• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of world trade >From Diplomatic - To Human Rightsprotection: The Possessions Under The 1950 european Human Rights Convention, First additional Protocol Article 1
【24h】

From Diplomatic - To Human Rightsprotection: The Possessions Under The 1950 european Human Rights Convention, First additional Protocol Article 1

机译：从外交到保护人权：1950年《欧洲人权公约》所拥有的第一附加议定书第1条

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

'Possession' as defined in The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), the First Additional Protocol (PAP) Article 1 resulting from judicial legislation incorporates not only the physical control of assets, but as well rights and benefits constituting assets, intellectual property, patrimonial rights, the "right to credit", "VAT [value added tax] refund", right to social security benefits, licenses etc. in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least a reasonable and "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment. Clearly, economic rights of different kinds are now part of the human rights arena. A prediction is that a great variety of assets, shares, obligations, futures, factoring, etc. will in the future gain from not only diplomatic protection, but also from direct personal applicability of human rights. The human rights protection according to ECHR, FAP Article 1- the rights of which should be practical and effective - sets forth a complicated, intertwined, three-step determinative process: (1)The principle of peaceful use of one's possession[s], which requires the injured party to demonstrate that his interest qualifies as a 'possession.' (2) A legally valid expropriation and state interference or intervention that turns into a deprivation when it exceeds a minimum level of intensity. In concreto the deprivation must be "in the public interest" and must have taken place "subject to the conditions provided for by law," and by the "general principles of international law." Illegal takings do not require a showing of formal, i.e. de jure expropriation. It is sufficient that a de facto deprivation affects the party's peaceful enjoyment of his or her possessions in a manner that is equal to expropriation. (3) The deprivation must be carried out in the cause of public interest. To be justified or legally justifiable, a deprivation should strike a "fair balance" between the demands of the general interest of the community and the state's duty to protect the individual's fundamental rights. If the agencies fail to conduct such a deliberation, the plaintiff has a solid claim. Where the government does not deliberate the merits of the conflicting community and individual claims, it has demonstrably never initiated the balancing process in the first place, which in and of it self breaches plaintiff's human rights.
机译：欧洲人权公约（ECHR），第一附加议定书（PAP）第1条所定义的“拥有”是司法立法产生的，不仅包括对资产的实物控制，还包括构成资产，知识产权，遗产权，“信贷权”，“增值税（增值税）退税”，社会保障福利权，执照等，申请人可以据此辩称他至少具有合理和“合法的期望”。获得有效的享受。显然，各种经济权利现在已成为人权领域的一部分。可以预见，将来，不仅是外交保护，而且是直接个人适用的人权，都将带来各种各样的资产，股份，债务，期货，保理等。根据ECHR，FAP第1条的规定，其权利应切实有效的保护人权-提出了一个复杂，相互交织的三步确定过程：（1）和平利用个人财产的原则，这要求受害方证明自己的利益符合“占有”的条件。 （2）合法有效的征用和国家干预或干预，如果超过最低强度，就会被剥夺。确切地说，剥夺必须是“出于公共利益”，而且必须“根据法律和国际法一般原则所规定的条件”发生。非法取得的收入并不需要表现出正式的，即法律上的没收。实际上的剥夺足以影响当事方以等同于被没收的方式和平地享用其财产。 （3）剥夺必须出于公共利益考虑。为了有正当理由或在法律上有正当理由，剥夺应在社会普遍利益的要求与国家保护个人基本权利的义务之间取得“公平的平衡”。如果代理机构未进行这样的审议，则原告拥有可靠的主张。如果政府不考虑冲突社区的优点和个人主张，它显然从来没有首先启动平衡过程，这本身就侵犯了原告的人权。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号