January 31, 2017
The Strasbourg Observers are launching the annual poll for best and worst European Court of Human Rights judgment, 2016 edition!
This year, the pre-selection of nominees was particularly challenging. A diverse batch of 28 (!) judgments received nominations from our blogging team at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University. Ultimately, our internal voting process led to the ten below nominees, across both categories.
It is now up to you, our readers, to elect the winner (best judgment) and loser (worst judgment) of 2016! The results will be announced next month.
Attentive readers will note that quite a large number of our nominees address asylum and migration issues. This not only reflects the ‘reality’ of today’s political and judicial scene in Europe. It also signals, in the category of best judgment, that we are impressed by how the European Court of Human Rights has remained, in the nominated cases, an independent stronghold against the populist tide that threatens to sweep migrants, asylum seekers and refugees away from Europe.
To refresh your memory on the nominated judgments – or introduce you to them – we have included brief summaries below the polls (please click ‘Continue reading’).
[the order of judgments in both polls is automatically randomized on each page visit]
BEST JUDGMENT (alphabetical)
The case concerned the lengthy duration of an asylum procedure and the quality of the assessment of the applicant’s personal situation. The Court found violations of articles 3 and 8 ECHR.
From our blog post: “This is the first time that the Court finds that an asylum seeker’s prolonged precarious and uncertain situation, due to an unjustified lack of action by the government as regards his asylum request, constitutes a violation of … Article 8 ECHR.”
The case concerned family reunification, requested by a naturalized citizen. The Court found a violation of article 14 in conjunction with article 8 ECHR.
From our blog post: “the ruling in Biao must be seen as a big step – all the more as critics have proclaimed that the Court might not yet have developed a satisfactory approach to cases of indirect discrimination.”
The case concerned the reasonable accommodation of a student with a disability. The Court found a violation of article 14 in conjunction with article 2 of Protocol 1 ECHR.
From our blog post: “the ECtHR states that the denial of reasonable accommodations is a form of discrimination under article 14 ECHR. As far as we can ascertain, this is a statement that had never been expressed so clearly by the Strasbourg Court.”
The case concerned the arrest and detention of a human rights activist. The Court found violations of articles 5 and 18 ECHR.
From the EHRAC website: “This is the European Court’s first judgment to address the serious and ongoing situation of human rights defenders in Azerbaijan, many of whom remain behind bars … The strong statements made by the Court … on the restrictions that Azerbaijani human rights defenders continue to face … will set an important precedent”.
The case concerned the expulsion of a seriously ill person. The Court found violations of articles 3 and 8 ECHR.
From our blog post: “the Grand Chamber has memorably reshaped its Article 3 case law on the expulsion of seriously ill migrants. In a unanimous judgment, the Court leaves behind the restrictive application of the high Article 3 threshold set in N v. the United Kingdom and pushes for a more rigorous assessment of the risk of ill-treatment in these cases.”
WORST JUDGMENT (reverse alphabetical)
The case concerned revocation of the applicant’s citizenship and his resulting statelessness. The Court found no violation of article 8 ECHR.
From our blog post: “It does not seem an exaggeration to say that the recent judgment in Ramadan v. Malta suggests that citizenship revocation is not generally problematic under the European Convention on Human Rights.”
The case concerned the standing of the applicants’ representatives in circumstances in which the applicants themselves had disappeared. The Court declared the complaint inadmissible.
From our blog post: “The Court did not explain why it examines the case on the basis of the criteria in Lambert [v. France] and not the ones in [Centre of Legal Resources on behalf of Vincent Campeanu v. Romania], even though the representative argued that she had standing according to the Campeanu-criteria. In sum, this case is a missed opportunity for the Court to fine-tune its case-law in Campeanu and Lambert and to render protection for the applicants.”
The case concerned the freedom of expression of civil servants. The Court found no violation of article 10 ECHR.
From our blog post: “The Court’s view on the need for a ‘politically neutral body of civil servants’ in its Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia judgment is worrying. It risks demoting senior civil servants to mere lackeys of the executive, impeding them from playing a potentially vital role in defending democracy and the rule of law.”
The case concerned the standing of the representative of a victim of human trafficking. The Court declared the complaint inadmissible.
From our blog post: “The G.J. v. Spain Decision … shows many of the problems victims of human trafficking encounter to access justice. It is, sadly, one of those cases where formalities swallow justice”.
The case concerned the influence of the applicant’s socio-economic circumstances on her freedom to choose a residence. The Court found no violation of article 2 of Protocol 4 ECHR.
From our blog post: “the Court in the Garib case missed the opportunity to emphasize that at the core of any human rights based approach to addressing socio-economic problems should be a concern to find solutions that respect and empower rather than restrict the agency of persons suffering from socio-economic disadvantage.”