Transnational-wehrhafte Demokratie
Am 13.11.2024 hat eine Gruppe aus 113 Abgeordneten des Deutschen Bundestags einen Antrag auf die Initiierung eines Parteiverbotsverfahrens gegenüber der „Alternative für Deutschland“ eingebracht. Die bisherige Debatte konzentriert sich schwerpunktmäßig auf die Voraussetzungen und Erfolgsaussichten eines (Teil-)Verbots der Partei aus grundgesetzlicher Perspektive. Dabei droht die nationale Brille den Blick auf die transnationalen Interlegalitäten zu verzerren und dem Stand der europäischen Integration nicht gerecht zu werden.
Continue reading >>
The Visible and The Invisible of Justice in Strasbourg
Former ECtHR Vice-President Prof. Dr. Angelika Nußberger and current ECtHR Judge Dr. Kateřina Šimáčková discuss judges’ responsibility to provide relief to applicants. Focal points are recent procedural reforms affecting access to justice, the extensive yet often overlooked judicial work that does not result in published decisions, the persistent challenge of achieving gender balance on the bench, and their own personal legacies.
Continue reading >>
Stiefmütterliche Behandlung
Mit dem Ampel-Aus ist die dringend erwartete Reform des Abstammungsrechts für Zwei-Mütter-Familien in weite Ferne gerückt. Geplant war, nach der „Ehe für alle“ auch ein „Abstammungsrecht für alle“ zu schaffen, und insbesondere eine automatische Mit-Mutterschaft einzuführen. Eine aktuelle Entscheidung des EGMR in dem Fall R.F. und andere gegen Deutschland hätte neuen Schwung in die Sache bringen können. Stattdessen hat der EGMR viel zu spät und am eigentlichen Problem vorbei entschieden.
Continue reading >>Silent Prayer vs Safe Access
In line with a broader trend, all three jurisdictions in the United Kingdom now have Safe Access Zones legislation that creates a protective area around premises where abortion services are provided. Specified behaviours are criminalised within these protective areas, with silent prayer being a common challenge. I argue that the UK Safe Access Zones legislation demonstrates a cautious approach that protects a pregnant person’s right to access lawful abortion services in conditions of dignity and privacy.
Continue reading >>
Two Courts, Two Visions
The diverging standards of protection concerning the right to a fair trial, as interpreted by the CJEU and the ECtHR, remain a critical obstacle to the EU’s renewed attempt at accession to the ECHR. In this field, the two Courts seem to be drifting further apart rather than converging, leading to unresolved conflicts between the standard of fundamental rights protection and mutual trust obligations in the EU. Except in the unlikely event of a course-correction by the CJEU, this means that we are no closer to accession today than we were ten years ago, when the now-infamous Opinion 2/13 was handed down.
Continue reading >>
Sex Work Can’t Buy Human Rights
In a recent decision on the merits in M.A. and Others v. France, the ECtHR held that French legislation criminalizing the purchase of sexual acts did not violate the rights of 261 sex workers. The decision retreats into the Court’s traditional interpretative toolbox of European consensus and (procedural) margin of appreciation. I argue that the ECtHR decision does not only demonstrate blindness towards the rising sensitivity towards intersectional grounds of discrimination in human rights law but also contradicts recent proposals on “a human rights-based approach to sex work” promoted by several UN organs and the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights.
Continue reading >>
Prove Your Integrity or Resign
In May 2024, in the case of Bala, the ECtHR issued another decision concerning the vetting of the judiciary in Albania. This time, the Court decided that the state’s ban on a judicial advisor, who resigned instead of undergoing the integrity vetting process, from entering high public offices for fifteen years does not violate the ECHR. While the ECHR does not explicitly articulate the right to free choice of occupation or the right to equal access to public offices, this article demonstrates that even under these two rights, the limitation in question is likely proportionate. However, legislators would be wise to consider less intrusive options as well.
Continue reading >>
Freedom to Discuss Religion Between Facts and Opinions
In a recent televised discussion in Turkey, two Youtube-influencers have discussed Sharia law and Muhammad’s marriage with Aisha. This has caused strong reactions on social media. Moreover, after a public statement of the Justice Minister, a criminal investigation has been initiated. I argue that such statements should enjoy the full protection of freedom of expression. However, I criticise the distinction between “statements of fact and value judgements” as introduced by the ECtHR in case E.S. v Austria.
Continue reading >>
Globules or Life-Saving Treatment after all? On the Effect of Climate Lawsuits
In her response to the post by Bernhard Wegener, who criticizes climate lawsuits as ineffective globules, Manuela Niehaus illustrates the effect of climate lawsuits. She argues that not everything that tastes sweet is just ineffective homeopathy.
Continue reading >>
The First Italian Climate Judgement and the Separation of Powers
On 26th February 2024, in its Giudizio Universale decision, the Tribunal of Rome penned the first Italian climate judgement. Shortly after, on 9 April 2024, the ECtHR handed down its seminal trio of KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, Duarte Agostinho v. Portugal and Others and Carême v. France. In this monumental string of cases, the ECtHR set the new standard for climate litigation in Europe, also regarding separation of powers. This invites a critical assessment of Giudizio Universale’s stance.
Continue reading >>Globuli oder lebensrettende Behandlung? Zur Wirkung von Klimaklagen
In der Replik auf den Beitrag von Bernhard Wegener, der Klimaklagen als wirkungslose Globuli kritisiert, zeigt Manuela Niehaus die Wirkungsmechanismen von Klimaklagen auf. Sie argumentiert, dass nicht alles, was zuckersüß schmeckt, nur wirkungslose Homöopathie ist.
Continue reading >>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 >>
Avoiding the Legacy of Impunity
This week for the second time in history the Irish Government has announced its intention to lodge an Inter-State application against the United Kingdom before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The Irish government argues that the Northern Ireland Troubles (Reconciliation and Legacy) Act 2023 which was enacted in September 2023 and provides an extensive conditional amnesty is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Continue reading >>