Right to Property and Cultural Heritage Protection in the Light of the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights

T. Szabados
{"title":"Right to Property and Cultural Heritage Protection in the Light of the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights","authors":"T. Szabados","doi":"10.47078/2022.2.159-181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article presents the relationship between the protection of property and cultural heritage protection under the ECHR system. Most often, state measures aimed at the protection of cultural heritage appear to interfere with private parties’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Those dissatisfied with the outcome of domestic court proceedings regarding such interferences often want to reverse unfavorable domestic court decisions by bringing their case before the ECtHR. This article outlines the relevant case law of the ECtHR, distinguishing deprivation of property cases from controls on the use of property, in accordance with the structure of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. At the same time, it demonstrates the limits of property protection and, thereby, the success of claims by applicants before the ECtHR in cases involving cultural heritage. First, the limited temporal scope of the application of the ECHR and Protocol No. 1 excludes many cultural heritage disputes from the jurisdiction of the ECtHR. Second, the applicant has to prove that (s)he has possessions as interpreted by the ECtHR; the lack of possessions bars in particular restitution claims regarding property expropriated before the ratification of the Convention. Third, cultural heritage protection is considered a legitimate aim by the ECtHR, which can justify a deprivation or restriction of the use of property. States have a wide margin of appreciation in determining whether and how they will ensure the protection of cultural heritage in public interest. In particular, the ECtHR seems to endorse policies underlying both cultural nationalism and internationalism without giving a priori preference to any of them. Finally, the application of the flexible proportionality test by the ECtHR often makes the outcome of the procedure difficult to predict.","PeriodicalId":325719,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Comparative Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47078/2022.2.159-181","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article presents the relationship between the protection of property and cultural heritage protection under the ECHR system. Most often, state measures aimed at the protection of cultural heritage appear to interfere with private parties’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Those dissatisfied with the outcome of domestic court proceedings regarding such interferences often want to reverse unfavorable domestic court decisions by bringing their case before the ECtHR. This article outlines the relevant case law of the ECtHR, distinguishing deprivation of property cases from controls on the use of property, in accordance with the structure of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. At the same time, it demonstrates the limits of property protection and, thereby, the success of claims by applicants before the ECtHR in cases involving cultural heritage. First, the limited temporal scope of the application of the ECHR and Protocol No. 1 excludes many cultural heritage disputes from the jurisdiction of the ECtHR. Second, the applicant has to prove that (s)he has possessions as interpreted by the ECtHR; the lack of possessions bars in particular restitution claims regarding property expropriated before the ratification of the Convention. Third, cultural heritage protection is considered a legitimate aim by the ECtHR, which can justify a deprivation or restriction of the use of property. States have a wide margin of appreciation in determining whether and how they will ensure the protection of cultural heritage in public interest. In particular, the ECtHR seems to endorse policies underlying both cultural nationalism and internationalism without giving a priori preference to any of them. Finally, the application of the flexible proportionality test by the ECtHR often makes the outcome of the procedure difficult to predict.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从欧洲人权法院的实践看财产权利与文化遗产保护
本文阐述了欧洲人权公约制度下财产保护与文化遗产保护的关系。大多数情况下,旨在保护文化遗产的国家措施似乎干扰了私人当事方和平享受财产的权利。那些对国内法院关于这种干涉的诉讼结果不满的人往往希望通过将其案件提交欧洲人权法院来扭转对其不利的国内法院判决。本文概述了欧洲人权法院的相关判例法,根据《第一号议定书》第1条的结构,将剥夺财产案件与控制财产使用案件区分开来。同时,它表明了财产保护的局限性,从而表明了申请人在涉及文化遗产的案件中向欧洲人权法院提出索赔的成功。首先,《欧洲人权公约》和《第一议定书》有限的适用时间范围将许多文化遗产争端排除在欧洲人权法院的管辖范围之外。第二,申请人必须证明他拥有欧洲人权法院解释的财产;没有财产尤其妨碍就批准《公约》之前被征用的财产提出赔偿要求。第三,欧洲人权法院认为文化遗产保护是一个合法的目标,这可以证明剥夺或限制财产使用是正当的。各国在决定是否以及如何确保保护符合公共利益的文化遗产方面有很大的欣赏余地。特别地,欧洲人权委员会似乎支持文化民族主义和国际主义的政策,而不是先验地偏爱其中任何一种。最后,欧洲人权法院采用灵活的比例检验标准往往使程序的结果难以预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Human Rights Committees Recommendations and their Position Within Slovak Legal Order Acquisition of Agricultural Land in the Czech Republic Right to Property and Cultural Heritage Protection in the Light of the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights Role of Private Law for Europe’s Digital Future Photographing People in Public and the Protection of Privacy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1