11 April 2024
The Meaning of Carbon Budget within a Wide Margin of Appreciation
Although the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment discusses a number of rights of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including Article 6 (right of access to a court), Article 2 (right to life), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the focus of this blog post is on its discussion of Article 8 (right to private, home and family life). The question raised by that discussion is whether the judgment is one that will “frighten the horses” and lead to oppositional cries of judicial overreach around the separation of powers, or if it is more an unexceptional case of “move on, nothing to see here.” My argument is that the judgment is mostly the latter but that it has what, in computer gaming terms, is known as an “Easter egg” – a hidden element included by the developers to surprise and reward those who look carefully. That could turn out to be more controversial. Continue reading >>
0 
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 >>09 April 2024
The Transformation of European Climate Change Litigation
In a transformative moment for European and global climate litigation, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled today that the state has a positive duty to adopt, and effectively implement in practice, regulations and measures capable of mitigating the existing and potentially irreversible future effects of climate change. In Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (“KlimaSeniorinnen”), the Court held that by failing to put in place a domestic regulatory framework for climate change mitigation, the Swiss government violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to respect for private and family life. The judgment is a milestone for human rights protection. Continue reading >>23 September 2023
Be Careful What You Wish For
The European Court of Human Rights has issued some troubling statements on how it imagines content moderation. In May, the Court stated in Sanchez that “there can be little doubt that a minimum degree of subsequent moderation or automatic filtering would be desirable in order to identify clearly unlawful comments as quickly as possible”. Recently, it reiterated this position. This shows not only a surprising lack of knowledge on the controversial discussions surrounding the use of filter systems (in fact, there’s quite a lot of doubt), but also an uncritical and alarming approach towards AI based decision-making in complex human issues. Continue reading >>
0
20 April 2023
Intersectionality in Climate Litigation
The ECtHR held a hearing in the case KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland. It is one of the first gender-based climate cases worldwide. The case offers novel perspectives on a range of issues. Crucially, it highlights new potential avenues for standing in human rights cases and pinpoints how age, health, gender, and climate change intersect. Continue reading >>12 April 2022
Anything Goes?
Last month, the ECtHR ruled in the case of Johansen v. Denmark on the deprivation of nationality and expulsion for terrorist offenses. It rejected the applicant’s complaint of an infringement of Art. 8 ECHR. The decision underlines the Court’s reluctance to engage with issues raised by deprivations of nationality in terrorism cases. Instead of setting out clear limits on such measures based on the rights guaranteed by the Convention, the Court does not seem to be willing to interfere with measures related to national security, no matter how drastic the consequences for the individual. Continue reading >>
0
12 April 2021
Is Compulsory Vaccination Compulsory?
On Thursday 8 April 2021, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in Vavřička and others v. the Czech Republic. The Grand Chamber ruled strongly (16:1) in favour of the Czech government, granting the state a wide margin of appreciation in the assessment of the need for compulsory vaccination of children. In light of the COVID-related challenges, it is important that the Court took a clear stance regarding the importance of vaccination. At the same time, however, it is regrettable that the Court did not offer a stronger and more coherent reasoning justifying its value-driven decision. Continue reading >>
0
21 January 2018
Aussetzung des Familiennachzugs – Ist es dem Völkerrecht wirklich so egal?
Union, FDP und AfD wollen den Familiennachzug für subsidiär schutzbedürftige Geflüchtete weiterhin aussetzen. Im Rahmen der Debatte im Bundestag dazu wurden die Abgeordneten, welche sich für die Verlängerung ausgesprochen haben, nicht müde zu betonen, dass es keinerlei völkerrechtliche Verpflichtung zum Familiennachzug für subsidiär Schutzberechtigte gebe. Diese Aussagen machen stutzig: Kann es wirklich sein, dass die Bundesrepublik Deutschland einer Fülle von menschenrechtlichen Verträgen und Regelungen unterworfen ist und sich keine davon zum Familiennachzug verhält? Continue reading >>12 April 2016
Anti-Roma-Märsche in Ungarn: Staat muss Anzeichen auf Hasskriminalität nachgehen
Die Neonazi-Aufmärsche von Gyöngyöspata 2011 haben Ungarn eine Verurteilung vor dem EGMR in Straßburg eingebracht – und den Staaten Europas die klare Ansage, Hasskriminalität als HASSkriminalität zu verfolgen und die Augen vor rassistischen Motiven von Straftaten nicht zu verschließen. Continue reading >>
0