09 April 2024
Historic and Unprecedented
The three much-awaited judgments rendered by the European Court of Human Rights on 9 April 2024 are truly historic and unprecedented. In Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, the Grand Chamber established that climate change is 'one of the most pressing issues of our times' and poses a threat to human rights. With this ruling, the Court confirmed that States have a positive obligation to adopt measures to mitigate climate change under Article 8 ECHR, the right to family and private life. The judgments will undeniably set the tone for climate litigation in the years to come. It will impact both litigation and other procedures before other international courts. Continue reading >>
1 
14 March 2024
CILFIT in Strasbourg
On 19 February 2024, the European Court of Human Rights decided not to answer the Estonian Supreme Court’s request for an advisory opinion on the basis of Protocol 16 (P16). For the first time, it dismissed a request because it did not concern a question of principle concerning the interpretation and application of ECHR rights. The decision is significant because the ECtHR provides clear contours as to what types of questions courts should (not) ask. Continue reading >>
0
16 December 2022
The Slippery Slope of a Snooping Strasbourg
Last week, the ECtHR ruled in Spasov, for the first time, that there was a 'denial of justice' and thus a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR due to a manifest error of law by a national court regarding the interpretation and application of EU law. A Romanian court had convicted Mr Spasov, the owner and captain of a Bulgarian-flagged vessel, of illegal fishing inside Romania’s exclusive economic zone. Spasov is an important principled judgment that further intertwines the EU and ECHR legal systems. Continue reading >>17 November 2022
Picking Primacy over Procedural Autonomy
On 8 November, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’) decided that national courts are required to ascertain of their own motion whether detention of an illegally staying foreign national or asylum seeker is lawful. This judgment is an example of the ever-growing impact of EU law on national procedural rules, especially in the migration law area. The judgment is also noteworthy because of the difference in approach between, on the one hand, the Court and, on the other hand, the Dutch referring courts and AG Richard de la Tour. Continue reading >>
0