Trends of Protection of Women’s Rights in the Case Law of European Court of Human Rights

Irakli Adeishvili

Authors

Irakli Adeishvili

Keywords:

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Case Law of ECHR, Women’s Rights, Domestic Violence, Positive Obligation, Osman Test, Evolution of case Law of ECHR.

Abstract

Protection of Women’s Right became very acute in Georgia recently. Therefore, the article aims to analyze the existing trends in European Court of Human Rights as well as which approaches are established in European Court of Human Rights in this regard, taking into consideration that the European Convention of Human Rights does not contain a special provision about the protection of women’s rights. Together with the theoretical deliberation there are underlined initial discussions contained in the classical historical cases in this Article. In addition, the Article analyzes recently created case law of European Court of Human Rights having fundamental significance for the protection of women’s rights and the author concludes that through the evolution of the case law of European Court of Human Rights the European Convention of Human Rights becomes an effective legal document for the protection of women’s rights.

References

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950.

American Convention on Human Rights, 1969.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.

Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979.

Abdel-Monem, T., Opuz v. Turkey: Europe’s Landmark Judgment on Violence Against Women. Human Rights Brief 17, no. 1 (2009): 32.

Akandji-Kombe J-F., Positive Obligations under ECHR. A Guide to the implementation of ECHR, Human Rights Handbooks, No 7, Council of Europe, 2007, 4-15.

Cook R. J., Women’s International Human Rights Law: The Way Forward, in Cook R.J (ed.), Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994, 3.

Fitzpatrick J., The Use of International Human Rights Norms to Combat Violence Against Women”, in Cook R.J. (ed.), Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994, 532.

Hasselbacher L., State Obligations Regarding Domestic Violence: The European Court of Human Rights, Due Diligence and International Legal Minimums of Protection, 8 Nw.J.Int’l Hum. Rts. 190 (2010), 192. http://scholarlycommons.la.northwestern.edu/njihr/vol8/iss2/3, [19.04.2017].

McQuigg R.J.A., International Human Rights Law and Domestic Violence, the Effectiveness of International Human Rights Law, Routledge 2011, 2-18.

Van Leewen F., Women’s Rights are Human Rights!: The Practice of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in Hellun A., Aasen N. S. (eds.), Women’s Human Rights. CEDAW in International, Regional and National Law, Cambridge University Press, 2012, 246.

Vegleris P., “Twenty Years” - Experience of the Convention and Future Prospects, in Robertson A.H. (ed)., Privacy and Human Rights (Reports and Communications Presented at the Third International Colloquy about the European Convention on Human Rights, 30 September – 3 October, 1970), Manchester: Manchester University Press 1973, 382; in Xenos D., The Positive Obligations of the State under the European Convention of Human Rights, Routledge, 2011, 19.

Xenos D., The Positive Obligations of the State under the European Convention of Human Rights, Routledge, 2011, 19 – 22, 111 – 112.

Airey v. Ireland, [1979], ECHR, (HUDOC).

Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, [2008], ECHR, (HUDOC).

Kontrova v. Slovakia, [2007], ECHR, (HUDOC).

Marckx v. Belgium, [1979], ECHR, (HUDOC).

Osman v. United Kingdom, [1998], ECHR, (HUDOC).

Opuz v, Turkey, [2009], ECHR, (HUDOC).

CEDAW Communication No. 24/2009, 13 July 2015, X and Y v. Georgia

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c=#n1359128122487_pointer.

http://www.echr.coe.int/documents/anni_book_content_eng.pdf.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Priority_policy_ENG.pdf.