New ECHR Articles

A few new academic articles and papers concerning the ECHR have become available online. The first is an article on human trafficking entitled 'Complementary Protection for Victims of Human Trafficking under the European Convention on Human Rights' published by Vladislava Stoyanova in the Goettingen Journal of International Law (Vol. 3, No. 2, 2011). This is the abstract:

The international legal framework regulating the problem of human trafficking contains the presumption that the return of victims of human trafficking to their countries of origin is the standard resolution for their cases. However, victims might have legitimate reasons for not wanting to go back. For those victims, resort to the legal framework of the European Convention on Human Rights could be a solution. I elaborate on the protection capacity of Article 3 when upon return victims face dangers of re-trafficking, retaliation, rejection by family and/or community and when upon return to the country of origin victims could be subjected to degrading treatment due to unavailability of social and medical assistance. In light of the Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia case, I develop an argument under Article 4 that states cannot send victims to those countries which do not meet the positive obligations standard as established in the case. Article 8 could be relevant: first, when the level of feared harm in the country of origin does not reach the severity of Article 3 but is sufficiently grave to be in breach of the right to private life and engage the non-refoulement principle, and second, when the victim has developed social ties within the receiving state and the removal will lead to their disruption.

The second is an article on network neutrality on the internet and Article 10 ECHR by Jasper P. Sluijs, entitled 'From Competition to Freedom of Expression: Introducing Art. 10 ECHR in the European Network Neutrality Debate'. This is the abstract:

Network neutrality concerns a heated debate on the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as a potential gate keeper for Internet access of end-users and online content providers. In line with standard practice in European telecommunications policy the European regulatory response to the issue of network neutrality has been framed mainly in economic terms. At the same time, European civil society organizations have interpreted network neutrality in terms of fundamental rights, particularly freedom of expression. Moreover, while the amended regulatory framework for telecommunications now includes explicit references to fundamental rights, it remains unclear if and how fundamental rights should be applied to network neutrality disputes. This article relates network neutrality to the rich body of Art. 10 ECHR case law, and asks to what extent this jurisprudence is of relevance to network neutrality discussions. The findings of this research reveal that the claim that network management by ISPs would violate end-users’ freedom of expression is less straightforward than often assumed. Moreover, the opposite case in which network neutrality regulation violates ISPs’ freedom of expression is less far-fetched than it may seem. These conclusions are meant to move the European discussion on network neutrality and fundamental rights beyond rhetoric, towards a more substantial and analytical approach.

Article on Pilot Judgments most downloaded on SSRN

Usually it's difficult to assess how many people read one's academic work. But the online open access database SSRN offers the possibility to see at least how many people download articles and thus show initial curiosity in a certain article. I am happy to note that my article 'The Pilot Judgment Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights: Possibilities and Challenges' which originally appeared in the Greek law journal Nomiko Vima is now the most downloaded article concerning the ECHR on SSRN. Thanks to all readers!

New Book in French on Interim Measures

A group of lawyers from the 'Young Brussels Bar' has published an edited collection of essays on interim measures at the European Court of Human Rights. The book is entitled 'Les mesures provisoires devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme. Un référé à Strasbourg?'. The contributors are Frédéric Krenc, Anna Austin, Claire Dubois-Hamdi, Philippe Frumer, Anne Gillet, Stéphanie Grisard, Frédéric Krenc, Emmanuelle Neraudau, Isablle Niedlispacher, Sylvie Saroléa, Sandrine Watthée, and Yves Winisdoerffer. The full table of contents can be found here. This is the abstract:

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme peut être saisie de demandes de mesures provisoires. Cette procédure est de plus en plus usitée, alors que la Cour éprouve les pires difficultés pour juguler le développement exponentiel de sa charge contentieuse ordinaire.

Cette procédure reste cependant encore relativement méconnue. elle est, dans certains cas, mal utilisée.

Il faut dire que les mesures provisoires sont assez peu réglementées – elles sont même ignorées par le texte de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme – et la jurisprudence de la Cour en ce domaine n’est malheureusement pas publiée.

C’est dans ce contexte que la Conférence du jeune barreau de Bruxelles a, en collaboration avec l’institut des droits de l’homme du barreau de Bruxelles, pris l’initiative de consacrer un colloque relativement à ces mesures.

Ce colloque, dont le présent ouvrage comprend les actes, s’est tenu le 18 mars 2011 à Bruxelles et a réuni, autour d’une même table, un panel d’experts composés d’académiques, d’avocats mais aussi d’agents du gouvernement et de membres éminents de la Cour, lesquels ont pu échanger leurs expertises et leurs pratiques, faire part de leurs critiques et formuler d’utiles recommandations.

New Vice-President and Section President

The judges of the European Court have elected a new vice-president, Josep Casadevall, the judge in respect of small Andorra. In addition, a new Section President was elected: Lech Garlicki, the judge in respect of Poland. Casadevall will serve until 31 October 2015 and Garlicki until 31 October 2012. For more information on the judges, see here.

Article on Inflation of Margin of Appreciation

The newest issue of our own SIM-based Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (vol. 29,No.3, 2001) features an article by Jan Kratochvíl, working at the registry of the European Court of Human Rights, entitled 'The inflation of the margin of appreciation by the European Court of Human Rights'. This is the abstract:

The doctrine of the margin of appreciation, despite being repeatedly used by the European Court of Human Rights, is still to some extent mysterious. Given the doctrine's ambiguity, this article first endeavours to describe it and identify its different usages. It then argues that there is an inflation of the doctrine by its unnecessary application in a number of cases. This excessive use is considered to be unfortunate because the doctrine has a role to play in specifically circumscribed circumstances where it varies the strictness of scrutiny conducted by the Court. Based on the existent case law of the Court, the article provides a set of distinct tests that the Court can apply when invoking a particular margin of appreciation and argues for a predictable and consistent use of the doctrine.

Newest Issue RTDH

The newest issue of the Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme (July 2011, No. 87) is out now. Contents include various ECHR related articles (in French):

* Antoine Garapon, 'Les limites à l’interprétation évolutive de la Convention européenne'

Le présent article est la version écrite de l’intervention faite par l’auteur lors du séminaire tenu le 28 janvier 2011 au siège de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme et organisé par celle-ci à l’occasion de son audience solennelle de rentrée de 2011, sous le thème «Quelles sont les limites à l’interprétation évolutive de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme ? ». L’article propose de dépasser l’affrontement entre la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme et les cultures nationales en concevant leurs relations comme une mutualisation de la fonction tierce (I). Ni rapport hiérarchique ni simple dialogue, l’impératif de coopération repose sur une reconnaissance mutuelle entre les juridictions nationales et la Cour européenne (II), qui fait passer le cadre implicite des limites à l’interprétation évolutive, de l’espace au temps (III).

Rusen Ergec, 'Fiscalité et droit de propriété sous l’angle de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme':

L’article 1er du Protocole n° 1 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme garantit à toute personne physique ou morale le droit au respect de ses biens. La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme considère l’imposition et les mesures d’exécution y relatives comme une ingérence dans le droit de propriété énoncé dans la disposition précitée. La Cour a développé une jurisprudence relative à la compatibilité de telles mesures avec notamment les exigences de légalité et de proportionnalité. Bien que la Cour laisse aux Etats une large marge d’appréciation en ce qui concerne les taux d’imposition, les procédures d’exécution sont susceptibles de faire l’objet d’une étroite surveillance. D’autres garanties inscrites dans la Convention, comme l’interdiction de discrimination, pourraient renforcer l’Etat de droit en matière d’imposition. La présente étude se propose de mettre en lumière les potentialités souvent sous-estimées de la protection que la Convention européenne offre aux contribuables.

Michel Levinet, 'La conciliation du droit à l’instruction de l’enfant et de l'obligation de respecter les convictions religieuses des parents à la lumière de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme':

Si diverses dispositions de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme peuvent entrer en jeu quand il s’agit d’arbitrer les droits de l’enfant et celui des parents au respect de leurs convictions religieuses, celles de l’article 2 de son Premier Protocole revêtent une place essentielle dès lors qu’il faut appréhender la conciliation de ce dernier avec celui de l’enfant à l’instruction. Longtemps objet d’une jurisprudence restreinte, l’article 2 de ce Protocole connaît désormais un développement spectaculaire. Le corpus prétorien pertinent lie les deux droits qu’il contient. Il enracine l’impératif de la préservation des convictions religieuses des parents dans le pluralisme des idées, inhérent à la société démocratique, et valorise leur liberté éducative en interdisant aux Etats d’assurer la diffusion des connaissances au travers d’un prosélytisme intempestif, notamment lorsque les programmes prévoient un enseignement religieux ou des religions. Pour autant, la prise en considération des convictions des parents ne saurait remettre en cause la priorité du droit de l’enfant à l’instruction, priorité tenant à la vocation critique et formatrice de tout enseignement dans une société démocratique, y compris à l’égard du fait religieux lui-même.

Network Neutrality and Article 8 ECHR

Bert-Jaap Koops (Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology and Society) and Jasper P. Sluijs (Tilburg Law and Economics Center) have published a working paper on SSRN on what might to many perhaps be a surprising angle to approach the ECHR. It's entitled 'Network Neutrality and Privacy According to Art. 8 ECHR'. This is the abstract:

This article presents a structured approach to studying the privacy implications of the network neutrality debate according to art. 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Network neutrality is a topic discussed in telecommunications policy circles, on how actively Internet Service providers (ISPs) may manage the traffic of content on their networks. While more active network management may lead to more efficient bandwidth allocation, it also strengthens the gate keeping position of ISPs — with possible negative effects in terms of fairness. It is often alleged in European public interest circles that network management that goes beyond ‘neutral’ handling of traffic violates the privacy of Internet users. However, such claims are mostly rhetorical in character and are typically not supported by legal research. We attempt to fill this lacuna by comparing network neutrality related privacy claims to art. 8 ECHR case law. Our findings suggest that an art. 8 ECHR violation due to network management is not as straightforward as sometimes assumed, and mainly depends on the form and technique of network management, and the level of State involvement in network management.

Draft Agreement on EU Accession to ECHR

Over summer, a draft agreement on the accession of the EU to the ECHR - I reported on negotiations here - has been made public. This draft was negotiated between the Steering Committee for Human Rights of the Council of Europe (CDDH) and the European Commission of the European Union. It sheds light on the practicalities of EU accession. A few of the most notable points:

* The main rationale for accession mentioned by the agreement is increasing coherence in European human rights protection and offering individuals the possibility to access the Court in Strasbourg which can externally control the "acts, measures or omissions of the European Union."

* The European Union will not accede to all (substantive) protocols. Accession (with possibilities for more in the future remaining open) will be limited to the ECHR itself, its first Protocol (including the protection of possessions and the right to education amongst others) and Protocol 6 (abolition of the death penalty). Especially the latter seems merely a symbolic act and it's interesting to note that Protocol 6 leaves open the possibility to use the death penalty in times of war (whereas the more comprehensive Protocol 13 abolishes the death penalty in all circumstances).

* There will be a judge elected in respect of the European Union who will have the same duties and status as the other judges and will participate on an equal footing in the work of the Court. This means that the work of this judge will not be limited - as some expected earlier - to cases related to the EU. For the procedure of election a delegation of the European Parliament will participate, with the size of that representation being equal to the highest number of representatives to which a state is entitled under the statute of the Council of Europe.

* Reflecting the fact that states can act in pursuance of EU law and that states are at the basis of the primary law of the EU, a so-called co-respondent mechanism is foreseen. This means that both EU member states and the EU can, when they so wish, ask to be involved in cases as co-respondent party (rather than as mere third intervening party). The circumstances under which this is possible are set out in the agreement. In practice this will be rare. The drafters noted that only very few cases in the past would have qualified for such a procedure (amongst them Matthews v. UK and Bosphorus v Ireland).

* Whenever the EU is co-respondent and the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has not yet had the opportunity to assess the compatibility of EU law with the ECHR in a particular situation, the Agreement provides for the possiblity for the EU's Court to make such an assessment "quickly" - which will mean under the accelerated procedure of the CJEU.

* The possibility of inter-state cases will with the accession be broadened to inter-party cases, entailing that other states could start proceedings against the EU and vice versa. The exception are EU member states themselves, since EU law bars them from using such other international means of dispute.

* The EU will also participate in the work of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and have voting rights. In certain circumstances, for example when EU law requires the EU as such and its member states to coordinate their actions (and thus vote similarly in international fora) the agreement includes special voting procedures in order to avoid that the 27 EU member states (a majority within the 47 state Council of Europe) would de facto overrule the others in matters such as the supervision of the execution of judgments and friendly settlements in cases involving the EU.

* The agreement will enter into force three months after ratification by all Council of Europe member states and by the European Union. The modalities of EU ratification are dependent upon EU law. Note that this unique agreement involves many states on two sides of the negotiating table. As experience with the ratification of ECHR protocols shows, this whole process may take a few years.

* Finally, and very important in practice, the EU will fund part of the budget of the Council of Europe's human rights machinery.

A full list of the relevant documents (with links) can be found here.

Upcoming Liber Amicorum Judge Rozakis

Bruylant Publishers has announced that it will publish, in November, a liber amicorum dedicated to the retiring Greek judge Rozakis. The bilingual book has been edited by Dean Spielmann, Marialena Tsirli and Panayotis Voyatzis and is entitled 'La Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, un instrument vivant / The European Convention on Human Rights, a living instrument'. It's theme is the living instrument doctrine. This is the abstract:

Christos Rozakis served the European Court and the former Commission of Human Rights for twenty-four years, first as a member of the Commission and later as a judge and Vice-President of the Court. On the occasion of his retirement, his colleagues, friends and collaborators wish to express their affection for him and honour his exceptional contribution to the construction of a European system for the protection of human rights.

The theme chosen for this compilation of essays is the European Convention as a “living instrument” intended to be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions. This is how Christos Rozakis approached the text of the Convention during his career in Strasbourg. This approach is based on an evolutive interpretation of the articles of the Convention aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of human rights in modern European society.

The variety of issues linked to the dynamic method of interpretation of the Convention is reflected in the topics covered by the authors of the different contributions to this book. These original contributions, each dealing with an issue of topical interest, constitute a testimony to this person who has contributed in such an important way to the influence of the jurisprudence of the European Court.

And this is the table of contents:

• Dean Spielmann, Marialena Tsirli et Panayotis Voyatzis, Préface. Hommage au juge Christos L. Rozakis
• Jean-Paul Costa, Allocution pour le départ du juge Christos L. Rozakis
• Nicos C. Alivizatos, In Search of Legitimacy. A Retrospection of the Constitutional History of the Greek Monarchy
• Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Un bref regard sur le passé et un espoir pour l’avenir, La Commission, l’ancienne Cour et la nouvelle Cour
• Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, The Expansion of the Material Content of Jus Cogens: The Contribution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
• Olga Chernishova et Nina Vajic ́, The Court’s evolving response to the States’ failure to cooperate
• Vassilis Chirdaris, The limits of interpretation of the Strasbourg Court and the principle of non-regression
• Jean-Paul Costa et Michael O’Boyle, The European Court of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law
• P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, Vers la reconnaissance d’un droit d’accès aux informations détenues par les autorités
• Haritini Dipla, The contribution of the European Court of Human Rights to the absolute ban of torture. The practice of diplomatic assurances
• Nikos Frangakis, A State’s exceptional economic measures under the European Convention on Human Rights – The Case of the “Greek Memorandum”
• Erik Fribergh, The future of the Court after Interlaken
• Khanlar Hajiyev, The evolution of positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights – by the European Court of Human Rights
• Sverre Erik Jebens, Illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases. An Analysis on the Basis of Three Grand Chamber Judgments
• Danute Jocĭene, Administrative justice in Lithuania: some aspects from the perspectives of the European Convention on Human Rights
• Lucy Kiousopoulou, La dimension écologique de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et les limites du contrôle juridictionnel
• Anatoli Kovler, Le message des Grecs (aux sources anthropologiques de la Convention européenne)
• Yannis Ktistakis, The protection of forum internum under article 9 of the ECHR
• George Letsas, Judge Rozakis’s Separate Opinions and the Strasbourg Dilemma
• Petros Liacouras, Protecting Minority Members in Greece: The View from Strasbourg
• Loukis Loucaides, A judge with a progressive mind
• Giorgio Malinverni, La compétence de la Cour pour surveiller l’exécution de ses propres arrêts
• Virginia Mantouvalou, Work and the European Convention on Human Rights: A dynamic Relationship in Need of Justification
• Paul Martens, Mémoires d’un juge ad hoc
• Egbert Myjer, One Salduz a Year is enough. 20 Associative Thoughts on Judge Rozakis, Judicial Activism and the Salduz Judgment
• George Nicolaou, The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on Special Advocates
• Petros J. Pararas, La réticence européenne au regard des discriminations positives
• Dragoljub Popovic ́, The Role of Precedent in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights
• Guido Raimondi, Union européenne et Convention européenne des droits de l’homme après Lisbonne
• Emmanuel Roucounas, Dissenting Opinions in the European Court of Human Rights
• Linos-Alexander Sicilianos, The Individual as a Catalyst for Change in International Law: Interactions between General International
Law and Human Rights
• Vassilios Skouris, First thoughts on the forthcoming accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights
• Dean Spielmann and Leto Cariolou, The Right to Protection of Reputation under the European Convention on Human Rights
• Elisabeth Steiner, Some reflections on the process which led to the preparation of the European Convention on Human Rights
• Christian Tomuschat, Reparation Orders by International Human Rights Bodies – Financial Compensation or Restitutio in Integrum?
• Stavros Tsakyrakis, Is there a General Right of Non-Disclosure?
• Marialena Tsirli, Terre, Air, Mer : jusqu’où s’étend la juridiction des Etats dans le système de la Convention ? Quelques réflexions sur la compétence territoriale de la Cour
• Françoise Tulkens et Sébastien Van Drooghenbroeck, De l’ancienne Commission à la nouvelle Cour. Une continuité assurée, un héritage bienvenu
• Panayotis Voyatzis, Les effets des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme dans le temps juridique. Les cas du revirement de jurisprudence et de la violation potentielle
• Ineta Ziemele, Other rules of international law and the European Court of Human Rights: a question of a simple collateral benefit?

The book can be pre-ordered now with the publisher. Hat tip to DS!

Book on Hindrances to Individual Petition

Professor Elisabeth Lambert Abdelgawad of the University of Strasbourg has written 'Preventing and sanctioning hindrances to the right of individual petition before the European Court of Human Rights'(Intersentia 2011). This is the abstract:

Whereas it is common today to focus on the overwhelming backlog of applications before the European Court of Human Rights, this book deliberately shows that the Court in Strasbourg could be seized by even more applicants if States Parties really confirmed to Article 34 ECHR, according to which “The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right”. In the past fifty years however, more and more direct or indirect hindrances have been devised.

This volume takes a very concrete and practical look at these hindrances and brings together both researchers and human rights defenders. After an introduction to the topic in Part 1, the second part of the book analyses the hindrances involving the most vulnerable groups (prisoners, migrants and foreigners) while the final Part deals with concrete experiences and sets forth a number of recommendations for a better prevention and sanctioning of these hindrances.