New Book: Case Law Compendium on the Death Penalty and Extrajudicial Execution

Jeremy McBride (Barrister at Monckton Chambers, London, specialising in cases before the ECHR and the UNHRC) has published the book entitled Compendium of case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the death penalty and extrajudicial execution, with Council of Europe  (2022). Below is a brief summary of the book:

 

'The compendium’s aim is to assist national judges, prosecutors and lawyers from the 46 member states of the Council of Europe to deal with extradition or deportation cases when there is a risk of the death penalty being imposed in third countries or of extrajudicial execution. It also aims at enabling legal professionals from countries where the death penalty still exists to develop arguments based upon the reasoning of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. It contains relevant extracts from the Court’s case law, structured in a user-friendly way.'

Hybrid Colloquium on Margin of Appreciation

This Thursday 13 October, in the afternoon, Maastricht University, is organising a hybrid colloquium entitled 'The Margin of Appreciation as the Bridge Between the Universal Presence of Human Rights and Their Concrete Implementation'. The full programme can be found here. This is the abstract of the event:

'In the last two decades, the margin of appreciation has become a cornerstone of the Convention system, but it remains a contested and undertheorized concept. Stijn Smet argues that the European Court has never fully explained exactly what the margin of appreciation is or does. J.G. Merrills notes that the margin of appreciation is fraught with difficulty, and Steven Greer concludes that the most striking characteristic of its application remains its casuistic, uneven, and largely unpredictable nature. This ambiguity primarily concerns the question of when and why the Court grants states a ‘certain’, a ‘narrow’, or a ‘wide’ margin of appreciation. On the one hand, this elusive character enables the margin of appreciation to function as a ‘lubricant’ in the Convention system. On the other hand, this elusive character might undermine central legal principles such as legal certainty and the rule of law.

This colloquium will analyze the margin of appreciation as the bridge between the universal presence of human rights and their concrete implementation. It is organized by the Department of Foundations and Methods of Law in collaboration with the Maastricht Centre for Human Rights.

This colloquium will be conducted in a hybrid format offering attendees the option to join virtually via Zoom or in-person in Maastricht.'

New Book on Private Actors and the Procedure Before the European Court

A bit over a week ago, my Utrecht Law School colleague and SIM fellow Claire Loven successfully defended her PhD dissertation. Followers of this blog may know her as the moderator of our MOOC on the ECHR. Dr Loven's monograph has already been published with Intersentia Publishers in the Human Rights Research Series and is entitled Fundamental Rights Violations by Private Actors and the Procedure Before the European Court of Human Rights. The PhD thesis was written under the supervision of my Utrecht colleagues professors Janneke Gerards and Cedric Ryngaert. I had the pleasure of serving as a member of the reading committee and can attest that it is lucidly written and contains a very thorough and well-researched analysis of what dr Loven has dubbed 'verticalised cases' before the European Court. This is the abstract:

'Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights prescribes that individual applications must be directed against one of the Convention States. Consequently, private actors involved in proceedings against other private actors before domestic courts must complain about State (in)action in their application to the European Court of Human Rights. In other words, originally ‘horizontal’ conflicts must be ‘verticalised’ in order to be admissible. Although such verticalised cases make up a large portion of the Court’s case law, the particular nature of these cases, as well as procedural issues that may arise in them, has not received much attention. To fill this gap, this book offers a detailed examination of verticalised cases coming before the Court. The characteristics of and the Court’s approach to verticalised cases are explored by means of an in-depth analysis of four types of verticalised cases (cases related to one’s surroundings; cases involving a conflict between the right to reputation and private life and the right to freedom of expression; family life cases; and employer-employee cases). On the basis of this analysis, it is argued that the Court’s current approach to verticalised cases poses problems for private actors, Convention States and the Court itself. In presenting recommendations for the resolution of these problems, the book concludes with a proposal for a new approach to verticalised cases, consisting of a redesigned third-party intervention procedure.'

Congrats once again, Claire!

New Issue ECHR Law Review

The newest issue of the ECHR Law Review is out now (vol. 3, issue 3). The issue contains an editorial note, two guest editorials, a case report, a book review and research articles. The contributions discuss such topics as the judicial discretion of the European Court of Human Rights, the practice of national courts to request advisory opinions under Protocol 16 and utilitarianism, to name a few. This is the table of contents:

* Vassilis P Tzevelekos and Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, 'The Judicial Discretion of the European Court of Human Rights: The Years of Plenty, and the Lean Years'

* Françoise Tulkens, 'Judicial Activism v Judicial Restraint: Practical Experience of This (False) Dilemma at the European Court of Human Rights'

* George Tsebelis, 'What Determines the Judicial Discretion of the European Court of Human Rights?'

* Lize Glas and Jasper Krommendijk, 'A Strasbourg Story of Swords and Shields: National Courts’ Motives to Request an Advisory Opinion from the ECtHR Under Protocol 16'

* Jeremy Letwin, 'A Utilitarian Account of Article 3 ECHR'

* Sarah Ganty, 'The Double-Edged ECtHR Lăcătuş Judgment on Criminalisation of Begging: Da Mihi Elimo Sinam Propter Amorem Dei'

* Paul Gragl, 'Cedric Marti, Framing a Convention Community: Supranational Aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights'

Updated Factsheet on Mass Surveillance and the ECHR

The European Court of Human Rights has published a revised version of its factsheet on Mass Surveillance. This newest update of September 2022 includes the leading cases ranging from the classic 1970s landmark judgment in Klass and others v Germany to the Haščák v. Slovakia case of this Summer. It also indicates pending applications on the issue.

All factsheets, on a wide range of issues, can be found here.

Introducing Our New Assistant Editor

Dear readers of the ECHR Blog, we are very pleased to inform you that the editorial team of our blog will be expanded. As of this week, Matilda Rados is joining us as assistant editor.

 

Matilda Rados is junior lecturer in international law and human rights at Utrecht University and editor in chief of the Utrecht Journal of International and European Law. She is currently coaching the Utrecht University team of the Helga Pedersen Moot Court Competition. Matilda specializes in the ECHR and transitional justice.

 

We are very happy to add Matilda to this blog's editorial team. Together we will run the blog, add new items and can be approached for any ECHR-related conference announcements, publications, etc. Matilda, welcome on board! 

 

Kind wishes, Antoine Buyse and Kushtrim Istrefi

 

New Court Vice-Presidents and Section Presidents

The election of the Court's new President yesterday entitled a reshuffling of a number off other key functions within the European Court of Human Rights. In the same plenary meeting yesterday, the Court's judges elected amongst themselves two new Vice-Presidents and two Section Presidents of the Court. The two new Vice-Presidents are Georges Ravarani, judge in respect of Luxembourg, and Marko Bošnjak, judge in respect of Slovenia. The two new Section Presidents are Pere Pastor Vilanova, judge in respect of Andorra, and judge Arnfinn Bårdsen, judge in respect of Norway. These judges will take up their duties on 1 November. Good luck to all of them! The full composition of the European Court of Human Rights can be found here.

Siofra O'Leary New President of the Court

Today, the European Court of Human Rights has elected Síofra O’Leary, judge in respect of  Ireland, as its new President. Síofra O’Leary is the very first female President since the creation of the European Court of Human Rights. 

She joined the Court in 2015 and became section president as well as vice-president of the Court at the start of this current year. After having studied law in Ireland in the 1980s, judge O'Leary wrote and defended her PhD at the European University Institute in Florence and subsequently was connected to universities in the United Kingdom and Ireland. For the almost two decades before joining the Strasbourg Court, she worked in European Union Law at the sister Court in Luxembourg, where she was Référendaire, Chef de Cabinet and Head of Unit. With this strong previous background in EU law and her extensive experience on the Convention, she might be the perfect fit for the era that may, if negotiations this time go well, lead to the generations-long-awaited accession of the EU to the ECHR. Who knows what the future will bring.

Judge O’Leary will succeed the Court's current President Robert Spano  on 1 November 2022. Good luck to the Court's new President!

Russia No Longer a Party to the ECHR as of Today

Today, 16 September 2002, presents a sad landmark: the Russian Federation ceases to be a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. Exactly half a year has passed since Russia was excluded from the Council of Europe following its invasion of Ukraine. 

And even if the European Court of Human Rights still is competent to deal with applications against Russia concerning actions or omissions occurring up until today, it cannot be denied that this is a huge loss: the protective umbrella, even if it was not fully able to protect people against human rights violations, will no longer be there. As the picture shows, a huge territory now falls outside the geographical scope of the ECHR. It can no longer be said, as many of us teaching on the Convention were used to, that the ECHR applies from Reyjavik to Vladivostok. Much more importantly, more than 140 million people can no longer turn to the European Court of Human Rights, nor invoke the ECHR in domestic courts, for any new violations of the Convention.

And of course, there are currently still 17,450 applications against Russia   pending before the Court. And Russia also has a continuing legal obligation to still implement past judgments as well as those following from these applications, but the practical prospects seem dim. The same goes for cooperation with the Committee of Ministers. All of this in spite of the words that mean to inspire some small sense of hope from the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, who also called for a halt to the war and to suppression in Russia itself: 

'The Council of Europe will continue to support and engage with human rights defenders, democratic forces, free media and independent civil society in the Russian Federation. Our hope is that, one day, Russian citizens will once again be able to enjoy the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights.' 

The European Court for its part took formal notice earlier this month of the fact that the office of a judge in respect of the Russian Federation also ceases to exist as of today. See also our earlier guest post on what could happen with the pending cases here.

Let us hope that one day the situation will have changed for the positive again so that the ECHR will again protect all people within the Russian Federation too. And for all those suffering from the Russian aggression in Ukraine, the Committee of Minsters re-affirmed yesterday in a decision that there should be no impunity for the crimes committed there. For now, 16 September 2002 stands as a sad day for human rights.

New Book on Environmental Rights and the European Court

Natalia Kobylarz (Senior lawyer at the registry of the European Court of Human Rights) and Evadne Grant (Associate Lecturer at the University of the West of England) have co-edited and just published the book, which is also a special issue of the Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, entitled Human Rights and the Planet. The Future of Environmental Human Rights in the European Court of Human Rights, with Edward Elgar. This is the abstract:

'Adopted in the aftermath of the Second World War and implemented as a ‘living instrument’, the European Convention on Human Rights has, over the past 70 years, shown remarkable adaptability to changing circumstances through the evolutive jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. While the Court has already demonstrated its willingness to address new challenges to human rights arising from environmental damage and climate change, growing scientific evidence and mounting public demand for action have accelerated the need for more fundamental engagement. This timely book – also a Special Issue of the Journal of Human Rights and the Environment – brings into sharp relief the specific challenges faced by the Court in addressing the human rights impacts of the interlocking environmental and climate crises.

Leading scholars and practitioners, including the President of the European Court of Human Rights, provide important insights into current thinking about environmental human rights in different jurisdictions and ways in which the European Court could adapt its principles and practice in light of the evolving international environmental human rights corpus iuris.

Drawing together theoretical insights and practice-led commentary, the contributions to this important book will be of interest to human rights and environmental law scholars, practitioners, students and policy makers.'