So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News8 mins ago
The Relationship Between The Ecj And The Echr
Does leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ which is about to now happen, mean also leaving the jurisdiction of the ECHR ?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
//If affirmative, the UK is no better placed to remove undesirable aliens that it was before, despite sovereignty.
17:11 Sat 26th Dec 2020
Khandro, it would appear not.
https:/
https:/
Thanks for the link danny, but it clearly states: 'Unlike European Court of Justice decisions, ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered so important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states.'
Which I interpret to mean by leaving the EU and ECJ, we are leaving both.
I ask because the UK has been bedevilled by reprehensible lawyers making it virtually impossible for the government to remove undesirable aliens by appealing to ECHR rulings.
Which I interpret to mean by leaving the EU and ECJ, we are leaving both.
I ask because the UK has been bedevilled by reprehensible lawyers making it virtually impossible for the government to remove undesirable aliens by appealing to ECHR rulings.
The ECHR and ECHR are not EUSSR instruments. Personally though I'd get out of it and go back to common sense. All the ECHR does in fill up lawyers coffers by having them get "human rights" for low life criminal scum. The rest of us are secondary to that. You've only got to look at that plane load of savages the other week, disgraceful.
The ECHR is a body of the Council of Europe, which the UK has belonged to since 1949, and not of the EU. The UK will continue to be a member of the Council of Europe, despite its departure from the EU.
All of the countries listed here have pledged to respect the decisions of the ECHR:
https:/
All of the countries listed here have pledged to respect the decisions of the ECHR:
https:/
The ECJ is the court which presides over disputes relating to EU law.
The ECHR is the court which rules on alleged breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The two are unrelated. Many signatories the the ECHR (the Convention) are not members of the EU and the Convention first came into force in 1953. The predecessor to the EU, the European Economic Community was not formed until 1957.
The UK's departure from the EU has nothing to do with its association to the ECHR and we are still bound by it.
The ECHR is the court which rules on alleged breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The two are unrelated. Many signatories the the ECHR (the Convention) are not members of the EU and the Convention first came into force in 1953. The predecessor to the EU, the European Economic Community was not formed until 1957.
The UK's departure from the EU has nothing to do with its association to the ECHR and we are still bound by it.
NJ; //The UK's departure from the EU has nothing to do with its association to the ECHR and we are still bound by it.//
That is very worrying, if correct it means that despite Brexit, no signature member can rid themselves of undesirable aliens if they are aided & abetted by lawyers turning to their jurisdiction on spurious grounds, e.g. " I am a homosexual (even if they are not) & will suffer punishment if I am returned to my country of origin" ?
That is very worrying, if correct it means that despite Brexit, no signature member can rid themselves of undesirable aliens if they are aided & abetted by lawyers turning to their jurisdiction on spurious grounds, e.g. " I am a homosexual (even if they are not) & will suffer punishment if I am returned to my country of origin" ?
The answer provided by 'New Judge' is the only correct one.
We stay with the ECHR.
We do not stay with the ECJ.
They do different things. They do not do the same things.
The ECHR is NOT and NEVER has been part of the EU.
The ECJ is part of the EU and we have left it subject to any qualifications imposed by our BREXIT deal.
We stay with the ECHR.
We do not stay with the ECJ.
They do different things. They do not do the same things.
The ECHR is NOT and NEVER has been part of the EU.
The ECJ is part of the EU and we have left it subject to any qualifications imposed by our BREXIT deal.
All 47 members of the Council of Europe are signatories to the ECHR. It is, effectively, the Convention of the Council of Europe. That Council was set up after WW2 to protect human rights, the rule of law and democracy and the Convention is a formal statement of those rights. A country simply could not remain a member of the Council of Europe but withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. It would be like a country wishing to remain as an EU member but withdraw as a signatory to the Treaty of Lisbon.
NJ: I'm sure you are correct. The librarian of the ECHR is incidentally a friend of mine & I have just sent her an email asking the same question. If affirmative, the UK is no better placed to remove undesirable aliens that it was before, despite sovereignty.
Recently 30 were put on a plane & only one was actually sent away, the others remained in the UK due to their 'human rights'.
Recently 30 were put on a plane & only one was actually sent away, the others remained in the UK due to their 'human rights'.
//If affirmative, the UK is no better placed to remove undesirable aliens that it was before, despite sovereignty.//
Quite so, Khandro. But it was never going to be. I don't know whether you thought it would. The problem lies with the Convention. It is deliberately drafted in vague and nebulous terms and can mean whatever any panel of judges wants it to mean. It was drafted to protect citizens from an over zealous state and was never designed to enable illegal entrants, mainly economic migrants, to remain here on spurious reasons. But it does, we're stuck with it and until we have a government with the courage to withdraw from the Council of Europe (which won't happen) it will continue to give rise to the situations you describe.
Quite so, Khandro. But it was never going to be. I don't know whether you thought it would. The problem lies with the Convention. It is deliberately drafted in vague and nebulous terms and can mean whatever any panel of judges wants it to mean. It was drafted to protect citizens from an over zealous state and was never designed to enable illegal entrants, mainly economic migrants, to remain here on spurious reasons. But it does, we're stuck with it and until we have a government with the courage to withdraw from the Council of Europe (which won't happen) it will continue to give rise to the situations you describe.
It would, unfortunately appear you are correct, but here's a list of signed up member states,
https:/
Do you think they all follow the jurisdiction of the ECHR ? Do they hamper Putin or Erdogan in how they wish to deal with those whom they consider to be undesirable?
https:/
Do you think they all follow the jurisdiction of the ECHR ? Do they hamper Putin or Erdogan in how they wish to deal with those whom they consider to be undesirable?
to answer the question
nope
actually we all knew that -
well 13 did anyway
and was repeated ad infinitium when TTT was on his "oo-man rights! kick.
but hey that didnt matter - TTT just kicked off the next day on the very same subject ignoring what had gone before
ECJ had adopted the principles of the ECHR give or take a few clauses. opting out of the council of europe is no enough - we would nbeed to abrogate the relevant treaty.
and such a thing cd not be done by the stroke of a minister's pen
nope
actually we all knew that -
well 13 did anyway
and was repeated ad infinitium when TTT was on his "oo-man rights! kick.
but hey that didnt matter - TTT just kicked off the next day on the very same subject ignoring what had gone before
ECJ had adopted the principles of the ECHR give or take a few clauses. opting out of the council of europe is no enough - we would nbeed to abrogate the relevant treaty.
and such a thing cd not be done by the stroke of a minister's pen
the two are not related
yeah but no but - - that is a bit legal(*)
rather obviously if the ECJ is considering a human right case they will pay attention to the ECHR but has said their decision are not precedent
makes no sense? then try this !
https:/
(*) you know where lawyers say something and then you find the legal meaning is exactly opposite to what you thought
yeah but no but - - that is a bit legal(*)
rather obviously if the ECJ is considering a human right case they will pay attention to the ECHR but has said their decision are not precedent
makes no sense? then try this !
https:/
(*) you know where lawyers say something and then you find the legal meaning is exactly opposite to what you thought
I've seen a YouTube video that suggests in the detailed small print that the ECJ will still have power over the UK for certain things, such as Horizon.
https:/
No idea if this is confirmed elsewhere.
https:/
No idea if this is confirmed elsewhere.
NJ & anyone else interested:
I have received a reply from my friend (English), the librarian at the ECHR in Strasbourg, it is quite long, but this is the gist of it & bears out what you have said:
'..............So yes, we have left the EU and therefore the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I haven’t read the details of the deal, but I think Boris was keen that the ECJ would not have any influence on British law.
But the UK is still a member of the Council of Europe and is still signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. So the judgments of the ECHR are still relevant, and the Court will continue to receive applications from individuals against the UK and a tiny proportion of these will end up as judgments.
There is no enforcement procedure for the ECHR judgments, having signed the Convention the UK has agreed to execute the Court’s judgments. The ECHR only passes judgment, and once it has pronounced its work ends there. It is up to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to monitor the execution of the judgment in the member State. The Committee of Ministers does no more that monitor, providing guidance on how a judgment can be executed in the member State. The system works because the member States have agreed to abide by the judgments, and the protections and freedoms in the Convention resonate with the European common cultural heritage (Judeo-Roman).' .......
I have received a reply from my friend (English), the librarian at the ECHR in Strasbourg, it is quite long, but this is the gist of it & bears out what you have said:
'..............So yes, we have left the EU and therefore the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I haven’t read the details of the deal, but I think Boris was keen that the ECJ would not have any influence on British law.
But the UK is still a member of the Council of Europe and is still signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. So the judgments of the ECHR are still relevant, and the Court will continue to receive applications from individuals against the UK and a tiny proportion of these will end up as judgments.
There is no enforcement procedure for the ECHR judgments, having signed the Convention the UK has agreed to execute the Court’s judgments. The ECHR only passes judgment, and once it has pronounced its work ends there. It is up to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to monitor the execution of the judgment in the member State. The Committee of Ministers does no more that monitor, providing guidance on how a judgment can be executed in the member State. The system works because the member States have agreed to abide by the judgments, and the protections and freedoms in the Convention resonate with the European common cultural heritage (Judeo-Roman).' .......
ECJ does not equal ECHR
the only reason why you think it does
is somewhat inflammatory and yet ignorant posts on AB
posted on a daily basis in some timespans
and surprisingly as a Times reader - the last ECJ case was posted as a case report and then a few days later an ECHR case which made it clear it was advisory.
ECHR pricinples are embedded in both european law and british law. the fact that TTT never believed it is irrelevant to the legal osition
the only reason why you think it does
is somewhat inflammatory and yet ignorant posts on AB
posted on a daily basis in some timespans
and surprisingly as a Times reader - the last ECJ case was posted as a case report and then a few days later an ECHR case which made it clear it was advisory.
ECHR pricinples are embedded in both european law and british law. the fact that TTT never believed it is irrelevant to the legal osition
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.