CZY EUROPEJSKA KONWENCJA PRAW CZŁOWIEKA JAKO „ŻYWY INSTRUMENT” CHRONI LEPIEJ LUDZKIE ŻYCIE?

IS THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS TREATED AS A “LIVING INSTRUMENT” AFFORDING BETTER PROTECTION OF HUMAN LIFE? Summary The Strasbourg Court appears to be using the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights in a free way to shape the content of legal norms. The purpose of this...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Joanna Banasiuk
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie 2016-12-01
Series:Zeszyty Prawnicze
Online Access:https://czasopisma.uksw.edu.pl/index.php/zp/article/view/798
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1846154956602605568
author Joanna Banasiuk
author_facet Joanna Banasiuk
author_sort Joanna Banasiuk
collection DOAJ
description IS THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS TREATED AS A “LIVING INSTRUMENT” AFFORDING BETTER PROTECTION OF HUMAN LIFE? Summary The Strasbourg Court appears to be using the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights in a free way to shape the content of legal norms. The purpose of this article is to exemplify this controversial process by the judgement of 30th October 2012 in P. and S. v. Poland, which, as some commentators have already observed, appears to be tending to the construction of a right to abortion alleging Article 8 of the Convention considered completely out of the context of the guarantees for the protection of human life in Article 2. The judgement shows that the Court treated the case as based on grounds resulting from rape, but no evidence was produced to corroborate these grounds. This is confirmed by the lack of consistency between the particular formulations of the judgement. Furthermore, the way in which the facts were presented, on which the Court based its judgement, is not in agreement with the content of the documents produced as evidence by Poland. The Court left a series of points of evidence unexamined, and raised unwarranted reservations on the action the doctors had taken in compliance with Polish law. In effect the European Court of Human Rights treated the same course of action which it had deemed necessary in the proceedings of V.C. v. Slovakia, and N.B. v Slovakia as a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR in the case of P. and S. v. Poland. This fact seems to raise a serious issue regarding the interpretation or application of the Convention in the context of the material.
format Article
id doaj-art-f93f28d267064397b09cc53e86106d42
institution Kabale University
issn 1643-8183
2353-8139
language English
publishDate 2016-12-01
publisher Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie
record_format Article
series Zeszyty Prawnicze
spelling doaj-art-f93f28d267064397b09cc53e86106d422024-11-26T17:29:42ZengUniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w WarszawieZeszyty Prawnicze1643-81832353-81392016-12-0113310.21697/zp.2013.13.3.03CZY EUROPEJSKA KONWENCJA PRAW CZŁOWIEKA JAKO „ŻYWY INSTRUMENT” CHRONI LEPIEJ LUDZKIE ŻYCIE?Joanna Banasiuk0Uniwersytet w Białymstoku IS THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS TREATED AS A “LIVING INSTRUMENT” AFFORDING BETTER PROTECTION OF HUMAN LIFE? Summary The Strasbourg Court appears to be using the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights in a free way to shape the content of legal norms. The purpose of this article is to exemplify this controversial process by the judgement of 30th October 2012 in P. and S. v. Poland, which, as some commentators have already observed, appears to be tending to the construction of a right to abortion alleging Article 8 of the Convention considered completely out of the context of the guarantees for the protection of human life in Article 2. The judgement shows that the Court treated the case as based on grounds resulting from rape, but no evidence was produced to corroborate these grounds. This is confirmed by the lack of consistency between the particular formulations of the judgement. Furthermore, the way in which the facts were presented, on which the Court based its judgement, is not in agreement with the content of the documents produced as evidence by Poland. The Court left a series of points of evidence unexamined, and raised unwarranted reservations on the action the doctors had taken in compliance with Polish law. In effect the European Court of Human Rights treated the same course of action which it had deemed necessary in the proceedings of V.C. v. Slovakia, and N.B. v Slovakia as a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR in the case of P. and S. v. Poland. This fact seems to raise a serious issue regarding the interpretation or application of the Convention in the context of the material. https://czasopisma.uksw.edu.pl/index.php/zp/article/view/798
spellingShingle Joanna Banasiuk
CZY EUROPEJSKA KONWENCJA PRAW CZŁOWIEKA JAKO „ŻYWY INSTRUMENT” CHRONI LEPIEJ LUDZKIE ŻYCIE?
Zeszyty Prawnicze
title CZY EUROPEJSKA KONWENCJA PRAW CZŁOWIEKA JAKO „ŻYWY INSTRUMENT” CHRONI LEPIEJ LUDZKIE ŻYCIE?
title_full CZY EUROPEJSKA KONWENCJA PRAW CZŁOWIEKA JAKO „ŻYWY INSTRUMENT” CHRONI LEPIEJ LUDZKIE ŻYCIE?
title_fullStr CZY EUROPEJSKA KONWENCJA PRAW CZŁOWIEKA JAKO „ŻYWY INSTRUMENT” CHRONI LEPIEJ LUDZKIE ŻYCIE?
title_full_unstemmed CZY EUROPEJSKA KONWENCJA PRAW CZŁOWIEKA JAKO „ŻYWY INSTRUMENT” CHRONI LEPIEJ LUDZKIE ŻYCIE?
title_short CZY EUROPEJSKA KONWENCJA PRAW CZŁOWIEKA JAKO „ŻYWY INSTRUMENT” CHRONI LEPIEJ LUDZKIE ŻYCIE?
title_sort czy europejska konwencja praw czlowieka jako zywy instrument chroni lepiej ludzkie zycie
url https://czasopisma.uksw.edu.pl/index.php/zp/article/view/798
work_keys_str_mv AT joannabanasiuk czyeuropejskakonwencjaprawczłowiekajakozywyinstrumentchronilepiejludzkiezycie