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
Filling the Polish ECtHR judgeship – risking (another) empty seat?
The Polish judgeship at the ECtHR must be filled, as the term of Judge Krzysztof Wojtyczek is due to expire on 31 October 2021. The Polish Government has submitted a list of three candidates. Due to the lack of fairmess, inclusiveness and transparency of the procedure, it is likely that the seat of the Polish judge will remain vacant. Continue reading >>25 November 2020
LawRules #10: We need to talk about the European Convention on Human Rights
Europe is larger than the EU – and a European framework aiming at preserving basic rights and freedoms as well as rule of law safeguards has been in place for 70 years precisely this November: the European Convention on Human Rights. Today, we take a deeper look at the Convention and at the institutions that work to enforce it: The European Court of Human Rights and the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. Are they capable of adding another layer of human rights and rule of law protection to the European legal framework? What kind of support do those institutions need in order to be able to fulfill their task? And how is their status today, 70 years after the European Convention on Human Rights has been signed? Continue reading >>11 November 2020
LawRules #8: We Need to Talk About the Penal System
We need to talk about the Penal System. In European Criminal Law, there is consensus that criminal law should be ultima ratio, that is, the last resort when the law is applied and executed. However, criminal law and the penal system at large have also proven to be an efficient way to silence political opponents and citizens turning against the government by literally barring them from raising their voice in public. We have seen examples for this in Europe, and we’ll have to talk about that today. But there are more aspects to this topic: How are prison systems being used as a tool by autocratic-leaning governments? And how is the relationship between the penal system and the rule of law in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice that the European Union aspires to be? Continue reading >>
0
09 October 2020
The Fading International Influence of German Constitutional Thinking
German constitutional thinking has been central in EU law, in ECHR law, and even in some domestic constitutional systems outside of Germany. It is, however, gradually and unstoppably losing influence in Europe. This is largely due to the fact that Karlsruhe has lost its status as the most influential court in constitutional issues in Europe, with this title now belonging to the Strasbourg Court and likely to do so for the foreseeable future. This trend (i.e. the fading international influence of German constitutional thinking) cannot be reversed by German constitutional lawyers, as it is the result of major institutional and structural (“tectonic”) changes that have taken place over the last 20-25 years. German lawyers can, however, somewhat mitigate this trend by constructively participating in the formation of a common European Constitutional Language (in English). Continue reading >>
0