BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Author
Czepek Jakub (Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie)
Title
The Requirements Deriving from the Procedural Aspect of Art. 2 of the European Convention of Human Rightsin the Context of Polish and Russian Investigation Regarding the Air Crash of Polish Air Force Tu-154 in Smolensk
Source
Law and Administration in Post-Soviet Europe, 2020, vol. 7, iss. 1, s. 61-67, bibliogr. 37 poz.
Keyword
Wypadki lotnicze, Prawo międzynarodowe, Prawa człowieka
Plane accidents, International law, Human rights
Country
Rosja, Polska
Russia, Poland
Abstract
The main aim of this analysis is the synthetic reconstruction of the standards of European Court of Human Rights concerning the procedural aspect of the right to life, and particularly the obligation of conducting an effective investigation in the context of the Polish Air Force Tu-154 air crash in Smolensk on 10th April 2010. The right to life in the system of the European Convention of Human Rights has a particular character. It derives mostly from its paramount importance. Due to the character of the sphere guaranteed by the right to life, the European Court of Human Rights notices the need of protecting it, both in material and procedural aspect. This is also the reason why article 2 of the ECHR is backed up by the wide variety of positive obligations. The standards of article 2 of the ECHR and state's positive obligations in this respect are fully applicable in relation to the air crash of the presidential Tu-154. State's obligations focus on both material and procedural aspect of incident causing death. The air crash of Tu-154 concerns particularly the obligation to conduct adequate and effective official investigation. This obligation concerns both Polish and Russian authorities. The main aim of this research is to analyse which obligations are applicable in respect of this particular air crash. (original abstract)
Full text
Show
Bibliography
Show
  1. Brems E., Procedural Protection. An Examination of Procedural Safe-guards Read into Substantive Convention Rights, [in:] Brems E., Gerards J. (eds.), Shaping Rights in the ECHR. The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights, Cambridge 2015.
  2. Czepek J., Zobowiązania pozytywne państwa w sferze praw człowieka pierwszej generacji na tle Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka, Olsztyn 2014.
  3. Garlicki L. (ed.), Konwencja o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności, Tom I. Komentarz do artykułów 1-18, Warszawa 2010.
  4. Jasudowicz T., Kryminalistyczne aspekty prawa do życia w świetle orzecznictwa strasburskiego, [in:] Bulsiewicz A., Marek A., Kwiatkowska-Danel V. (eds.), Doctrina multiplex veritas una. Księga jubileuszowa ofiarowana profesorowi Mariuszowi Kulickiemu, Toruń 2004.
  5. Jasudowicz T., Położenie prawne Rodzin Smoleńskich w kontekście wyjaśniania Katastrofy Smoleńskiej i dochodzenia roszczeń z niej wynikających, [in:] Jasudowicz T., Górski G., Prawne problemy tragedii smoleńskiej. Teksty i materiały, Toruń 2018.
  6. Jasudowicz T., Śledztwo smoleńskie z perspektywy prawa do życia w Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka, [in:] Jasudowicz T., Górski G., Prawne problemy tragedii smoleńskiej. Teksty i materiały, Toruń 2018.
  7. Mik C., Teoria obowiązków pozytywnych państw-stron traktatów w dziedzinie praw człowieka na przykładzie Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka [in:] Białocerkiewicz J., Balcerzak M., Czeczko-Durlak A. (red.), Księga jubileuszowa profesora Tadeusza Jasudowicza, Toruń 2004.
  8. Morawska E., Zobowiązania pozytywne państw-stron Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności, Warszawa 2016.
  9. Mowbray A.R., The Development of positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights, Oxford - Portland Oregon, 2004.
  10. Opsahl T., The right to life, [in:] Macdonald R.St.J., Matscher F., Petzold H. (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, Dordrecht - Boston - London, 1993.
  11. ECtHR decision Bone v. France, 1.03.2005, appl. no 69869/01.
  12. ECtHR decision Pereira Henriques and Others v. Luxemburg, 26.08.2003, appl. no 60255/00.
  13. ECtHR decision Rajkowska v. Poland, 27.11.2007, appl. no 37393/02.
  14. ECtHR judgment Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom, 30.03.2016, appl. no 5878/08.
  15. ECtHR judgment Budayeva v. Russia, 20.03.2008, appl. no 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02,15343/02.
  16. ECtHR judgment ^aakńicńl v. Turkey, 8.07.1999, appl. no 23657/94.
  17. ECtHR judgment CiechoNĄska v. Poland, 14.06.2011, appl. no 19776/04.
  18. ECtHR judgment Ergi v. Turkey, 27.08.1998, appl. no 23818/94.
  19. ECtHR judgment G^Il v. Turkey, 14.12.2000, appl. no 22676/93.
  20. ECtHR judgment Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, 4.05.2001, appl. no 24746/94.
  21. ECtHR judgment Ilhan v. Turkey, 27.06.2000, appl. no 22277/93.
  22. ECtHR judgment Kaya v. Turkey, 16.02.1998, appl. no 22729/93.
  23. ECtHR judgment Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, 28.02.2012, appl. no 17423/05, 20534/05, 20678/05, 23263/05, 24283/05, 35673/05.
  24. ECtHR judgment L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9.06.1998, appl. no 23413/94.
  25. ECtHR judgment McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27.09.1995, appl. no 18984/91.
  26. ECtHR judgment McKerr v. the United Kingdom, 4.05.2001, appl. no 28883/95.
  27. ECtHR judgment Mustafa Tun^S and Fecire Tun^S v. Turkey, 14.04.2015, appl. no 24014/05.
  28. ECtHR judgment Mustafa Tun^S and Fecire Tun^S v. Turkey, 25.06.2013, appl. no 24014/05.
  29. ECtHR judgment Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, 6.07.2005, appl. no 43577/98, 43579/98.
  30. ECtHR judgment Ońuur v. Turkey, 20.05.1999, appl. no 21594/93.
  31. ECtHR judgment ^Eneryńlldńlz v. Turkey, 30.11.2004, appl. no 48939/99.
  32. ECtHR judgment Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28.10.1998, appl. no 23452/94.
  33. ECtHR judgment Papapetrou and Others v. Greece, 12.07.2011, appl. no 17380/09.
  34. ECtHR judgment Salman v. Turkey, 27.06.2000, appl. no 21986/93.
  35. ECtHR judgment Slimani v. France, 27.07.2004, appl. no 57671/00.
  36. ECtHR judgment Solska and Rybicka v. Poland, 20.09.2018, appl. no 30491/17, 31083/17.
  37. ECtHR judgment Tagayeva and Others v. Russia, 13.04.2017, appl. no 26562/07, 14755/08, 49339/08, 49380/08, 51313/08, 21294/11, 37096/11.
Cited by
Show
ISSN
2391-5544
Language
eng
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/lape-2020-0006
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu