The right to healthcare during the covid-19 pandemic under the European Convention on human rights

The article presents the challenges exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic from a European perspective, especially its consequences in light of the European Convention on Human Rights' (ECHR) guarantees of the right to health. It is the first attempt to comprehensively examine these challenges for the State Parties of the ECHR. The right to health has traditionally been included in the second generation of human rights;therefore, presumably, it does not in itself give rise to any specific rights for an individual. However, the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) has recently been linking the right to health with specific provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular with Articles 2, 3, and 8. We analyse the Court's relevant rulings and their possible consequences for the assessment of the actions taken by the States Parties in order to fight COVID-19, with special emphasis on possible State responsibility for violating the Convention. This can happen when the State's actions result in different levels of health care access available to different groups of patients (patients with COVID-19 and patients with other conditions). The analysis reveals the weakness of the approach taken by ECtHR in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Summary: 1. Introduction;2. Health care and the fight against covid-19 in light of the ECHR;2.1. Article 2 of the ECHR;2.2. Article 3 of the ECHR;2.3. Article 8 of the ECHR 3. The convention and the 'herd immunity' strategy;4. The fight against covid-19;dancing on a minefield;5. Concluding remarks [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of International Journal of Human Rights is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

COVID-19-Related Cases before the European Court of Human Rights A Multiperspective Approach

This study overviews how the COVID-19 pandemic is framed in five cases before the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR). By reconstructing the heteroglossic system of genres at the ECtHR, the study contributes to the limited literature on the Court's discursive practices and genres. The analysis looks into the framing of the COVID-19 pandemic as a human rights violation and identifies preferred interpretation schemata across the participation framework of the cases considered using critical discourse analysis and framing. The findings identify a scaffolding of dialogical frames, where most applicants advanced politicized frame systems built on the core denial of the existence or seriousness of COVID-19, framing the governments' actions or omissions as civil and political human rights violations. The Governments built on the general healthcare crisis framing, and counterframed societal limitations as agency stemming from a "health and safety first” frame. The Court refuted most of the politicized framing choices and accepted most healthcare-related frames, operating under the "exceptional and unforeseen circumstances” frame. Copyright (©) 2022 Jekaterina Nikitina

Age-based triage and human rights

The article provides the first comprehensive assessment of age-based triage from the perspective of human rights. Triage, that is the sorting of patients into categories of priority of treatment, has been known for decades. It has however got larger prominence during the Covid-19 crisis. The crisis has exposed healthcare systems in many countries to a critical shortage of resources, forcing them to consider resorting to triage. The absence of legal rules has been compensated by non-binding triage guidelines, adopted by professional medical and ethical associations. This article analyses 11 guidelines, showing that none of them is truly age neutral. Some use allocation criteria that entail disparate treatment of older persons, consisting of their de-prioritization or exclusion from access to life-saving treatment on account of their age. Others rely on allocation criteria whose application has disparate effects on older persons. The article argues that whereas the latter approach could be compatible with human rights standards, the former entails violations of the principle of non-discrimination and of several other human rights (the right to life, the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment, the right to private life, and the right to health). © The Author(s) 2023.

Freedom of Expression and Misinformation Laws During the COVID-19 Pandemic and the European Court of Human Rights

This article assesses the European Court of Human Rights' possible responses to post-COVID-19 misinformation laws. These laws are intended to protect society but may become dangerous weapons if used by governments wishing to silence opponents. We identify four categories of speech restrictions that appeared during the COVID-19 pandemic. We then present the recent misinformation laws from Council of Europe member states as well as various potential arguments when cases appear before the Court, and assess their potential weight. We also analyze the expected post-pandemic development of the European Convention on Human Rights' Article 10 jurisprudence. © 2023 Lex localis.

Religious freedom during the coronavirus pandemic: An assessment of the Polish legal solutions

The threat posed by the spread of coronavirus in Poland resulted in the introduction of the state of epidemic emergency for the whole country in March 2020, subsequently followed by the state of epidemic. The competent state authorities have introduced numerous limitations on individual human rights and freedoms, including limitations on the freedom to manifest religion. The Polish legislator laid down the principles for permissible limitations on this freedom in Articles 31(3) and 53(5) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. In accordance with the constitutional provisions, such limitations may only be introduced by statutory acts and in situations when they are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of specially protected goods. They must be proportionate so as not to impair the very essence of the right being limited. The introduced limitations on participating in and performing religious worship raise doubts as to their legality and constitutionality. The epidemic threat justifies taking action by competent state authorities to ensure safety. However, state authorities should act on the basis and within the limits of the law. The constitutional provisions do not leave any room for discretion as regards the possibility of introducing limitations on human rights and freedoms, including the right to freedom of religion. © 2021, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin. All rights reserved.

PRISONERS' RIGHTS ISSUES IN THE ASPECT OF HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF THE CORONAVIRUS DISEASE PANDEMIC (COVID-19)

Under the conditions of the global pandemic, the problem of international legal regulation of relations in the field of human rights and freedoms becomes extremely relevant. It must be recognized that the pandemic and its socio-economic consequences will have a disproportionate and detrimental effect on the rights of women, children, the elderly, refugees, migrants, displaced persons and the others in at-risk population group. In this situation, the problem of respect for rights of persons in detention facilities deserves special attention. After all, when a person gets into prison, he actually becomes isolated not only from the society, but also from the opportunity to exercise his constitutional rights and freedoms. The purpose of this research is to review the problem of human rights and freedoms restriction under the conditions of the global pandemic in terms of the execution of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as identification and delineation of the problem areas such as detention facilities containing prisoners who are in fact an at-risk group for the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) spread, and in which, despite the relative control of the whole system, it will be very difficult to stop the spread of the disease in case of its spread in these institutions. Proceeding from this goal, we want to draw attention to the observation of international legal requirements for the legitimacy of human rights and freedoms restrictions in the global pandemic, as well as the Coronavirus disease spread in detention facilities, disclose the content of international legal acts containing specific measures and recommendations, which may be useful in their implementation in the penitentiary institutions practice to prevent the uncontrolled spread of COVID-19. © 2022, Observare. All rights reserved.

Vavřička and Others v. The Czech Republic

For the Court, this conclusion was bolstered by the observations that vaccination was not administered against the will of the applicants;that there is no consensus between member states over a single model to achieve the highest level of vaccination;that the introduction of a legal duty to vaccinate children raises sensitive moral or ethical issues;and that the case concerns matters of healthcare policy (paras. 276–79). [...]the Court considered that the measure satisfied the proportionality test. Furthermore, the Court underlined the temporal nature of the exclusion, as all children—also when not vaccinated—can still be enrolled in primary school (para. 307). [...]the Court concluded that the Czech Republic had not overstepped its margin of appreciation and consequently that there was no violation of the right to private life (paras. 310–11). [...]the Court held, also by sixteen votes to one, that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaints of the five child applicants under Article 2, Protocol No. 1 in light of the previous findings under Article 8 (para. 345).

Freedom of Expression of Legal Entities on the Internet from the Point of View of the European Court of Human Rights

Rapid development of new technologies, including the Internet, demonstrates the need for legal regulation of the content that appears on the websites of Internet platforms. However, the regulation of such content must not interfere with the very essence of the right to freedom of expression. The restrictions set forth by the governments should pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society. The aim of this paper is to describe the basic rules for the protection of the right to freedom of expression of legal entities under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in relation to Internet speeches and reflect on the legal regulation of debates concerning Covid-19. Given this objective, the research is divided into three parts. The first part defines the general principles of the ECHR concerning the right to freedom of expression, and specifically emphasizes the rules for the protection of speech on the Internet. The second part of the manuscript offers an analysis of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning legal persons’ complaints under Article 10 of the ECHR in connection with the activities on the Internet. The last third part of the manuscript is devoted to the reflection on the restriction of the expressions concerning Covid-19, namely, their compliance with Article 10 of the ECHR. © 2022, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of State and Law. All rights reserved.

Bringing the right to water into the spotlight: A civil right before the European Court of Human Rights?

This article evaluates the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) approach to the right to water, drawing on three key aspects characterizing a minimum core right to water: quality, availability and accessibility. The article argues that the right to water should be seen as a civil right, which can be directly enforced by the ECtHR, rather than being adjudicated as a programmatic right subject to a wide margin of appreciation. Currently, the Court pursues two tracks in water‐related cases. On the one hand, it considers the right to water as a right that should be realized progressively and is subject to a wide margin of appreciation. On the other hand, in relation to prisoner and asylum seekers' rights, the Court has recognized that limited access to water can constitute ill treatment contrary to Article 3. Finally, the right to water faces obstacles to its adequate enforcement before the Court as litigants must show that they are victims of water‐related damage and they suffer individually. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Compulsory Vaccination and Fundamental Human Rights in the World of Work

During the COVID-19 epidemiological emergency, several countries adopted regulations which have affected the world of work. The impact of these measures on workers and other employees has been the subject of numerous studies. Among the legislation, there are some that apply to specific occupational groups, such as healthcare workers, and others that apply more generally to a broad section of society. What they have in common is that they restrict the fundamental rights of workers to an extent that justifies a thorough human rights and constitutional rights analysis. The aim of this paper is to analyse the issue of compulsory vaccination by focusing primarily on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and attempt to interpret it in relation to the domestic regulation of the COVID-19 pandemic. The second part of the paper is a case study based on the Hungarian legislation, which was adopted recently. © 2022, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Sklodowskiej w Lublinie. All rights reserved.

Abortion on the Jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights: something more than a "procedural turn"

The interest shown by the States concerning natural life, as well as its preservation and control (that we accept and demand) when there are unusual circumstances (as the pandemic generated by the COVID-19) is clear. However, this interest also stands in ordinary days, particularly in abortion's politics and laws just as in the evaluation of the ones at European level. Specifically, the evaluation realized by the European Court of Human Rights, focused on to supervise if the States fulfill or not their positive obligations to warrant the access to legal abortion, that is called the jurisprudence' "procedural turn" in matters of abortion, a turn that, as we explain in this paper, has another facet, which is its Bio-political perspective.

Violence against women in Russia and Brazil: International and domestic responses

The problem of domestic violence and violence against women, despite being an age-old phenomenon, came to the fore of public debate relatively late. It entered the agenda of intergovernmental organizations in the 1990s, but became the subject of international litigation only in the 2000s and 2010s. While this belated response of the international community can be associated with the inadequate conceptualization of the problem and insufficient data, it also has to do with the ongoing public/private dichotomy that became especially pronounced in the recent years when various conservative groups increasingly question the necessity of specific laws and policies aimed at eliminating this kind of crime. In this article, I briefly trace the developments concerning women’s rights, and, particularly, domestic violence and violence against women in international law. Then, based on the analysis of international and regional court decisions, I try to see how and whether these decisions contributed to the domestic developments in the field of combatting this phenomenon in Russia and Brazil. It is also important to examine how COVID-19 pandemic impacted the narratives of violence and how the international community should respond to the challenge of protecting the most vulnerable members of the society in the conditions of health emergency. © 2021, University of Tyumen. All rights reserved.

COVID-19 pandemic and derogation to human rights.

Under international human rights law, States can limit the exercise of most human rights if it is necessary to protect the rights of others or collective interests. The exceptional circumstances brought by the COVID-19 global pandemic lead to more extensive, on both their scope and their duration, restrictions of human rights than in usual times. This article introduces the States' specific right to derogate to human rights in circumstances of public emergency and the conditions of a legitimate derogation in the context of COVID-19. It argues that States must ensure that the general measures they adopt to face the crisis do not disproportionally harm vulnerable people.