Monday, 19 April 2021

PACE Meeting on Navalny, Covid-19 Vaccination, Election of ECtHR Judges and More

From 19-22 April 2021, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) will meet to discuss a number of urgent issues. 
The following items in the agenda are relevant for the the Convention system as a whole:
- The arrest and detention of Alexei Navalny in January 2021
- The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey
- Covid passports or certificates: protection of fundamental rights and legal implications
- Armenian prisoners of war, other captives and displaced persons
- Covid-19 vaccination certificates: how to protect public health and human rights?
- Russian threat to the pursuit of peace in Europe

In addition, PACE will vote on the election of the judge in respect of Belgium. The three candidates in respect of Begium include Ms Maïté de Rue, Mr Frédéric Krenc, and Ms Sylvie Sarolea.
PACE will also discuss a number of other important topics, and will feature, among others, a speech by Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany.
PACE meeting starts today at 11:30, and will be streamed live here.

Wednesday, 7 April 2021

New Book on European Consensus between Strategy and Principle

Jens T. Theilen has published with Nomos a book titled European Consensus between Strategy and Principle: The Uses of Vertically Comparative Legal Reasoning in Regional Human Rights Adjudication. The book is open access and can be downloaded for free here.

Here is a short abstract of the book:

'This study offers a critical account of the reasoning employed by the European Court of Human Rights, particularly its references to European consensus. Based on an in-depth analysis of the Court’s case-law against the backdrop of human rights theory, it will be of interest to both practitioners and theorists.

While European consensus is often understood as providing an objective benchmark within the Court’s reasoning, this study argues to the contrary that it forms part of the very structures of argument that render human rights law indeterminate. It suggests that foregrounding consensus and the Court’s legitimacy serves to entrench the status quo and puts forward novel ways of approaching human rights to enable social transformation.'

Tuesday, 6 April 2021

Webinar on the European Court of Human Rights: Navigating Turbulent Relationships with States

On 14 April 2021, the Garden Court North Chambers in association with the University of Manchester and the Accountability Unit are hosting a webinar on the European Court of Human Rights: Navigating Turbulent Relationships with States.

Here is the description and programme of the webinar provided by the organisers:

'This webinar will focus on the European Court of Human Rights, which is currently under intense scrutiny as are human rights generally. From Britain in the West to Russia in the East previously unchallenged international laws and norms are being contested. Turkey’s relationship with the Court, arguably, personifies and encapsulates the challenges for the Court and the consequences for victims of rights violations. Is there a balance to be struck and how might it be achieved? What are the implications for other States? Are there more radical solutions?

The webinar will be chaired by Leto Cariolou, Associate Member of Garden Court North Chambers and hosted by Işıl Aral from Manchester University’s International Law Centre who together with our panel of speakers will talk focus on the relationship between the European Court of Human Rights and Turkey. They will also address the Court’s response to the emergency measures adopted in Turkey following the coup of 15 July 2016 that tried to seize power and overthrow President Erdogan.

Speakers

Michael Ivers QC – Barrister, Garden Court Chambers, London – will provide an analysis of the Court’s case law in the context of national emergencies and the difficult considerations it faces.

Ezgi Basaran – Journalist Radikal Newspaper; Research Associate, University of Oxford – will present on the magnitude of the emergency measures in Turkey, the impact of the measures on ordinary people and, in particular, on press freedoms.

Hasan Bakirci – Deputy Registrar, Section II, European Court of Human Rights – will discuss the challenges the Court faces and the particular difficulties in respect of the situation in Turkey today.

Clare Ovey – Head of Department of Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe – will present on what happens after a judgment. How are decisions enforced and what challenges are faced in the execution of the Court’s judgments.'

The registration form is here.

Thursday, 1 April 2021

ESIL & iCourts Conference on the European Court of Human Rights

The interests groups on International Courts and Tribunals and International Human Rights Law of the European Society of International Law (ESIL) are co-organising with the iCourts Centre of Excellence at the University of Copenhagen the online conference 'The Influence, Legacy and Future of the European Court of Human Rights in the International Legal Order'. It will be held on 8 June 2021. This is the summary of the event in the organisers' words:

'This year the European Convention of Human Rights celebrates 70 years since its adoption. The European Court of Human Rights – the body responsible for enforcing the Convention across 47 Member States of the Council of Europe – is regarded as one of the most successful and impactful international courts. The Court has played a major role in interpreting and clarifying the text of the Convention and in positioning the Convention in the domestic legal orders of Member States. Yet, the Court’s case law has also importantly influenced other regional and international courts and tribunals, specifically the interpretation of international criminal law, humanitarian law, the law of immunity, migration and refugee law as well as opened up challenges posed by conflicting obligations arising from other international treaties. Against this background, the online webinar will explore the influence, legacy and future of the European Court of Human Rights in the wider international legal order.'

And here is the full programme:

Keynote Address (9.30 – 10.15 AM (all times CET))

Professor Mikael Rask Madsen, Director of iCourts, Centre of Excellence for International Courts, University of Copenhagen, 'The Narrowing of the European Court of Human Rights: Legal Diplomacy, Situational Self-Restraint and the New Vision of the Court'

Panel 1 - ‘Strasbourg on the international plane’ (10.30 -12.30 PM) 

Evangelia Vasalou, Research assistant at the Fondation René Cassin, International Institute of Human Rights, 'Cultural identity in the case-law of international human rights courts – Convergences and divergences'

Dr Zena Prodromou, Senior Associate, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, 'The Influence of the ECHR on the Jurisprudence of International Courts and Tribunals Applying Exceptions Provisions for the Protection of the Public Order'

Dr Cornelia Klocker and Deborah Casalin, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Konstanz, Phd Candidate at Antwerp University 'The ECtHR, Discrimination and Conflict : Exploring CERD as an Alternative Forum'

Gustavo Minervini, PhD Candidate in International Law, University of Naples, 'The Influence of the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR on the Interpretation of Core International Crimes by International Courts and Tribunals'

Panel 2 - ‘Strasbourg and the EU’ (13.30-15.00 PM)

Jesse Claassen, Assistant Professor of European Law, Open University of the Netherlands, The ECtHR’s Position Within the EU Legal Order : The Domestic Courts’ Perspective

Dr Tamas Molnar, Legal Research Officer, EU Fundamental Rights Agency, 'The Impact of the ECtHR case-law on the CJEU interpreting the EU’s return acquis : more than what you first see ?'

Janja Simentić Popović, University of Belgrade, 'Patterns in the usage of the ECtHR Jurisprudence by the CJEU in the field of Asylum'

Panel 3 - ‘What Strasbourg has to offer’ (15.15-17.15 PM)

Professors Larry Helfer and Clare Ryan, Duke University School of Law; LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center, 'Contesting LGBT Rights in International Courts: The role of the ECtHR'

Dr Maria Variaki, Lecturer in international law at the War Studies Department, King's College London, 'The so-called intellectuals and human rights activists'

Dr Cristina Teleki, University of Bern, 'The European Court of Human Rights – Center Stage in the Conversation on Bigness?'

Silvia Steininger, Research Fellow, MPI Heidelberg, 'Talking to Strangers ? Outreach and Communication Practices of the ECHR'

Closing Remarks (17.15 PM)

You can register here.

Wednesday, 31 March 2021

New Book on Judge Pinto de Albuquerque and the Progressive Development of International Human Rights Law

Triestino Mariniello (Liverpool John Moores University) has edited a book 
Judge Pinto de Albuquerque and the Progressive Development of International Human Rights Law, published with Brill | Nijhoff. This is the book abstract:

'This is the first English written book that includes the most significant opinions of Judge Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque delivered at the European Court of Human Rights. He was the President of the Committee on the Rules of the Court, the President of the Criminal Law Group of the Court and the focal point for the international relations of the European Court with Constitutional and Supreme Courts outside Europe. Previously he had worked as an anti-corruption leading expert for the Council of Europe.
As Full Professor at the Faculty of Law of the Catholic University of Lisbon, he has published, inter alia, 23 books in English, French, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Turkish and Ukranian and 65 legal articles and book chapters in those languages as well as Chinese and German. Since his appointment as a Judge in Strasbourg, he has authored 157 opinions that have significantly contributed to the development of international human rights law. The Judge’s decisions are regularly cited by academic scholars and practitioners in human rights law, public international law, criminal law, migration and refugee law.'

Monday, 29 March 2021

Liber Amicorum Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos on Fair Trial: Regional and International Perspectives

Iulia Motoc, Lubarda Branko, Maria Tsirli, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Robert Spano have co-edited a Liber Amicorum Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos Procès Équitable: Perspectives Régionales et Internationales/Fair Trial: Regional and International Perspectives, published with Anthemis. The book contains contributions in French and English. The abstract of the book is here (translated and summarised by editor):

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos served as a judge at the European Court of Human Rights from 2011 to 2020. He served as Section President, Vice-President of the Court, then was elected President of the Court in May 2019, until May last year. On the occasion of the end of his term as President, his colleagues, friends and collaborators wish to pay tribute to him and express their gratitude to him for his remarkable achievements in and contribution to the field of human rights law.

The edited volume in honour of Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos examines the notion of fair trial from a regional and international perspectives. While being open to a range of backgrounds and subjects, the book deals with subjects directly related to principles which occupy a pre-eminent place in a democratic society, notably the rule of law, as reflected in the right to fair trial and the right of access to a court. The existence of independent and impartial courts has always been the central point of Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos' judicial philosophy, both as an academic of international law and as a judge of the Court.

The table of contents can be found here.

Friday, 26 March 2021

New Book on Migration and the ECHR

Başak Çalı (Hertie School), Ledi Bianku (University of Strasbourg) and Iulia Motoc (European Court of Human Rights) have co-edited the new book Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights, published with Oxford University Press. A video of the online launch of the book earlier this month is available here. This is the abstract:

'This edited collection investigates where the European Convention on Human Rights as a living instrument stands on migration and the rights of migrants.

This book offers a comprehensive analysis of cases brought by migrants in different stages of migration, covering the right to flee, who is entitled to enter and remain in Europe, and what treatment is owed to them when they come within the jurisdiction of a Council of Europe member state. As such, the book evaluates the case law of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning different categories of migrants including asylum seekers, irregular migrants, those who have migrated through domestic lawful routes, and those who are currently second or third generation migrants in Europe.

The broad perspective adopted by the book allows for a systematic analysis of how and to what extent the Convention protects non-refoulement, migrant children, family rights of migrants, status rights of migrants, economic and social rights of migrants, as well as cultural and religious rights of migrants.'

And this is the table of contents:

Part I. Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights

1: Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights, Başak Çalı, Ledi Bianku, and Iulia Motoc
2: The Migrant Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights: Critique and Way Forward, Marie-Bénédicte Dembour

Part II. Right to Flee, Right to Seek Asylum, and the Right to Humane and Dignified Treatment

3: Theorising the (Intersectional) Right to Flee in the ECHR: A Composite Entitlement to Leave to Escape Irreversible Harm, Violeta Moreno-Lax
4: The JK Decalogue: A Paradigm Shift In Dealing With Asylum Cases In Strasbourg?, Ledi Bianku
5: Challenges to the Application of the Concept of Vulnerability and the Principle of Best Interests of the Child in the Case-Law of the ECtHR Related to Detention of Migrant Children, Ksenija Turkovic
6: The Contribution of Strasbourg Case-Law to the Effective Access of Undocumented Migrants to Minimum Social-Economic Rights: Towards a More Dignified Position of Vulnerable Undocumented Migrants in the European Space, Francesca Ippolito and Carmen Pérez González

Part III. Rights of Long-Term Migrants

7: The European Court of Human Rights and Removal of Long-Term Migrants: Entrenched Statism with a Human Voice?, Başak Çalı and Stewart Cunnigham
8: Cultural Rights of Migrants: Living Together in Dignity?, Bianca Selejan-Gutan
9: Islamophobia and the ECtHR: A Test-Case for Positive Subsidiarity for the protection of Europe's long term migrants?, Eva Brems

Part IV. Stages of Migration and the European Court of Human Rights

10: Stages of Migration and the European Court of Human Rights: A Case List, Kristina Hatas 

Thursday, 25 March 2021

New Book on Torture, Inhumanity and Degradation under Article 3 ECHR

Natasa Mavronicola (University of Birmingham) has published the new book Torture, Inhumanity and Degradation under Article 3 of the ECHR. Absolute Rights and Absolute Wrongs with Hart Legal Publishing. This is the abstract:

'This book theorises and concretises the idea of 'absolute rights' in human rights law with a focus on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It unpacks how we might understand what an 'absolute right' in human rights law is and draws out how such a right's delimitation may remain faithful to its absolute character. From these starting points, it considers how, as a matter of principle, the right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment enshrined in Article 3 ECHR is, and ought, to be substantively delimited by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Focusing on the wrongs at issue, this analysis touches both on the core of the right and on what some might consider to lie at the right's 'fringes': from the aggravated wrong of torture to the severity assessment delineating inhumanity and degradation; the justified use of force and its implications for absoluteness; the delimitation of positive obligations to protect from ill-treatment; and the duty not to expel persons to places where they face a real risk of torture, inhumanity or degradation.

Few legal standards carry the simultaneous significance and contestation surrounding this right. This book seeks to contribute fruitfully to efforts to counter a proliferation of attempts to dispute, circumvent or dilute the absolute character of the right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to offer the groundwork for transparently and coherently (re)interpreting the right's contours in line with its absolute character.'

Wednesday, 17 March 2021

Guest Post: Budinova and Chaprazov v Bulgaria – A guide to public statements degrading minorities

by Emma Várnagy (The Hague University of Applied Sciences)

Introduction

The Budinova and Chaprazov v Bulgaria judgment, issued on 16 February 2021, concerns anti-Roma statements made by a politician in Bulgaria.  Another judgment issued on the same day, Behar and Gutman v Bulgaria is about the anti-Semitic nature of the same statements. In this post the focus is on the former case, for the reasoning is more complex in this one. The question that the European Court of Human Rights (the Court or Strasbourg Court) had to address in these cases, is not whether the statements were directly attributable to the state, but instead, whether the refusal of the Bulgarian courts to accord redress to the applicants regarding the statements was in breach of positive obligations under Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14. The reasoning provides the reader with a crystal-clear guidance on how the context and severity of such statements are to be considered.

The facts of the case

Ataka (‘Attack’) is a political party, which, since its foundation in 2005, has steadily held around twenty seats in Bulgaria’s two-hundred-and-forty seat parliament, and since 2017 is part of the coalition forming the government. The party leader, Volen Siderov, is an author and journalist by profession and as such, he hosts a regular program on Ataka’s very own TV channel. As a politician he delivers various public speeches and is a regular interview subject.

In the months leading up to the 2005 elections Mr Siderov has, on at least 10 occasions, talked about ‘Gypsy-terror’ in his television program. Among others he talked about reverse racial bias describing a ‘huge wave of external and internal factors, which wish, which categorically wish and work to de-Bulgarianise Bulgaria. Work to destroy the Bulgarian nation as a nation. Work for its Gypsification (…)’ And he insisted that ‘this terror must be brought to a halt. This terror must be resisted. And I promise you that work is being done in that respect. Hard work is being carried out by Bulgarians who can no longer bear the terrorising of their compatriots and will do all they can for this to cease.’ (See excerpts in paragraph 11)

The applicants - themselves journalists and Bulgarian citizens of Roma origin - sought orders from the domestic courts to stop Mr Siderov from making these statements and to publicly apologise.

In the first hearing, the Sofia District Court listened to audio recordings of Mr Siderov’s statements. However, the minutes of the hearing did not include certain key passages, for example the quotes above. The applicants complained that the minutes were not complete and requested for rectification. The first instance court dismissed their claims. It argued that the statements, negative as they might be towards Roma, did not place them as a group in a less favourable position, nor did they constitute incitement to discrimination. Since the case, according to the domestic court, turned on the content of the statement, rather than its form of wording, Mr Siderov’s right to express an opinion prevailed over the claims brought under the 2003 Protection from Discrimination Act.

In their appeal the applicants argued that the District Court’s approach was formalistic and itself racially biased by turning a blind eye to the effect the statements had on society. However, the City Court upheld the judgment, and subsequently, the Supreme Court of Cassation declined to accept the appeal for examination. 

The Strasbourg Court judgment

The European Court of Human Rights was concerned with the manner in which the domestic courts reviewed the applicants’ complaints. This way the Court could look at the context in which the statements were made and assess their implication beyond their harm on the applicants as the individual victims. Acknowledging that the applicants were personally and directly affected by the domestic courts’ dismissal of their case, it examined whether the Bulgarian authorities properly discharged their obligations to respond adequately to discrimination on account of the applicants’ ethnic origin. (See § 41-42)

Another important aspect before delving into the reasoning is looking at third party submissions. The intervenors, The Greek Helsinki Monitor and the European Roma Rights Centre brought several arguments to point out the importance of countering stereotypes and the corresponding wide practice in various United Nations and Council of Europe bodies. The intervenors also emphasized the standpoint of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, namely that individuals may be seen as victims even in cases when offensive remarks are directed not against them personally, but the entire ethnic group of which they are members. And finally, the intervenors highlighted that however well developed the Court’s case-law regarding hate speech was under Article 10, protection from it under Article 8 has not yet been brought in line with the international trends just described.

Previous case-law and emerging principles

In its present judgment, the Court reviewed its previous case-law and distilled the essential guiding principles. The first two cases in which the Court was confronted with similar issues were declared inadmissible. They raised the question whether discriminatory statements were attributable to the State. In Pirali v Greece they were not and they concerned a large group, namely all immigrants in Greece, therefore the applicant could not be seen as personally affected. In L.Z. v Slovakia the measures were attributable to the State, but the complaints were of a public interest nature rather than showing a negative effect on the applicant’s private life.

The Court then referred to the Grand Chamber judgment of Aksu v Turkey, in which it laid down that ‘any negative stereotyping of a group, when it reaches a certain level, is capable of impacting on the group’s sense of identity and the feelings of self-worth and self-confidence of members of the group. It is in this sense that it can be seen as affecting the private life of members of the group.’ (See § 58) With this the Court acknowledged for the first time that recognizing the applicant’s victim status as a member of the group affected is an important element of effective protection against discrimination. For this recognition the judgment has been widely praised (eg. here and here). However, the judgment did not clarify any factors that influence the ‘certain level’ of the stereotyping.

It took three further similar cases (Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], Lewit v. Austria, and Panayotova and Others v. Bulgaria) before the Court saw that, even though emerging principles could be derived from those previous judgments, it was worth spelling them out explicitly. (See § 61-62)

The Court listed the following considerations which may bear on the assessment of public statements about a social or ethnic group alleged to have affected the private life of its members within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (See § 63):

a) the characteristics of the group, including for instance its vulnerability and history of stigmatization
b) the content of the statement, in particular the degree of the negative stereotypes it conveys
c) the form and context of the statement, including the position of their author and their capacity to affect the core aspect of the group’s identity and dignity
d) the overall prevailing social and political climate at the time of the statements

Application of principles to the facts, and the relevance of the case

Applying these principles in the case of Budinova and Chaprazov the Court boldly highlighted the interplay of different factors and how they may reinforce each other. The starting point was acknowledging the disadvantaged and vulnerable position of Roma in Bulgaria. In the Court’s view the statements amounted to extreme negative stereotyping, which were enhanced by the fact that due to Mr Siderov’s many channels, they have likely reached a wide audience. Furthermore, his anti-Roma stance was a core element of his politics, which, seen in the light of the fact that shortly after the statements in question Ataka became the second largest party, amounted to a deliberate vilification of Roma. (See § 64-68) While emphasizing that each case has to be examined in light of its specific circumstances, it cannot but shine through the judgment that the Court affords great relevance to the precise implications of a statement, beyond its individual author and beyond the individual applicant. In this sense the ‘certain level’ requirement reveals to be very sensitive to the ‘capabilities’ of a statement, which demands careful consideration if the domestic authorities are to comply with their obligations under the Convention.

The very lengthy consideration – 13 out of the 18-page-long reasoning – determined whether or not the complaint fell within the ambit of Article 8. This assessment decides the relative weight ascribed to the two rights, freedom of speech and freedom from discrimination. With this in mind, the Court was short and unanimous in their conclusion about the domestic authorities’ balancing exercise. Since the domestic courts essentially ignored any indicators that Mr Siderov’s statements may justify hatred towards Roma and did not engage in meaningful assessment of the circumstances the Strasbourg Court found a breach of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14.

Commentary

The Court in this judgment goes beyond the usual reiteration of previous case-law and relevant principles. It makes a gesture, on the one hand, of bringing the case-law in line with international ‘best practice’ as highlighted by the third-party intervenors. On the other hand, the gesture is to summarise, lay down and clarify in one place the ‘how to’ of assessing the context of discriminatory public remarks. The importance of this cannot be overemphasised.

First and foremost, in discrimination cases, the sheer number of applications may be indicative of a systemic issue, which in turn needs a systemic approach to remedying it. The Court itself has acknowledged this connection in its education segregation cases (see post on these eg. here, here and here) and has made some remarks to the alarming number of applications from Roma victims of  ill-treatment in police custody in several of its judgments. By choosing this present case to summarily clarify how the context and severity of discriminatory attitudes are to be considered under Article 8, the Court conveys a strong message regarding the effectiveness of protection from discrimination. Second, it is extremely helpful for potential victims and their attorneys to understand what types of considerations the domestic courts are expected to carry out in accordance with the Convention. Being able to prepare evidence that fits into this framework will help strengthen their case and accordingly allow for stronger protection of their rights. Finally, clarifying the applicable principles may also be an attempt from the Court to ease its own case load, inasmuch as the accessibility and wider awareness of the Court’s case-law has a strong effect on achieving this goal.

Whether we look at this judgment as a checklist for domestic courts, serving up the homework on a silver plate to legal practitioners, researchers and law students, or an attempt to ease the Court’s case load, it is an absolute win-win scenario. This courteous gesture of putting precedent and principles in order would be definitely welcome in some other areas of discrimination where the Court has long been called to improve its case-law.

Tuesday, 16 March 2021

Conference ECHR - Beyond a Treaty

On 27 May, Utrecht University is holding an online conference titled The European Convention on Human Rights: Beyond a Treaty. The conference explores the ECHR, beyond its formal treaty character, as an inspirational and aspirational source of human rights. Concerning the former, it will look at the practice of application of the ECHR as a constitutionally domesticated source of inspiration and gap-filler by entities not party to the Convention. This includes the EU, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo. Second, the conference aims to scrutinise instances where domestic courts may have employed the ECtHR’s case-law to justify social aspirations towards the advancement of human rights that may go beyond the minimum standards set by the Court, and instances where domestic courts may have deliberately chosen to minimise the Strasbourg standards.

The conference is organised on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM) in a joint collaboration with the Netherlands Network of Human Rights (NNHRR), the Montaigne Centre for Rule of Law and Administration of Justice, and Utrecht Centre for Accountability and Liability Law.

Here is the full programme of the conference:

Introduction: Kushtrim Istrefi and Claire Loven 
(13.00 – 13.15)

Panel 1: ECHR as an inspirational source of human rights (13.15 – 14.45)
Chair: Rick Lawson, Leiden University

ECHR in the EU legal order
Speaker: Ineta Ziemele, Judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union (former President of the Latvian Constitutional Court and ECtHR judge)

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constitutional domestication of ECHR through the Dayton Peace Agreement
Speaker: Antoine Buyse, Utrecht University

Constitutional domestication of ECHR in Kosovo
Speaker: Kushtrim Istrefi, Utrecht University

Break (14.45 – 15.00)

Panel 2: ECHR as an aspirational source of human rights? (15.00 – 16.45)
Chair: Claire Loven, Utrecht University

Defining minimum standards of Convention protection by the ECtHR
Speaker: Janneke Gerards, Utrecht University

Under the bar: explaining deliberate choices to minimize the Strasbourg standards
Speaker: Catherine van de Heyning, Antwerp University

The role of the ECHR in a ‘culture of justification’: the example of Urgenda v. the Netherlands
Speaker: Ingrid Leijten, Leiden University

The application of the ECtHR jurisprudence by domestic courts in cases concerning the immunity of international organisations
Speaker: Luca Pasquet, Utrecht University

Concluding remarks: Luca Pasquet 
(16.45 – 17.00)

Information on how to attend the online event will be provided in the first week of May and will be posted on the ECHR Blog.