09 July 2021

Rights that are not Illusory

On 8 July, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in case Shahzad v. Hungary, concerning the denial of access to an asylum procedure and the forced removal of a Pakistani national by Hungarian police officers. The court found that the acts violated the prohibition of collective expulsion as well as the right to an effective remedy. With this decision, the Court on the one hand straightens out some possible misunderstandings, on the other hand returns to the line of argument opened in N.D. and N.T. v. Spain in ways that should be considered more closely. Continue reading >>
0
27 May 2021

The Admissibility Hurdle

The entry into force of a new Protocol in August 2021 indicates that the ECtHR will implement even more stringent admissibility criteria which provides the institution with more tools to reject legitimate applications and to hide the political motivation behind such decisions. The European Court of Human Rights has long faced burning criticism for declaring applications inadmissible when faced with prima facie flagrant human rights abuses by autocratic regimes, such as Turkey, putting in question the credibility of the Court which is expected to be a center of legal excellence. Continue reading >>
18 May 2021

A Ghost that Haunts European Democracies

In Turkey, Spain and Poland, lèse-majesté laws are weaponised against opposition: The conviction and imprisonment of Marxist rapper Pablo Hasél sparked mass protests across Spain, and the 20-year-old Wiktoria K. who shouted “f*** Duda” during last year’s demonstrations and received a guilty verdict on grounds of “insulting the President” in March 2021. The very existence of lèse-majesté laws poses a threat to the right to dissent. It is a vital democratic duty to cast such laws into the dustbin of history. Continue reading >>
10 May 2021

The ECtHR Steps into the Ring

For the last two years, the fight for safeguarding the principle of the rule of law in Poland has been dominated by the ECJ’s case law. During this, the Strasbourg Court has mostly been sitting in the bleachers. Yet, with its Xero Flor judgment of 7 May, it strapped on its gloves and stepped into the ring. It concluded that the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, in its current composition, cannot be seen as a tribunal established by law. The decision will undoubtedly have major political and legal consequences. Continue reading >>
0
30 March 2021

Hercules comes to Scotland

In a landmark case, the Outer House of the Court of Session in Scotland on 24 March 2021 declared that the closure of worship places in Scotland was a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of religion and freedom of assembly under article 9(2) and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The judgment is as an example of anxious scrutiny in judicial review of administrative action in the pandemic context. His consideration of the evidence concerning closure of worship places strikes as well documented and highly demanding assessment. Given the exceptional circumstances in which governments are crafting their emergency responses to the pandemic, pitching proportionality assessments as Lord Braid does is concerning. Continue reading >>
0
20 March 2021
,

Strasbourg and San José Close Ranks

Both in Latin America and in Europe, judicial independence is under increasing attack. What has been the position of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and of the European Court of Human Rights in combatting undue interference in the work of judges and prosecutors? And does their jurisprudence “cross-fertilize” each other? This article provides a glimpse of some of the judgments on illegitimate restrictions and destitutions of judges issued by the sister courts. This jurisprudence is evidence of an increasingly profound and structural exchange between the I/A Court and the ECHR. Continue reading >>
0
05 March 2021

Money Talks

One of the judges of the Constitutional Court of Albania was dismissed after the country introduced radical judicial vetting measures. She challenged her dismissal before the ECtHR, claiming her rights to a fair trial and respect for private and family life were violated. In its decision in Xhoxhaj v Albania published on 2 February 2021, the ECtHR rejected her application and gave clear priority to the need for cleaning up a corrupt judiciary. It denied protection under the ECHR to those who seek to abuse human rights for protecting a status quo of corruption. Continue reading >>
0
23 February 2021

Call Me by Mum’s Name

In a recent decision, the Italian Constitutional Court took up the question of the choice of surname for newborns. In the absence of legislative reforms, it has tried to adapt the Italian legal framework, which still adheres to traditional naming practices, to constitutional and international standards of equality. This step shows the Court’s intention to counter the Parliament’s inertia on the issue. Continue reading >>
0
18 February 2021

Tailoring the Jurisdiction of the ECHR

On 16 February 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in the case Hanan v. Germany concerning a 2009 NATO-Kunduz airstrike resulting in deaths of civilians in Afghanistan in favor of Germany. The primary allegation before the Court was that Germany violated its procedural obligation under Article 2 by failing to conduct a prompt, effective and impartial investigation into a lethal use of force. Although the Court unconvincingly decided that there was no violation of the procedural duty to investigate, the majority opinion held that there was a clear jurisdictional link obliging Germany to conduct the investigation of airstrikes in Afghanistan. Continue reading >>
02 February 2021

The French Habeas Corpus and Covid-19

In January 2021, the French Constitutional Council published an important decision on the protection of the right to liberty during the state of sanitary emergency. The Constitutional Council decided that extending the duration of pre-trial detention without a decision made by a judge was contrary to article 66 of the Constitution. The decision implies that while authorities can resort to exceptional powers during a pandemic, they must still respect basic human rights. Continue reading >>
Go to Top