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 
09 May 2021
What Should and What Will Happen After Xero Flor
On 7 May 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in a case concerning irregularities in the personal composition of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal. The ECtHR found a violation of “the right to a tribunal established by law” due to fact that the decision on the discontinuation of the proceedings concerning a constitutional complaint filed by a Polish company was issued by the Constitutional Tribunal with the participation of a person who was unlawfully elected to the position of judge. The said judgment is the first ruling of an international body finding that the irregularities in the functioning of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal violate international law. Continue reading >>
0
21 April 2021
How Many Times Can the ECtHR Turn its Head
In the ruling Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v. Turkey of 13 April, the European Court of Human Rights did not find an ulterior motive in the prolonged pre-trial detention of a journalist in Turkey. The Court also refused to find “pattern and tendency” in the treatment of civil society and independent journalism in Turkey. This approach is not limited to Article 18 case law: The Court’s entire jurisprudence on Turkey lacks systematic analysis. 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 >>28 January 2021
Human Rights in the Line of Fire
On 21 January 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court delivered its judgment in the case of Georgia v Russia (II). The Court did establish Russia’s responsibility for the consequences of one of the gravest military confrontations the continent has seen since Russia has joined the Strasbourg club. The Court is visibly not at ease with its role to adjudicate human rights violations in an armed conflict between two States. It left the five-day exchange of hostilities to the realm of humanitarian law, however, not exclusively. The white spots on the map of human rights protection in Europe the Court identifies have broad ramifications for the pending cases between Ukraine, The Netherlands and Russia as well as the cases between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. Continue reading >>24 December 2020
The Whole Is More than the Sum of its Parts
The long-awaited Demirtaş v. Turkey (No 2) Grand Chamber judgment has finally been delivered, twenty two months after referral and sixteen months since the 18 September 2019 hearing. The judgment, arguably the most important from the Grand Chamber in 2020, is highly significant for both political and jurisprudential reasons. Politically, the case concerns the ongoing deprivation of liberty of Selahattin Demirtaş – the former leader of the left-wing, pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), the second-largest opposition party in Turkey. Continue reading >>14 December 2020