欧洲人权公约第14条在最高法院

C. Bishop
{"title":"欧洲人权公约第14条在最高法院","authors":"C. Bishop","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2021.1980305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In deciding complaints under article 14, four questions arise: (i) Does the subject matter of the complaint fall within the ambit of one of the substantive Convention rights? (ii) Does the ground upon which the complainants have been treated differently from others constitute a ‘status’? (iii) Have they been treated differently from other people not sharing that status who are similarly situated or, alternatively, have they been treated in the same way as other people not sharing that status whose situation is relevantly different from theirs? (iv) Does that difference or similarity in treatment have an objective and reasonable justification, in other words, does it pursue a legitimate aim and do the means employed bear ‘a reasonable relationship of proportionality’ to the aims sought to be realised (see Stec v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 47, para 51)?","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Article 14 ECHR in the Supreme Court\",\"authors\":\"C. Bishop\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10854681.2021.1980305\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In deciding complaints under article 14, four questions arise: (i) Does the subject matter of the complaint fall within the ambit of one of the substantive Convention rights? (ii) Does the ground upon which the complainants have been treated differently from others constitute a ‘status’? (iii) Have they been treated differently from other people not sharing that status who are similarly situated or, alternatively, have they been treated in the same way as other people not sharing that status whose situation is relevantly different from theirs? (iv) Does that difference or similarity in treatment have an objective and reasonable justification, in other words, does it pursue a legitimate aim and do the means employed bear ‘a reasonable relationship of proportionality’ to the aims sought to be realised (see Stec v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 47, para 51)?\",\"PeriodicalId\":232228,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Judicial Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Judicial Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2021.1980305\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judicial Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2021.1980305","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在决定根据第14条提出的申诉时,会产生四个问题:(i)申诉的主题事项是否属于《公约》实质性权利之一的范围?(ii)申诉人受到与其他人不同待遇的理由是否构成“地位”?(iii)他们是否受到了与其他没有相同地位的人不同的待遇,或者,他们是否受到了与其他没有相同地位的人相同的待遇,而这些人的情况与他们有很大的不同?(iv)这种待遇上的差异或相似是否有客观合理的理由,换句话说,它是否追求一个合法的目标,所采用的手段是否与寻求实现的目标具有“合理的比例关系”(见Stec v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 47,第51段)?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Article 14 ECHR in the Supreme Court
In deciding complaints under article 14, four questions arise: (i) Does the subject matter of the complaint fall within the ambit of one of the substantive Convention rights? (ii) Does the ground upon which the complainants have been treated differently from others constitute a ‘status’? (iii) Have they been treated differently from other people not sharing that status who are similarly situated or, alternatively, have they been treated in the same way as other people not sharing that status whose situation is relevantly different from theirs? (iv) Does that difference or similarity in treatment have an objective and reasonable justification, in other words, does it pursue a legitimate aim and do the means employed bear ‘a reasonable relationship of proportionality’ to the aims sought to be realised (see Stec v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 47, para 51)?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Article 2 and Standards of Proof in Inquests: Unintelligible, Unclear, and Unpredictable? Of Codes and Common Law: The Approach to Apparent Bias in Local Government Committees Competing ‘Clear and Unambiguous’ Constructions: Darwall v Dartmoor National Park Authority [2023] EWCA Civ 927 and the Interpretation of Private Acts of Parliament The Curious Case of Boris’ Bishop: Did the First Catholic Prime Minister Fall Foul of s 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829? Information Law and Automated Governance
×
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