26 July 2023
A Human Rights Breakthrough in Sports Law?
On 11 July 2023, the ECtHR found in its Chamber judgment in Semenya v. Switzerland that international-level athlete Mokgadi Caster Semenya had been discriminated against by the Eligibility Regulations for Female Classification of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF, now World Athletics). These regulations required her to undergo hormone treatment to lower her natural testosterone levels in order to be admitted to international competitions in the female category. In the Chamber's view, Switzerland had violated the Convention by failing to provide sufficient institutional and procedural safeguards to enable Ms. Semenya to have her discrimination complaints effectively examined. If the GC upholds the Chamber’s findings on jurisdiction and scrutiny, the Semenya judgment will have a significant impact on the human rights approach of sports federations and on future CAS proceedings. Continue reading >>
0 
18 July 2023
Judges and Organized Crime
Scandalous arrests of judges taking millions in bribes continue to make headlines. For purging the judiciary from corruption, vetting the integrity of judges through internationally supported commissions has become one of the most promising tools. In July 2023, the ECtHR has upheld the dismissal of yet another prominent judge – who had served, both, at the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Albania (Thanza v. Albania). While it is obvious that a judge should be dismissed for engaging in organised crime, this case may be the first in the world to raise another, rather unusual question: Can a judge be dismissed simply for having contact with organised crime, even if he has never committed any offence? Continue reading >>
0
25 May 2023
Strong on Hate Speech, Too Strict on Political Debate
Online hate speech is a topic that has gained importance in recent years. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) made an important ruling in this context on 15 May 2023 in Sanchez v. France. From a democratic theory and individual rights’ perspective, I would endorse the first decision because it tackles the so-called “silencing” and “desensitization effect” of hate speech. The second decision, however, runs the risk of adversely affecting free political debate, especially when individual politicians are called upon to delete comments by third parties. 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 >>23 February 2023
New Wine in Old Bottles
On February 14, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights released its judgment on the Raphael Halet case. In a context of both increasing attacks against financial transparency, and failure of states to properly implement the EU directive on the protection of whistleblowers, the judgment by the Grand Chamber was a much awaited one. This case gave the Strasbourg Court an opportunity to reaffirm the importance of whistleblower protection as a human right, and amend the threshold for protection. Yet, the Strasbourg Court still falls short from providing whistleblowers a safe way of expressing concerns publicly. Continue reading >>
0
27 January 2023
No New Rights in Fedotova
In Fedotova and others v Russia issued on 17 January 2023, the ECtHR held that Russia had breached its positive obligation to secure the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention by failing to provide any form of legal recognition and protection for same sex couples. The ground-breaking aspect of the judgment is the clear rejection by the Court of the justifications advanced by the Contracting State. Continue reading >>
0
24 January 2023
The many troubles of the Fedotova judgment
On 17 January 2023, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Fedotova v Russia that the absence of any legal recognition and protection for same-sex couples amounts to a violation of Art. 8 of the Convention. For 30 Member States of the Council of Europe (CoE), this judgment changes nothing since their legal orders already allow same-sex couples to enter into marriage or into other forms of legally recognised relationships. For the remaining countries, however, the Fedotova judgment amounts to an external judicial pressure to change their legal landscape in a politically very sensitive area of LGBT+ rights. Fedotova is probably the most political judgment of all times. Continue reading >>
0
16 December 2022
The Slippery Slope of a Snooping Strasbourg
Last week, the ECtHR ruled in Spasov, for the first time, that there was a 'denial of justice' and thus a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR due to a manifest error of law by a national court regarding the interpretation and application of EU law. A Romanian court had convicted Mr Spasov, the owner and captain of a Bulgarian-flagged vessel, of illegal fishing inside Romania’s exclusive economic zone. Spasov is an important principled judgment that further intertwines the EU and ECHR legal systems. Continue reading >>12 December 2022
Moving On in Strasbourg
Russia’s justified expulsion from the Council of Europe after the beginning of the full-scale military invasion in Ukraine continues to pose problems for the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention machinery in general. Even though Russia remained bound by the Convention until 16 September 2022, a number of decisions in Moscow, but also in Strasbourg, made matters complicated. Especially processing the outstanding 17,000 cases and enforcing those judgments now require innovative solutions. Continue reading >>
0
05 December 2022
Putting an End to Minority Voter Disenfranchising in Hungary
On 11 November, the European Court of Human Rights published its decision in a case initiated eight years ago, which found that the Hungarian parliamentary electoral system's regulations on the representation of national minorities in parliament violates the right to free elections (Article 3 of the 1st Protocol to the ECHR, Bakirdzi and E.C. v. Hungary). The plaintiffs claimed that the Electoral Act of 2011 was unlawful on three points: the secrecy of the vote, the real election and the preferential quota for minority representation. In its judgment, the Court found in favour of the applicants on all three points and ordered the Hungarian State to pay damages, putting an end to a decade-long violation of voting right. The following analysis is not primarily intended to provide a detailed description of the judgment itself, but to review the unlawful situation and the necessary actions resulting from the judgment. Continue reading >>
0