Activity 1. Skim through the text to get an overview of what it includes

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 amenditsnational lawto 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 heldin 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 impacton 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

Activity 2. Read the text carefully, paying attention to the words and phrases in bold. Check your knowledge of the basic vocabulary looking at their Ukrainian equivalents in the margin.

Activity 3. You are a lawyer. Your client’s rights have been infringed. You are trying to find the relevant case-law from among the recent decisions of the European Сourt. Ask your classmate questions in respect of the recent decisions described in the text.

Activity 4. Find a possibility of gaining access to the Web site of the European court of Human Rights and search for the most recent judgments. Classify them according to the Articles of the Convention that were invoked in the judgments.