Strasbourg Observers

View posts from: Admissibility

  • Maria Kotsoni

The first COVID-19 related collective complaint before the European Committee of Social Rights deemed inadmissible: Greek Bar Associations v. Greece.

August 11, 2021

By Maria Kotsoni, PhD researcher at the Department of Law of the European University Institute Just a few months after the inadmissibility judgement of Le Mailloux v. France, another inadmissibility decision was adopted in a case related to states’ socio-economic management of the COVID-19 crisis. Only this time it was the European Committee of Social […]

  • Alan Greene

Falling at the First Hurdle? Terheş v Romania: Lockdowns and Normalising the Exception

June 18, 2021

By Alan Greene* Over a year into the COVID-19 pandemic and the petitions challenging many of the exceptional powers enacted by states across Europe, cases are now beginning to trickle though to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR; the Court). In a blog post on this website last year, I cautioned against the dangers […]

  • Guest Blogger

What Future for Human Rights? Decision-making by algorithm

May 19, 2021

Veronika Fikfak is an Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen, where she is leading the ERC Project Human Rights Nudge team (ERC 803891), which looks at how and when states change their behaviour in response to ECtHR judgments. We use computational methods to analyse large datasets of ECtHR case law and follow up processes […]

  • Guest Blogger

European Court of Human Rights single-judge decisions (still) deny justice and risk weakening UN treaty body system

November 10, 2020

By Justin M. Loveland The European Court of Human Rights has made important contributions to the development of international human rights jurisprudence, influencing not only the domestic jurisprudence of its member European states but the practices of states outside the European system, other regional human rights systems, and international law more broadly. This well-deserved influence […]

  • Strasbourg Observers

Privacy International and others v United Kingdom: Hacking Admissibility Decision and the Risk of ‘Deference Ping Pong’

October 14, 2020

By Daniella Lock (Doctoral Candidate and Teaching Fellow, UCL Faculty of Laws, University College London) Last month, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down a decision that the application regarding the compatibility of the exercise of UK hacking powers made in Privacy International and others v United Kingdom was inadmissible. This was on […]

  • Guest Blogger

Grimmark v. Sweden and Steen v. Sweden: no right for healthcare professionals to refuse to participate in abortion services, and framing strategies by anti-abortion actors.

April 06, 2020

This blogpost was written by Niklas Barke, PhD Candidate, Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University On the 11th of March, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) issued its decisions in Grimmark v. Sweden and Steen v. Sweden, two cases casting light on the issue of refusal by healthcare professionals to participate in […]

  • Guest Blogger

‘Peaceful assembly’ and the question of applicability of Article 11

January 17, 2020

Beril Önder: PhD Candidate, University of Strasbourg (Institut de Recherches Carré de Malberg) and Ghent University (Human Rights Centre) The case of Razvozzhayev v. Russia and Ukraine and Udaltsov v. Russia[1] concerned the conviction of two men for organising “mass disorder” in a political rally at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on 6 May 2012. The […]

  • Laurens Lavrysen

Zhdanov and others v. Russia: on missed opportunities and an offensive applicant

August 29, 2019

On 16 July, the Court delivered its judgment in the case of Zhdanov and others v. Russia. The case concerns the refusal by the Russian authorities to register two LGBT rights organisations because they were considered extremist organisations on account of the allegedly immoral character of their activities. In this judgment, the Court found a […]

  • Guest Blogger

Extremist view on subsidiarity and on exhaustion of domestic remedies? Criticism of the decision Szalontay v. Hungary

May 22, 2019

By Dr. Dániel A. Karsai, attorney at law, Dániel Karsai Law Firm The Commissioner of Human Rights of the Council of Europe recently issued a report following her visit to Hungary where she made the following rather astonishing statement: “Human rights violations in Hungary have a negative effect on the whole protection system and the […]

  • Corina Heri

A Casualty of Formalism: The Application of the Six-Month Rule in Kamenica and Others v. Serbia

November 16, 2016

By Corina Heri, PhD candidate at the University of Zürich / Visiting Scholar at Ghent University On 27 October 2016, the Court published the Third Section’s decision in Kamenica and Others v. Serbia. That case concerns the alleged ill-treatment of 67 persons who fled Bosnia and Herzegovina during the conflict that broke out there in […]

  • Weichie

The saga continues … Legal standing for NGOs when de facto representing mentally disabled dying in institutions

August 29, 2016

By Helena De Vylder Once again, in the decision in Bulgarian Helsinki Committee v Bulgaria, the ECtHR had the opportunity to rule on the legal standing of an NGO when de facto representing two mentally disabled adolescents, who died in an institution. The ECtHR applied the criteria it established in Centre for Legal Resources on […]

  • Weichie

(In)justice and admissibility: No standing for their representative, but effective protection for disappeared victims?

June 09, 2016

By Helena De Vylder In the inadmissibility decision delivered on 26 April 2016 in the case of N. v. Russia and M. v. Russia, the Court rejects the petition for lack of standing of the applicants’ representative. The victims were unable to formally appoint their representative by signing a ‘power of attorney-document’, since they disappeared, […]

  • Guest Blogger

Farewell to Marckx and all that or how I received ‘the letter’ (from the registry of the European Court of Human Rights)

January 20, 2016

This guest post was written by Dr. Başak Çalı, Director, Center for Global Public Law and Assoc. Prof. of International Law, Koç University Law School, Istanbul. It is not common to receive a letter from the registry of the European Court of Human Rights. At least, for me it’s not. I was excited to receive […]

  • Weichie

Helsinki Committee of Armenia v Armenia: when the subsidiarity-requirement and the exhaustion of domestic remedies do not go hand in hand

May 13, 2015

By Helena De Vylder The ECtHR’s recent Helsinki Committee of Armenia v Armenia judgment deals with the refusal of local authorities to grant permission for the holding of a mourning march. However, the letter refusing the march was only received by the applicant organisation after the proposed date for the event. Since no domestic remedies […]

  • Guest Blogger

Extra-territorial Jurisdiction & Flexible Human Rights Obligations: The Case of Jaloud v. the Netherlands

December 08, 2014

This guest post was written by Cedric De Koker, Phd Researcher, IRCP, Ghent University. With its judgment in the case of Jaloud v. the Netherlands, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has added another chapter to its growing body of case law relating to the extra-territorial application of the European […]

  • Guest Blogger

Mocanu v. Romania: do large-scale human rights violations justify only a mild admissibility test?

October 17, 2014

This guest post was written by Helena De Vylder, Ph.D. researcher at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University. Her research focuses on admissibility criteria in regional human rights systems. Mocanu and others v Romania fits in a series of cases in which the Strasbourg Court needed to deal with grave and large-scale human rights […]

  • Guest Blogger

Stensholt v. Norway: Why single judge decisions undermine the Court’s legitimacy

May 28, 2014

This guest post was written by Helena De Vylder. Helena is a Ph.D. Researcher at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University. Her research concerns admissibility criteria in regional human rights systems. Apart from the new admissibility requirement – significant disadvantage –, the 14th Protocol contains a number of procedural changes. The competences of chambers […]

  • Guest Blogger

UN immunity overrides ius cogens norms of international law

July 23, 2013

This guest post was written by Bella Murati, Ph.D. Candidate at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University.   July 2013 marks the 18th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre, when in the period of 13-19 July 1995, more than 8,000 unarmed Bosnian Muslims were deliberately killed by Bosnian Serb forces. The case itself has been […]

  • Maris Burbergs

Crossing the red line: application of the ‘significant disadvantage’ criterion in an Article 5§3 case

July 04, 2013

Recently, Judges De Gaetano and Ziemele did not hide their bewilderment with the Latvian government’s argument in favor of the application of the ‘significant disadvantage’ admissibility criterion in the case of Bannikov v. Latvia.

  • Weichie

Manifestly ill-founded … by a majority

June 17, 2013

In this post I want to flag three inadmissibility decisions, delivered by the Court’s Chambers over the past few months, in which the applicant’s claims are declared manifestly ill-founded, by a majority. Like so many inadmissibility decisions, the three summarised below may have easily passed under the radar of many of our readers. These particular […]

1 2