التصنيف: estaql

The European Court of Human Rights is back in focus again as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak aims to push ahead with his plan to deport those who arrive in the UK illegally to Rwanda.

Mr Sunak is facing pressure from some of his own MPs to keep his flagship immigration policy alive after the UK’s Supreme Court ruled the scheme was unlawful.

The prime minister has said he will introduce emergency legislation to make sure his plan can go ahead, and acknowledging that the government could still face legal challenges from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), he vowed: “I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights.”

The government’s initial plan to fly illegal immigrants to Rwanda was blocked by the ECHR in June 2022 after issuing injunctions over the specifics of individual cases.

Sky News looks at how the ECHR works and why its decisions override those made in British courts.

Origins

The ECHR came into existence in the aftermath of the Second World War.

Even before the war had ended, in 1943, Winston Churchill had proposed a Council of Europe to ensure the continent would never again see the sort of injustices that allowed the Nazis to take over Germany and then impose fascism across the continent.

After the allied victory, the UK and 10 nations that had been involved in the war, plus Ireland, got together in 1949 to form the Council of Europe, a group tasked with upholding human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe.

One of its first tasks was to create a document that set out the rights people should enjoy in this new Europe – the European Convention of Human Rights.

But it needed to be upheld, so out of that came the European Court of Human Rights, a judicial body that would impose judgments on whether countries had breached a person’s rights.

It was and is central to the way the Council of Europe was set up that member countries have to abide by the convention, and hence the rulings of the court.

The Council of Europe has since grown and now contains 46 states, including many not in the European Union.

The only European countries not in the council – and therefore not subject to the rulings of the ECHR – are Russia, Belarus and the Vatican City, although the Holy See as the Vatican is also known is an “observer state”, which means it can be invited to take part in discussions.

Russia was a member for 26 years but was ejected in March after the invasion of Ukraine.

If the UK doesn’t like the court’s decisions, can’t it just leave?

Suella Braverman – who was sacked as home secretary on Monday – has echoed calls from other Tory MPs as she said the UK must leave the ECHR order to revive the Rwanda scheme.

So far, since it was set up, only one country other than Russia has left the Council of Europe – and hence become no longer subject to the ECHR – and that was Greece in 1969.

At the time, Greece had undergone a military coup and had abolished democracy. This brought it into conflict with the principles of the Council. Greece was at risk of being thrown out if it hadn’t withdrawn.

The UK is within its rights to withdraw in theory, and to do so all it would have to do is notify the secretary general. It would then have to wait until the next financial year to leave.

But the UK is signed up to the Good Friday Agreement, which requires it under international law to implement the European Convention on Human Rights in Northern Ireland.

It would also be a seismic event – for a country which founded a human rights body like the Council to leave it just because of a court ruling against it.

What’s in the convention?

Along with the breaches of human rights that happened during the Second World War, the brutality meted out in the communist east also played a part in shaping the convention, especially as more members joined the Council of Europe.

The convention was based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which had been adopted by the nascent United Nations in 1948.

At its heart was securing the principle of democracy, with all the rights it enshrined – many from British and French traditions – aimed at ensuring a democratic state could function effectively.

It consists of 18 articles and 15 protocols that provide protection for people against the unfair and unjust actions of the state, or potentially other individuals through the state.

The articles are the fundamental rights that member states must provide. The protocols were added later, some of which became compulsory and others encouraged.

The articles include the right to: life, liberty, security, fair trial, privacy, free expression, assembly and protection from torture and servitude.

Among the protocols are: protection for property; the right to education; the right to take part in free, secret elections; the right to move freely; the right not to be discriminated against; and the restriction and abolition of the death penalty.

The UK has not ratified protocol 4, which provides the right to move freely and to leave a country, prohibits the expulsion of nationals, provides the right to enter a country and prohibits the collective expulsion of foreigners. This is because of concerns it affects British nationality law regarding the rights of British Nationals (Overseas) to live in the UK.

How does the court operate?

Sitting in Strasbourg, the court has 46 judges – one for each of the nations in the Council of Europe – each of whom serves for a nine-year term.

The British judge is Tim Eicke, a German-born QC and expert on international human rights law.

Cases registered are assigned to a figure called a judge rapporteur, who decides whether cases are admissible, depending on whether they abide by a list of criteria.

Generally, most cases will be heard by a chamber of seven judges, unless the case raises serious questions of interpretation of the ECHR, which means it will be heard by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges.

Once a judgment has been made, it is passed to a group called the Committee of Ministers, made up of the foreign ministers of each member state, who are expected to implement the decision.

The court has no power to force a change in laws set by a country’s parliament – the Committee of Ministers oversees the process by which member states change their laws, but it cannot be enforced.

Consequently, there have been numerous instances of countries not abiding by decisions, or the legal implications of decisions.

In 2015, while still a member of the Council of Europe, Russia adopted a law allowing it to overrule judgments from the ECHR.

Other countries’ courts have at times queried the applicability of ECHR decisions in national settings.

Issues with the court

Over the years, the UK government has had many run-ins with the court, as people have tested the application of British law and how it interacts with the convention.

It has led to British law being reshaped, with judgments being integrated into case law in the respective parts of the UK.

British politicians have regularly been critical of ECHR decisions but England and the devolved nations generally abide by them.

One the government refused to implement, however, was the rights of prisoners to vote, which in 2005 the court said should apply to the UK. A form of compromise was reached in 2017, when those out on temporary licence were provided with voting rights.

Another issue has been that, with the expansion of the Council of Europe, the number of cases registered with the court has grown exponentially.

As of 31 December 2021, there were 70,150 live applications pending to be allocated, but 24% of those were from Russia.

Since the court was formed, it has delivered judgments on 24,511 cases (up to the end of 2021) and in 2021 it made 1,005 judgments on just over 3,000 applications. Until 1995, it had only issued 895 judgments since the foundation of the court.

On last year’s judgments, almost half concerned Russia, Ukraine and Romania, with a total of 84% of decisions going against member states.

The number of cases being lodged led the UK to propose a further protocol (number 15) to the convention, aimed at reforming the ability of the court to manage the number of applications. It was adopted last year.

The ECHR and the European Court of Justice

Much of the confusion concerning the ECHR comes from the existence and rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

The difference is that the ECJ only applies in the European Union. It is effectively the supreme court of the EU and is responsible for ruling on matters of EU law, which includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU).

The two overlap heavily but the CFREU has extra rights that only apply in EU countries and one of these is the right to asylum.

Unlike with the ECHR, however, it is not possible for individuals to appeal to the ECJ over possible breaches of the CFREU as part of EU law.

As might be expected, as every EU state is also signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, the ECHR is regarded as a minimum standard by which all EU member states must operate.

No country has ever become a member of the EU without having been first member of the Council of Europe.

The murderer of Irish teacher Ashling Murphy “should never see the light of day again”, her mother has said as he was sentenced to life.

Jozef Puska, 33, of Mucklagh, Tullamore, was found guilty last week following a trial, where the jury was told by the judge “we have evil in this room”.

At Dublin’s Central Criminal Court on Friday, Mr Justice Tony Hunt said there was only one sentence available, and it was “deserved”.

He said Puska’s evidence had been “indescribable” and the “one thing we don’t know about this case is the why”.

Ms Murphy, 23, was killed while she was out exercising along a canal in Tullamore, County Offaly, in January last year.

She was wearing a Fitbit which showed her exercise started at 2.51pm. But 30 minutes later it tracked “erratic, violent movements”. At 3.31pm, the Fitbit was no longer recording any heartbeat.

Ms Murphy’s mother said her “heart was ripped” from her body the moment she learned her daughter had been killed.

In a victim impact statement read out in court by a detective garda, Mrs Murphy said her “heart broke the moment I heard the bad news Ashling was murdered”.

“There is such a void in our home,” she said.

She said that the actions of Puska “must have consequences” and said “he should never see the light of day again”.

She said before her daughter left the house, she had begged her not to go along the canal, to which Ms Murphy replied “Ah mum, I’m 23 years old” before giving her mother a hug.

She gave her “a big hug and said ‘I love you, you’re the best mum in the world’ and walked out the door”, the court heard.

Ms Murphy’s partner said their relationship was “full with love, trust respect” and “was quite simply heaven on earth”.

Describing how they had first met as teenagers, Ryan Casey said they had plans to travel together, to build a house, start a family, and get married.

He said it did not make sense to him that someone who is “a burden to society can completely and permanently destroy someone… who is the complete opposite”, describing Ms Murphy as “a light with dreams, compassion, respect, a person who contributes to society in the best way possible”.

Read more:
Ashling Murphy and Ireland’s femicide epidemic

Mr Murphy’s death drew outrage across Ireland and the UK, prompting calls for more to be done about femicide.

During the trial, the court heard a man was seen in a ditch with a woman, believed to be Ms Murphy, and he shouted for a witness to go away.

They said Ms Murphy appeared to be fighting back, but not making any noise.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive Breaking News alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News App. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Shane MacGowan’s wife has posted an update on The Pogues singer’s health.

She had previously thanked well-wishers when posting a photo of the Fairytale Of New York singer in a hospital bed earlier this week.

MacGowan, 65, is believed to have been in intensive care for the past few months after he was diagnosed with viral encephalitis last year.

It is a serious condition where the brain becomes inflamed. It can be life-threatening and requires urgent treatment in hospital.

On Friday, his wife, Irish journalist Victoria Mary Clarke, said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, that he was “feeling much better”.

She also said she was “so grateful to everyone who is willing him to get home for Christmas”.

Ms Clarke, 57, said in an Instagram post on Saturday that she was “facing terrifying fears of loss”.

She wrote: “Love is the most beautiful and powerful thing that we can experience as humans but love can also feel painful especially if you are afraid of losing a person or anything else that you love.”

“Sometimes when you love very deeply you will find yourself facing terrifying fears of loss that can feel so big and devastating that you don’t know how you can survive them and you can’t imagine life without this person that you love,” she added.

The couple married in 2018 at Copenhagen City Hall in Denmark after more than 32 years together.

Ms Clarke previously revealed MacGowan’s bandmates Spider Stacy and Terry Woods had visited him recently.

The singer has faced several health issues in recent years.

In 2015, MacGowan broke his pelvis and has used a wheelchair since.

Six years later, he broke his knee in a fall before tearing ligaments in his left leg.

He never fully recovered from his injuries and confirmed in April that he “can’t walk anymore”.

MacGowan has also been open about his battle with addiction.

In 2015, he received a full set of teeth implants as his real teeth were destroyed by decades of drinking and drug use.

South Korea says it will ban eating dog meat, with plans to introduce a law by the end of this year. 

The law to end the traditional but controversial practice would have a three-year grace period, with dog meat banned entirely from 2027.

The Korean practice of eating dog meat has drawn criticism from animal rights activists overseas, but there has also been increasing opposition at home, particularly from younger people.

“It is time to put an end to social conflicts and controversies around dog meat consumption through the enactment of a special act to end it,” Yu Eui-dong, policy chief of the ruling People Power Party, said at a meeting on Friday.

The government and ruling party would introduce a bill this year to enforce a ban, he said, adding he was confident it would pass with bipartisan support.

Anti-dog meat bills have failed in the past because of protests by those in the industry, and concern for the livelihoods of farmers and restaurant owners.

The proposed ban will include a three-year grace period and financial support for businesses to transition out of the trade.

Read more:
South Korea’s first ‘dog is not food’ campaign launches
Suggestion of dog meat ban welcomed by animal activists

Eating dog meat is much less common than it used to be in South Korea, but it is still eaten by some older people and served in certain restaurants.

A Gallup Korea poll last year showed 64% opposed dog meat consumption. The survey found only 8% of respondents had eaten dog within the past year, down from 27% in 2015.

First lady Kim Keon Hee has been a vocal critic of dog meat consumption and, along with her husband, President Yoon Suk Yeol, has adopted stray dogs.

There are about 1,150 dog breeding farms, 34 slaughterhouses, 219 distribution companies, and 1,600 restaurants serving dog meat, according to government data.

Animal rights groups welcomed the prospect of a ban.

“A dream come true for all of us who have campaigned so hard to end this cruelty,” Humane Society International said in a statement.

The league referred Everton to an independent commission in March over an alleged breach of profitability and sustainability rules.

Everton have been deducted 10 points for a breach of the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) for the season ending 2021-22, the league has said.

An independent commission imposed an immediate deduction which will see Everton drop from 14th in the standings into the relegation zone, above bottom side Burnley on goal difference.

The Premier League said it had issued a complaint against the Merseyside club and referred the case to the independent commission earlier this year.

“During the proceedings, the club admitted it was in breach of the PSRs for the period ending season 2021/22 but the extent of the breach remained in dispute,” the league said in a statement on Friday.

“The Commission determined that Everton FC’s PSR Calculation for the relevant period resulted in a loss of 124.5 million pounds ($154.70m), as contended by the Premier League, which exceeded the threshold of 105 million pounds permitted under the PSRs.”

Everton, who had 14 points after 12 games before the deduction, said the sanction was “wholly disproportionate and unjust” and announced its intention to appeal the decision to the Premier League.

“Everton maintains that it has been open and transparent in the information it has provided to the Premier League and that it has always respected the integrity of the process,” it said.

“The club does not recognise the finding that it failed to act with the utmost good faith and it does not understand this to have been an allegation made by the Premier League during the course of proceedings.

“Both the harshness and severity of the sanction imposed by the Commission are neither a fair nor a reasonable reflection of the evidence submitted.”