This is an extract of our Article 14 document, which we sell as part of our European Human Rights Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our European Human Rights Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Article 14 essay plan Protocol 7, Art 5 Protocol 12, Art 1 McColgan (2000) - ECHR approach to equality is "less than satisfactory" because:ECtHR often chooses to decide cases on the basis of other Articles even where nondiscrimination is central to the case Only applies within the spheres in which convention rights are enjoyed = "parasitic" Comparator issues
Baker (2006) - "overemphasising the contingent nature of Art 14 obscures its autonomous significance and contributes to an overly restrictive understanding of its scope and application". Until recently was a formal equality model O'Connell (2009) - Art 14 often described as Cinderella provision...developed and now may live up to its potential as a powerful non-discrimination principle. Developments have pointed to a more substantive conception of equality which offers protection to disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. The Cinderella provision of the Convention has definitely gone to the Ball. More importantly, Convention equality law is now focused on the rationale behind formal distinctions, but has potential to tackle discrimination, disadvantage and oppression. Been a shift to a more substantive model of discrimination law Livingstone (1997) - notwithstanding its parasitic nature, the invocation of Art 14 may often expand the scope of other Convnetion rights and so render a greater range of state conduct open to human rights scrutiny". IMPROVEMENTS 1) Ambit ORIGINALLY: Abdulaziz - when the court finds a breach of the substantive article invoked it will usually conclude that it is not necessary to reach a decision on the Art 14 claim. Where it does not find that other article infringed it may yet go on to find that there has been a breach of Art 14 taken in conjunction. Partsch (1993) - reasons of "procedural economy" Thlimmenos v Greece - for Art 14 to become applicable it suffices that the facts of a case fall within the ambit of another substantive provision of the Convention or its Protocols. ECtHR found that a provision forbidding a person with a serious criminal conviction from receiving an appointment as a chartered accountant violated the applicant's Art 14 rights b failing to distinguish between convictions based on the exercise of
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our European Human Rights Law Notes.