WHOSE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION? ANALYZING ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE

Aleksandar Todorović

doi:10.51738/Kpolisa2023.20.2r.130t

Autori

Aleksandar Todorović Advokatska komora Vojvodine, Novi Sad https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2501-6351

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51738/Kpolisa2023.20.2r.130t

Ključne reči:

Polje slobodne procene, Evropski sud za Ljudska prava, Sloboda umetničkog izražavanja, Test proporcionalnosti

Apstrakt

U pravnoj teoriji ali i praksi Evropskog suda za ljudska prava postoji nenarušen konsenzus prema kome polje slobodne procene predstavlja određeni „manevarski prostor“ koji Sud daje nacionalnim vlastima prilikom procene njihovog ponašanja pre nego što je spreman da utvrdi da je do povrede prava zaista i došlo. Takođe, najčešće se u teoriji sreću i tvrdnje prema kojima je polje slobodne procene metod tumačenja Konvencije.

Mada su ove tvrdnje sa razlogom rasprostranjene, u poslednje vreme u pravnoj teoriji sve češće se sreću i tvrdnje različitih autora prema kojima polje slobodne procene ima još jednu „skrivenu“ ulogu u praksi Suda, to jest da je po sredi sudski alat kojim sud sve češće pokušava da samom sebi stvori manevarski prostor u odlučivanju. U ovom radu, autor će se nadovezati na tezu o polju slobodne procene kao sudijskom alatu koji je usmeren na davanje manevarskog prostora samom sudu. I to tako što će ovu tezu praktično testirati kroz grupu predmeta koji se odnose na slobodu umetničkog izražavanja za koju autor smatra da dobro oslikava na koji način Sud u praksi sebi pokušava stvoriti manevarski prostor u sopstvenom odlučivanju. Na mestu zaključka autor će pokušati da ponudi neke od razloga koji uzrokuju ovu pojavu kako bi se jasnije shvatila potreba Suda da samom sebi ostavi manevarski prostor u odlučivanju i argumentaciji.

##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##

##plugins.generic.usageStats.noStats##

##submission.authorBiography##

##submission.authorWithAffiliation##

Reference

Abbott, K. W., Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A. M., & Snidal, D. (2000). The concept of legalization. International Organization, 54(3), 401–419.https://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551271.

Arai-Takahashi, Y. (2002). The margin of appreciation doctrine and the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECHR. Intersentia.

Brauch, J. A. (2004). The margin of appreciation and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the rule of law. Columbia Journal of European Law, 11(2), 113–150.

Christoffersen, J. (2015). Human rights and balancing: The principle of proportionality in: C. Geiger (Ed.), Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property (pp. 19–39). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Eon v. France, no. 26118/10, ECHR 2013.

Gachechiladze v. Georgia, no. 2591/19, ECHR 2021.

Greer, S. (2006). The European Convention on Human Rights: achievements, problems and prospects. Cambridge University Press.

Guzzardi v. Italy, no. 7367/76, ECHR 1980.

Handzhiyski v. Bulgaria, no. 10783/14, ECHR 2019.

Harris, D. J., O’Boyle, M., Bates, E. P., & Buckley, C. M. (2014). Harris, O'Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press.

Hunt, M., Singh, R., & Demetriou, M. (1999). Is there a role for the "Margin of Appreciation" in national law after the Human Rights Act?. European Human Rights Law Review, (1), 15–22.

Hutchinson, M. R. (1999). The margin of appreciation doctrine in the European Court of Human Rights. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 48(3), 638–650.

Ireland v. United Kingdom, no. 5310/71, ECHR 1978.

Kar and others v. Turkey, no. 58756/00, ECHR 2007.

Klass and others v. Germany, no. 5029/71, ECHR 1978.

Koskenniemi, M. (2009). The politics of international law–20 years later. European Journal of International Law, 20(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chp006.

Kratochvíl, J. (2011). The inflation of the margin of appreciation by the European Court of Human Rights. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 29(3), 324–357.

MacDonald, R. (1993). The margin of appreciation. In R. St J. MacDonald, F. Matscher, and H. Petzold (Eds.), The European system for the protection of human rights (pp. 83–85). Martinus Nijhoff.

Matijašević, J., & Alavuk, M. (2012). Postupci za utvrđivanje odgovornosti i sankcije za neizvršavanje obaveza država članica EU [The procedures for determining liability and sanctions for failure to fulfill the obligations of EU member states]. Pravo – teorija i praksa, 29(7–8), 1–19.

Mătăsaru v. Moldova, nos. 69714/16, 71685/16, ECHR 2019.

Muller and others v. Switzerland, no. 10737/84, ECHR 1988.

Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, no. 13470/87, ECHR 1994.

Prlja, S. (2016). The clash between the freedom of the media and personal rights - the right to honor and reputation, privacy and identity. Kultura Polisa, 13(30), 485–497.

Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, ECHR 2018.

Spielmann, D. (2012). Allowing the right margin: the European Court of Human Rights and the national margin of appreciation doctrine: Waiver or subsidiarity of European review?. Cambridge Yearbook of European legal studies, 14, 381–418. https://doi.org/10.5235/152888712805580570.

Tyrer v. United Kingdom, no. 5856/72, ECHR 1978.

Yourow, H. C., (1996). The margin of appreciation doctrine in the dynamics of European human rights jurisprudence. Martinus Nijhoff.