Strasbourg Observers
  • Harriet Ní Chinnéide & Cathérine Van de Graaf

Prohibition of religious slaughter in Executief van de Moslims van België and others v. Belgium: Process-based review and a new legitimate aim

April 26, 2024

Harriet Ní Chinnéide & Dr. Cathérine Van de Graaf In Executief van de Moslims van België and others v Belgium the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR, the Court) assessed the compatibility of decrees adopted in Flanders and Wallonia banning the slaughter of animals without prior stunning, as practiced by observant Muslims and Jews […]

  • Cathérine Van de Graaf

Georgian Muslim Relations and Others v. Georgia – A bleeding pig’s head and other expressions of religious hatred with no police intervention

April 23, 2024

by dr. Cathérine Van de Graaf1 On 30 November, the Fifth Division of the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Georgian Muslim Relations and Others v. Georgia. The Court ruled that Georgia had violated its positive obligations under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 as […]

  • Noa Vreven

M.L. v. Poland: potential to liberalise women’s abortion rights?

April 19, 2024

By Noa Vreven On 14 December 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of M.L. v. Poland (no. 40119/21). The case concerned the prohibition of abortion on the legal grounds of foetal abnormality, following a much-discussed ruling by the Polish Constitutional Court of 2020. This legal development forced the applicant to […]

  • Mathieu Leloup

A right for judges to challenge legislation? Strasbourg’s untenable ambiguity

April 16, 2024

By dr. Mathieu Leloup It is no secret that the protection of the independence of domestic judges has been high on the judicial agenda of the supranational courts in the recent past. Over the course of the last few years, issues related to judicial independence have been at the forefront of the case law of […]

  • Eva Brems

The single judge and the single-sentence motivation (2): The bewildering dismissal of Asmeta v France

April 12, 2024

Eva Brems In a previous blogpost I wondered whether scholars and teachers of the ECHR can really understand how the Court interprets the Convention, if we do not know what happens in the large majority of cases, in particular those dismissed as inadmissible by a single judge in a four-line decision devoid of motivation. This […]

  • Eva Brems

The single judge and the single-sentence motivation (1): The Sloppy Decision in Deleuran v. Denmark

April 09, 2024

Eva Brems ‘The European Court as the main violator of human rights’, it said on a PowerPoint slide in my ECHR class this semester. This was a presentation by a guest speaker: an attorney with a lot of experience with ECtHR procedures. I had simply invited him to talk about this experience, but he had […]

  • Işıl Kurnaz

Does a requirement to undertake 1 day of reserve military service engender a right to conscientious objection? The recent judgment of the ECtHR in Kanatlı v. Turkey offers a new perspective.

April 05, 2024

Işıl Kurnaz Since around the mid-1800s, the term “conscientious objection” has been used to describe a refusal driven by an individual’s moral conscious to engage in military duties. Although the right to conscientious objection is not defined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – or indeed, in any UN instrument – it is […]

  • Eva Brems

In the Strasbourg Club: Executief van de Moslims van België and others v Belgium

April 02, 2024

Eva Brems ‘Stop internationalization now!’ I am shouting at my laptop screen, laughing. This is banter of course. The Strasbourg Club just realized that we are having a meeting with Dutch speakers only – four in the room in Ghent, plus three online. The joke is that this will be the new normal after the […]

  • Strasbourg Observers

Results of the 2023 Strasbourg Observers Best & Worst Poll

March 29, 2024

Dear readers, In February, we presented you with this year’s edition of our annual Strasbourg Observers Best & Worst Poll, in which we asked you to vote for your preferred candidates as shortlisted for the categories of Best Judgment of 2023, Worst Judgment of 2023, and Best Separate Opinion of 2023. We would like to […]

  • Nozizwe Dube

Wa Baile v Switzerland: An Implicit Acknowledgment of Racial Profiling as Structural Discrimination

March 26, 2024

Nozizwe Dube After the 2022 landmark rulings Basu v Germany and Muhammad v Spain, the ECtHR has handled another racial profiling case. In Wa Baile v Switzerland, the ECtHR unanimously held that there was a procedural and substantive violation of the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14) in conjunction with the right to respect for private […]

  • Dr. Alice Dejean de la Bâtie

Ramadan v. France: You shall not name your accuser in vain

March 22, 2024

Dr. Alice Dejean de la Bâtie French criminal law forbids anyone to disclose or even publicly mention the name of the victim of sexual assault without their express written permission. Anyone. Ever. Even the defendants themselves. Even before any trial has taken place. Even if the victim’s name has previously been disclosed countless times. Can […]

  • Vladislava Stoyanova

Krachunova v. Bulgaria: New Positive Obligation under Article 4 ECHR to Compensate Victims of Human Trafficking for Pecuniary Damages

March 19, 2024

By Vladislava Stoyanova Krachunova v. Bulgaria is the first judgment where the ECtHR addressed the question of compensation for victims of human trafficking as a positive obligation held by States under Article 4 of the Convention. As the Court noted at para 161, in this case, the Court is ‘for the first time confronted with […]

  • Ezgi Özlü

‘A FEW, BUT VERY NECESSARY, MINUTES TO DEVOTE TO INTERIM MEASURES’: FURTHER TRANSPARENCY AS A RESILIENCE STRATEGY? [1]

March 15, 2024

By Ezgi Özlü At the Opening of the Judicial Year 2024 on 26 January, ECtHR President O’Leary emphasised her concerns about the criticism and disregarding of interim measures of certain member states. She also underlined the ongoing work for further transparency. In this respect, on 26 June and 6 November 2023, the Plenary Court adopted […]

  • By Eszter BENKŐ, Tamás FAZEKAS and Zsolt SZEKERES.

Imminent risk of irreparable harm: why failure to protect Russians fleeing the Putin regime would be a serious blow to the Court’s reputation

March 12, 2024

By Eszter BENKŐ, Tamás FAZEKAS and Zsolt SZEKERES In December 2023, the European Court of Human Rights rejected two requests for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (hereinafter: interim measures or Rule 39) in the case of a Russian dissident, who is to be returned to the Russian Federation by Hungary. […]