Is the assessment under Article 8 ECHR for migrants justifiable?

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61989592%3A15220%2F21%3A73611728" target="_blank" >RIV/61989592:15220/21:73611728 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://obd.upol.cz/id_publ/333191615" target="_blank" >https://obd.upol.cz/id_publ/333191615</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211061435" target="_blank" >10.1177/1023263X211061435</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Is the assessment under Article 8 ECHR for migrants justifiable?

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The paper analyses the protection granted under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights for different immigration cases. The way the European Court of Human Rights determines compliance with Article 8 for settled migrants differs from the way the Court determines compliance for foreign nationals seeking entry or requesting to regularize their irregular migration status. The paper argues that the European Court of Human Rights application of different principles when determining a States’ positive and negative obligations is contradicting its own case law. It also argues that the absence of justification grounds for the refusal of foreign nationals who are seeking entry lacks legitimacy. By treating all immigration cases under Article 8(2) the paper suggests that the differentiation between cases should be based on how a refusal of entry or an expulsion would impact on the family life. The paper also suggests that more consideration should be given towards the insiders interests when balancing the individual rights against the state&apos;s interests. These changes would lead to a more consistent and fair case law and generate a more convergent practice by the states which will increase the precedent value of the Court&apos;s judgements.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Is the assessment under Article 8 ECHR for migrants justifiable?

Popis výsledku anglicky

The paper analyses the protection granted under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights for different immigration cases. The way the European Court of Human Rights determines compliance with Article 8 for settled migrants differs from the way the Court determines compliance for foreign nationals seeking entry or requesting to regularize their irregular migration status. The paper argues that the European Court of Human Rights application of different principles when determining a States’ positive and negative obligations is contradicting its own case law. It also argues that the absence of justification grounds for the refusal of foreign nationals who are seeking entry lacks legitimacy. By treating all immigration cases under Article 8(2) the paper suggests that the differentiation between cases should be based on how a refusal of entry or an expulsion would impact on the family life. The paper also suggests that more consideration should be given towards the insiders interests when balancing the individual rights against the state&apos;s interests. These changes would lead to a more consistent and fair case law and generate a more convergent practice by the states which will increase the precedent value of the Court&apos;s judgements.

Druh

J_SC - Článek v periodiku v databázi SCOPUS

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA17-24822S" target="_blank" >GA17-24822S: Právní postavení osob ze třetích zemí v právu Evropské unie</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law

ISSN

1023-263X

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

2021

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

prosinec

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

18

Strana od-do

1-18

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85121704146