欧洲人权法院的渔业权利程序:斯帕索夫诉罗马尼亚

Medy Dervovic, Stefan Kirchner, Angharad Downes
{"title":"欧洲人权法院的渔业权利程序:斯帕索夫诉罗马尼亚","authors":"Medy Dervovic, Stefan Kirchner, Angharad Downes","doi":"10.36969/njel.v7i1.25812","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, it has increasingly been recognized that work at sea often raises questions concerning the protection of human rights. This is also the case in the context of fishing. While human rights issues on commercial fishing vessels are gaining attention, fishing activities of individuals and small crews are also connected to human rights—for example, regarding the implementation of fisheries policies. In December 2022, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in the case of a fisherman from Bulgaria who had worked in Romania’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Black Sea. Bulgaria and Romania are both members of the European Union (EU), and the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) applied to the applicant’s work. He alleged that Romania implemented the CFP incorrectly and, in doing so, violated his human rights. This article analyzes the case of Spasov v Romania, which, as of late 2023, is available on the ECtHR’s website in French. The core issues of the case are placed in the context of the CFP and the relationship between the EU and the ECHR. It will be shown that the ECHR remains a potent tool for the protection of human rights at sea as well, including in the EEZ, where the coastal State exercises jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 ECHR.","PeriodicalId":489206,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of european law","volume":"35 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fishing Rights Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights: Spasov v Romania\",\"authors\":\"Medy Dervovic, Stefan Kirchner, Angharad Downes\",\"doi\":\"10.36969/njel.v7i1.25812\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent years, it has increasingly been recognized that work at sea often raises questions concerning the protection of human rights. This is also the case in the context of fishing. While human rights issues on commercial fishing vessels are gaining attention, fishing activities of individuals and small crews are also connected to human rights—for example, regarding the implementation of fisheries policies. In December 2022, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in the case of a fisherman from Bulgaria who had worked in Romania’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Black Sea. Bulgaria and Romania are both members of the European Union (EU), and the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) applied to the applicant’s work. He alleged that Romania implemented the CFP incorrectly and, in doing so, violated his human rights. This article analyzes the case of Spasov v Romania, which, as of late 2023, is available on the ECtHR’s website in French. The core issues of the case are placed in the context of the CFP and the relationship between the EU and the ECHR. It will be shown that the ECHR remains a potent tool for the protection of human rights at sea as well, including in the EEZ, where the coastal State exercises jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 ECHR.\",\"PeriodicalId\":489206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nordic journal of european law\",\"volume\":\"35 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nordic journal of european law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v7i1.25812\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic journal of european law","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v7i1.25812","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,越来越多的人认识到,海上工作往往会引发人权保护问题。捕鱼活动也是如此。在商业渔船上的人权问题日益受到关注的同时,个人和小型船员的捕鱼活动也与人权有关--例如,在渔业政策的实施方面。2022 年 12 月,欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)对一名在罗马尼亚黑海专属经济区(EEZ)工作的保加利亚渔民的案件做出了裁决。保加利亚和罗马尼亚都是欧盟(EU)成员国,欧盟的共同渔业政策(CFP)适用于申请人的工作。他声称罗马尼亚错误地执行了共同渔业政策,并因此侵犯了他的人权。本文分析了 Spasov 诉罗马尼亚一案,截至 2023 年底,欧洲人权法院网站上已有该案的法文版本。该案的核心问题被置于《保护所有人免遭强迫失踪国际公约》以及欧盟与《欧洲人权公约》之间关系的背景之下。它将表明,《欧洲人权公约》仍然是保护海上人权的有力工具,包括在专属经济区内,沿海国根据《欧洲人权公约》第 1 条行使管辖权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fishing Rights Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights: Spasov v Romania
In recent years, it has increasingly been recognized that work at sea often raises questions concerning the protection of human rights. This is also the case in the context of fishing. While human rights issues on commercial fishing vessels are gaining attention, fishing activities of individuals and small crews are also connected to human rights—for example, regarding the implementation of fisheries policies. In December 2022, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in the case of a fisherman from Bulgaria who had worked in Romania’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Black Sea. Bulgaria and Romania are both members of the European Union (EU), and the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) applied to the applicant’s work. He alleged that Romania implemented the CFP incorrectly and, in doing so, violated his human rights. This article analyzes the case of Spasov v Romania, which, as of late 2023, is available on the ECtHR’s website in French. The core issues of the case are placed in the context of the CFP and the relationship between the EU and the ECHR. It will be shown that the ECHR remains a potent tool for the protection of human rights at sea as well, including in the EEZ, where the coastal State exercises jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 ECHR.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信