Strasbourg Observers

View posts from: Right to Private Life

  • Guest Blogger

The Y.Y. v. Turkey case and trans individuals’ gender recognition

April 24, 2015

This guest post was written by Ivana Isailovic, post-doc researcher at the Perelman Center (Université libre de Bruxelles) and affiliated to the IAP, Human Rights Integration project.[1] The Y.Y v. Turkey decision deals with the process of gender recognition, which is one of the many pressing legal issues trans[2] communities are struggling with in Europe. […]

  • Laurens Lavrysen

Dubská and Krejzová v. Czech Republic: a ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ right to give birth at home?

February 02, 2015

By Laurens Lavrysen In the case of Dubská and Krejzová v. Czech Republic, the Strasbourg Court had to pronounce itself on the regulation of home birth under Czech law. While on the one hand Czech law allowed for home births, on the other hand it prohibited midwives from assisting them. In its judgment of 11 […]

  • Valeska David

Ivinović v. Croatia: legal capacity and the (missing) call for supportive decision-making

October 23, 2014

Valeska David is a PhD Researcher at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University and a member of the Research Network “The Global Challenge of Human Rights Integration: Towards a Users’ Perspective.” We have all heard about the so-called paradigm shift brought about by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The social […]

  • Guest Blogger

Occupational Health in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Brincat v. Malta

September 08, 2014

This guest blog post was written by Elena Sychenko, Ph.D. student at the University of Catania, Law Faculty, Labour Law Department. On 24 July, the European Court of Human Rights announced its judgment in Brincat and Others v. Malta (the Brincat case).[1] This case was the result of 21 applications of former workers of the […]

  • Eva Brems

Making subsidiarity work: Struggling with procedural review – A.K. v. Latvia

July 14, 2014

The applicant in AK v Latvia is unhappy with the fact that she gave birth to a daughter with Down’s syndrome. She claims that the she was denied access to important medical information in the form of an antenatal screening test owing to negligence of her gynaecologist, in violation of article 8 ECHR.

  • Saïla Ouald Chaib

S.A.S. v. France: Missed Opportunity to Do Full Justice to Women Wearing a Face Veil

July 03, 2014

By Saïla Ouald Chaib and Lourdes Peroni This week, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights published its long-expected judgment in S.A.S. v. France. The case concerns a ban on the wearing of face veils in the public space. Although the outcome of such highly debated cases is always unpredictable, we hoped […]

  • Guest Blogger

McDonald v. the United Kingdom: A step forward in addressing the needs of persons with disabilities through Article 8 ECHR

June 04, 2014

This guest post was written by Marijke De Pauw, Ph.D. Researcher at the Fundamental Rights and Constitutionalism Research Group (FRC) of Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Her research is part of the research network “The Global Challenge of Human Rights Integration: Towards a Users’ Perspective” (HRI) and concerns the fundamental rights of older persons. In McDonald v. […]

  • Guest Blogger

The application of the European Convention on Human Rights to the case of Leonarda Dibrani

December 18, 2013

This guest post was written by Georgios Milios* On October 9 2013, Leonarda Dibrani, a 15-years old Roma girl, was arrested by the French police in front of her teachers and classmates and deported to Kosovo along with her parents and five siblings. Initially, it was argued that the family had left Kosovo some years ago seeking […]

  • Guest Blogger

Gross v Switzerland: the Swiss regulation of assisted suicide infringes Article 8 ECHR

June 26, 2013

This guest post was written by Daria Sartori, Ph.D candidate in Criminal Law at Trento University (Italy). She is interested in the relationship between Criminal Law and Human Rights, and she is presently working in Italy and abroad on a research project about the Principle of Legality and the European Convention on Human Rights. Gross […]

  • Weichie

ECtHR Really Applies Less Restrictive Alternative: Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg

May 01, 2013

The structured proportionality test, as utilised by the German Constitutional Court (among others) and championed by Robert Alexy and his followers, subjects limitations of fundamental rights to a three-pronged test. The test is intended to examine – step by step – a measure’s (i) suitability, (ii) necessity and (iii) proportionality stricto sensu. Correct application of […]

  • Guest Blogger

P and S v. Poland: adolescence, vulnerability, and reproductive autonomy

November 05, 2012

The Strasbourg Observers are delighted to publish this guest post by Johanna Westeson, Regional Director for Europe, Center for Reproductive Rights. The Center for Reproductive Rights represented the applicants in P and S v. Poland before the ECtHR; see the Center’s press release here. This week, the European Court of Human Rights issued its decision […]

  • Guest Blogger

Bio-ethics under Human Rights Scrutiny: Toward a Right to Pre-implantation Genetic Testing under the ECHR?

September 20, 2012

This guest post was written by Adriana Di Stefano. Adriana is a tenured researcher and lecturer in international law at the Faculty of Law of the University of Catania. Her areas of expertise include international humanitarian law, human rights law and EU Law. On August 28th, 2012 the Second Section of the European Court of […]

  • Eva Brems

‘Not a violation, because it works’ – A dangerous line of reasoning in Colon v. the Netherlands (adm.)

June 25, 2012

Can efficiency for the realization of a public good justify a rights-restrictive measure? Of course not. Human rights protect not only from governments or individuals with bad intentions, they also foreclose certain courses of action for the well-intended.  That torture works to elicit confessions, is an argument often made by  those who practice it, yet […]

  • Weichie

Fernández Martínez v. Spain : Towards a ‘Ministerial Exception’ for Europe?

May 24, 2012

In its recent judgment in Fernández Martínez v. Spain, the European Court of Human Rights appears to have abandoned its tried and tested formula of ad hoc balancing between the collective dimension of freedom of religion and individual human rights, established in Obst v. Germany, Schüth v. Germany and Siebenhaar v. Germany. In Fernández Martínez,the […]

  • Guest Blogger

Criminal conviction of professor for refusal to give access to research files did not affect his Convention rights: Gillberg v. Sweden

April 04, 2012

This post on freedom of expression, academic research, privacy protection and access to official documents is written by Dirk Voorhoof* and Rónán Ó Fathaigh** The Grand Chamber of the European Court has, more firmly than its Chamber judgment of 2010, confirmed that a Swedish professor could not rely on his right of privacy under Article […]

  • Maris Burbergs

Remembering the private and family lives of mentally disabled persons

March 29, 2012

In the case of Stanev v. Bulgaria the Grand Chamber gives hope for future developments in the Court’s approach towards the protection of private and family lives of mentally disabled people (Lycette Nelson from the Mental Disability Advocacy Center has also blogged about this case, read it here). Even though the majority did not find […]

  • Alexandra Timmer

Stereotypes of Roma: Aksu v. Turkey in the Grand Chamber

March 20, 2012

 The Grand Chamber has handed down its much-awaited judgment in Aksu v. Turkey. This case concerns the use of derogatory stereotypical images of Roma in government-sponsored publications. The Grand Chamber holds with 16 votes to 1 that article 8 (right to private life) has not been violated. I have mixed feelings about the Court’s reasoning. […]

  • Guest Blogger

Grand Chamber Seeks to Clarify Balancing of Article 10 and Article 8

February 21, 2012

Today’s guest post was written by Rónán Ó Fathaigh, one of our colleagues at the Human Rights Centre. More information on Rónán can be found on the website of the Center for Journalism Studies of Ghent University, here. The Grand Chamber of the European Court delivered two judgments recently concerning the appropriate balancing exercise where […]

  • Weichie

Competing Interests in Paternity Cases: Iyilik v. Turkey

January 16, 2012

Facts The recent judgment of Iyilik v. Turkey concerns competing interests of an applicant and his (legal) daughter in a paternity case. The wife of the applicant, Mr. Iyilik, had given birth to a daughter in 1966. Mr. Iyilik denied being the biological father and a year later the couple divorced. Mr. Iyilik then brought […]

  • Alexandra Timmer

S.H. and Others v Austria: margin of appreciation and IVF

November 09, 2011

In Austria, it is forbidden to use donated sperm or ova for in vitro fertilization (‘IVF’). Ovum donation is under all circumstances prohibited; sperm donation is only possible when the sperm is directly placed in the womb of a woman (in vivo artificial insemination). Two Austrian couples complained about this regulation; the first couple needs […]

1 2 3 4