| Abstract [eng] |
The author of the master's thesis examines various interpretations of the term ‘vulnerability’ at the Strasbourg Court, specifically regarding the rights of disadvantaged and marginalized applicants as vulnerable individuals and groups. The analysis employs comparative measures to review significant cases, whether they are over a decade old or more recent judgments, evaluating how these decisions interact and influence one another within contexts like socio- economic rights, issues of domestic violence, legal recognition for same- sex couples, and the plight of high- risk vulnerable individuals and groups during the COVID- 19 crisis (e. g., adverse effects from climate change and impacts on individuals with HIV), as well as detainees in pre-trial proceedings by ECHR rights. Additionally, legal scholars and online journal articles serve as primary authorities to support the author's arguments by detailing the cases, highlighting criticisms, or commending their approaches, potentially offering solutions to prevent future misinterpretations. Additionally, the research highlights the importance and difficulties of accurately applying and interpreting vulnerability, including effective methods for determining when to invoke positive state obligations and criteria for assessing vulnerability. This process categorizes disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups as vulnerable. As a result, the analysis deepens our understanding of the intricate challenges that judges at the Strasbourg Court encounter when conceptualizing vulnerability, including the principles of equality, non- discrimination, and the rule of law rights outlined in the Convention. However, it also tackles the complexities of interpreting the term ‘vulnerability’ within case law. The focus is on how selective applications and interpretations of vulnerable groups can perpetuate discrimination and stigma against marginalized individuals and groups, rather than genuinely safeguarding their equality with the wider population. The author also underscores the margin of appreciation within the ECHR, pointing out that Contracting Parties have some (though limited) latitude to justify human rights violations, even when described as fulfilling positive state obligations. This aspect of the master's thesis exposes weaknesses in ECtHR jurisprudence that are frequently overlooked by Contracting Parties, which lack enforcement mechanisms, subsequently leaving vulnerable individuals without support. This situation arises from a compromise among contracting states, as the ECHR endeavors to harmonize the laws and practices of diverse states, creating a certain legal average. While some states will need considerable effort to achieve it, others may see it as insufficient. |
