Thursday, 15 February 2018

Looking Back and Ahead for the Court

The opening of the judicial year (at the end of last month) always marks a moment of stock-taking for the European Court of Human Rights. In his main speech, the President of the Court, judge Guido Raimondi, expressed both optimism and caution. On a positive note, he pointed out that in a year, the number of pending cases dropped further, from 80,000 to 56,000 approximately. however, he also emphasized that the Court was nearing the end of its creativity in efficiency-enhancing measures. Among the still pending cases is what the President referred to as the 'hard core" : cases that merit detailed attention and cannot summarily dealt with. The end of the quick decrease in backlog may thus be in sight. In addition, the decrease hides large chunks of cases concerning systemic issues whose supervision has been transferred to the Committee of Ministers and are thus far from "solved" for the applicants (see the Burmych and Others v Ukraine case), as the President acknowledged. As to the issue of the strengthening of ties with high domestic courts, the Network of Superior Courts with the European Court as its node, has now expanded to 64 superior courts. 

Two other key developments mentioned in the President's speech were the start of infringement proceedings (in Mammadov v. Azerbaijan) as a challenging historical first and the introduction by the Court of of (limited) reasoning for single judge decisions.

At the same occasion, a seminar on “The Authority of the Judiciary” was organised at the Court's premises. Both the Presidents of the Strasbourg as well as the Luxembourg courts addressed the audience. An extensive background document accompanied the event, which provides a useful mix of Court case-law and references to other documents on issues ranging from the separation of powers to communication strategies for courts.

For the coming months, important events are upcoming, the most notable being the contested plans of the current Danish chairmanship of the Council of Europe with the Court. More about that, including NGO reactions, coming up soon!

Thursday, 1 February 2018

Reminder - Call for Papers for Workshop at the Court

A reminder about a unique opportunity for academic researchers to present their work at the European Court itself:

On 21 September 2018, a group of leading academic centres in Europe, including our own Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), is co-organising a workshop at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The workshop is entitled:

Responding to Legitimacy Challenges: Opportunities and Choices for the European Court of Human Rights - Researchers Meet the Court

In that context, we are now opening a call for papers. The deadline is 15 February 2018. This is a unique opportunity to present and discuss your work at the Court in the presence of judges, members of the Court’s Registry and leading academics!

Content of the Workshop
Challenges confront the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and its procedures, policies and judgments. Criticisms concern the Court’s backlog, its methods of interpretation, its deference to domestic actors – or its lack thereof. Reactions from states include willful partial compliance with judgments or even principled resistance. These challenges have appeared in many different shapes: not just as criticism from State Parties’ governments, but also from domestic courts, academics, civil society organizations and the media.

Against the backdrop of these challenges, we organize a workshop at the European Court of Human Rights to facilitate informal exchanges among academics and members of the Court including the Registry. The aim is to identify and discuss both challenges and possible solutions. The event will address how the ECtHR may respond and does respond by varied means, including:
  • criteria for case selection;
  • the Court’s reasoning;
  • pilot judgments;
  • dialogues with domestic judiciaries;
  • the margin of appreciation doctrine.

Call for Papers
We invite abstracts of maximum 400-500 words together with a cover letter by February 15, 2018, in one single PDF document. The abstract should go beyond the standard conference abstract and include the key steps of the argument to be presented. The cover letter should include a 1 paragraph CV and explain the context of the paper: e.g. whether it is part of a PhD project, whether it is based on undertaken empirical research or part of ongoing research etc. Accepted contributors will be asked to provide a 4-5 page position paper, to be presented at a panel of the workshop. Travel funds will be available upon request.

To submit a paper abstract, go to the submission portal.

Organisers
This event is co-organized by PluriCourts of the University of Oslo, The Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM) and the Montaigne Centre at Utrecht University, the Human Rights Centre at Ghent University, Koç University Centre for Global Public Law and Hertie School of Governance, Berlin in collaboration with the European Court of Human Rights.

Tuesday, 23 January 2018

Conference on Margin of Appreciation at Court

The Centre for Law and Public Affairs (CeLAPA) and the Faculty of Law of Charles University in Prague are organising a seminar at the premises of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on Thursday 15 February. The seminar is entitled 'European Human Rights Culture - What Role for the Margin of Appreciation' and will take place in the afternoon. For more information and registration, see here. This is the description by the organisers:

'This seminar asks a simple question – what is the role of the Margin of Appreciation doctrine in contemporary Europe? By linking the interpretation of the doctrine to a broader conception of human rights, understood as complex political and moral norms, leading experts in the field will explore to what extent the tension between human rights and politics, embodied in the doctrine, might be understood as a mutually reinforcing interplay of variables rather than an entrenched separation.

The themes and ideas discussed by the speakers are inspired by a recent collective book Human Rights Between Law and Politics, The Margin of Appreciation in Post-National Contexts (Hart), edited by Petr Agha.

Speakers:

* Jiri Priban (Cardiff) On Legal Doctrines and Reasoning;
* Petr Agha (Prague) The ECHR as a Living Instrument: Its Meaning and Its Legitimacy – the Political Reading of Human Rights;
* Paul Lemmens (ECtHR) The Margin of Appreciation within the Overall Framework of the European Court’s Review of Domestic Actions and Omissions;
* Andreas Føllesdal (Oslo) Improving the European Consensus Doctrine: A Better Signpost, Not a Better Walking Stick;
* Eva Brems (Ghent) Positive Subsidiarity and its Implications for the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine.

The seminar will provide judges, European and national civil servants and other legal practitioners dealing with the case law developed by the European Court of Human Rights with the latest findings conducted by some of the most prominent scholars in Europe.

How to book? Registration is free for this event but booking is essential due to limited numbers. Please note that external participants should register for this event by 5th February 2018.

Contact: For more information please contact petr.agha at centrum.cz'

Thursday, 18 January 2018

New ECHR Case-Law Factsheets

This week the Court has put online five new case-law factsheets. They are the newest additions to a growing corpus of more than sixty factsheets available on the Court's website. They provide quick overviews of core case-law on a large range of topics. Many of them have been translated and the factsheet page links on to translations of many factsheets into German, Croatian, Greek, Italian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Spanish and Turkish. As the Court put it in its press release:

'The factsheets aim to contribute to increasing awareness about the Court’s judgments among journalists, national authorities and the public in the Member States of the Council of Europe with a view to improving implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights at national level. One of the key demands of the current reform plans to increase the effectiveness of the Convention system is for Member States to guarantee domestic implementation of the Convention and its case-law.'

The new factsheets cover the following themes:


Tuesday, 16 January 2018

New ECHR Publications


Please find below a number of recent publications related to the European Convention and the European Court:


Image result for reader* Our own Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, vol. 35, no. 4 (2017) includes: Julia Wojnowska-Radzinska (Adam Mickiewicz University), 'The access to secret evidence in expulsion proceedings under the European Convention on Human Rights', pp. 230-245:

'The key question tackled in this paper is how States as Parties to the ECHR can use and protect security-sensitive information (secret evidence) in expulsion proceedings. The purpose of this paper is to explore to what extent States may be justified to refuse to disclose to a non-citizen evidence related to State security which constitutes grounds for an expulsion decision, and not violate aliens’ procedural rights. Apart from the procedural mechanisms analysed in the paper, the major problems regarding the use of secret evidence in immigration cases are addressed. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.'

* Leonie M. Huijbers (Utrecht University, SIM fellow), 'The European Court of Human Rights’ procedural approach in the age of subsidiarity', Cambridge International Law Journal, vol. 6, issue 2 (2017) pp. 177-201.

* Sital Kalantry and Maithili Pradhan, 'Veil Bans in the European Court of Human Rights', ASIL Insight, vol. 21, issue 15 (2017). 

* Uladzislau Belavusau (University of Amsterdam) and Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias (Polish Academy of Sciences) (eds.), Law and Memory. Towards Legal Governance of History (2017) includes a number of chapters dedicated almost exclusively to Strasbourg case-law on historical memory:

- 3. Patricia Naftali, "The 'Right to Truth' in International Law: the 'Last Utopia'?" 
- 4. Maria Mälksoo, "Kononov vs Latvia as the Ontological Security Struggle over Remembering the Second World War" 
- 5. Paolo Lobba, "Testing the 'Uniqueness': Denial of the Holocaust vs Denial of Other Crimes before the European Court of Human Rights" 
- 10. Ieva Miluna, "Adjudication in Deportation Cases of Latvia and International Law"

* Lauri Mälksoo (University of Tartu - Law) & Wolfgang Benedek (Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz have edited a volume entitled Russia and the European Court of Human Rights - The Strasbourg Effect (Cambridge University Press 2017). These are its chapters:

- Lauri Mälksoo, Introduction: Russia, Strasbourg and the paradox of a human rights backlash
- Petra Roter, Russia in the Council of Europe: participation a la carte
- Anton Burkov, The use of European human rights law in Russian courts
- Sergei Marochkin, ECtHR and the Russian Constitutional Court: duet or duel?
- Alexei Trochev, The Russian Constitutional Court and the Strasbourg court: judicial pragmatism in a dual state
- Mikhail Antonov, Philosophy behind human rights: Valery Zorkin vs the West
- Bill Bowring, Russia's cases in the ECtHR and the question of socialization
- Elisabet Fura & Rait Maruste, Russia's impact on the Strasbourg system: as seen by two former judges of the European Court of Human Rights
- Philip Leach, Egregious human rights violations in Chechnya: the continuing pursuit of justice
- Vladislav Starzhenetskiy, Property rights in Russia: reconsidering the socialist legal tradition
- Dmitri Bartenev, LGBT rights in Russia and European human rights standards
- Benedikt Harzl, Nativist ideological responses to European/liberal human rights discourses in contemporary Russia
- Wolfgang Benedek, General conclusions

Wednesday, 10 January 2018

New Edition of Van Dijk and Van Hoof Handbook on the ECHR

Dear readers, my very best wishes for the new year 2018 to all of you! It is my great pleasure to announce the publication of the newest (fifth) edition of the famous handbook on the ECHR of Van Dijk and Van Hoof by Intersentia. I had the privilege to be involved in the first phase of this newest edition and to contribute a chapter (on Article 17 ECHR). This fifth edition was prepared by Arjen van Rijn, Leo Zwaak and Linus Hesselink and still carries its classic title Theory and Practice of the European Convention of Human Rights. The growth of case-law has led to extensive re-writing of all chapters compared to the previous edition and to an extension of the team of authors, now comprising several dozens of contributors from mostly the Netherlands and Belgium. The book offers both systematic introductions into the structure of the Convention and the procedure in Strasbourg as well as an article-by-article overview. As I was involved in the project, I leave it to others to assess the book, but at last I am happy that there is now a new edition, since the previous one of 2006. Both hardback and student (paperback) editions are available.This is the abstract:

'Since the first edition of Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights forty years ago, this book has become the leading reference in the field of human rights in Europe. It provides a systematic and comprehensive overview of the functioning of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its application by the European Court of Human Rights.

With Protocol No. 14 entering into force on 1 June 2010, the protection of human rights in Europe and the case law of the Court have seen a dynamic development during the last decade. A completely new edition of Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights was thus very much needed.

This fifth edition is again an accessible, easy-to-use, complete and up-to-date reference book, which provides an essential source of information for the practitioners, theorists and students in the field of human rights.

With contributions by Yutaka Arai, Sjoerd Bakker, Tom Barkhuysen, Hemme Battjes, Maya Beeler-Sigron, Edwin Bleichrodt, Hansko Broeksteeg, Antoine Buyse, Karin de Vries, Masha Fedorova, Cees Flinterman, Janneke Gerards, Yves Haeck, Clara Burbano Herrera, Oswald Jansen, Laurens Lavrysen, Koen Lemmens, Joachim Meese, Stefan Sottiaux, Frederik Swennen, Bas van Bockel, Michiel van Emmerik, Arjen van Rijn, Marjolein van Roosmalen, Ben Vermeulen, Cornelis Wouters and Leo Zwaak.'

‘Since its first publication in 1978, van Dijk and van Hoof’s Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights has been an indispensable reference guide to the functioning of the Strasbourg based European human rights system. Although the 5th edition, for the first time, no longer counts on the contributions of van Dijk and van Hoof, it brings up to date the evolution of the system during the 11 years since the 4th edition, through the contributions of an impressive array of primarily Dutch and Belgian lawyers. Some of the important new developments of the Court are the declaration of state responsibility for extra-territorial violations of human rights (Al-Skeini), i.e. responsibility for violations outside European territory and the entry into force of Protocol No. 14.’
Christina M. Cerna, Adjunct Professor of Law (Georgetown University) and Principal Human Rights Specialist, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (retired)

‘After more than ten years, the fifth edition of this well-established handbook is good news as developments move on particularly quickly in the field of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The impressive group of distinguished authors combined with the skillful design of the book by its editors make it an essential contribution to the study of the European Convention on Human Rights and an indispensable tool for interested academics and practitioners.’
Prof. Wolfgang Benedek, Head of the Institute of International Law and International Relations and Director of the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy of the University of Graz,Austria.

Thursday, 21 December 2017

New Book on ECHR and Judicial Activism and Passivism

Professor Adam Wiśniewski of the University of Gdansk has published a book on the stance and position of the European Court in Strasbourg. The book, entitled The European Court of Human Rights. Between Judicial Activism and Passivism, has been published with Gdansk University Press. This is the abstract:

'The work begins with a chapter which presents the genesis of the ECHR, which is important for a proper understanding of the Convention system, and this is followed by a chapter on the principles of the ECHR and its Interpretation by the Court. Separate chapters are allocated to the dynamic interpretation of the ECHR and the phenomenon of the Court's judicial activism. The next two chapters concern the controversial margin of appreciation doctrine, stressing the importance of attempts at theoretical study of the interpretation and application of the Convention. A separate chapter is devoted to the principle of consensus and its significance in the interpretation of the Convention. The study ends with a chapter containing some general considerations of the theory of interpretation of the ECtHR.'

Friday, 24 November 2017

New Book on the Use of Force and Article 2 ECHR

Dr Hannah Russell of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has just published a new book on the right to life with Hart Publishing, entitled 'The Use of Force and Article 2 of the ECHR in Light of European Conflicts'. This is the abstract:

'Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in its current form is incomplete and outdated. Due to significant development at a legislative and judicial level, the right to life spans beyond what is enumerated within Article 2. With the belief that Article 2 is still relevant, this book investigates how the right to life can be better protected within Europe. It advocates for the modernisation of Article 2 through codifying legislative and judicial developments relevant to this provision in the form of guidelines. It also considers the improvements that can be made by the Council of Europe (CoE) bodies – the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Committee of Ministers (CoM), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the CoE Commissioner for Human Rights – to encourage adherence to Article 2 and promote effective remedies to prevent future violations. It uses the experience from four internal European conflicts – the Basque conflict, the Chechen conflict, the Northern Ireland Troubles and the Turkish-Kurdish conflict – to illustrate its points.'

Tuesday, 21 November 2017

Videos on the European Court

The special web page of the website of the European Court on Human Rights that is dedicated to short videos on the Court and its procedures has been further extended. It now also includes new language versions of the film about the Court in Bulgarian, Dutch, Finnish, Greek and Slovak. five key videos are now available in total:

* A film of 15 minutes for a wider audience about what the European Court of Human Rights is and does.
* A video on the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the rights included in it.
* A tutorial video on how to lodge an application with the Court.
* A video on admissibility conditions.
* A video on 60 years of the Convention, which includes some nice historical footage.


Tuesday, 14 November 2017

Article on Baka and the Rule of Law


David Kosař and Katarína Šipulová of Masaryk University have written: 'The Strasbourg Court Meets Abusive Constitutionalism: Baka v. Hungary and the Rule of Law', Hague Journal on the Rule of Law (2017). This is the abstract:

'The rise of abusive constitutionalism in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) has hit the domestic judiciaries particularly hard. Viktor Orbán expanded the size of the Constitutional Court and then packed it, made sure that he can install a new president of the Constitutional Court, ousted the Supreme Court president through a constitutional amendment, disempowered the existing judicial council and created the new institution with power over ordinary judicial appointments. Jaroslav Kaczyński followed the same playbook in Poland. While most scholars have focused primarily on effects of abusive constitutionalism upon the constitutional courts, we argue that the keys to the long-term control of the judiciary are presidents of ordinary courts and judicial councils . The dismissal of the Hungarian Supreme Court President is a perfect example of this logic—by this move Orbán got rid of the most important court president in the country, the head of the Hungarian judicial council and his most vocal critic. Yet, András Baka lodged an application to the ECtHR and won. This article analyses the Grand Chamber judgment in Baka v. Hungary, its implication for the rule of law, and the limits of what the ECtHR can achieve against abusive constitutionalism. It concludes that the Grand Chamber failed on all key fronts. It overlooked the main structural problem behind Mr. Baka’s dismissal (the broad powers of court presidents in CEE), it has blurred the Convention’s understanding of the concept of the rule of law, and it failed in delivering a persuasive judgment firmly based on the existing ECtHR’s case law.'