29 August 2024
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 >>
0 
19 June 2024
Up to Four Times
The Council of Europe’s requirements for transparency in the process of selecting a national judge for the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) should be strengthened. This is the lesson to be learned from the saga of the selection of a Polish judge, lasting now for more than three years. Poland, which has been going through a crisis of the rule of law in recent years, and the ongoing process of its restoration, may serve as an important example. Continue reading >>
0
07 May 2024
KlimaSeniorinnen and the Question(s) of Causation
In Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights makes many general statements about the nature of climate change and different actors’ roles in addressing it. Many points have been addressed in this blog symposium. In my blog post, I turn to a more technical aspect of the judgment, namely the question of causation. I will untangle the analytical gymnastics that the Court performs regarding this question. I will argue that the reasoning regarding causation is confusing and that it is not clear how specifically the ‘real prospect’ test is applied for finding a breach. Continue reading >>
0
22 April 2024
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 >>12 April 2024
States’ Extraterritorial Jurisdiction for Climate-Related Impacts
States’ extraterritorial jurisdiction was one of the hot topics decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Duarte Agostinho. Strictly speaking, the “lack of it” led the ECtHR to declare the complaint inadmissible with respect to all defendant States except Portugal. This finding is in line with previous ECtHR case law but highlights a gap in human rights protection and creates a mismatch between the ECtHR’s case law and that of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Continue reading >>
0
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
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 >>28 March 2024
The Kovačević Case Revisited
On 20 March 2023 the Council of the European Union gave Bosnia and Hercegovina green light to start accession negotiations. However, despite this political endorsement, BiH must fulfill the conditionality criteria, including a series of six judgments by the ECtHR relating to the predetermined ethnic keys. The last case, Kovačević v. BiH, was referred to the Grand Chamber in December 2023. If the Court follows its previous case law, this should force the mono-ethnic political parties and their leaders as well as the EU institutions to insist on de-blocking the constitutional impasse for any realistic steps towards European integration. Continue reading >>
0
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
11 February 2024
What Went Wrong and What Could be Done?
The question should perhaps be “what went right?”. I argue that for more than 30 years, as a result of a key provision in the Constitution, and the work of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (CCRF) there were many positive changes to Russian law and practice. These advances were only possible as a result of Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe and ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). But that chapter in Russia’s constitutional history has been closed. Continue reading >>
0