نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 عضو هیئت علمی دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی. تهران . ایران.
2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.تهران . ایران.
چکیده
دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر به عنوان دادگاهی مستقل وظیفه رسیدگی به شکایت‌های افراد از عملکرد دولت‌های متعاهد به کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر را بر عهده دارد. بی‌تردید یکی از اساسی‌ترین دغدغه‌های این نهاد چنانچه از نام آن برمی‌آید، حمایت از حق‌های بنیادین افراد و محکومیت دولت‌ها در صورت نقض آن‌ها است. نکته قابل‌تأمل آنکه در عمل، تمشیت امور شهروندان یک جامعه در شکل مطلوب آن، علاوه بر حمایت از حقوق بنیادین ایشان وابسته به رعایت منافع عمومی است.در نتیجه دیوان باید به سازوکاری مجهز گردد تا به وسیله آن عملکردی معقول و متوازن جهت احقاق این دو ارزش بنیادین را داشته باشد. این نهاد معمولاً به منظور دستیابی به این مقصود از آزمون تناسب متشکل از سه مولفه مشروعیت، مناسبت و ضرورت استفاده نموده است. نحوه به‌کارگیری این آزمون علی‌رغم نتایج کارآمد آن برای دیوان، دارای کاستی‌هایی نیز در جهت ایجاد تعادل میان حق و منفعت عمومی می‌باشد؛ توضیح آنکه این دادگاه با اعمال دکترین حاشیه تشخیص، ارزیابی مشروعیت یک هدف را که به استناد آن حقی از فرد توسط دولت نقض می‌شود، به عهده مقامات صلاحیت‌دار ملی گذاشته و بعضاً در اعمال دکترین حاشیه تشخیص از عملکرد شفافی برخوردار نیست. این عدم شفافیت در تخصیص حاشیه تشخیص به دولت‌ها و توسعه و یا تضییق حیطه عملکرد دولت‌ها با استناد به پرونده‌های ذکرشده را می‌توان مهم‌ترین یافته این پژوهش دانست.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
A Critical Analysis of Application of Proportionality Test and Margin of Appreciation Doctrine by European Court of Human Rights
نویسندگان [English]
- Mohammad Jalali 1
- Sogol Soodbar 2
1 Member of education Board, Department of public law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran,.Iran
2 PhD student, Department of public law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran,.Iran.
چکیده [English]
European court of human rights was established in 1959 as an independent court of Council of Europe in order to deal with alleged violations of human rights which has been enumerated in European Convention on human rights. Obviously, protection and evolution of human rights obligations is considered as one of the most significant concerns of this court. In addition, the protection of human rights and public interest together Are required for an efficient society. As a result, European court of human rights must use a mechanism by which it can have a reasonable and balanced operation to realize these two fundamental values. In order to approach this aim, the court uses the proportionality test, consisting of three principles of legitimacy, appropriateness and necessity. Despite its efficient results for the Court, the application of this test has its deficiency in keeping a balance between human rights and public interest. This court authorized the member states to evaluate the legitimacy of an aim by themselves, however it should be the court’s task to pass three steps of proportionality test independently. This research mainly concentrates on the evaluation of the European court of human rights from the doctrine of margin of appreciation perspective.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- European Court of Human Rights
- Proportionality test
- The margin of appreciation Doctrine
- Legitimacy of an aim
A) Books & Articles
Bayat Komitaki, Mahnaz. Theoretical Study of the relationship between Individual Rights and public Interests. Ph.D. Thesis in Public Law, Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University, 2011. [In Persian]
Christoffersen, Jonas and Mikael Rask Madsen. The European Court of Human Rights between Law and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Christoffersen, Jonas. Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Dolzhikov, Alexey V. “The European Court of Human Rights on the Principle of Proportionality in 'Russian' Cases.” Teise 82, (2012): 215-224, https://www.journals.vu.lt/teise/article/view/127/95.
Feingold, Cora S.“Doctrine of Margin of Appreciation and the European Convention on Human Rights.” Notre Dame Law Review 53, Issue 1 (1977): 90-106.
Fromont, Michel “Le Principe de Proportionnalité.” In: public Law, from Power Regulation to Guaranteeing Rights. Collection of Articles Donated to the Great Professor of Public Law Dr. Seyed Mohammad Hashemi. Trans. by Mohammad Jalali. Tehran: Khane Andishmandane Oloume Ensani, 2019. [In Persian]
Gerards, Janneke. “Margin of Appreciation and Incrementalism in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights.” Human Rights Law Review 18, Issue 3 (2018): 495-515.
Gerards, Janneke and Eva Brems. Shaping Rights in the ECHR: The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Ghari Seyed Fatemi, Seyed Mohammad; Saeed Rahimzadeh and Fatemeh Bostani. “The Train of Universality of Human Rights on the Railway of Wittgenstein (from an Ideal language to a vague one).” Quarterly Journal of Public Law Research 16, no. 45 (2014): 9-31. [In Persian]
Lind, Ann-Sara and Magnus Strand. “A New Proportionality Test for Fundamental Rights?” Sieps, European Policy Analysis, Issue 2011, 1-12.
Meyhami, Mehdi and Mahmoud Bagheri. “An Analysis of Current Views on the Evolution of Determination of Indirect Expropriation: A Case Study of the Energy Sector Investments.” Energy Law Studies 2, no. 2 (2016): 405-433. [In Persian]
Moradi Berelian, Mahdi. Principle of Proportionality in the Legal System of the European Union with A View to the Jurisprudence of the Administrative Justice Tribunal. Tehran: Khorsandi Publications, 2013. [In Persian]
O'Donnell, Thomas A. “The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Standards in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly 4, no. 4 (1982): 474–496.
Rahaei, Saeed. “The Doctrine of the `Margin of Appreciation` and the Limitation of the Right to Religious Manifestation: with special Emphasis on Muslims in Europe.” Journal of Comparative Law (Mofid letter) 0, no. 18 (2010): 77-100. [In Persian]
Rasekh, Mohammad and Mahnaz Bayat Komitaki. “Right and Public Interest in the Scales of Justice.” Legal Research Quarterly (Ministry of Science), Special Issue No. 8 (2012): 385-426. [In Persian]
Sharifi Taraz Koohi, Hossein and Javad Mobini. “The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.” Quarterly Journal of Public Law Research 16, no. 44 (2014): 73-103. [In Persian]
Zarei, Mohammad Hossein and Khadijeh Shojaeian. “Principles of Unreasonableness and proportionality in UK legal system.” Legal Research Quarterly, no. 13 (2013): 347-390. [In Persian]
- B) Documents
“Sunday Entertainments Act 1932” (1932), http://www.legislation.gov.uk /ukpga/Geo5/22-23/51/enacted/data.xht?wrap=true.
England and Wales Court (1947), Case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation, [1947] 2 All ER 680.
The European Court of Human Rights (1982), Case of Sporrong and Lonnroth v. Sweden, App. Nos. 7151/75 & 7152/75.
The European Court of Human Rights (1993), Case of Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece, App No. 14556/89.
The European Court of Human Rights (1998), Case of Bozano v. France, App. No. 9990/82.
The European Court of Human Rights (2002), Case of Burdov v. Russia, App. No. 59498/00.
The European Court of Human Rights (2002), Case of Kalashnikov vs. Russia, App. No. 47095/99.
The European Court of Human Rights (2003), Case of Smirnova vs. Russia, App. Nos. 46133/99 & 48183/99.
The European Court of Human Rights (2005), Case of Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, App. No. 44774/98.
The European Court of Human Rights (2008), Case of Mann Singh v. France, App. No.24479/07.
The European Court of Human Rights (2012), Case of Konstantin Markin v. Russia, App. No. 30078/06.
The European Court of Human Rights (2013), Case of Bernh Larson Holding AS and Others v. Norway, App. No. 24117/08.
The European Court of Human Rights (2016), Case of Enver Aydemir v Turkey. App. No. 26012/11
The European Court of Human Rights (2017), Case of Polyakova and Others v. Russia, App. Nos. 35090/09, 35845/11, 45694/13 & 59747/14.
The European Court of Human Rights (2021), Case of Avanesyan v. Armenia, App. No. 12999/15
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله