Strasbourg Observers

View posts from: By Topic

  • Laurens Lavrysen

The mountain gave birth to a mouse: the first Advisory Opinion under Protocol No. 16

April 24, 2019

On 10 April, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Right adopted its first Advisory Opinion under the new Protocol No. 16 to the ECHR, which entered into force on 1 August last year. This Protocol, which has so far been ratified by twelve States, allows the “highest domestic courts” to request the […]

  • Guest Blogger

Suspicionless Stop and Search Powers at the Border and Article 8: Beghal v United Kingdom

April 18, 2019

By John Ip, University of Auckland Faculty of Law On 28 February 2019, the First Section Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its decision in Beghal v United Kingdom, a de facto appeal from a 2015 UK Supreme Court decision concerning the question of whether Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act […]

  • Guest Blogger

What future for settlements and undertakings in international human rights resolution?

April 15, 2019

By Nino Jomarjidze and Philip Leach Resolving problems through settlements and by eliciting undertakings from governments has become a significant feature of the Strasbourg landscape. At the European Court of Human Rights (the Court), the use of friendly settlements (agreed confidentially between the parties) has been on the increase. So too, for ‘unilateral declarations’ (UD) […]

  • Corina Heri

Vulnerability, Rape, and Coercive Obligations: A Discussion of E.B v. Romania

April 12, 2019

By Corina Heri, postdoctoral researcher at the University of Amsterdam Three years ago, on this blog, Lourdes Peroni wrote about the failings of the domestic response to the alleged rape of an 11-year-old girl in M.G.C. v. Romania. Today, the ECtHR is continuing to apply ‘coercive obligations’ regarding rape and sexual violence, as crystallized by […]

  • Guest Blogger

Election of Judges of the European Court of Human Rights: Ukraine, the Beginning

April 09, 2019

By Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou (University of Liverpool) Election of judges is crucially important for the legitimacy, reputation and authoritativeness of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The Court needs leading academics and practitioners not only to come up with well-drafted and reasoned judgments but also to ensure that these judgments are then embedded into the […]

  • Guest Blogger

X v. FYROM: A circumspect compromise on trans* rights?

April 02, 2019

This post was written by Mariam Gaiparashvili and Sarah Schoentjes, Master students at the Human Rights Legal Clinic, Ghent University In X v. FYROM, the ECtHR confirmed the Member States’ positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR to establish a clear legal procedure for gender recognition. Disappointingly, however, it refused to examine the applicant’s claim that […]

  • Guest Blogger

H.A. and others v. Greece – restrictive acknowledgement of irregular migrant vulnerability

March 29, 2019

By Elina Todorov, PhD Candidate, Tampere University (Finland) On 28. February 2019 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgement concerning unaccompanied minors in an irregular situation, namely H.A. and others v. Greece.  In H.A. the Court found several violations of the Convention, in particular a partial violation of Article 3 regarding the […]

  • Guest Blogger

Petukhov v. Ukraine No. 2: Life Sentences Incompatible with the Convention, but only in Eastern Europe?

March 26, 2019

Lewis Graham is a PhD Student at Pembroke College, University of Cambridge. Life sentences – that is, indefinite detention without any opportunity for release – is a thorny issue, and the involvement of the European Court of Human Rights in this field, particularly in cases concerning the United Kingdom, have recently courted great controversy. After […]

  • Guest Blogger

Human Rights Centre and SAR submit a joint third party intervention in cases concerning academic freedom

March 21, 2019

By Sofia Sideridou (intern at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University) The Human Rights Centre of Ghent University (Belgium)[1] and the Scholars at Risk Network (New York, U.S.), have jointly submitted a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Telek, Şar and Kivilcim v. Turkey. The cases […]

  • Guest Blogger

The Right to Life and the Scope of Control: Fernandes de Oliveira v Portugal

March 18, 2019

By Peter Bartlett (Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Professor of Mental Health Law, Institute of Mental Health and School of Law, University of Nottingham) On its face, this case considers the duty of the State to protect the lives of voluntary (or informal) psychiatric patients under Article 2 of the ECHR (right to life).  Below the […]

  • Guest Blogger

Rooman v. Belgium: when linguistic problems lead to a violation of core human rights

March 15, 2019

Marie Bourguignon is a PhD researcher at the Leuven Centre for Public Law, Institute for Human Rights. She specializes in linguistic rights and access to law in multilingual Belgium. On 31 January 2019, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights convicted Belgium for inhuman or degrading treatment as well as for violating […]

  • Guest Blogger

Yeshtla v. the Netherlands: a missed opportunity to reflect on the discriminatory effects of States’ social policy choices

March 08, 2019

By Fulvia Staiano, Adjunct Professor of International Law and European Union Law (Giustino Fortunato University) On 15 January 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered an inadmissibility decision on the case of Emabet Yeshtla v. the Netherlands. In this case, the ECtHR was asked to determine whether the withdrawal of the applicant’s housing […]

  • Strasbourg Observers

The Best and Worst ECtHR judgments of 2018 are…

February 25, 2019

Dear readers, A month ago, we launched our yearly vote for best and worst ECtHR judgment of the year (for a shortlist of the candidates, see our previous blog post). Today, it is our pleasure to announce the winners. In the category of best judgment of the year 2018, the winner is…

  • Guest Blogger

Another case of violating privacy and personal data protection: Catt v. the United Kingdom

February 22, 2019

This blogpost was written by Judith Vermeulen, PhD researcher in the Law and Technology Research Group at Ghent University. Shortly after Big Brother Watch (see also the blogpost for this case), the European Court of Human Rights again had the opportunity to pronounce itself on the compatibility of Article 8 ECHR with the collection, retention […]

  • Guest Blogger

Compensation for victims in inter-state cases. Is Georgia v Russia (I) another step forward?

February 14, 2019

By Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou (University of Liverpool) On 31 January 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment on just satisfaction in the inter-state case of Georgia v Russia (I). The ECtHR ordered the respondent state to pay 10 million euros to the applicant country. In turn, Georgia will have to distribute this […]

  • Guest Blogger

Dupin v. France: the ECtHR going old school in its appraisal of inclusive education?

February 11, 2019

By Johan Lievens (VU Amsterdam) and Marie Spinoy (Leuven Centre for Public Law, KULeuven) In Dupin v. France the European Court of Human Rights saw itself confronted with one of the key conflicts in education law: when parents and state officials disagree on which educational trajectory is best for a child with a disability, who […]

  • Guest Blogger

Wunderlich v. Germany: enforcing compulsory home-schooling

February 05, 2019

By Daniel Monk, Professor of Law, Birkbeck, University of London On 10th January 2019, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that there had been no violation of Article 8 in a case concerning the withdrawal of aspects of the authority of parents and the removal of children from their home for a period […]

  • Strasbourg Observers

Poll: Best and Worst ECtHR Judgment of 2018

January 29, 2019

Dear readers, At the start of the New Year, we traditionally like to seize the moment and assess the past year of Strasbourg jurisprudence. For this purpose, we are hereby launching our poll for the best and worst ECtHR judgment of 2018. We would like to warmly encourage you, our readers, to participate in our […]

  • Laurens Lavrysen

Murtazaliyeva v. Russia: on the examination of witnesses and the “corrosive expansion” of the overall fairness test

January 25, 2019

On 18 December, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Murtazaliyeva v. Russia, finding no violation of the right to a fair trial in a case concerning the conviction of a Chechen woman for terrorist offences.  The most significant aspect of the judgment concerns the […]

  • Guest Blogger

Activist’s conviction for hooliganism over ‘obscene’ protest violated Article 10 ECHR

January 23, 2019

This blog post was written by Ronan Ó Fathaigh and Dirk Voorhoof On 15 January 2019, the European Court’s Second Section unanimously found that an anti-corruption activist’s conviction for staging an “obscene” demonstration outside a prosecutor’s office, targeting a number of public officials, violated the activist’s freedom of expression. The Court in Mătăsaru v. the […]

1 22 23 24 25 26 52