48,466
edits
European Court of Human Rights on Shariah Law: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
European Court of Human Rights on Shariah Law (view source)
Revision as of 23:56, 14 September 2013
, 14 September 2013→Annual Report 2003 (May 2004)
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
The first thing that stands out every year is the way in which, through the Court’s caselaw, solutions to a wide range of situations and issues are to be found in the handful of substantive Convention provisions.<BR>. . .<BR> | The first thing that stands out every year is the way in which, through the Court’s caselaw, solutions to a wide range of situations and issues are to be found in the handful of substantive Convention provisions.<BR>. . .<BR> | ||
Out of the 703 judgments delivered in 2003, I have selected two which, through both their differences and their complementarity, reflect the dual role played by the Court. These are the judgments in the cases of Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey and Jakupovic v. Austria, which were delivered on 13 and 6 February 2003 respectively. | Out of the 703 judgments delivered in 2003, I have selected two which, through both their differences and their complementarity, reflect the dual role played by the Court. These are the judgments in the cases of Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey<ref>[GC], nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, to be reported in ECHR 2003-II.</ref> and Jakupovic v. Austria,<ref>No. 36757/97.</ref> which were delivered on 13 and 6 February 2003 respectively. | ||
The first is a unanimous Grand Chamber decision and is one of a series of judgments over the past few years in which the Court has sought to define the bases of the democratic system on which the Convention is founded.<BR>. . .<BR> | The first is a unanimous Grand Chamber decision and is one of a series of judgments over the past few years in which the Court has sought to define the bases of the democratic system on which the Convention is founded.<BR>. . .<BR> | ||
the Court, aided by the pan-European consensus provided by the Convention, has a role to play in identifying the constituent elements of democracy and in reminding everyone of the minimum essential requirements of a political system if human rights within the meaning of the Convention are to be protected. It has in the past applied itself to establishing the basic principles of the rule of law, the role of political parties, and the limits on freedom of political expression and parliamentary immunity. In Refah Partisi, it carried out a thorough examination of the relationship between the Convention, democracy, political parties and religion, and found that a sharia-based regime was incompatible with the Convention, in particular, as regards the rules of criminal law and procedure, the place given to women in the legal order and its interference in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.<ref name="ECtHR2003a"></ref>}} | the Court, aided by the pan-European consensus provided by the Convention, has a role to play in identifying the constituent elements of democracy and in reminding everyone of the minimum essential requirements of a political system if human rights within the meaning of the Convention are to be protected. It has in the past applied itself to establishing the basic principles of the rule of law, the role of political parties, and the limits on freedom of political expression and parliamentary immunity. In Refah Partisi, it carried out a thorough examination of the relationship between the Convention, democracy, political parties and religion, and found that a sharia-based regime was incompatible with the Convention, in particular, as regards the rules of criminal law and procedure, the place given to women in the legal order and its interference in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.<ref name="ECtHR2003a"></ref>}} | ||
From the speech given by Luzius Wildhaber on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, January 22, 2004: | |||
{{Quote||As I do every year, I will tonight outline some of the main messages which emerge from our case-law over the past year. This year I shall talk about four cases. | {{Quote||As I do every year, I will tonight outline some of the main messages which emerge from our case-law over the past year. This year I shall talk about four cases. | ||