, in all regions of the world at all levels of development, proclaim their commitment to human rights. And with the continuing spread of political liberalization and democratization, an ever-growing number of governments are being pressured at home and from abroad to live up to these commitments. In today's world, a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations is widely perceived to undermine a regime's national and international legitimacy.

              This situation, however, is historically unprecedented. Human rights has been an established subject of international relations for only about half a century. Prior to World War II, even genocidal massacres such as Russian pogroms against the Jews and the Turkish slaughter of Armenians were met with little more than polite statements of disapproval. Less egregious violations typically were not even considered a fit subject for diplomatic conversation. How a government treated its own citizens in its own territory was considered a matter of sovereign domestic jurisdiction. In fact, individual states and the international community were considered to be under an international legal obligation not to intervene in such matters. Even the notoriously "idealist" covenant of the League of Nations fails to mention human rights as a subject of legitimate international concern.

       The Holocaust, in which German Nazis systematically attempted to eliminate European Jewry, brought human rights into the mainstream of international relations. Shocking as Nazi atrocities were, the international community lacked the legal and political language to condemn them. Massacring one's own citizens simply was not an established international legal offence. The German government may have been liable under the laws of war for its treatment of citizens in occupied territories, but in killing German nationals it was merely exercising its sovereign rights. And traditional "realist" diplomacy, which defined the national interest in terms of state power, could find no material interest that was threatened by the barbarous treatment of foreign civilians.

                 The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (1945-1946) introduced the novel charge of crimes against humanity. For the first time, officials were held legally accountable to the international community for offences against individual citizens, not states, and individuals who in many cases were nationals, not foreigners. It was in the United Nations, however, that human rights really emerged as a subject of international relations. Human rights have a prominent place in the UN Charter adopted in 1945. And the new organization moved rapidly to elaborate authoritative international human rights norms. On December 10, 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This comprehensive list of rights codified the emerging view that the way in which states treat their own citizens is not only a legitimate international concern but subject to international standards.

                 With the rise of the Cold War, however, human rights increasingly became just another weapon of ideological struggle. Just as the United States was willing to accept the most vicious human rights practices in "friendly" anti-Communist regimes, the Soviet Union was ready to use force when necessary to assure "friendly" totalitarian regimes in its sphere of influence.     

                 The United Nations is not a world government standing above state, but an intergovernmental organization. It can do nothing that its members — sovereign states — do not authorize. And during the first two decades of the Cold War, neither bloc was willing to allow the UN to do much at all in the field of human rights.

proclaim a commitment to human rights проголошувати відданість правам людини

spread of political liberalization and democratization — поширення політичної лiберaлізації та демократизації

an ever-growing number of governments — усе більша кількість урядів

live up to these commitments —жити відповідно до цих зобов'язань

gross human rights violations — грубі порушення прав людини

perceive — сприймати

undermine a regime's legitimacy  — підривати законність режиму

рrior to World War II — до другої світової війни

genocidal massacres — геноцидне нищення /масові вбивства

polite statements of disapproval — ввічливі несхвальні заяви

egregious violation — кричуще порушення

intervene, v  — втручатися

covenant — пакт

attempt to eliminate European Jewry — намагатися ліквідувати європейське єврейство

atrocitу — жорстокість

condemn, v —засуджувати

liable under the laws of war — відповідальний за воєнними законами

treatment  — поводження

threaten, v  — погрожувати

barbarous treatment of foreign civilians — варварське поводження з іноземним цивільним населенням

novel charge of crimes against humanity — нове обвинувачення у злочинах проти людства

hold legally accountable — визнати відповідальним перед законом

international community — міжнародне співтовариство

elaborate  international human rights norms — розробляти міжнародні норми  прав людини

Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Загальна декларація прав людини

comprehensive list of rights — вичерпний перелік

legitimate  concern — законне занепокоєння

weapon of ideological struggle — зброя ідеологічної боротьби

intergovernmental organization —міжурядова організація

good human rights record

Добра репутація в галузі прав людини

by virtue of (something)

Завдяки (чомусь)

ensure rights and freedoms

Забезпечувати права і свободи

dignity, n

Гідність

foundations of freedom, justice and peace

Підвалини свободи, справедливості та миру

disregard and contempt for human rights

Нехтування та зневага до прав людини

as a last resort

як останній засіб

compelled to have recourse

Змушені вдаватися

rule of law

Верховенство права

 belong (to), v

Належати

 deserve, v

Заслуговувати, бути гідним

 be entitled to a fair trial

Мати право на справедливий суд

 lose or surrender the right

втрачати або відмовлятися від права

 be presumed innocent until proved guilty

вважатися невинуватим, доки не буде доведено вину

 convict, v

засуджувати

 detain, v

затримувати

 torture, v

катувати

 rape, v

ґвалтувати

 murder, v

вбивати

 commit grave crimes

вчиняти тяжкі злочини

 an independent and impartial tribunal

незалежний та безсторонній суд

 be sentenced according to law

бути засудженим відповідно до закону

 find guilty

визнавати винуватим

 protect from discrimination

захищати від дискримінації

 tarnish, v

ганьбити, плямувати

 promote observance of human rights

сприяти дотриманню прав людини

 condemn, v

осуджувати

 stop the atrocities

припиняти звірства/ лиходійство/

 improve, v

покращувати

available means

наявні засоби

abuse with impunity

безкарно зловживати

 impose economic sanctions on a country

 накладати економічні санкції на країну

 harmful to society

шкідливий для суспільства

             The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was drawn up within the Council of Europe. It was opened for signature in Rome on 4  November 1950 and entered into force in September 1953. The object of its authors was to take the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain of the rights stated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.

 In addition to laying down a catalogue of civil and political rights and freedoms, the Convention set up a system of enforcement of the obligations entered into by Contracting States. Three institutions were entrusted with this responsibility: the European Commission of Human Rights (set up in 1954), the European Court of Human Rights (set up in 1959) and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the latter  being composed of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the member States or their representatives.

 Under the 1950 Convention Contracting States and, where the Contracting States are known to have accepted the right of individual petition, individual applicants (individuals, groups of individuals or non-governmental organisations) could lodge complaints against Contracting States for alleged violations of Convention rights.

The complaints were first the subject of a preliminary examination by the Commission which determined their admissibility. Where applications had been declared admissible and no friendly settlement had been reached, the Commission drew up a report establishing the facts and expressing an opinion on the merits of the case. The report was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers.

 Where the respondent State had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, the Commission and/or any Contracting State concerned had a period of three months following the transmission of the report to the Committee of Ministers within which to bring the case before the Court for a final, binding adjudication. Individuals were not entitled to bring their cases before the Court.

If a case was not referred to the Court, the Committee of Ministers decided whether there had been a violation of the Convention and, if appropriate, awarded just satisfaction to the victim. The Committee of Ministers also had responsibility for supervising the execution of the Court's judgments.

However, this two-tier system aroused dissatisfaction. It was taking too long to deal with individual cases. In some cases it took about five and even seven years for a case to be decided by the Commission and then subsequently by the Court. This was considered to be inadmissible. Urgent steps had to be taken to remedy the situation. Moreover, there was a steady growth in the number of High Contracting Parties. The combination of a desire to reduce the length of time that it took to examine cases and a radical increase in the number of High Contracting Parties, which could be expected to result in the increase of the number of cases being brought to the Court, caused the decision to attack the root of the problem of delay. It was necessary to replace the existing system that involved a time wasting duplication of procedures before both the Commission and the old Court.

Therefore,  the 11^th Protocol to the Convention was drafted which aimed  to establish a permanent court that would carry out the functions of both the Commission and the Court thereby avoiding the old system dual examination, and  to examine cases within a reasonable time. The new Court is supposed to succeed the old Court with the objective of retaining the confidence of the Convention community in the Convention system.

enter into force — набирати чинність

collective enforcement of certain of the rights — колективне забезпечення здійснення певних прав

entrust with thе responsibility — покласти відповідальність

the right of individual petition — право на індивідуальне подання

lodge а complaint against   — подавати скаргу проти

Contracting States — договірні держави

alleged violations — стверджувані порушення

preliminary examination — попередній розгляд

determine  admissibility — визначати  прийнятність

friendly settlement — дружнє врегулювання

an opinion on the merits of the case — думка щодо суті справи

respondent State — держава-відповідач

compulsory jurisdiction — обов’язкова юрисдикція

final, binding adjudication — остаточне ухвалення судового рішення, що є обов'язковим

award just satisfaction —

присуджувати справедливу сатисфакцію

supervisе the execution — здійснювати нагляд за виконанням

arouse dissatisfaction — спричиняти незадоволення

take urgent steps — вживати нагальних заходів

remedy the situation — виправити ситуацію

reduce the length of time — скорочувати тривалість

result in the increase — мати наслідком збільшення

time wasting duplication  —

дублювання, на яке марнується час

within a reasonable time — в межах розумного часу

retain the confidence — зберігати довіру

Since the Convention's entry into force eleven Protocols have been adopted. Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7 to the Convention added further rights and liberties to those guaranteed and Protocol No. 2 conferred on the Court the power to give advisory opinions. Protocol No. 9 enabled individual applicants to bring their cases before the Court subject to ratification by the respondent State and acceptance by a Screening Panel. Protocol No. 11 restructured the enforcement machinery. The remaining Protocols concerned the organisation of and procedure before the Convention institutions.

 From 1980 onwards, the steady growth in the number of cases brought before the Convention institutions made it increasingly difficult to keep the length of proceedings within acceptable limits. The problem was aggravated by the accession of new Contracting States from 1990.

The number of applications registered annually with the Commission increased from 404 in 1981 to 2,037 in 1993. By 1997 that figure had more than doubled (4,750). By 1997 the number of unregistered or provisional files opened each year in the Commission had risen to over 12,000. The Court's statistics reflected a similar story, with the number of cases referred annually rising from 7 in 1981 to 52 in 1993 and 119 in 1997.

 The increasing case-load had prompted a lengthy debate on the necessity for a reform of the Convention supervisory machinery. Opinions were divided at the beginning of the negotiations on restructuring the Convention system, but ultimately the solution adopted was the creation of a single full-time court. The aim was to simplify the structure with a view to shortening the length of proceedings and at the same time to strengthen the judicial character of the system by making it fully compulsory and abolishing the Committee of Ministers' adjudicative role.

On 11 May 1994 Protocol No. 11 to the European Convention on Human Rights "restructuring the control machinery" was opened for signature.   Protocol No. 11 required ratification by all the Contracting States and entered into force one year after the last ratification had been deposited. That ratification was deposited with the Council of Europe in October 1997, ushering in a preparatory period of one year during which the judges were elected and held a number of meetings to take the necessary organisational and procedural measures for the establishment of the Court. In particular the judges elected their office holders and drew up new draft Rules of Court.

The new European Court of Human Rights came into operation on 1  November 1998 with the entry into force of Protocol No. 11. On 31 October 1998, the old Court had ceased to function. However, the Protocol provided that the Commission should continue for one year (until 31 October 1999) to deal with cases which had been declared admissible before the date of entry into force.

 The European Court of Human Rights set up under the Convention as amended is composed of a number of judges equal to that of the Contracting States (currently forty-one). The Convention has been ratified by most European States, from Iceland to Turkey and from Andorra to Russia. The only exceptions to this are some states of the former Soviet Union and Ex-Yugoslavia, such as Belarus, Armenia, Serbia, Azerbaijan, Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina.  There is no restriction on the number of judges of the same nationality. Judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for a term of six years. The terms of office of one half of the judges elected at the first election will expire after three years, so as to ensure that the terms of office of one half of the judges are renewed every three years.

 The official languages of the Court are English and French but the Rules of the Court provide that applications may be presented to the Court in any of the official languages of the High Contracting Parties. There are  32 such official languages at present. Of course it goes without saying that an international court could not function efficiently if it had to work in such a large number of languages. While it is open to the applicant to present his case in an official language, the Rules of the Court make it clear that if a case is communicated to the Government for observations or if a hearing is to be held in the case, English or French must be employed unless the President decides otherwise.

Accordingly Governments are requested to submit their written observations in one of the official languages of the Court and permission must be sought from the President of the Chamber to make written or oral submissions in another language. If the Government desires to address the Court in the national language it must bear the costs of interpretation. If the applicant cannot secure the services of a lawyer who speaks one of the official languages of the Court and permission is given by the President of the Chamber to speak the national language the Court will bear the costs.

Judges sit on the Court in their individual capacity and do not represent any State. They cannot engage in any activity which is incompatible with their independence or impartiality or with the demands of full-time office. Their terms of office expire when they reach the age of seventy.

The Plenary Court elects its President, two Vice-Presidents and two Presidents of Section for a period of three years.  Under the Rules of Court, the Court is divided into four Sections, whose composition, fixed for three years, is geographically and gender balanced and takes account of the different legal systems of the Contracting States. Each Section is presided over by a President, two of the Section Presidents being at the same time Vice-Presidents of the Court. Section Presidents are assisted and where necessary replaced by Vice-Presidents of Section.

 Committees of three judges are set up within each Section for twelve month periods. Committees are an important feature in the new structure as they are responsible for much of the filtering formerly carried out by the Commission.

 Chambersof seven members are constituted within each Section on the basis of rotation, with the Section President and the judge elected in respect of the State concerned sitting in each case. Where the latter is not a member of the Section, he or she sits as an ex officio member of the Chamber. The members of the Section who are not full members of the Chamber sit as substitute members.

 The Grand Chamber of seventeen judges is constituted for three years. Apart from the ex officio members - the President, Vice-Presidents and Section Presidents — the Grand Chamber is formed by rotation within two groups, which will alternate every nine months. These groups are composed with a view to geographical balance and are intended to reflect the different legal traditions.

The Chamber judgment in an admissible case will also examine the question of just satisfaction (Article 41). It is also at Chamber level that friendly settlements will normally take place although a settlement can intervene at any stage of the proceedings. Where appropriate, the Chamber may appoint a delegation of judges to carry out fact-finding and hear witnesses. TheRules of Court provide that it may appoint independent experts to assist a delegation. It is thus in Chambers that a large part of the Court's work is carried out. Within a period of three months from the date of the Chamber judgment a party may request that a case be referred to the Grand Chamber of seventeen judges. A panel of five judges shall accept the request if the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or a serious issue of general importance. Article 43 makes it clear that reference may only take place in 'exceptional cases'. This restriction is an essential part of the reform of the Convention procedure and embodies the compromise reached between States in the drafting of Protocol No. 11 that were in favour of a single examination by one instance and States that favoured a double examination. If interpreted strictly by the Panel of the Grand Chamber it will mean that the Chamber judgment will be the final judgment in most of the cases raising problems of Convention law, which can be decided on the basis of existing principles.

The role of the Grand Chamber is thus to rule on cases of the utmost importance. The Convention also enables a Chamber to relinquish jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber "at any time before it has rendered its judgment" in cases which raise a serious question of interpretation or "where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court." The parties have the right to object to a relinquishment but the Rules of the Court require the parties to file their objections within a month and to provide reasons for them. In the limited practice to date, Chambers have relinquished jurisdiction in cases where there existed a certain inconsistency between the Chambers in their approach to certain issues or where there was a need to clear up uncertainties and contradictions stemming from existing case-law.

The role of the Grand Chamber is crucial to the success of the reform for two main reasons. First it will fall to the Grand Chamber to examine inter alia the leading cases that will be brought to Strasbourg, which raise new points of Convention law. The Grand Chamber will thus establish the most important case-law of the new Court. Second it is clear that if the objectives of the reform process are to be attained — i.e. if the system is able to examine cases within a reasonable time — the Panel of the Grand Chamber will have to be extremely selective in those cases where it accepts a referral. If there are to be a large number of referrals from the Sections to the Grand Chamber it is very likely to become overburdened with cases leading to the inevitable (and familiar) delays in deciding important cases. The Panel is thus acting as a 'filter', accepting only the most 'exceptional cases' for adjudication. It will thus play a key role in the effectiveness of the new arrangements. Since the Court is still in a transitional phase it is too early yet to give any indication how this shift from Chamber to Grand Chamber will be managed by the Panel.

entry into force – набрання чинності

advisory opinions — консультативні висновки

applicant — заявник

steady growth — постійне зростання

aggravate — посилювати, загострювати

accession — приєднання

unregistered or provisional files  — незареєстровані або тимчасові справи

case-load — навантаження

prompt — спонукати, спричиняти

supervisory machinery — наглядовий механізм

simplify the structure  — спрощувати структуру

with a view to shortening the length of proceedings — з метою скорочення тривалості провадження

abolish — скасовувати

open for signature —відкрити для підписання

in particular — зокрема

deal with cases — розглядати справи

as amended — зі змінами

restriction on the number of judges — обмеження щодо кількості суддів

applications may be presented — заяви можуть подаватися

it goes without saying  — само собою зрозуміло

unless the President decides otherwise — якщо Голова не вирішить інакше

Governments are requested — від урядів вимагається

written or oral submissions — письмові або усні подання

it must bear the costs of interpretation — на нього має покладатися вартість перекладу

incompatible with their independence or impartiality — несумісна з їхньою незалежністю чи безсторонністю

take account (of) — враховувати

responsible (for) — відповідальний (за)

formerly — раніше

ex officio member of the Chamber — член палати за посадою

substitute members — підмінні члени палати

with a view to — з метою

an admissible case — прийнятна справа

intervene at any stage of the proceedings — вступити у справу на будь-якій стадії провадження

refer to the Grand Chamber — передавати до Великої палати

raise a serious question — порушувати важливе питання

reach a compromise — досягати компромісу

final judgment — остаточне судове рішення

relinquish jurisdiction  — відмовлятися від юрисдикції

render а judgment — виносити судове рішення

raise a serious question of interpretation —порушувати важливе питання щодо тлумачення

to file their objections within a month —подавати заперечення в межах місяця

approach to certain issues — підхід до певних питань

crucial to the success of the reform —

вирішальний для успіху реформ

inter alia — між іншим

establish the most important case-law — створювати найважливіше прецедентне право

attain the objectives of the reform process — досягати цілей процесу реформування

рanel — колегія

overburden —перевантажувати

inevitable delays —неминучі затримки

 Any Contracting State (State application) or individual claiming to be a victim of a violation of the Convention (individual application) may lodge directly with the Court in Strasbourg an application alleging a breach by a Contracting State of one of the Convention rights. A notice for the guidance of applicants and forms for making applications may be obtained from the Registry.

 The procedure before the new European Court of Human Rights is adversarial and public. Hearings are, in principle, public, unless the Chamber/Grand Chamber decides otherwise on account of exceptional circumstances. Memorials and other documents filed with the Court's Registry by the parties are accessible to the public.

 Individual applicants may submit applications themselves, but legal representation is recommended, and even required for hearings or after a decision declaring an application admissible. The Council of Europe has set up a legal aid scheme for applicants who do not have sufficient means.

 The official languages of the Court are English and French, but applications may be drafted in one of the official languages of the Contracting States. Once the application has been declared admissible, one of the Court's official languages must be used, unless the President of the Chamber/Grand Chamber authorises the continued use of the language of the application.

 Each individual application is assigned to a Section, whose President designates a rapporteur. After a preliminary examination of the case, the rapporteur decides whether it should be dealt with by a three-member Committee or by a Chamber.

 A Committee may decide, by unanimous vote, to declare inadmissible or strike out an application where it can do so without further examination.  Individual applications which are not declared inadmissible by Committees or which are referred directly to a Chamber by the rapporteur and State applications are examined by a Chamber. Chambers determine both admissibility and merits, usually in separate decisions but where appropriate together.

 Chambers may at any time relinquish jurisdiction in favour of a Grand Chamber where a case raises a serious question of interpretation of the Convention or where there is a risk of departing from existing case-law, unless one of the parties objects to such relinquishment within one month of notification of the intention to relinquish.

 The first stage of the procedure is generally written, although the Chamber may decide to hold a hearing, in which case issues arising in relation to the merits will normally also be addressed.  Chamber decisions on admissibility, which are taken by majority vote, must contain reasons and be made public.

 Once the Chamber has decided to admit the application, it may invite the parties to submit further evidence and written observations, including any claims for "just satisfaction" by the applicant, and to attend a public hearing on the merits of the case.

 The President of the Chamber may, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, invite or grant leave to any Contracting State which is not party to the proceedings, or any person concerned who is not the applicant, to submit written comments, and, in exceptional circumstances, to make representations at the hearing. A Contracting State whose national is an applicant in the case is entitled to intervene as of right.

 During the procedure on the merits, negotiations aimed at securing a friendly settlement may be conducted through the intermediary of the Registrar. The friendly settlement negotiations are confidential.

Chambers decide by a majority vote. Any judge who has taken part in the consideration of the case is entitled to append to the judgment a separate opinion, either concurring or dissenting, or a bare statement of dissent.

 Within three months of delivery of the judgment of a Chamber, any party may request that a case be referred to the Grand Chamber if it raises a serious question of interpretation or application or a serious issue of general importance. Such requests are examined by a Grand Chamber panel of five judges composed of the President of the Court, the Section Presidents, with the exception of the Section President who presides over the Section to which the Chamber that gave judgment belongs, and another judge selected by rotation from judges who were not members of the original Chamber.

 A Chamber's judgment becomes final at the expiry of the three month period or earlier if the parties announce that they have no intention of requesting a referral or after a decision of the panel rejecting the request for referral to the Grand Chamber.   If the panel accepts the request, the Grand Chamber renders its decision on the case in the form of a judgment. The Grand Chamber decides by a majority vote and its judgments are final.  All final judgments of the Court are binding on the respondent States concerned.

 Responsibility for supervising the execution of judgments lies with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is thus for the Committee of Ministers to verify whether States in respect of which a violation of the Convention is found have taken adequate remedial measures to comply with the specific or general obligations arising out the Court's judgments.

claim — стверджувати

be a victim — бути потерпілим

lodge directly with the Court —подавати безпосередньо до Суду

allege a breach by a Contracting State of the Convention rights—стверджувати про порушення Договірною державою прав згідно з Конвенцією

adversarial — змагальний

unless the Chamber decides otherwise — якщо палата не вирішить інакше

on account of exceptional circumstances — внаслідок виняткових обставин

documents filed with the Court's Registry by the parties — документи, подані сторонами до канцелярії Суду

legal aid —  правова допомога

sufficient means — достатні кошти

designate a rapporteur — призначати доповідача

by unanimous vote — одностайно

strike out an application  — вилучати заяву з реєстру справ

where appropriate — де це доцільно

address issues arising  in relation to the merits — вирішувати питання, що виникають стосовно суті

submit further evidence — подавати подальші докази

claims for "just satisfaction" — вимоги справедливої сатисфакції

intervene as of right — втручатися по праву

through the intermediary of the Registrar — за посередництвом секретаря

append to the judgment — додавати до рішення

concurring opinion — окрема думка, що збігається з думкою більшості

dissenting opinion —окрема думка, що не збігається з думкою більшості

reject the request for referral to the Grand Chamber — відхиляти вимогу про передання до Великої палати

verify — перевіряти

adequate remedial measures — відповідні засоби судового захисту

comply with obligations — дотримуватися зобов’язань

For many years now, Articles 5 and 6 have provided the bulk of complaints examined by the Strasbourg organs. In their past case-law, they have established a number of key principles and concepts, which continue to dominate the approach today (e.g. avoidance of arbitrariness, effective access to court, equality of arms, the importance of the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings, effective presentation of the defence, the appearance of the open and fair administration of justice). It is perhaps unlikely that in the future the Court will come out with anything startlingly new. It is already evident however that it will give special attention to juvenile justice in line with other international instruments and that it will eventually have to face issues arising from technological developments. It also remains to be seen what scope the new member States in East and Central Europe will provide for innovation in the development of case-law. Nor can it be overlooked that older member States show periodic creativity in domestic law that may throw up new challenges to standards of civil and criminal justice and will doubtless continue to provoke further cases before the Court.

Recent jurisprudence reflects a continued emphasis on principles of effective access to legal representation, equality of arms and the importance of maintaining confidence in the courts through the open and independent administration of justice.

Concerning effective access to legal representation, it is worth noting that the Court has, for the first time, applied Rule 39 indicating interim measures to the Turkish Government in the Ocalan case. This was to ensure that the PKK leader facing the death penalty was able to consult with his lawyers when he was brought back to Turkey from Kenya.

The right to silence continues to be raised as an issue under Article 6. In the John Murray case, the Court found that drawing inferences from a suspect's silence in court or to police questioning was compatible with fair trial guarantees. However, the Court also found that the potential importance of the suspect's reactions after arrest were such that Article 6(3c) required access to a legal representative who could give advice as to the consequences. Cases concerning denial of access to lawyers in early stages of arrest continue to arrive from Northern Ireland. One recently declared admissible, Gerard Magee v. The United Kingdom, involved the applicant being arrested for a terrorist offence and denied access to a solicitor for 48 hours, although, as he made a confession shortly afterwards, no adverse inferences were drawn at his trial. This appears to indicate that the length of time of the denial of access to a solicitor may in due course be found by the Court to furnish grounds for finding a violation of Article 6(3c). At the same time, however, a case James Harper v. The United Kingdom was rejected as inadmissible. Here the applicant, also arrested for terrorist offences, did not see his solicitor for 48 hours and made confessions that led to his conviction. The Court rejected arguments that there was any 'absolute' right to advice on arrest, referring to the fact that the access had not been denied, the solicitor had merely failed to turn up, and the applicant had made no objection to continuing making confessions in the lawyer's absence. In respect of legal representation at hearings however, where there is a risk of imprisonment, failure to provide legal representation is a clear breach — see Perks and Others v. The United Kingdom.

The importance of the appearance of fair proceedings has received closer scrutiny in recent cases concerning judges, in particular, the issue of when their participation in cases is incompatible with requirements of independence and impartiality. Several Turkish cases have held that the presence of a military judge on a criminal tribunal (the State Security Court which tries persons accused of offences against the indivisibility of the State) gave legitimate cause to doubt the independence and impartiality of the court. The doubt derived purely from the fact that a member of the armed forces was sitting and this gave rise to legitimate fears that the military judge might be unduly influenced by considerations which had nothing to do with the case. Though the military judges on the State Security Courts enjoyed the same constitutional privileges as civilian judges and were independent, no public authority being permitted to give them instructions, it was noted that they were still administratively members of the armed forces, subject to military discipline in the non-judicial sphere and promotion procedures. For some time, cases have touched on the uneasy relationship between first instance and appeal proceedings, in particular, the extent to which a defect in the trial procedures can be remedied before the appeal court. Some things can be remedied, it seems and some cannot. For example, in the case of Findlay v. The United Kingdom the Court found that the applicant soldier did not have a hearing before an independent tribunal at first instance due to the existence, inter alia, of hierarchical links between members of the tribunal and the officer who established and confirmed the result of the court martial. This case seems to indicate that the right to an independent and impartial court accrues at first instance and cannot be given piecemeal across different instances.

the bulk of complaints — основна маса скарг

avoidance of arbitrariness —уникнення свавілля

effective access to court — ефективний доступ до суду

equality of arms — рівність сторін

adversarial nature of criminal proceedings —змагальний характер провадження у кримінальній справі

fair administration of justice — справедливе здійснення правосуддя

juvenile justice — правосуддя у справах неповнолітніх

in line with other international instruments — у відповідності з іншими міжнародними документами

maintain confidence in the courts —  підтримувати довіру до судів

it is worth noting — варто зазначити

interim measures — тимчасові заходи

draw inferences from a suspect's silence — робити висновки з мовчання підозрюваного

police questioning — допитування поліцією

compatible with fair trial guarantees — сумісний з гарантіями справедливого судового розгляду

denial of access (to) — відмова в доступі (до)

confession — визнання

grounds for finding a violation — підстави для того, щоб визнати порушення

reject as inadmissible — відхиляти як неприйнятну

leаd to one’s conviction — призводити до засудження

appearance of fair proceedings — видимість справедливого провадження

closer scrutiny — уважніше вивчення

accused of offences against the indivisibility of the State — обвинувачений у злочинах проти неподільності держави

legitimate fear — законне побоювання

enjoy the same constitutional privileges as civilian judges —користуватися такими ж привілеями, як цивільні судді

remedу, v — виправити

due to — завдяки

court martial — військовий суд

accrue at first instance — виникати у першій інстанції

give piecemeal — надавати поступово (частинами)

It is

often

argued

that...

frequently

alleged

widely

asserted

generally

maintained

believed

some scholars

support the view

that...

most people

are

of the opinion

that...

some lawyers

in favour of ...

against ...

opposed to...

convinced

that...

The necessity to disseminate information about the European human rights protection system gave rise to a number of publications on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights, its Protocols and case-law, in all of the languages of the Council of Europe. Karen Reid's A Practitioner's Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter, the Guide) joins this long list as a publication specifically aimed at practising lawyers. While the practitioner of human rights law is the primary target of the book, it may also be of use to human rights activists and academic researchers.

The author of the book is a senior lawyer of the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights in charge of the case law unit dealing with UK, Irish, Finnish and Turkish cases. She has worked for the European Commission of Human Rights since 1985. The aim of the publication as stated by the author in the 'Introduction' is to "be a practical book that does not offer solutions or theories or an exhaustive study but indicates the range of situations and legal problems which may fall within the scope of the European Convention of Human Rights and its Protocols."

The book comprises seven sections and is approximately 500 pages in length. It is a well-structured and researched work and the main points in the text are clearly emphasised. The material of the book is carefully arranged in a sequential and pedagogic order. The author provides the reader with a comprehensive overview of the main ideas of the Convention's application. There is a short description of the Convention system itself, which serves as a brief explanation of its operation. On the whole, the overview is rather good and objective, but it lacks precision and some of the concepts are too generalised, which can be regarded as a problem if the Guide is intended for practical usage. However, in the 'Introduction' to the book the author emphasises that it "is not intended to offer solutions" and so it is clear from the start that the person using the book will have to elaborate his own 'recipe' for specific situations. It is probably intended as a general reference book, suitable for persons seeking information on specific issues. For this type of situation, this book is a perfect solution.

The Guide comprises 7 sections: an index section, 'Introduction,' 'Part 1: Practice and Procedures,' 'Part 2: Problem Areas,' 'Part 3: Just Satisfaction,' 'Appendices,' and 'Index of the Normative Instruments.'

The index section includes tables of Convention case law and normative legal acts. The 'Introduction' focuses on the "purpose of the book, what, how, when, why". 'Part 1: 'Practice and Procedures' is dedicated to the structure of the Convention system and its functioning. It also explains the mechanisms created by Protocol No. 11 establishing the single European Court of Human Rights. Unfortunately this book does not reflect on the UK Human Rights Act. However, this should not be regarded as a negative trait of the book, because the concepts elaborated there touch mainly upon the international level of human rights protection. This exclusion can also be explained by the fact that the target audience includes practitioners from all over Europe, not only UK lawyers.

Within the first section of 'Part 1: Practice and Procedure', Chapters B ('Admissibility') and C ('Conventional Principles and Approaches') will probably be of most interest to readers. These chapters offer comprehensive guidance to the main fundamental categories applied by the Convention bodies in admissibility decisions and the actual consideration of cases. For instance, the author points out the availability of measures such as 'interim relief,' a measure that can be used in order to approach the violation of human rights in the fastest possible manner. The book also deals quite specifically with UK case situations, e.g. the Admissibility Checklist outlines the particular remedies that must be exhausted in order for a UK case to reach the European Court of Human Rights. Such detail shows that the UK practitioners are considered to be an important audience.

The section on 'Conventional Principles and Approach' is rather profound. It discusses such "conventional areas" as subsidiarity, the doctrine of the fourth instance, the doctrine of margin of appreciation, autonomous concepts and effectiveness, proportionality and necessity, and positive obligations, among others. All of the above mentioned concepts are elaborated on the basis of the practical approaches that the Court takes towards them. For example, the concept of proportionality is described by the author as "underlying the whole of the Convention". It is described as a requirement elaborated by the Court with regard to a number of provisions of the Convention, including Articles 2, 8 and 11, as being "an ingredient of the requirement of necessity." Under Article 14, proportionality is described as "reasonable justification for difference in treatment," as well as "reasonable relation between the goal pursued and means used," although it is sometimes "used in a sense of finding a reasonable balance between the applicant's interests and those of the community".

'Part II: Problem Areas' divides cases into two sections for further discussion: 'Fair Trial Guarantees' and 'Other cases.' This classification may seem to be rather unusual at first sight. However, the majority of the cases dealt with by the Court are 'Fair Trial Guarantee' violation cases and so it is not just a coincidence that this category of cases was taken as a separate group, being the type of case practitioners are most likely to encounter.

The author approaches the issue of the 'fair trial' right in an interesting and comprehensive manner. Dividing the fair trial guarantees into such elements as general principles (fairness requirement, criminal charge, civil rights and obligations issue) and other elements (access to court, appeals, double jeopardy, entrapment and agents provocateurs, evidence and witnesses) creates a general understanding of the issues for the reader. Reviewing the element of fairness, the author draws attention to the fact that the Court sees "the right to a fair trial as holding so prominent a place in democratic society". Also in this section, the author helpfully clarifies the most relevant conventional approaches used by practitioners by first outlining the meaning of the 'conventional concept' in a short general sentence, followed by a reference to material that can be used to explore the issue in greater detail.

'Part II: Problem Areas' constitutes the main body of the book, identified "key provisions” . These "problem areas" are related to a wide range of the Convention's guarantees, including the right to life, freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, freedom of expression and freedom of religion, as well as many other provisions of the Convention, its protocols and the case-law. The author's approach is helpful in that the problem areas are identified alongside the applicable provisions of the Convention. For instance on Armed Forces issues, the identified "key provisions are Articles 5 (liberty), 6 (fair trial), 8 (private life), and 10 (freedom of expression)". Also, the author identifies cross-references that can be used when dealing with the issues relevant to the armed forces, such as "... criminal charge, freedom of expression, freedom of religion (conscientious objectors)." The key jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has been taken into consideration.

Two other sections of interest are 'Part 3: Just Satisfaction' and the appendices, which collect the relevant instruments.

Summing it up, A Practitioner's Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights is a comprehensive and well-structured work. It highlights a number of issues of vital importance for the public in the UK and for those who are interested in the problems of implementing the Convention in the widest range of legal relationships. This book is tailor-made for those who have not yet had a chance to get acquainted with the Convention and who require a clear insight into the subject of European human rights protection.

disseminate information — поширювати інформацію

practising lawyers — практики-правники

the primary target of the book — ті, на кого книга  насамперед розрахована

Registry — канцелярія

offer solutions — пропонувати рішення

exhaustive study — вичерпне дослідження

fall within the scope — підпадати під дію

carefully arranged — ретельно упорядковано

comprehensive overview —всеохоплюючий огляд

оn the whole — в цілому

lack precision — бракувати точності

intended for practical usage —розрахований на практичне використання

reference book — довідник

information on specific issues — інформація з конкретних питань

focus ( on) —зосереджувати увагу (на)

regard as a negative trait — вважати негативною рисою

elaborate concepts — напрацьовувати концепції

admissibility decisions — рішення щодо прийнятності

interim relief — тимчасові заходи

particular remedies that must be exhausted — конкретні засоби захисту, які мають бути вичерпаними

underly the whole of the Convention — лежати в основі всієї Конвенції

with regard to a number of provisions — стосовно  низки положень

reasonable justification — розумне виправдання

at first sight — на перший погляд

it is not  a coincidence —  не  випадковий збіг обставин

fairness requirement — вимога щодо справедливості

access to court — доступ до суду

double jeopardy — подвійна небезпека

evidence and witnesses — свідчення та свідки

draw attention to the fact — привертати увагу до того факту

clarify — з'ясовувати/ вносити ясність

identify key provisions — визначaти основні положення

inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment — нелюдське чи таке, що принижує гідність, поводження або покарання

freedom of expression — свобода вираження поглядів

conscientious objector — той, хто відмовляється від військової служби з релігійних чи політичних мотивів

highlight a number of issues of vitalimportance — висвітлювати низку надзвичайно важливих питань

tailor-made —тут: написана спеціально

A number of recent decisions have been issued by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (the "ECHR"), which are significant not only for their content, but for the broad scope of the subject matter addressed. The ECHR provides European nationals with a forum that transcends the authority of a national court  with regard to  adjudication of issues in instances where they believe their human rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (the "European Convention"), have been violated.

This ability to transcend national law, and to compel revision of such law to comply with rights guaranteed by the European Convention in a broad range of areas is of historic note. Generally, nation states have been the final arbiters of most issues affecting their citizenry and within their borders. By treaty, the signatory nations of Europe have granted the ECHR binding authority to decide cases affecting their citizenry and other persons subject to their authority. In instances where state law is found inconsistent with an ECHR judgment, the nation at issue is obliged to amend its national law to comply with the ECHR decision. These cases illustrate the concept of what is increasingly being referred to as an evolving European supranational identity. The ECHR grants jurisdiction to any individual, non-governmental organization, or group claiming be a victim of a violation of the European Convention by a ECHR signatory nation, and to bring cases before it, as does, in applicable cases, the European Court of Justice (the "ECJ"), the court of the European Union, based in Luxembourg. These courts of final judgment are empowered to determine whether national courts have rendered decisions in violation of applicants' fundamental human and civil rights as guaranteed by treaty, or where national courts provide no appropriate forum. Recent ECHR decisions address areas as far reaching as family law, criminal defense, children's rights, employment, pensions, freedom of expression, and military policy. Certain cases of special note are discussed below.

In January 2000, in response to September 1999 decisions of the ECHR, the United Kingdom was obligated to end its ban on openly gay men and women from serving in the armed forces. The Сourt unanimously held in favour of four service men and women, who had been discharged during the mid-1990's due to their sexual orientation. The Сourt ruled that the U.K.'s policy excluding homosexuals from service in the armed forces, including the investigations into applicants' private lives, and their subsequent dishonourable discharges, violated their fundamental human right to privacy, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention. The court also found the UK in violation of Article 13 of the Convention because applicants had no effective remedy before a national authority to pursue alleged violations of the Convention. The court did, however, reject applicants' argument that the government's behaviour constituted degrading treatment, as set forth in Article 3, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, which guarantees no discrimination on the basis of race, colour, national origin, political opinion, and the like. In response to the decisions, the UK issued a revised code of military conduct, whereby openly gay individuals are no longer prohibited from serving in the military, and also promulgated a new uniform set of rules of social and sexual conduct for all members of the military, regardless of orientation. Germany, at about the same time, was required to revise its military code of conduct, when the ECJ held in a case before it that the German ban against women bearing arms is discriminatory.

Two child protection cases illustrate the far reach of the ECHR. The Case of Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom concerns five siblings, allegedly severely neglected and mistreated by their parents, whom the Bedfordshire County Council allegedly failed to protect. The Commission determined the UK had failed to provide court access or other remedy in accordance with the European Convention. Complaints were lodged against the United Kingdom alleging breaches of the Convention under Articles 3 (right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trail), 8 (right to respect for family life), and 13 (right to an effective remedy). In the Case of T.P. & K.M. v. the United Kingdom, the court addressed the case of a mother and her child, who were separated when the London Borough of Newham took the child into care on the mistaken assumption that the man who had abused the child was still living with the mother. The European Commission opined that there had been violations of Articles 6, 8, and 13.

In decisions that illustrate ECHR impact on children's and defendant's rights, the ECHR ruled in December 1999, in Judgment in the Case of T. v. The United Kingdom and Judgment in the Case of V. v. The United Kingdom, that two ten-year-old boys, who kidnapped and killed a two-year-old boy in a much publicized case in Liverpool in 1993, were deprived of the possibility to effectively participate in their trials. The court held that the proceedings had breached the boys' rights because the atmosphere of an adult court had prevented them from effectively taking part in their defense. The judges opined that the trial, with its formality and procedures, must have been incomprehensible to them. British authorities are reviewing the cases, and trial procedures generally against minors, to bring them into compliance with the decision.

Another example of note concerns the trial of the Kurdish leader, Abdullah Ocalan, in Turkey. On November 30, 1999, the court granted a request by Ocalan's counsel invoking Rule 39 of the European Convention whereby Turkey agreed to refrain from proceeding with the execution until the court had an effective examination of the admissibility and merits of Ocalan's complaints to it under the Convention. The death penalty is banned by a Рrotocol to the European Convention. Turkey, which seeks European Union membership, has not executed Ocalan. On February 16, 1999, a complaint was filed on Ocalan's behalf alleging that Turkey was in violation of the European Convention under Article 2 (the right to life); Article 3 (prohibition of torture, and inhuman, or degrading treatment); Article 5 (the right to liberty and security); and Article 6, section 1 (the right to a fair trial).

It will be interesting for legal scholars and others to observe the nature and breadth of continuing ECHR and ECJ decisions, and whether the signatory member states will continue to bring national law into compliance with the courts' ruling, or if attempts are  made to place limits on the courts' jurisdiction.

transcend the authority —  перевищувати  повноваження

adjudication —судове вирішення справи

comply with rights — дотримуватися прав

amend  national law —вносити зміни до національного законодавства

a victim of a violation —потерпілий від порушення

recent ECHR decisions address... — останні рішення ЄКПЛ стосуються...

the court unanimously holds — суд одноголосно постановляє

the court ruled — суд ухвалив

their subsequent dishonourable discharge — їхнє ганебне звільнення (в подальшому)

alleged violations — стверджувані порушення

reject applicants' argument — відхилити аргумент заявників

constitute —становити

in conjunction with Article 14

у поєднанні зі статтею 14

regardless of orientation — незалежно від орієнтації

allegedly — нібито

failed to provide court access or other remedy — не надав доступ до суду або інший засіб захисту

lodge a complaint (against) —подавати скаргу (проти)

address the case — вирішувати справу

mistaken assumption — помилкове припущення

abuse the child — жорстоко поводитися з дитиною

іmpact — вплив

defendant — підсудний

be deprived of the possibility — бути позбавленим можливості

refrain from proceeding with the execution — утримуватися від провадження щодо виконання вироку

admissibility and merits of Ocalan's complaints — прийнятність та суть скарг Окалана

a complaint was filed on Ocalan's behalf — скаргу було подано від імені Окалана

bring national law into compliance (with) — приводити національне законодавство у відповідність (з)

ruling — ухвала

(Application no. 28342/95)
Judgment(Just satisfaction)
Strasbourg, 23 January 2001

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges:

Mr L. Wildhaber, President,

Mrs E. Palm, Mr C.L. Rozakis, Mr J.-P. Costa, Mr L. Ferrari Bravo, Mr L. Caflisch, Mr L. Loucaides, Mr P. Kuris, Mr W. Fuhrmann, Mr K. Jungwiert, Sir Nicolas Bratza, Mrs N. Vajic, Mr J. Hedigan, Mrs W. Thomassen, Mr T. Pantоru, Mr E. Levits, judges, Mr L. Mihai, ad hoc judge, and also of Mrs M. de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 18 October 2000 and 10 January 2001,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court by a Romanian national, Mr Dan Brumarescu (“the applicant”), and by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 3 and 6 November 1998 respectively, within the three-month period laid down by former Articles 32 § 1 and 47 of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 28342/95) against Romania lodged by Mr Brumarescu with the Commission under former Article 25 on 9 May 1995.

2. In its judgment of 28 October 1999 (“the principal judgment”) the Court held unanimously that there had    been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. More specifically, as regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, it held that there had been no justification for the deprivation of property in issue and that at all events, a fair balance had been upset as the applicant bore and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden, incompatible with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (ECHR 1999-VII, §79-80).

3. Under Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant sought just satisfaction amounting to several hundred thousand United States dollars (USD) in respect of damage sustained and also for costs and expenses.

4. As the question of the applicability of Article 41 was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months, their written observations on the matter and, in particular, to notify it of any agreement that they might reach (ibid., § 84 and point 4 of the operative provisions). Subsequently the President extended the time allowed until 15 April 2000.

5. The Government submitted their observations on 28 January and 15 March 2000 and the applicant filed his on 25 January, 14 March and 14 April 2000.

6. On 8 June 2000, acting under Rule 61 § 3 of the Rules of Court, the President gave Mr Mircea Dan Mirescu leave to submit written comments on certain aspects of the case. Those comments had already been received at the Court, on 30 May 2000.

7. Under Rule 61 § 5, the Government replied in writing on 21 July 2000 and the applicant did so on 11 September, 2 October and 17 November 2000.

8. It appears from the documents submitted by the parties that the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 21 April 1999 (see the principal judgment, § 30) was dismissed by the Bucharest County Court on 28 February 2000. On an application made under Law no. 112/1995, that court held that it had jurisdiction only to award compensation, according to the criteria laid down in Law no. 112/1995. The applicant appealed against that decision to the Bucharest Court of Appeal as the court of last instance. His appeal was dismissed on 26 October 2000. However, he sought a stay of execution of the decision for six months.
...
A. Pecuniary damage

1. Applicant’s submissions

10. The applicant emphasised at the outset that the most appropriate way for the Government to redress the damage caused would be to return the whole of the property to him, namely the land and the building.

11. In the event of the Government’s not being able to return the property, the applicant stated that he was willing to consider an award of compensation and claimed a sum representing the market value of the property. As the flat he occupied and the corresponding part of the land had already been returned to him, in accordance with the Administrative Board’s decision of 24 March 1998 (see the principal judgment, § 28), only the question of the difference between the value of the property as a whole and the value of his flat together with the appurtenant land remained to be considered.

Since the rest of the house, except for Mr Mirescu’s flat, had not been sold to tenants, the applicant submitted that the State could not put forward any justification for refusing restitution. It would therefore be required to pay him compensation only for Mr Mirescu’s flat.

12. Relying on a report produced by D.S., an expert registered with the Romanian Institute of Technical Experts, the applicant put forward the sum of 5,757,000,000 Romanian lei (ROL), equivalent to 250,600 United States dollars (USD), as the value of the property at 1 September 2000. That sum was broken down as follows: USD 126,500 representing the value of the land, that is to say USD 251 per sq. m, and USD 124,100 representing the value of the building, that is to say USD 216 per sq. m. As to the flat he occupied, representing 39.3% of the whole house, he put forward the sum of USD 48,771.

13. The applicant pointed out that his property, consisting of 503 sq. m of land and a building of 575 sq. m (approximately 200 sq. m ground area), was situated in the Cotroceni district of Bucharest, which was part of the “0” zone designated by the Bucharest City Council in several decisions relating to land prices in Bucharest. In each town property prices in the “0” zone were among the highest. The applicant indicated that in a number of Bucharest City Council decisions the price of land similar to his own had been set at about USD 300 per sq. m.

As to the building, he said that the house, which had been built in 1930, contained a furnished basement, a ground floor and two storeys above, including an attic floor, and two garages. In order to determine its value, the expert’s report he produced took as a basis the criteria laid down in the statutory provisions regulating the open property market. According to the applicant, the expert’s valuation at USD 216 per sq. m was corroborated by the property market, where prices often exceeded USD 300 per sq. m.

14. In this connection, the applicant criticised the Administrative Board’s decision of 24 March 1998 and the Government’s expert report, which, he said, were both based on the criteria laid down in Law no. 112/1995. Applying those criteria did not yield the real value of the property but a minimal value, the aim of Law no. 112/1995 having been to enable tenants of nationalised accommodation to buy at low prices the flats they occupied.

2. Intervener’s submissions

15. The intervener, Mr Mirescu, said that he owned the flat on the ground floor of the house; the State had sold it to his uncles in 1973 and he had inherited it. Consequently, the State could not return it to the applicant without committing a fresh injustice. Mr Mirescu considered that the State should award the applicant compensation for the flat.

3. The Government’s submissions

16. The Government submitted that the applicant’s “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the loss of which had led to the Court’s holding that there had been a violation of that Article, could not include the flat of the intervener, Mr Mirescu. In that connection, they argued that the Bucharest Court of First Instance could not lawfully have held that the applicant was the owner of the whole house.

17. The Government also maintained that the applicant could secure the return of his property by bringing an action for recovery of possession in the domestic courts.

18. As to the valuation of the possession, the Government challenged at the outset both the relevance of the information on which the expert D.S. had relied and the amounts he had arrived at.
They submitted their own expert report, drawn up by V.S., an expert registered with the Romanian Institute of Technical Experts. According to that expert’s report, produced in accordance with the criteria laid down in Law No. 112/1995, the value of the property at 1 March 1999 had been USD 108,058, which represented USD 110 per sq. m for the building and USD 87 per sq. m for the land.

As to the Administrative Board’s decision of 24 March 1998, the Government pointed out that the Board had returned to the applicant the flat he occupied and the appurtenant land, namely 168 sq. m. The Government put forward the sum of USD 38,578 as being the value of the flat and of the appurtenant land. Consequently, the applicant ought to be awarded compensation corresponding to the difference between the value of the property (USD 108,058) and the value of the flat and land already returned (USD 38,578), that is to say USD 69,480.

4. The Court’s assessment

19. The Court reiterates that a judgment in which it finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach.

20. The Contracting States that are parties to a case are in principle free to choose the means whereby they will comply with a judgment in which the Court has found a breach. This discretion as to the manner of execution of a judgment reflects the freedom of choice attaching to the primary obligation of the Contracting States under the Convention to secure the rights and freedoms guaranteed (Article 1). If the nature of the breach allows of restitutio in integrum, it is for the respondent State to effect it. If, on the other hand, national law does not allow — or allows only partial  reparation to be made for the consequences of the breach, Article 41 empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as appears to it to be appropriate (see the Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece judgment of 31 October 1995 (Article 50), Series A no. 330-B, § 34).

21. In the principal judgment the Court said: “The Court ... observes that no justification has been offered for the situation brought about by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice. In particular, neither the Supreme Court of Justice itself nor the Government have sought to justify the deprivation of property on substantive grounds as being ‘in the public interest’. The Court further notes that the applicant has now been deprived of the ownership of the property for more than four years without being paid compensation reflecting its true value, and that his efforts to recover ownership have to date proved unsuccessful.” (§ 79).

22. The Court considers that in the circumstances of the present case the return of the property in issue, as ordered in the final judgment of the Bucharest Court of First Instance of 9 December 1993, would put the applicant as far as possible in the situation equivalent to the one in which he would have been if there had not been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

In this connection, the Court cannot accept the Government’s argument that the applicant should bring a fresh action for recovery of possession. It points out that the Government raised that question earlier in the form of an objection that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, which the Court dismissed in the principal judgment (see paragraph 55).

The applicant having had the flat he occupies returned to him and that restitution having been upheld in the final decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal of 26 October 2000 (see paragraph 8 above), the State should therefore restore the applicant’s title to the rest of the house. This is without prejudice to any claim which Mr Mirescu might have to ownership of the flat on the ground floor, which claim would fall to be determined in the domestic courts.

23. Failing such restitution by the respondent State within six months of the delivery of this judgment, the Court holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, for pecuniary damage, the current value of the house, from which the value of the property already returned to him will have to be deducted.

24. As to the determination of the amount of that compensation, the Court notes the considerable divergence between the methods of calculation employed for the purpose by the experts appointed by the parties.

Having regard to the information available to it on prices on the Bucharest property market, the Court assesses the current market value of the house and the land on which it is situated at USD 215,000, USD 33,600 of which represents the flat and the part of the land already returned to the applicant. The compensation which the Government should pay the applicant accordingly amounts to USD 181,400, including USD 42,100 representing the value of the flat occupied by Mr Mirescu. That amount is to be converted into Romanian lei at the rate applicable on the date of settlement.

B. Non-pecuniary damage

25. The applicant also sought USD 75,000 for non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of the “serious, unbearable and immeasurable” suffering which the Supreme Court of Justice had inflicted on him in 1995 by depriving him of his property for a second time, after he had managed, in 1993, to put an end to the communist authorities’ breach of his right for a period of forty years. He also claimed compensation for the loss of use of his property from the Supreme Court of Justice’s judgment in 1995 to date, but did not quantify it.

26. The Government resisted that claim, submitting that no non-pecuniary damage could be taken into account. Furthermore, they maintained that it would be contrary to the case-law of the Romanian courts to award compensation for loss of use and enjoyment under the head of non-pecuniary damage.

27. The Court considers that the events in question entailed serious interferences with Mr Brumarescu’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possession, to a court and to a fair hearing, in respect of which the sum of USD 15,000 would represent fair compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. That amount is to be converted into Romanian lei at the rate applicable on the date of settlement.

C. Costs and expenses

28. The applicant claimed reimbursement of USD 2,450, which he broke down as follows in a detailed account he submitted:

(a) USD 1,644 in fees for work done by his lawyers in the proceedings before the Court, both on the merits and in connection with the question of just satisfaction;

(b) USD 50 for various expenses (telephone, photocopies, notary, etc.);

© USD 700 for the costs of an expert report (USD 500 for the report proper and USD 200 for further work on valuing the property at 1 September 2000);

(d) 300 French francs (FRF) for the cost of the French visa required for his journey to attend the hearings in Strasbourg.

29. The Government did not object to the reimbursement of the costs incurred, provided that vouchers were submitted.

30. The Court considers that the costs and expenses claimed, for which vouchers have been produced, were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. That being so, it considers it appropriate to award the applicant the sum sought of USD 2,450, less FRF 3,900 received from the Council of Europe by way of legal aid. That amount is to be converted into Romanian lei at the rate applicable on the date of settlement.

D. Default interest

31. As the sums awarded are denominated in American dollars, the Court considers it appropriate to set the rate of default interest applicable at 6% per annum.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Holds that the respondent State is to return to the applicant, within six months, the house in issue and the land on which it is situated, except for the flat and the part of the appurtenant land already returned;

2. Holds that, failing such restitution, the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within the same period of six months, 181,400 (one hundred and eighty-one thousand four hundred) United States dollars in respect of pecuniary damage, to be converted into Romanian lei at the rate applicable on the date of settlement;

3. Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant the following sums, to be converted into Romanian lei at the rate applicable on the date of settlement:

(a) 15,000 (fifteen thousand) United States dollars in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(b) 2,450 (two thousand four hundred and fifty) United States dollars, less 3,900 (three thousand nine hundred) French francs received by way of legal aid, in respect of costs and expenses;

4. Holds that simple interest at an annual rate of 6% shall be payable on the sums in (2) and (3) from the expiry of the periods mentioned until settlement;

5. Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 23 January 2001, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Grand Chambercomposed of the following judges —Велика палата у складі таких суддів

deliberate in private — проводити нараду за зачиненими дверями

deliver the judgment- постановити рішення

on the last-mentioned date — в останній із зазначених днів

the case was referred to the Court — справа була передана до Суду

hold unanimously — постановити одноголосно

deprivation of property in issue — позбавлення майна, що є предметом спору

a fair balance had been upset — справедливу рівновагу було порушено

incompatible (with) — несумісний (з)

seek just satisfaction — вимагати справедливої сатисфакції

reserve the question of the applicability of Article 41 — відкладати вирішення питання щодо застосування статті 41

submit written comments (on) — подавати письмові зауваження (щодо)

appeal against the decision —оскаржувати рішення

dismiss the appeal — відхиляти скаргу

pecuniary damage — грошова  компенсація шкоди

redress the damage — відшкодовувати шкоду

in the event of — в разі

claim a sum representing the market value of the property — вимагати суму, що становить ринкову ціну майна

put forward any justification (for) —висувати будь-яке виправдання (чомусь)

in order to determine its value — для того, щоб визначити її вартість

corroborate — підтверджувати

exceed — перевищувати

in this connection — у зв’язку з цим

intervener — третя сторона, що вступає у справу

inherit —  успадковувати

Government  maintains — уряд наполягає

bring an action for recovery of possession in the domestic courts — подавати позов до національних судів з вимогою повернення майна

as to the valuation of the possession — стосовно оцінки майна

challenge — оспорювати

lay down — встановлювати

appurtenant land — земля, на якій розташована будівля

assessment — оцінка

impose on the respondent State a legal obligation — покладати на державу відповідача правове зобов’язання

put an end to the breach — припинити  порушення

consequences — наслідки

choose the means  — обирати спосіб

discretion as to the manner of execution of a judgment  — право обирати спосіб виконання рішення

restitutio in integrum (Lat.) — повернення у первісний стан

on the other hand — з іншого боку

afford the injured party such satisfaction — надавати потерпілій стороні таку сатисфакцію

justify the deprivation of property — випрадовувати позбавлення майна

prove unsuccessful — виявитися безуспішними

the return of the property in issue — повернення спірного майна

restore the applicant’s title to the rest of the house — поновити право власності заявника на решту будинку

deduct — відраховувати

considerable divergence — значне розходження

having regard to the information available to it — враховуючи наявну у нього  інформацію

on account of — з огляду (на)

inflict unbearable and immeasurable  suffering — завдавати нестерпних та безмірних страждань

take into account — враховувати

furthermore — більше того

serious interference with Mr Brumarescu’s right — серйозне втручання у право пана Брумареску

sustain damage — зазнавати шкоди

сosts and expenses — витрати та видатки

claim reimbursement — вимагати відшкодування

proceedings before the Court — провадження у Суді

 notary — нотаріус

incur costs — зазнавати витрат

produce vouchers — представляти чеки/квитанції

default interest —процентна ставка в разі невчасної сплати

 set the rate — встановлювати курс

 return to the applicant — повертати заявникові

within six months — в межах шести місяців

the house in issue — спірний будинок

respondent State is to pay the applicant — держава- відповідач має сплатити заявникові

receive by way of legal aid — отримати як правову допомогу

at an annual rate — за річним  курсом

dismiss the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction — відхиляти інші вимоги справедливої сатисфакції

pursuant to Rule 77 of the Rules of Court —відповідно до правила 77 регламенту Суду

1.     The European Court of Human Rights is an international institution which, in certain circumstances, can receive complaints from persons claiming that their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights have been violated. This Convention is a treaty by which a number of European States have agreed to secure certain fundamental rights. The rights guaranteed are set out in the Convention itself, and in four supplementary Protocols, Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7 which some States have accepted. You should read these texts and the accompanying reservations.

2.     If you consider that one of the States on the enclosed sheet has to your personal detriment violated one of these fundamental rights, you may complain to the Court. However, the Court can only deal with complaints relating to the rights listed in the Convention and Protocols. It is not a court of appeal from national courts and cannot annul or modify their decisions. Nor can it intervene directly on your behalf with the authority you complain about.

3.     The Court can only receive complaints against the States listed on the enclosed sheet and cannot deal with complaints about events before certain dates. The date varies according to the State concerned and according to whether the complaint concerns a right cited in the Convention itself or in one of the Protocols.

4.     You can only complain to the Court about matters which are the responsibility of a public authority (legislature, administration, courts of law, etc.) of one of these States. The Court cannot deal with complaints against private individuals or private organisations.

5.     Before applying to the Court you must have tried all remedies in the State concerned which could redress your complaint. This includes bringing your complaint before the highest court which can deal with it. (However if you complain of a court decision such as a conviction or sentence, it is not necessary to try to re-open your case after you have been through the normal appeal procedures in the courts.) You should make correct use of the available remedies and comply with the time limits and procedural rules. If, for instance, your appeal is rejected because it is too late or because you have not used the proper procedure, the Court probably could not examine your case.

6.     After decision of the highest competent national court or authority has been given, you have a six month period within which you may apply to the Court. If your complaint relates to a court conviction or sentence, this period runs from the final court decision in the ordinary appeal process and not from the date of any later refusal to re-open your case. Unless you have submitted details of your complaint, at least in summary form, within the six month period, the Court will not be able to examine your case.

II. HOW TO APPLY TO THE COURT

7.     If you consider that your complaint does concern one of the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, and that the conditions referred to above are satisfied, you should first send a letter containing the information mentioned below to the Registrar of the Court at the following address:

The Registrar

European Court of Human Rights

Council of Europe

F-67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX

8. In your letter you should:

(a) give a brief summary of your complaints;

(b) indicate which of your Convention rights you think have been violated;

(c) state what remedies you have used;

(d) list the official decisions in your case, giving the date of each decision, the court or authority which took it, and brief details of the decision itself.

Attach to your letter a copy of these decisions. No documents will be returned to you. Thus it is in your interest only to submit copies, not the originals.

9. The Registrar will reply to your letter. You may be asked for more information or documents or for further explanation of your complaints. You may be informed how the Convention has previously been interpreted in similar cases and if it appears that there is an obvious obstacle to the admissibility of your complaint, you may also be advised of this. However, the Registrar cannot advise you about the law of the State against which you complain.

10. If it appears from your correspondence with the Registrar that your complaint is one which could be registered as an application and you wish this to be done, you will be sent the necessary document on which to submit your formal application. After you have completed and submitted this, it will be brought to the attention of the Court.

11. You will be informed by the Registrar of the progress of your case. The proceedings are in writing at the initial stage. There is no point, therefore, in coming yourself to the Court's offices.

12. If possible, instruct a lawyer to present your case for you. At a later stage in the proceedings, if you have insufficient means to pay a lawyer's fees, you may be eligible for free legal aid. But legal aid cannot be granted at the time when you lodge your application.

in certain circumstances — за деяких обставин

receive complaints — отримувати скарги

secure  fundamental rights — гарантувати основні права

set out  — викладати

supplementary Protocols — додаткові Протоколи

the accompanying reservations — застереження, що супроводжують їх

annul or modify — скасовувати або змінювати

intervene —втручатися

on your behalf — від вашого імені

available remedies — наявні засоби

comply with the time limits and procedural rules — дотримуватися обмежень щодо часу та процесуальних норм

relate to a court conviction or sentence — стосуватися засудження судом чи покарання

submit details of your complaint — подавати деталі вашої скарги

at least in summary form —принаймні у стислому вигляді

submit copies, not the originals — подавати копії, не оригінали

obvious obstacle to the admissibility of your complaint — явна перешкода прийнятності вашої скарги

submit а formal application — подавати офіційну заяву

there is no point in coming yourself — немає смислу приїздити особисто

insufficient means — недостатні кошти

be eligible for free legal aid — мати право на безоплатну правову допомогу

...

Article 1 — Obligation to respect human rights

The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.

Section I — Rights and freedoms

Article 2 — Right to life

1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Article 3 — Prohibition of torture

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 4 — Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

3. For the purpose of this article the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include:

a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;

b) any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;

c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;

d) any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.

Article 5 — Right to liberty and security

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;

b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;

c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;

e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;

f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.

2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.

3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1.c of this article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

Article 6 — Right to a fair trial

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Article 7 — No punishment without law

1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

2. This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

Article 8 — Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 9 — Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 10 — Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 11 — Freedom of assembly and association

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

Article 12 — Right to marry

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

Article 13 — Right to an effective remedy

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

Article 14 — Prohibition of discrimination

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

Article 15 — Derogation in time of emergency

1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.

2. No derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision.

3. Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefor. It shall also inform the Secretary General of the Council of Europe when such measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Convention are again being fully executed.

Article 16 — Restrictions on political activity of aliens

Nothing in Articles 10, 11 and 14 shall be regarded as preventing the High Contracting Parties from imposing restrictions on the political activity of aliens.

Article 17 — Prohibition of abuse of rights

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

Article 18 — Limitation on use of restrictions on rights

The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.

оbligation to respect human rights зобов’язання поважати права людини

secure to everyone within their jurisdiction  — гарантувати кожному, хто перебуває під їхньою юрисдиціїю

deprive of one's life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court  — умисно позбавляти життя інакше ніж на виконання вироку суду

in contravention of this article — на порушення цієї статті

unlawful violence — незаконне насильство

prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained — запобігати втечі особи, яка законно тримається під вартою

рrohibition of torture — заборона катування

subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — піддавати катуванню або нелюдському чи такомі, що принижує гідність, поводженню або покаранню

рrohibition of slavery and forced labour — заборона рабства та примусової праці

conditional release from  detention — умовне звільнення з-під варти

instead of compulsory military service —замість обов’язкової військової служби

in case of an emergency or calamity — у випадку надзвичайної ситуації або стихійного лиха

normal civic obligations — звичайні громадянські обов’язки

right to liberty and security — право на свободу та особисту недоторканність

secure the fulfilment of any obligation — забезпечувати виконання будь-якого обов’язку

suspicion of having committed an offence — підозра у вчиненні правопорушення

the detention of a minor — затримання неповнолітнього

prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases — запобігання поширенню інфекційних захворювань

drug addict — наркоман

inform of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him — поінформувати про підстави його арешту і про будь-яке обвинувачення проти нього

 trial within a reasonable time — судовий розгляд упродовж розумного строку

release pending trial —звільнення до початку судового розгляду

victim of arrest or detention — потерпілий від арешту або затримання

an enforceable right to compensation — захищене позовом право на відшкодування

everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing — кожен має право на справедливий і відкритий судовий розгляд

an independent and impartial tribunal — незалежний і безсторонній суд

pronounce judgment — проголошувати судове рішення

public order — громадський порядок

prejudice the interests of justice — зашкоджувати інтересам правосуддя

sufficient means to pay for legal assistance — достатні кошти для оплати правової допомоги

when the interests of justice so require — коли цього вимагають інтереси правосуддя

no punishment without law — ніякого покарання без закону

hоld guilty (of) — визнавати винним

on account of any act or omission — на підставі будь-якої дії або бездіяльності

constitute a criminal offence — становити кримінальне правопорушення

 impose а penalty — призначати покарання

the right to respect for private and family life — право на повагу до приватного і сімейного життя

interference with the exercise of this right  — втручання  у здійснення цього права

freedom of thought, conscience and religion — свобода думки, совісті і віросповідання

freedom to change his religion or belief — свобода змінювати свою релігію або свої переконання

manifest one's religion or beliefs — сповідувати релігію або  переконання

freedom of expression — cвобода вираження поглядів

to receive and impart information — одержувати і передавати інформацію

without interference by public authority — без втручання держави

 regardless of frontiers — незалежно від кордонів

territorial integrity — територіальна цілісність

freedom of assembly and association — свобода зібрань та об’єднання

right to marry — право на шлюб

men and women of marriageable age — чоловіки та жінки, які досягли шлюбного віку

to found a family — засновувати сім’ю

right to an effective remedy — право на ефективний засіб захисту

prohibition of discrimination  — заборона дискримінації

rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention — права і свободи, викладені у цій Конвенції

secure without discrimination — забезпечувати без дискримінації

association with a national minority — належність до національної меншини

derogation in time of emergency — відступ від зобов’язань під час надзвичайної ситуації

 avail oneself of the right of derogation — скористатися правом відступу від своїх зобов’язань

keep the Secretary General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken — повною мірою інформувати Генерально секретаря Ради Європи про вжиті нею заходи

restrictions on political activity of aliens — обмеження на політичну діяльність іноземців

рrohibition of abuse of rights — заборона зловживання правами

interpret — тлумачити

engage in any activity — займатися будь-якою діяльністю

perform any act — вчиняти будь-яку дію

limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention — обмеження в більшому обсязі, ніж передбачено в Конвенції

limitation on use of restrictions on rights — обмеження у застосуванні обмежень на права

STATE

CONVENTION

PROTOCOL
No. 1

PROTOCOL
No. 4

PROTOCOL
No. 6

PROTOCOL No. 7

Albania

02.10.1996

02.10.1996

02.10.1996

21.09.2000

02.10.1996

Andorra

22.01.1996

—

—

22.01.1996

—

Austria

03.09.1958

03.09.1958

18.09.1969

05.01.1984

14.05.1986

Belgium

14.06.1955

14.06.1955

21.09.1970

10.12.1998

—

Bulgaria

07.09.1992

07.09.1992

04.11.2000

29.09.1999

04.11.2000

Croatia

05.11.1997

05.11.1997

05.11.1997

05.11.1997

05.11.1997

Cyprus

06.10.1962

06.10.1962

03.10.1989

19.01.2000

—

Czech Republic

18.03.1992

18.03.1992

18.03.1992

18.03.1992

18.03.1992

Denmark

13.04.1953

13.04.1953

30.09.1964

01.12.1983

18.08.1988

Estonia

16.04.1996

16.04.1996

16.04.1996

17.04.1998

16.04.1996

Finland

10.05.1990

10.05.1990

10.05.1990

10.05.1990

10.05.1990

France

03.05.1974

03.05.1974

03.05.1974

17.02.1986

17.02.1986

Georgia

20.05.1999

—

13.04.2000

13.04.2000

13.04.2000

Germany

05.12.1952

13.02.1957

01.06.1968

05.07.1989

—

Greece

28.11.1974

28.11.1974

—

08.09.1998

29.10.1987

Hungary

05.11.1992

05.11.1992

05.11.1992

05.11.1992

05.11.1992

Iceland

29.06.1953

29.06.1953

16.11.1967

22.05.1987

22.05.1987

Ireland

25.02.1953

25.02.1953

29.10.1968

24.06.1994

—

Italy

26.10.1955

26.10.1955

27.05.1982

29.12.1988

07.11.1991

Latvia

27.06.1997

27.06.1997

27.06.1997

07.05.1999

27.06.1997

Liechtenstein

08.09.1982

14.11.1995

—

15.11.1990

—

Lithuania

20.06.1995

24.05.1996

20.06.1995

08.07.1999

20.06.1995

Luxembourg

03.09.1953

03.09.1953

02.05.1968

19.02.1985

19.04.1989

Malta

23.01.1967

23.01.1967

—

26.03.1991

—

Moldova

12.09.1997

12.09.1997

12.09.1997

12.09.1997

12.09.1997

Netherlands

31.08.1954

31.08.1954

23.06.1982

25.04.1986

—

Norway

15.01.1952

18.12.1952

12.06.1964

25.10.1988

25.10.1988

Poland

19.01.1993

10.10.1994

10.10.1994

30.10.2000

—

Portugal

09.11.1978

09.11.1978

09.11.1978

02.10.1986

—

Roumania

20.06.1994

20.06.1994

20.06.1994

20.06.1994

20.06.1994

Russia

05.05.1998

05.05.1998

05.05.1998

—

05.05.1998

San Marino

22.03.1989

22.03.1989

22.03.1989

22.03.1989

22.03.1989

Slovak Republic

18.03.1992

18.03.1992

18.03.1992

18.03.1992

18.03.1992

Slovenia

28.06.1994

28.06.1994

28.06.1994

28.06.1994

28.06.1994

Spain

04.10.1979

27.11.1990

—

14.01.1985

—

Sweden

04.02.1952

22.06.1953

13.06.1964

09.02.1984

08.11.1985

Switzerland

28.11.1974

—

—

13.10.1987

24.02.1988

TFYR. Macedonia

10.04.1997

10.04.1997

10.04.1997

10.04.1997

10.04.1997

Turkey

18.05.1954

18.05.1954

—

—

—

Ukraine

11.09.1997

11.09.1997

11.09.1997

04.04.2000

11.09.1997

United Kingdom

08.03.1951

03.11.1952

—

20.05.1999

—

CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE. CHAPTER II

Article 21

All people are free and equal in their dignity and rights.

Human rights and freedoms are inalienable and inviolable.

Article 22

Human and citizens' rights and freedomsaffirmed by this Constitution are not exhaustive.

Constitutional rights and freedoms are guaranteed and shall not be abolished.

The content and scope of existing rights and freedoms shall not be diminished in the adoption of new laws or in the amendment of laws that are in force.

Article 23

Every person has the right to free development of his or her personality if the rights and freedoms of other persons are not violated thereby, and has duties before the society in which the free and comprehensive development of his or her personality is ensured.

Article 24

Citizens have equal constitutional rights and freedoms and are equal before the law.

There shall be no privileges or restrictions based on race, colour of skin, political, religious and other beliefs, sex, ethnic and social origin, property status, place of residence, linguistic or other characteristics.

Equality of the rights of women and men is ensured: by providing women with opportunities equal to those of men, in public and political, and cultural activity, in obtaining education and in professional training, in work and its remuneration; by special measures for the protection of work and health of women; by establishing pension privileges, by creating conditions that allow women to combine work and motherhood; by legal protection, material and moral support of motherhood and childhood, including the provision of paid leaves and other privileges to pregnant women and mothers.

Article 25

A citizen of Ukraine shall not be deprived of citizenship and of the right to change citizenship.

A citizen of Ukraine shall not be expelled from Ukraine or surrendered to another state.

Ukraine guarantees care and protection to its citizens who are beyond its borders.

Article 26

Foreigners and stateless persons who are in Ukraine on legal grounds enjoy the same rights and freedoms and also bear the same duties as citizens of Ukraine, with the exceptions established by the Constitution, laws or international treaties of Ukraine.

Foreigners and stateless persons may be granted asylum by the procedure established by law.

Article 27

Every person has the inalienable right to life.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life. The duty of the State is to protect human life.

Everyone has the right to protect his or her life and health, the lives and health of other persons against unlawful encroachments.

Article 28

Everyone has the right to respect of his or her dignity.

No one shall be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that violates his or her dignity.

No person shall be subjected to medical, scientific or other experiments without his or her free consent.

Article 29

Every person has the right to freedom and personal inviolability.

No one shall be arrested or held in custody other than pursuant to a substantiated court decision and only on the grounds and in accordance with the procedure established by law.

In the event of an urgent necessity to prevent or stop a crime, bodies authorised by law may hold a person in custody as a temporary preventive measure, the reasonable grounds for which shall be verified by a court within seventy-two hours. The detained person shall be released immediately, if he or she has not been provided, within seventy-two hours from the moment of detention, with a substantiated court decision in regard to the holding in custody.

Everyone arrested or detained shall be informed without delay of the reasons for his or her arrest or detention, apprised of his or her rights, and from the moment of detention shall be given the opportunity to personally defend himself or herself, or to have the legal assistance of a defender.

Everyone detained has the right to challenge his or her detention in court at any time.

Relatives of an arrested or detained person shall be informed immediately of his or her arrest or detention.

Article 30

Everyone is guaranteed the inviolability of his or her dwelling place.

Entry into a dwelling place or other possessions of a person, and the examination or search thereof, shall not be permitted, other than pursuant to a substantiated court decision.

In urgent cases related to the preservation of human life and property or to the direct pursuit of persons suspected of committing a crime, another procedure established by law is possible for entry into a dwelling place or other possessions of a person, and for the examination and search thereof.

Article 31

Everyone is guaranteed privacy of mail, telephone conversations, telegraph and other correspondence. Exceptions shall be established only by a court in cases envisaged by law, with the purpose of preventing crime or ascertaining the truth in the course of the investigation of a criminal case, if it is not possible to obtain information by other means.

Article 32

No one shall be subject to interference in his or her personal and family life, except in cases envisaged by the Constitution of Ukraine.

The collection, storage, use and dissemination of confidential information about a person without his or her consent shall not be permitted, except in cases determined by law, and only in the interests of national security, economic welfare and human rights.