29 July 2021
Hundreds of judges appointed in violation of the ECHR?
On 22 July 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued its third judgment concerning the rule of law crisis in Poland. In Reczkowicz v. Poland the Court ruled that the Disciplinary Chamber which dismissed the cassation complaint of the applicant did not meet the standard of a “right to a court established by law” guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 the Convention. The judgment is important not only because the ECtHR reviewed the status of the Disciplinary Chamber – a controversial body that was also the subject of a recent CJEU judgment – but also because it seems that the reasoning of the Court can be applied to hundreds of other newly appointed judges. Continue reading >>
4 
28 July 2021
How Not to Deal with Poland’s Fake Judges’ Requests for a Preliminary Ruling
In his Opinion of 8 July 2021 in Case C-132/20 Getin Noble Bank, AG Bobek advised the Court of Justice to find admissible a national request for a preliminary ruling originating from an individual who was appointed to Poland’s Supreme Court on the back of manifest and grave irregularities. In this specific case, contrary to the position of AG Bobek, we submit that the ECJ must find the request inadmissible as the referring individual cannot be considered a tribunal established by law. Continue reading >>19 July 2021
All Eyes on LGBTQI Rights
In Fedotova v Russia, the ECtHR found that Russia overstepped the boundaries of its otherwise broad margin of appreciation because it had “no legal framework capable of protecting the applicants’ relationships as same-sex couples has been available under domestic law”. The case foreshadows a future wherein the familiar line of cases advancing the protection of same sex couples will need to be complemented by a jurisprudence that engages with the backslash against LGBTQI rights. Continue reading >>
0
16 July 2021
Will Russia Yield to the ECtHR?
On 13 July 2021, the European Court of Human Rights published its judgment in Fedotova and Others v. Russia, a case which concerned the lack of legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the Russian legal system. The judges found the Russian laws to be in violation of Article 8 – the right to respect for private and family life and Article 14 – prohibition of discrimination. However, it is highly unlikely that Russia will enforce the judgment. Continue reading >>12 July 2021
The Limits of Indirect Deterrence of Asylum Seekers
The ECtHR judgment M.A. v. Denmark is significant for several reasons. Firstly, because it adds to an already growing international criticism of Denmark’s asylum and immigration policy. Secondly, because the judgment helps clarify the Court’s position on an issue, family reunification for refugees, where case law has hitherto been somewhat ambiguous, and where several European States have introduced new restrictions since 2015. Third, and finally, the judgment represents – to paraphrase Harold Koh - another “way station…in the complex enforcement” of migrant and refugee rights by international human rights institutions. Continue reading >>07 July 2021
Strasbourg and San José Close Ranks
At the end of 2020, for the first time in its more than 40 years of jurisprudential history, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights declared the arbitrary dismissals of two public prosecutors to be unconventional. Not only judges but also prosecutors are increasingly subject to threats to their independence, both in Latin America and Europe, as well as in other regions. This article addresses the question of whether the same judicial guarantees apply to public prosecutors and attorneys as to judges and looks at how the Inter-American Court sought inspiration from the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights. Continue reading >>
0
29 June 2021
Too little, too late
A few weeks after the ECtHR first stepped into the ring for the fight against rule of law backsliding in Poland via its Xero Flor judgment, it has now dealt a new blow to the Polish judicial reforms. In its Broda and Bojara ruling, the issue at hand was not the composition of the Constitutional Court, but the termination of judges’ mandates as court (vice) president. In its judgment, the Court showed once more its commitment to the safeguarding of domestic judges and the procedural protection they should enjoy. Yet, one can wonder whether the judgment will really have an impact and if it is not too little too late. Continue reading >>
0
18 June 2021
“Non-Existent”
Last Tuesday, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal delivered a ruling which makes the extent of the crisis of the rule of law in Poland unambiguously clear. And it shows how the gap with Europe is widening day by day. If the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe lets this pass, it will not only be a blow to the authority and effectiveness of the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights. Then the guardians of the rule of law will have surrendered even faster than we thought. Continue reading >>03 June 2021
From Denmark to Damascus
In recent weeks, Denmark made international headlines with its refusal to extend residence permits for Syrian subsidiary protection holders in Denmark from the Damascus province. Denmark’s emergence as the first state in Europe to end the protection of Syrians on the basis of improved conditions in the wider Damascus area is the result of a self-described ‘paradigm shift’ in Danish refugee policy dating back to 2015. Continue reading >>
0
01 June 2021
Big Brother’s Little, More Dangerous Brother
On 25 May 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued judgments in two connected cases: Big Brother Watch v. UK and Centrum för Rättvisa v. Sweden. Both cases involved the review of bulk interception of communications, described by its critics as “mass surveillance”. The Swedish example has attracted less criticism from the ECtHR than the UK, and can be construed as a model law. However, the Swedish legislation is highly opaque and the ECtHR's scrutiny has fallen short. Continue reading >>
0