05 November 2024
The Tail That Wags the Dog
In Opinion 2/13 the Court of Justice held that accession to the ECHR must not interfere with the operation of the principle of mutual trust as this would affect the autonomy of EU law. I offer a different reading: mutual trust is not a general principle capable of having autonomous legal effects. Furthermore, mutual trust is acquiring a novel value for the progressive operationalisation of the foundational values ex Article 2 TEU. Read in this way, it has then the potential to enhance fundamental rights protection and is certainly no bar to accession to the ECHR – it is the dog of core values that wags the tail of mutual trust and not vice versa. Continue reading >>
0 
04 November 2024
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 >>
0
03 November 2024
Of Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Rights Charters
The Council of Europe has adopted the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence – the first of its kind. Notably, the Framework Convention includes provisions specifically tailored to enable the EU’s participation. At the same time, the EU has developed its own framework around AI. I argue that the EU should adopt the Framework Convention, making an essential first step toward integrating the protection of fundamental rights of the EU Charter. Ultimately, this should create a common constitutional language and bridge the EU and the Council of Europe to strengthen fundamental rights in Europe. Continue reading >>
0
31 October 2024
Maintaining Resilience in Human Rights Interpretation
In the Religious Movement Advisory Opinion, the European Court of Human Rights established detailed risk and proportionality assessment criteria that deviate from its previous case law in individual applications. The Court thus seems eager to embrace its standard-setting role and the spirit of dialogue inherent in the advisory opinion procedure, indicating some potential for resilience in rights interpretation within this sensitive context. Continue reading >>
0
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