LAWS

11) “State is a political organization possessing the ultimate authority to govern its own

population within its territory.”

According to the definition above explain the elements of the state.

12) Types of the state can be listed as followings:

a) Federal state

b) Unitary state

c) Absolute monarchy

d) Confederation

From the list above, in which of state would citizen have the least rights? Explain your answer

by analysing and comparing with other types of states.

13) Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both parliamentary and presidential

systems.

14) “Democracy is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the

people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral

system.”

According to the definition above explain the concept of democracy.

15) Explain the functions of the political parties.

16) What does the doctrine of precedent mean?

17) “Every nation has her own domestic (national) law which is different from others. In

today’s world, this means that there exist about 200 systems of domestic national law

systems living side by side. As federal states may have more than one sets of law

applying to different aspects of life such as family matters, one may argue that, in fact

the number of domestic law systems is above the number of the existing states. It is

generally possible to speak about two main systems of law. One is based on English

common law and has been adopted by many Commonwealth countries and most of

the United States. The other known as civil law, has developed in most of continental

Europe, Latin America and many countries in Asia and Africa which have been strongly

influenced by Europe.”

Explain at least three main differences between common law and civil law system.

18) Pretty v. United Kingdom, (2346/02) [2002] ECHR 423 (29 April 2002)

Summary

Facts: The applicant, Ms. Pretty, was dying of a neuron disease. She was paralyzed but

could make decisions. She wanted to die to be spared of suffering and indignity but could

not do it by herself. She thus wanted her husband to help her commit suicide. However,

it was a crime to assist another to commit suicide under the British laws and her request

to guarantee her husband freedom from prosecution if he helped her was refused.

Complaint: The applicant claimed that the U.K. violated Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman

or degrading treatment or punishment), Article 2 (right to life), Article 8 (right to respect

for private life), Article 9 (freedom of conscience) and Article 14 (prohibition of

discrimination)

Holding: the ECtHR found no violation of article 2, 3, 8, 9 and 14.

Reasoning: Article 2/1 enjoined States to refrain from the unlawful taking of life and to

take appropriate steps to safeguard lives. Article 2 could not be interpreted as conferring

a right to die so there was no violation of article 2. Moreover, as article 3 was construed

in conjunction with Article 2 there was no violation of article 3 either.

Question: Do you agree with ECtHR’s decision? Discuss positive obligations of the states

in regard to Article 2 (right to life) and explain shortly the characteristic of human rights.

19) Explain positive obligations of the States under the right of a healthy environment.

20) Makaratzis v. Greece, Application no. 50385/99, 20 December 2004

Facts:

The Applicant was driving his car in the centre of Athens at excessive speed and had driven

through a red traffic light. The police officers tried to arrest the applicant who, instead of

stopping, accelerated and was chased by several police officers. According to the Applicant,

he tried to stop but police officers started firing at him. During the pursuit, the applicant

collided with several vehicles and two drivers were injured. The police fired at the applicant

after the applicant had broken through five police roadblocks. The firing continued until the

applicant was arrested. He claimed that the police officers knelt him down and fired at him;

he was shot at the sole of his foot while being dragged out of his car.

The Applicant sustained injuries on the right arm, the right foot, the left buttock and the right

side of the chest; he was hospitalised for 9 days. One bullet was removed from his foot and

another remains in his buttock. He suffered from depression prior to his arrest. His existing

mental health deteriorated significantly since the accident.

An investigation was carried out by the police. The Applicant’s car was examined. According

to the ballistic report, the car “severely damaged due to collisions/crashes and to bullets…

three holes and a mark on the car’s front windscreen caused by bullets which came through

the rear window; the latter was broken and had fallen in; sixteen holes were also found on

the car, caused by the direct impact of a 9mm calibre weapons”. A laboratory test was carried on 33 police firearms, three bullets and four fragments. There were 29 police officers who

participated in the chase who were later identified. Those who left the incident scene without

identifying themselves, did not hand in their weapons. A bullet found inside the Applicant’s

car and the one removed from his body were from the same weapon. However, they are

untraceable to those examined above.

The Applicant claimed before the ECtHR that the police officers who chased him had used

excessive firepower against him, putting his life at risk. He argued that Articles 2 of the

European Human Rights Convention had been breached.

Analyze the negative obligations of the state in this regard.