2014•Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University)Requires access

Procedural protection: an examination of procedural safeguards

Eva Brems

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The chapter written by Eva Brems throws light on the often-overlooked phenomenon of hidden procedural safeguards embedded in the substantive Convention rights. In numerous fields of its case law, the Court has in fact added a procedural layer to the scope of substantive Convention rights, by deriving state obligations of a procedural nature from substantive ECHR provisions. The main driver for this development appears to be the wish to make human rights guarantees more effective. The chapter first clarifies the reach of procedural obligations under substantive Convention rights, distinguishing between the requirement that a procedure be available and the more specific procedural guarantees that the Court requires. It goes on to analyse the impact of the ‘proceduralisation’ of substantive rights and the role this plays within the Court’s case law.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The chapter written by Eva Brems throws light on the often-overlooked phenomenon of hidden procedural safeguards embedded in the substantive Convention rights. In numerous fields of its case law, the Court has in fact added a procedural layer to the scope of substantive Convention rights, by deriving state obligations of a procedural nature from substantive ECHR provisions. The main driver for this development appears to be the wish to make human rights guarantees more effective. The chapter first clarifies the reach of procedural obligations under substantive Convention rights, distinguishing between the requirement that a procedure be available and the more specific procedural guarantees that the Court requires. It goes on to analyse the impact of the ‘proceduralisation’ of substantive rights and the role this plays within the Court’s case law.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The chapter written by Eva Brems throws light on the often-overlooked phenomenon of hidden procedural safeguards embedded in the substantive Convention rights. In numerous fields of its case law, the Court has in fact added a procedural layer to the scope of substantive Convention rights, by deriving state obligations of a procedural nature from substantive ECHR provisions. The main driver for this development appears to be the wish to make human rights guarantees more effective. The chapter first clarifies the reach of procedural obligations under substantive Convention rights, distinguishing between the requirement that a procedure be available and the more specific procedural guarantees that the Court requires. It goes on to analyse the impact of the ‘proceduralisation’ of substantive rights and the role this plays within the Court’s case law.

Key concepts: Procedural law, Convention, Political science, Law, Substantive law, Scope (computer science), Substantive rights, Human rights

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Procedural protection: an examination of procedural safeguards — Research Paper | ScholarLens