Jump to content

Talk:Andrejeva v Latvia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article should be deleted or merged with a topic of ECHR caselaw

[edit]

To provide uniformity and ensure neutrality this article should be deleted or merged with a larger entry covering ECHR caselaw. As it seems from going through Wiki entries ECHR cases do not have separate articles. This can be seen in corresponding ECHR caselaw overview where articles of type "Person's Surnave vs Country Name" are collected in one entry with together short description of factual circumstances and possible significant conclusion that they had in ECHR findings. Even such groundbreaking, internatinal cases as MEP Zhdanoka vs Latvia or Kononov vs Latvia, Russia as intervening party (sub-entries of former seem to have existed before this particular entry), which merited parliament hearings and in case of the latter an official RF Duma statement do not have own, independent entries. Much less so should this particular case, virtually unknown outside Latvia. Or perhaps not even inside Latvia? Bete (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of any case heard by the ECtHR Grand Chamber is shown in this very discussion below. Besides, this case is of interest to tens of thousands of people (also shown below - with a link to Latvian-language source).Fuseau (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Latvia assessment

[edit]

This article was assessed as high importance to WikiProject Latvia since it is the first Wikipedia article on a case applied to a court outside Latvian jurisdiction by either a Latvian citizen or a Latvian organization with juridical consequences for Latvia. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be mentioned somewhere (and sourced), because if it is just another court case there is nothing that important about it ~~Xil (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "...it is the first Wikipedia article on a case applied to a court outside Latvian jurisdiction...." = European Court of Human Rights cases involving Latvia
  2. "...by either a Latvian citizen or a Latvian organization..." = Ms. N. Andrejeva.
  3. "...with juridical consequences for Latvia." = N. Andrejeva was awarded 6500 EUR: 5000 EUR in respect of all damage sustained and 1500 EUR in respect of costs and expenses (reference added)
Since I am not a specialist in this field, I do not know whether more court cases of this nature exist. Anyhow, above is my rationale for the project assessment. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just another court case?? As noted in the article (you can prove it here), this is only the third Grand Chamber judgment on the merits in a case against Latvia, after Slivenko and Ždanoka. Relinquishing of jurisdiction by a Chamber to the Grand Chamber case means, according to Article 30 ECHR, that "case (..) raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or (..) resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court". I.e., if a case is not decided by the Chamber of 7 judges itself, but given to decide to the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, it is either a serious question itself, or it makes the Court to consider changing its practice in similar cases, which is also important. Besides, as noted here, the question affects some 25 100 persons.Fuseau (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's a thing - I was not arguing about the rating, but about your edit summary. In my opinion, if the article is given high importance by Wikiproject on country, the issue discussed should be very notable and well known in the particular country, if it is not and you haven't bothered to explain anywhere why you think it is important, it is your fault not mine that I feel the rating should be lowered. And to your comments: 1. importance ratings are not based on if this is first article on this topic in Wikipedia or not. 2. Actually she is neither 3. This is hardly the only case Latvia has been facing juridical consequences and the fine is minuscule for a country ~~Xil (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Assuming you answered my post) This is exactly what the WikiProject Latvia assessment page says about high importance: "Subject contributes a depth of knowledge". At the time of assessment, it was the only article on the subject, so the article did contribute a depth of knowledge. After having a look at the European Court of Human Rights cases involving Latvia category, I must confess there are now several new articles on similar cases, so now I agree to a lower importance assessment of this particular article.
Your opinions on how to assess articles are interesting, perhaps we could work on the projects assessment criterias to meet some of our expectations? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 19:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's continue on Project's talk page ~~Xil (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the fine is minuscule for a country - true. However, the need to change the pensions' law provisions concerning some 25 000 people, as mentioned above, is not. And the importance is also shown by the fact that the case was decided by the Grand Chamber instead of ordinary Chamber.Fuseau (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, is it juridical consequences ? It doesn't say anywhere that the court required to change law. I figure it is indirect political consequence and still 25 000 for country of two millions is not that much. This is purely about the assessment, however - do you think it should be high ? ~~Xil (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say anywhere that the court required to change law - I've given you a link above, which says Ņemot vērā Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesas spriedumu lietā "Andrejevs pret Latviju", kas uzdod Latvijai novērst diskrimināciju pensiju aprēķinā pēc pilsonības statusa, valdībai bija jāizlemj, vai turpmāk ņemt vērā līdz 1990.gada 31.decembrim bijušajā PSRS teritorijā uzkrāto apdrošināšanas stāžu visām personām neatkarīgi no pilsonības vai neņemt vērā minēto laika periodu nevienam About assessment - at least mid-importance for project:Latvia.Fuseau (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV Neutrality dispute

[edit]

(Please add to the discussion in this section)

picking on judge and calling something "just", instead of saying what was the verdict and what other judges said 1. What was the verdict is described in two chapters: "Judgment concerning Article 6", and "Judgment concerning Article 14..." (in the latter case judgment was what "other judges [16] said", in the first - what all judges said). "Picking on judge"? Judge Ziemele was the only one expressing dissent - so her opinion has to be mentioned. I've also quoted her to illustrate her point. 2. Calling the satisfaction just means only using the term used by authors of the ECHR itself in its Article 41. Fuseau (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about emphasizing that the judge is from Latvia and "just" just doesn't feel right unless it is a legal term (es sapratu, ka tas nozīmē, ka spriedums ir bijis taisnīgs, kas ir vērtējums, kas savukārt ir POV).
P.S. It would be very kind of you to leave me a message on my talk page here, if you want me to answer, since I don't check back on my edits that often anymore ~~Xil (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That the only judge expressing disagreement with finding a violation in the case is from the same country which is accused, is notable. And just satisfaction is a legal term. What the European Court awards to applicant, when it sees his/her rights to be violated, is called just satisfaction in the European Convention (see Article 41, to which I had already pointed).Fuseau (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So assuming that judge's judgment is clouded just because she is Latvian is not POV ? ~~Xil (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't and didn't assume that judge's judgment is clouded just because she is Latvian.Fuseau (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it looks like saying that she made her judgment not by following law, but just because she is Latvian. You give her special treatment - why haven't You added anything on considerations on other judges, for example ? ~~Xil (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it looks like - to you, may be. You give her special treatment - no. why haven't You added anything on considerations on other judges - because no one of other judges has written a separate (dissenting or concurring) opinion in this case. Their common considerations are mentioned as the judgment, with which only Ziemele has partly disagreed.Fuseau (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it looks like that to me, then some readers also probably are going to assume that. If they had common considerations, you still could list from what countries they are, so the readers could see what are their prejudices. Or you could just assume that her opinion stems from the fact that she interpreted law differently, not from being Latvian. ~~Xil (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
some readers also probably are going to assume that - you did not show any cause except your own perception. so the readers could see what are their prejudices - why are you writing about prejudices of judges, about Ziemele allegedly described as making her judgment not by following law, but just because she is Latvian? Nothing of this is to found in the article. you could just assume that... - without reliable sources, we may not assume anything in Wikipedia.Fuseau (talk)
It is not my perception - you yourself stated that That the only judge expressing disagreement with finding a violation in the case is from the same country which is accused, is notable. which clearly shows that from your point of view the reason why she disagreed is that she is Latvian. By emphasizing her nationality in article you also force this view on reader, instead of letting readers decide if her argument is valid or not. ~~Xil (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
shows that from your point of view the reason why she disagreed is that she is Latvian False. It just shows that from my point of view readers should be informed that the only dissenting judge is from the country which is accused. The readers can themselves make conclusions why she dissented, a link to her opinion is provided (same as to judgment). Besides, the phrase you aren't satisfied with is not and wasn't in the article. Fuseau (talk)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrejeva v Latvia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrejeva_v_Latvia&oldid=1204854216"