<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Strasbourg Observers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://strasbourgobservers.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com</link>
	<description>Blog commenting on developments in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 14:23:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='strasbourgobservers.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://strasbourgobservers.com/osd.xml" title="Strasbourg Observers" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://strasbourgobservers.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey: The Court could have shown more empathy</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/05/24/mehmet-senturk-and-bekir-senturk-v-turkey-the-court-could-have-shown-more-empathy/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/05/24/mehmet-senturk-and-bekir-senturk-v-turkey-the-court-could-have-shown-more-empathy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 13:28:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Saïla Ouald Chaib</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prohibition of Inhuman Treatment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=2090</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fellow observers of the Strasbourg case law will probably agree with me: when you systematically go through the Court’s case law you’re confronted with the most extraordinary facts that you would never have imagined. Horrible prison circumstances, ill-treatment and torture are sometimes described into utmost details. One can also not remain untouched by cases concerning [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=2090&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/05/24/mehmet-senturk-and-bekir-senturk-v-turkey-the-court-could-have-shown-more-empathy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/565cd974c34743e37e7678a0241152d1?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">sailaoc</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Publication: “Doing Minority Justice Through Procedural Fairness: Face Veil Bans in Europe”</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/05/15/new-publication-doing-minority-justice-through-procedural-fairness-face-veil-bans-in-europe/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/05/15/new-publication-doing-minority-justice-through-procedural-fairness-face-veil-bans-in-europe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 11:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Saïla Ouald Chaib</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Amicus Brief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Burqa ban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publication]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=2082</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eva Brems and I are happy to announce the publication of our article entitled “Doing Minority Justice Through Procedural Fairness: Face Veil Bans in Europe” in the Journal of Muslims in Europe. In this article we examine the bans on face veils (better known as ‘Burqa bans’) from a procedural justice perspective. This piece also [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=2082&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/05/15/new-publication-doing-minority-justice-through-procedural-fairness-face-veil-bans-in-europe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/565cd974c34743e37e7678a0241152d1?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">sailaoc</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>ECtHR Really Applies Less Restrictive Alternative: Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/05/01/ecthr-really-applies-less-restrictive-alternative-saint-paul-luxembourg-s-a-v-luxembourg/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/05/01/ecthr-really-applies-less-restrictive-alternative-saint-paul-luxembourg-s-a-v-luxembourg/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 09:46:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stijn Smet</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Expression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Right to Private Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saint-Paul Luxembourg v. Luxembourg]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=2072</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The structured proportionality test, as utilised by the German Constitutional Court (among others) and championed by Robert Alexy and his followers, subjects limitations of fundamental rights to a three-pronged test. The test is intended to examine – step by step – a measure’s (i) suitability, (ii) necessity and (iii) proportionality stricto sensu. Correct application of [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=2072&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/05/01/ecthr-really-applies-less-restrictive-alternative-saint-paul-luxembourg-s-a-v-luxembourg/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cc245115c8047e461d1ac238a9372c4b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">stijnesmet</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ban on Political Advertising Does Not Violate Article 10: Animal Defenders International v. UK</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/04/24/ban-on-political-advertising-does-not-violate-article-10/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/04/24/ban-on-political-advertising-does-not-violate-article-10/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:48:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Guest Blogger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Animal Defenders International v. UK]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Expression]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=2063</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This guest post was written by Ronan Ó Fathaigh* On Monday, the Grand Chamber of the European Court held, by nine votes to eight, that the UK’s ban on political advertising on television did not violate Article 10. The majority opinion in Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom departed substantially from the Court’s previous [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=2063&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/04/24/ban-on-political-advertising-does-not-violate-article-10/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/8d1dc660943ad1417ef2c9aa74070c66?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">stijnsmet</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Equal treatment for remand and convicted prisoners: Gülay Çetin v. Turkey</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/04/09/equal-treatment-for-remand-and-convicted-prisoners-gulay-cetin-v-turkey/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/04/09/equal-treatment-for-remand-and-convicted-prisoners-gulay-cetin-v-turkey/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 10:39:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Guest Blogger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gülay Çetin v. Turkey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prohibition of Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prohibition of Inhuman Treatment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=2060</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This guest post was written by Cedric De Koker, academic assistant at the Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), Ghent University. With its judgment in the case of Gülay Çetin v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)  added another chapter to its significant body of detention-related case law. Having to pronounce [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=2060&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/04/09/equal-treatment-for-remand-and-convicted-prisoners-gulay-cetin-v-turkey/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/8d1dc660943ad1417ef2c9aa74070c66?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">stijnsmet</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Söderman v. Sweden: third party intervention of our Human Rights Centre</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/04/04/soderman-v-sweden-third-party-intervention-of-our-human-rights-centre/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/04/04/soderman-v-sweden-third-party-intervention-of-our-human-rights-centre/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:54:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Laurens Lavrysen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=2049</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We were in Strasbourg yesterday to attend the Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Söderman v. Sweden. In this case, formerly known as E.S. v. Sweden, the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University  has submitted a third party intervention. We expect the Grand Chamber judgment to become the leading case on positive obligations under [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=2049&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/04/04/soderman-v-sweden-third-party-intervention-of-our-human-rights-centre/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/4efb1522b085082c2cb8a130d2696219?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">laulav</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Forthcoming Publication on Vulnerable Groups in the Court’s Case Law</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/03/18/forthcoming-publication-on-vulnerable-groups-in-the-courts-case-law/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/03/18/forthcoming-publication-on-vulnerable-groups-in-the-courts-case-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:09:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lourdes Peroni</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asylum Seekers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prohibition of Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roma Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vulnerability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=2046</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This post was written by Alexandra Timmer and Lourdes Peroni Alexandra and I are happy to announce the forthcoming publication of our joint Article “Vulnerable Groups: The Promise of an Emerging Concept in European Human Rights Convention Law.” The piece will be published in the International Journal of Constitutional Law – I•CON. In this Article, [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=2046&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/03/18/forthcoming-publication-on-vulnerable-groups-in-the-courts-case-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/afee3dc533d8dee072748b1a7cf69f97?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">lourdesperoni</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>X. and Others v. Austria (Part II): A Narrow Ruling on a Narrow Issue</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/03/06/x-and-others-v-austria-part-ii-a-narrow-ruling-on-a-narrow-issue/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/03/06/x-and-others-v-austria-part-ii-a-narrow-ruling-on-a-narrow-issue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 12:48:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stijn Smet</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prohibition of Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[X. and Others v. Austria]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=2038</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this second post on the Grand Chamber judgment in X. and Others v. Austria, I will focus on the narrowness of it all: the narrowness of the issue before the Court, the narrowness of the ruling and the narrow approach the majority took to the European consensus. Although I believe the majority should be [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=2038&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/03/06/x-and-others-v-austria-part-ii-a-narrow-ruling-on-a-narrow-issue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cc245115c8047e461d1ac238a9372c4b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">stijnesmet</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>X. and Others v. Austria (Part I): Had the Woman Been a Man&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/03/04/x-and-others-v-austria-part-i-had-the-woman-been-a-man/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/03/04/x-and-others-v-austria-part-i-had-the-woman-been-a-man/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:31:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Guest Blogger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prohibition of Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[X. and Others v. Austria]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=2033</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This guest post &#8211; the first in a two-post series on X. and Others v. Austria &#8211; was written by Grégor Puppinck* On the 19th of February, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights published its ruling in the case of X and others v. Austria (no. 19010/07), which decided by ten [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=2033&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/03/04/x-and-others-v-austria-part-i-had-the-woman-been-a-man/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/8d1dc660943ad1417ef2c9aa74070c66?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">stijnsmet</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Very Weighty Reasons&#8221; for Religion: Vojnity v. Hungary</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/27/very-weighty-reasons-for-religion-vojnity-v-hungary/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/27/very-weighty-reasons-for-religion-vojnity-v-hungary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:20:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lourdes Peroni</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prohibition of Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Right to Respect for Family Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vojnity v. Hungary]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=2026</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It looks like freedom-of-religion season has arrived in Strasbourg. After leaving aside the “freedom to resign” doctrine in Eweida, the Court has just made another move towards greater recognition of the importance of freedom of religion. In Vojnity v. Hungary, the Court clearly recognizes religion as a “suspect” ground of differentiation. As a result – [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=2026&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/27/very-weighty-reasons-for-religion-vojnity-v-hungary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/afee3dc533d8dee072748b1a7cf69f97?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">lourdesperoni</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Non-nationals, living conditions and disability: Situating S.H.H. v. United Kingdom within Strasbourg’s Article 3 case-law</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/19/non-nationals-living-conditions-and-disability-situating-s-h-h-v-united-kingdom-within-strasbourgs-article-3-case-law/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/19/non-nationals-living-conditions-and-disability-situating-s-h-h-v-united-kingdom-within-strasbourgs-article-3-case-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:39:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Guest Blogger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asylum Seekers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prohibition of Inhuman Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[S.H.H. v. the United Kingdom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vulnerability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=2022</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This guest post was written by Elaine Webster. Elaine holds a PhD from the University of Edinburgh and is currently a lecturer and director of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights Law at the University of Strathclyde.  In S.H.H. v. United Kingdom a chamber of the ECtHR, by four votes to three, found [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=2022&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/19/non-nationals-living-conditions-and-disability-situating-s-h-h-v-united-kingdom-within-strasbourgs-article-3-case-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/8d1dc660943ad1417ef2c9aa74070c66?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">stijnsmet</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Freedom of Religion in Public Schools: Strasbourg Court v. UN Human Rights Committee</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/14/freedom-of-religion-in-public-schools-strasbourg-court-v-un-human-rights-committee/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/14/freedom-of-religion-in-public-schools-strasbourg-court-v-un-human-rights-committee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:26:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Saïla Ouald Chaib</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Margin of Appreciation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minority Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prohibition of Discrimination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=2011</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision, the Human Rights Committee of the UN found a violation of the right to freedom of religion in a case concerning the famous and highly debated French law of 2004 that prohibits the wearing of religious garment in public schools. Accordingly the UN Committee called upon France to revisit its legislation. [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=2011&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/14/freedom-of-religion-in-public-schools-strasbourg-court-v-un-human-rights-committee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/565cd974c34743e37e7678a0241152d1?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">sailaoc</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Procedural Justice in Human Rights Adjudication: The European Court of Human Rights</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/12/procedural-justice-in-human-rights-adjudication-the-european-court-of-human-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/12/procedural-justice-in-human-rights-adjudication-the-european-court-of-human-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:21:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Laurens Lavrysen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=2008</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the context of the project “Strengthening the European Court of Human Rights: More Accountability through Better Legal Reasoning”, Eva Brems and I have written an article in which we explore the relevance of the socio-psychological concept of ‘Procedural Justice’ for the European Court of Human Rights. I am proud to announce that this article [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=2008&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/12/procedural-justice-in-human-rights-adjudication-the-european-court-of-human-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/4efb1522b085082c2cb8a130d2696219?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">laulav</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary: a strong new Roma school segregation case</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/06/horvath-and-kiss-v-hungary-a-strong-new-roma-school-segregation-case/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/06/horvath-and-kiss-v-hungary-a-strong-new-roma-school-segregation-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:03:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alexandra Timmer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Disability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Horvath and Kiss v. Hungary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prohibition of Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Right to Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roma Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vulnerability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=2000</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Strasbourg Court has once more delivered a judgment in a Roma school segregation case. The applicants in Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary are two young Roma men, who were diagnosed as having mild mental disabilities when they were children. As a result of these diagnoses, they were placed in a remedial school. Their education [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=2000&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/06/horvath-and-kiss-v-hungary-a-strong-new-roma-school-segregation-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73f698d01514880403df289e5de0ab61?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">alexandra126</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Poll on the Best and Worst ECtHR Judgment of 2012: the &#8216;Winners&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/04/poll-on-the-best-and-worst-ecthr-judgment-of-2012-the-winners/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/04/poll-on-the-best-and-worst-ecthr-judgment-of-2012-the-winners/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stijn Smet</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=1992</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Now that our poll on the best and worst ECtHR judgments of 2012 has been running for a couple of weeks, we considered it a good moment to formally announce the results of the voting, as of now. We curiously noted that visitors were much more likely to vote for best judgment (171 votes) than [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=1992&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/02/04/poll-on-the-best-and-worst-ecthr-judgment-of-2012-the-winners/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cc245115c8047e461d1ac238a9372c4b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">stijnesmet</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eweida, Part II: The Margin of Appreciation Defeats and Silences All</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/01/23/eweida-part-ii-the-margin-of-appreciation-defeats-and-silences-all/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/01/23/eweida-part-ii-the-margin-of-appreciation-defeats-and-silences-all/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:56:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stijn Smet</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=1973</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this second post on Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, I deal with the conflict between freedom of religion (or the prohibition of indirect discrimination on the basis of religion, if you so wish) and the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (or an employer&#8217;s interest in upholding equality and [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=1973&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/01/23/eweida-part-ii-the-margin-of-appreciation-defeats-and-silences-all/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cc245115c8047e461d1ac238a9372c4b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">stijnesmet</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom (Part I): Taking Freedom of Religion More Seriously</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/01/17/eweida-and-others-v-the-united-kingdom-part-i-taking-freedom-of-religion-more-seriously/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/01/17/eweida-and-others-v-the-united-kingdom-part-i-taking-freedom-of-religion-more-seriously/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:28:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lourdes Peroni</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=1965</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom is probably one of the most awaited freedom of religion judgments of recent times. Twelve third parties intervened in the case. The judgment in fact covers four big cases brought by Christian applicants, complaining that they had suffered religious discrimination at work. This week and next week, the [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=1965&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/01/17/eweida-and-others-v-the-united-kingdom-part-i-taking-freedom-of-religion-more-seriously/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/afee3dc533d8dee072748b1a7cf69f97?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">lourdesperoni</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Poll: the best and the worst ECtHR judgments of 2012</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/01/15/poll-the-best-and-the-worst-ecthr-judgments-of-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/01/15/poll-the-best-and-the-worst-ecthr-judgments-of-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:52:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stijn Smet</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=1943</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To start off 2013, we are organising a poll to celebrate the best and recall the worst the ECtHR jurisprudence had to offer in 2012. We are inviting all readers to vote for what they consider to be the best and the worst ECtHR judgment of 2012, in the two polls below. We have nominated [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=1943&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/01/15/poll-the-best-and-the-worst-ecthr-judgments-of-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cc245115c8047e461d1ac238a9372c4b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">stijnesmet</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Condemning extraordinary rendition: El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/01/10/condemning-extraordinary-rendition-khaled-el-masri-v-fyrom/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/01/10/condemning-extraordinary-rendition-khaled-el-masri-v-fyrom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:56:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Guest Blogger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Effective investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[El-Masri v. FYROM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Extraordinary rendition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prohibition of Inhuman Treatment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=1931</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This guest post was written by Mila Isakovska. Mila holds an LLM in International Public Law and Human Rights from the Riga Graduate School of Law and is currently working as Legal System Monitor in the OSCE Mission in Kosovo. The news of the Grand Chamber judgment in the extraordinary rendition case of El Masri [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=1931&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/01/10/condemning-extraordinary-rendition-khaled-el-masri-v-fyrom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/8d1dc660943ad1417ef2c9aa74070c66?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">stijnsmet</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>MICHAUD V. FRANCE: A step forward into the Bosphorus doctrine, or a step backward into “subjective” foreseeability?</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/12/21/michaud-v-france-a-step-forward-into-the-bosphorus-doctrine-or-a-step-backward-into-subjective-foreseeability/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/12/21/michaud-v-france-a-step-forward-into-the-bosphorus-doctrine-or-a-step-backward-into-subjective-foreseeability/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:18:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Guest Blogger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=1920</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This guest post was written by Daria Sartori.* Two weeks ago, the European Court delivered a judgment in the case of Michaud v. France. Even though it is not final yet, this judgment is highly interesting because of its dual core,  giving better shape to the Bosphorus doctrine while reaching questionable conclusions on the nature [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=1920&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/12/21/michaud-v-france-a-step-forward-into-the-bosphorus-doctrine-or-a-step-backward-into-subjective-foreseeability/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/8d1dc660943ad1417ef2c9aa74070c66?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">stijnsmet</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Belgian Constitutional Court says Ban on Face Coverings does not violate Human Rights</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/12/14/belgian-constitutional-court-ban-on-face-coverings-does-not-violate-human-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/12/14/belgian-constitutional-court-ban-on-face-coverings-does-not-violate-human-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:12:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Saïla Ouald Chaib</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Burqa ban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=1908</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week the Belgian Constitutional Court rejected a claim to annul the ban on face coverings, better known as ‘burqa ban’.  This ban prohibits the wearing of clothing that covers the face, or a large part of it, in the public space.  The Constitutional Court (hereinafter the “CC”) concluded that the ban does not violate [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=1908&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/12/14/belgian-constitutional-court-ban-on-face-coverings-does-not-violate-human-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/565cd974c34743e37e7678a0241152d1?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">sailaoc</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Redfearn v. the United Kingdom: Protection against Dismissals on Account of Political Belief or Affiliation</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/12/11/redfearn-v-the-united-kingdom-protection-against-dismissals-on-account-of-political-belief-or-affiliation/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/12/11/redfearn-v-the-united-kingdom-protection-against-dismissals-on-account-of-political-belief-or-affiliation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lourdes Peroni</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=1900</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last month, the Court decided a case that may end up in the Grand Chamber: Redfearn v. the United Kingdom. The case concerns the dismissal of an employee on account of his political affiliation with the British National Party (&#8220;the BNP&#8221;). At the relevant time, the BNP “only extended membership to white nationals” (paragraph 9). [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=1900&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/12/11/redfearn-v-the-united-kingdom-protection-against-dismissals-on-account-of-political-belief-or-affiliation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/afee3dc533d8dee072748b1a7cf69f97?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">lourdesperoni</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>NEW BOOK: Diversity and European Human Rights: rewriting judgments of the ECHR</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/12/07/new-book-diversity-and-european-human-rights-rewriting-judgments-of-the-echr/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/12/07/new-book-diversity-and-european-human-rights-rewriting-judgments-of-the-echr/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2012 09:52:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Saïla Ouald Chaib</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=1894</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Our research team is delighted to announce the publication of our book &#8220;Diversity and European Human Rights: rewriting judgments of the ECHR&#8221; edited by prof. dr. Eva Brems and published by Cambridge University Press. This book is the fruit of the conference &#8220;Mainstreaming Diversity: Rewriting Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights&#8221; that we organized [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=1894&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/12/07/new-book-diversity-and-european-human-rights-rewriting-judgments-of-the-echr/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/565cd974c34743e37e7678a0241152d1?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">sailaoc</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the Strasbourg Court tough on migration?</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/12/05/is-the-strasbourg-court-tough-on-migration/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/12/05/is-the-strasbourg-court-tough-on-migration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:08:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Laurens Lavrysen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=1881</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the reasons why critics continue to attack the Strasbourg Court is its alleged judicial activism in the field of migration.  The recent case of Shala v. Switzerland  illustrates that the criticism on the Court is at best exaggerated and at worst simply a straw man. In this case, the Court all too easily [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=1881&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/12/05/is-the-strasbourg-court-tough-on-migration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/4efb1522b085082c2cb8a130d2696219?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">laulav</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defining and Divining Religion</title>
		<link>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/11/22/defining-and-divining-religion/</link>
		<comments>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/11/22/defining-and-divining-religion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:50:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Guest Blogger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strasbourgobservers.com/?p=1868</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This guest post was written by Jogchum Vrielink.* A small-town Belgian café owner was convicted for failing to comply with the smoking ban. His defense: his establishment is in fact a house of prayer for his religion. In a café in Wachtebeke, in the west of Flanders, repeated violations of the smoking ban were observed. [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=strasbourgobservers.com&#038;blog=13103691&#038;post=1868&#038;subd=strasbourgobservers&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/11/22/defining-and-divining-religion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/8d1dc660943ad1417ef2c9aa74070c66?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">stijnsmet</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
