Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:55 am

ECtHR, in an attempt to reduce their workload has developed a system where, in some cases the member state can make a "unilateral declaration" and pay compensation instead of facing the court.
As I understand, the declaration is basically a confession, apology and an undertaking to not do it again.
My sources inform me that a member state is about to make such a declaration whilst at the same time behaving in almost exactly the same way toward the citizen who complained to the court.
Assuming my information to be correct, does this not make a mockery of the whole process?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Universal Declaration of misinformation.

Postby atticus » Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:15 am

Where may we find out more?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:25 am

Sorry, I thought "unilateral" but wrote "universal".... :oops:
I don't know the answer to your question except of course google is more forthcoming when you put the right words in. :oops:
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby atticus » Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:34 am

You often let others do the searching for you; this time you can do it for me please. Unless you made up the stuff in your first post, you got it somewhere.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:46 am

atticus wrote:You often let others do the searching for you...

Actually I don't. I either post questions that I expect people to know the answers to, or I post after google has proven unhelpful.
this time you can do it for me please.

Sorry, but this phone is a bit of a pig to post links from, I used "unilateral declaration ECHR" as a search term. The first result was probably the one I was looking at.
Unless you made up the stuff in your first post, you got it somewhere.

Yes, I got it from the court.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:23 pm

Ok, that first document doesn't appear to suggest that they don't have to undertake to not do it again, but I'm fairly sure I read it somewhere...

However it does say that the claimant can submit comments as to why the court should not accept the declaration...
Though that document and related ones do seem to say a lot of things that the court seems to be ignoring in this case. :?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby atticus » Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:28 pm

What is this alleged "it" that you claim says these things?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby atticus » Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:31 pm

In a case before the European Court of Human Rights, where a friendly settlement procedure has been unsuccessful, the respondent Government may make a declaration acknowledging the violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and undertaking to provide the applicant with redress. This is known as a unilateral declaration and is now governed by the new Rule 62A of the Rules of Court


The undertaking to provide redress is surely significant. If this is not given, the declaration is surely incomplete and non-compliant.

If the undertaking is given, a subsequent failure to provide redress can surely be referred back to the Court to enforce compliance.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby atticus » Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:32 pm

Oh, you removed your post linking to this: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Unila ... ns_ENG.pdf
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:39 pm

atticus wrote:What is this alleged "it" that you claim says these things?

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Unila ... ns_ENG.pdf

Unilateral declarations: policy and practice

In a case before the European Court of Human Rights, where a friendly settlement procedure has been unsuccessful, the respondent Government may make a declaration acknowledging the violation of the
European Convention on Human Rights and undertaking to provide the applicant with redress. This is known as a unilateral declaration and is now governed by the new Rule 62A of the Rules of Court...

If the Court is to conclude that it is no longer justified for it to continue examining the case, the following non-exhaustive criteria must be satisfied by the unilateral declaration:

  • Existence of sufficiently well-established case-law in the matter raised by the application.
  • Clear acknowledgment of a violation of the Convention in respect of the applicant
    –with an explicit indication of the nature of the violation.
  • Adequate redress, in line with the Court’s case-law on just satisfaction.
  • Where appropriate undertakings of a general nature (amendment of legislation or administrative practice, introduction of new policy, etc.).
  • Respect for human rights: the unilateral declaration must provide a sufficient basis for the Court to
    find that respect for human rights does not require the continued examination of the application.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Next

Return to Human Rights Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest