{"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)?
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)?