Strasbourg Observers

View posts from: Article 6

  • Ola Johan Settem

Crime victims’ hurdles in access to court claims: The Fabbri Grand Chamber judgment raises the bar

November 05, 2024

By Ola Johan Settem On 24 September 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a Grand Chamber judgment in Fabbri and others v. San Marino (6319/21). The judgment concerns the rights of crime victims who attempt to pursue a civil claim against the offender by joining the criminal proceedings. The Grand Chamber clarifies […]

  • Holly Greenwood

Case of Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom: Article 6 (2) and the presumption of innocence in wrongful conviction compensation proceedings: nothing but semantics?

August 20, 2024

by dr Holly Greenwood Introduction The case of Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom concerned a joint application from two individuals who were denied compensation for their wrongful convictions under the statutory scheme in England and Wales. The applicants argued s.133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime […]

  • Andrew Novak

Saakashvili v. Georgia and the Global Trend Toward Judicial Review of the Pardon Power

August 13, 2024

By Andrew Novak The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Saakashvili v. Georgia provides a novel comparative analysis of the executive clemency power and an executive’s immunity from prosecution for misuse of that power. The debate over the nature of the pardon, filed by the former president of the Republic of Georgia, […]

  • Júlia Miklasová

Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea): Article 6 ECHR in the Context of Russia’s Annexation and Implications for Ukrainian Sovereignty

July 03, 2024

By Júlia Miklasová On 25 June 2024, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights rendered a long-awaited judgment (combined applications No. 20958/14 (merits) and 38334/18 (admissibility and merits)) in an inter-State case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea). In this unanimous judgment, the Court found Russia responsible for the violation of the majority of […]

  • 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 […]

  • Lidia Carchilan

Tadić v. Croatia – does discussing an ongoing case with a third party amount to a breach of impartiality under Article 6 § 1?

January 30, 2024

by Lidia Carchilan The impartiality of judges has been addressed by the Court on numerous occasions (see examples here, here, and here), providing the Court with the opportunity to develop a consistent line of case-law on the issue, from both its subjective and objective perspectives. In Tadić v. Croatia the Court ruled on the impartiality […]

  • Daniel Krotov

How to Manage the End of Perpetual Challenging Rights? – The Case of Legros and Others v. France

December 15, 2023

by Daniel Krotov French administrative procedural law notoriously provides wide access to the courts that, from a foreign point of view, may even seem a bit excessive. One example was the possibility to challenge administrative acts indefinitely if they lacked proper instruction on the right to appeal. In an effort to restrict this perpetual challenging […]

  • Mathieu Leloup

Wałęsa v Poland: a forceful culmination of the Court’s rule-of-law case law

December 08, 2023

By Mathieu Leloup Polish rule of law cases are by no means still a novelty at the European Court of Human Rights. Over the course of the last couple of years, the Court has ruled on a wide variety of aspects concerning the Polish legal “reforms” of its judiciary, going from the composition of the […]

  • Emre Turkut

‘Article 7’ Shockwaves, ByLock and Beyond: Unpacking the Grand Chamber’s Yalçınkaya Judgment

October 13, 2023

by Emre Turkut On 26 September 2023, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered a highly anticipated decision in the case of Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye. The case concerns an application lodged on 17 March 2020 by a teacher who was dismissed from public service through a coercive state of emergency decree, […]

  • Anaïs Brucher

Domestic enforcement of the right to housing of applicants for international protection: a (small) victory in Camara v. Belgium

September 01, 2023

By Anaïs Brucher Camara v. Belgium is the first of what could be a long series of cases on the enforcement of the right to housing and material assistance of applicants for international protection in Belgium. On 18 July 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled on the case of Mr Camara, who […]

  • Rianne Herregodts

Grosam v. the Czech Republic: being the master of characterisation, not the master of transformation

August 01, 2023

By Rianne Herregodts In Grosam v. the Czech Republic, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights concludes the Chamber of the First Section of the Court has gone too far in its characterisation of the complaint of Mr. Grosam. The judgment clarifies what it means to be ‘the master of characterisation’. It […]

  • Andy Jousten

Money is not everything: the immunity of a minister and the deprivation of a specific remedy to protect the civil right to a good reputation in Bakoyanni v. Greece

April 18, 2023

By Andy Jousten Introduction In its judgment in Bakoyanni v. Greece, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the Greek Parliament’s refusal to lift a former minister’s immunity. The latter had posted a tweet, which the applicant, a […]

  • Charly Derave and Hania Ouhnaoui

M. v. France: Recognising the existence of intersex persons, but not (yet) their bodily integrity

February 14, 2023

By Charly Derave and Hania Ouhnaoui On 19 May 2022, the European Court of Human Rights communicated its admissibility decision in the case of M. v. France, which deals with “normalising” medical treatments of intersex persons (i.e. those who are born with sex characteristics that do not fit the typical definition of the female and […]

  • Tobias Mortier

How far is the ECtHR willing to go to accommodate the legislature regarding retrospectivity? The case of Vegotex International S.A. v. Belgium.

January 13, 2023

By Tobias Mortier The technique of retrospective legislative regularisation is a disputed one. While the technique takes on different forms in the Belgian legal system, it generally involves the legislator retrospectively regularising a legislative or executive act – and thereby (purposely) influencing pending legal proceedings. Due to its sensitivity in light of the rule of […]

  • Dr. Sjors Ligthart

De Legé v. the Netherlands: Clarifying the privilege against self-incrimination?

December 13, 2022

By Dr. Sjors Ligthart Introduction De Legé v. the Netherlands revolved around the privilege against self-incrimination. Regardless of the disadvantage suffered by the applicant, the Court considered it necessary to examine the application out of respect for human rights within the meaning of Article 35(3)(b) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). In […]

  • Jean-Baptiste Farcy

The Belgian reception crisis before the ECtHR: the Court orders Belgium to respect the rule of law

December 02, 2022

By Jean-Baptiste Farcy The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ordered interim measures against Belgium for failing to offer material receptions conditions to 149 asylum-seekers. In the past year, the Belgian government has failed to provide shelter to asylum-seekers due to an alleged lack of reception facilities. Thousands of domestic judgments have also been disregarded […]

  • Joseph Finnerty

Juszczyszyn v. Poland: Article 18 ECHR’s Conservative Contribution to the Polish Rule of Law Crisis

November 23, 2022

By Joseph Finnerty[*] Introduction The rule of law crisis in Poland is not new, but the engagement of Article 18 ECHR with this context is. In Juszczyszyn v. Poland, the ECtHR delivered its first Article 18 violation judgment against Poland. The case concerned the legal reforms that the Polish political ruling party (PiS) has adopted […]

  • Anna Pivaty

Does the Court really expand European fair trial rights standards in criminal proceedings with Wang v. France and Dubois v. France on ‘voluntary’ police interviews of suspects?

August 23, 2022

By Anna Pivaty On 22 April 2022 the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter ‘ECtHR’ or ‘the Court’) (Chamber) has issued two judgments – Wang v. France and Dubois v. France – on the rights of persons interviewed by the police ‘voluntarily’, meaning: upon invitation by police without placing them under arrest. The Court’s press […]

  • Cecilia Rizcallah and Elisabeth David

The Polish Judicial Reforms under the Grand Chamber’s Scrutiny: Much Fog About Nothing? A comment of Grzęda v. Poland

May 26, 2022

By Cecilia Rizcallah and Elisabeth David On 15 March 2022, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter “the Court”) found Poland in violation of Article 6(1) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“ECHR”) in the case of Grzęda v. Poland. There have […]

  • Ash Stanley-Ryan

J.C. and Others v. Belgium: the delicate balance of state immunity and human dignity

January 12, 2022

By Ash Stanley-Ryan International law walks a tightrope between the rights of sovereign States and the rights of those who comprise them. Tip too far to either side and the system breaks – sovereignty either becomes unbridled power, or becomes meaningless. This delicate balancing is most evident when sovereign power and human rights directly collide, […]

1 2