AUTONOMOUS CONCEPTS AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS BY THE EUROPEAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

PDF

Tetiana SHEVYRIN,

Judge, the Ochakiv City District Court of the Mykolaiv Region, Candidate of Law Sciences

AUTONOMOUS CONCEPTS AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS BY THE EUROPEAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

 

The article analyzes the principle of autonomous interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights as one of the approaches of the Court to its understanding. The aim pursued by the Court by applying an independent approach to the interpretation of the content of the key concepts of the Convention is marked. The definition of the scientific term «autonomous concepts» is given. Based on an analysis of the Court’s case-law, the value of autonomous concepts as an instrument for interpreting the Convention is disclosed. On the basis of a comparative analysis of the decisions of the Court and the norms of the national legislation of Ukraine, the importance of understanding the essence of autonomous concepts for overcoming conflicts during the consideration of cases by national courts is recognized. Based on the analysis of case-law, the evolution of the Court’s approach to understanding the content of the term «home» used in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is shown. Based on the principles of dynamic interpretation and an autonomous understanding of terminology, a construction that, without changing the text of the Convention, makes it flexible and relevant is analyzed. The «conventional» content of the terms «criminal charge» and «reasonable time» is disclosed. A list of concepts that are subject to autonomous interpretation by the Court is indicated.

Key words: аutonomous concepts, principles of interpretation, law enforcement, case law.

 

 

 

 

 

References

Tsvigun L. A. Principles of interpretation of law by the European Court of Human Rights. Current issues of state and law. 2011. Vip. 62. P.529–536.[engl.]

Societe Colas Est and Оthers v. France, application no. 37971/97. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{«languageisocode»:[«ENG»],»appno»:[«37971/97»],»documentcollectionid2»:[«CHAMBER»],»itemid»:[«001-60431»]}. [engl.]

Letsas G. The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How To Interpret the ECHR. European Journal оf International Law. 2004. Vol. 15, Iss. 2. P.279–305. [engl.]

Engel and others v. The Netherlands, application no. 5100/71, 5101/71, 5102/71, 5354/72,5370/72. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{«fulltext»:[«\»CASE OF ENGEL AND OTHERS V. THE NETHERLANDS (ARTICLE 50)\»»],»documentcollectionid2»: [«Grandchamber», «Chamber»], «itemid»:[«001-57478»]}. [engl.]

FuleiT.I. The value of autonomous interpretation of concepts by the European Court of Human Rights for the legal system of Ukraine. Bulletin of the Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine. 2013. No 2 (27). P.164–167.[ukr.]

Abramyan v. Russia, application no. 10709/02. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{«fulltext»:[«abramyan»],»documentcollectionid2»:[«GRANDCHAMBER»,»CHAMBER»],»itemid»:[«001-88820»]}. [engl.]

Pelissier and Sassi v. France, judgment of 25 March 1999. URL: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/980_398.[ukr.]

Prade v. Germany, application no. 7215/10. URL: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7HeVdOMN4SgJ:hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf%3Flibrary%3DECHR%26id%3D003-5315752-6620405%26filename%3DJudgments%2520and%2520decisions%2520of%252003.03.16.pdf+&cd=1&hl=ru&ct=clnk&gl=ua.[ukr.]

Vashchenko v. Ukraine, application no. 26864/03. URL: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_401.[ukr.]

Roagna I. Protecting the right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe human rights handbooks. Strasbourg. 2012. URL: http://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Roagna2012_EN.pdf. [engl.]

Gillow v. The United Kingdom, application no. 9063/80. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{«appno»:[«9063/80»],»itemid»:[«001-57493»]}. [engl.]

Buckley v. The United Kingdom, application no. 20348/92. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{«appno»: [«20348/92»],»itemid»:[«001-58076»]}.

Holovan v. Ukraine, application no. 41716/06. URL: http://old.minjust.gov.ua/34538.[ukr.]