European Court of Human Rights

European court of human rights was established in 1959 as an independent court of Council of Europe in order to deal with alleged violations of human rights which has been enumerated in European Convention on human rights. Obviously, protection and evolution of human rights obligations is considered as one of the most significant concerns of this court. In addition, the protection of human rights and public interest together Are required for an efficient society. As a result, European court of human rights must use a mechanism by which it can have a reasonable and balanced operation to realize these two fundamental values. In order to approach this aim, the court uses the proportionality test, consisting of three principles of legitimacy, appropriateness and necessity. Despite its efficient results for the Court, the application of this test has its deficiency in keeping a balance between human rights and public interest. This court authorized the member states to evaluate the legitimacy of an aim by themselves, however it should be the court’s task to pass three steps of proportionality test independently. This research mainly concentrates on the evaluation of the European court of human rights from the doctrine of margin of appreciation perspective.

The right to attorney in judicial proceedings is one of the basic procedural rights that serves substantive rights. The question that can be raised here is “What is the meaning and characteristics of the attorney in administrative proceedings? Using a comparative and analytical method, the present article seeks to answer the above question. The findings of this article show that the British and Australian legal systems do not recognize the right to attorney in administrative proceedings as an absolute right. If the laws do not recognize the power of attorney in the administrative proceedings, it will be up to administrative courts. However, in cases where procedural fairness requires this right, the courts are sensitive to it in their judicial procedure. The procedure of the European Court of Human Rights also shows that the concepts of fairness of the proceedings and the right to attorney have been extended to administrative proceedings as well. In the Iranian legal system, the attorney is one of the basic procedural rights recognized by the Constitution and according to the approach of the Guardian Council, this right can be extended to administrative courts as well. The judicial procedure of the Court of Administrative Justice also confirms this approach and treats it as a judicial proceeding.

The first paragraph of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) recognizes the right to freedom of expression and prohibits party states from any arbitrary interference. The second paragraph, emphasizing that exercising this right comes with certain duties and responsibilities, authorizes the party states to restrict this right for their citizens if the specified conditions are met. One such condition is achieving one of the legitimate aims listed therein. The courts of Turkey, as a member state bound by the ECHR, have invoked these goals to justify their decisions regarding the restriction of citizens' right to freedom of expression. Nevertheless, convicted individuals who appeal these rulings before the European Court of Human Rights argue that no such legitimate aim existed, and that their right to freedom of expression has been violated. This study investigates the primary challenges faced by Turkish courts in invoking legitimate aims as justifications for restricting freedom of expression. It also elucidates the precise meaning and conditions for the eligibility of these goals based on the interpretation provided by the European Court of Human Rights.