Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:03:38.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Van Der Mussele Case

European Court of Human Rights.  29 September 1982 ; 23 November 1983 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For breaches of treaty obligations — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Lawyers’ obligation to defend accused without payment — Whether constituting forced or compulsory labour — Whether discrimination compared to other professions — Deprivation of property rights — Whether applicable to remuneration of services

Treaties — Interpretation of — Miscellaneous — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether case raises serious questions of interpretation — Meaning of phrase “forced or compulsory labour” — Lack of definition in Convention — Interpretation in light of International Labour Organization Conventions

Disputes — Other international courts — European Court of Human Rights — Whether case raises serious questions affecting interpretation of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Jurisdiction of Chamber of Court — Whether to be relinquished in favour of plenary Court

The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — Lawyers’ obligation to defend accused without payment — Whether constituting forced or compulsory labour — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 4 — Meaning of phrase “forced or compulsory labour” — International Labour Organization conventions — Principle of proportionality — Balance between aim pursued and obligations undertaken to achieve it — Discrimination — Article 14 in conjunction with Article 4 — Obligations imposed on lawyers and members of other professions — Whether comparable — Property rights — Deprivation of — Article 1 of First Protocol — Whether applying to remuneration of services — Expenses not reimbursed — Whether constituting an interference with possessions — Whether case raises serious questions affecting interpretation of Convention — Jurisdiction of Chamber of European Court of Human Rights — Whether to be relinquished in favour of plenary Court

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)