* Benny
Spanier, Israel Issi Doron & Faina Milman-Sivan, ‘Older Persons’ Use of the
European Court of Human Rights’, Journal of Cross Cultural Gerontology, vol. 28 (2013) pp. 407-420.
* Maarten den Heijer, ‘Shared Responsibility Before the European Court of Human Rights’, Netherlands International Law Review, vol. 60, no. 3 (2013).
* Triestino Mariniello, ‘The ‘Nuremberg Clause’ and Beyond: The Legality Principle and Sources of International Criminal Law in the European Court's Jurisprudence’, Nordic Journal of International Law, vol. 82, no. 2 (2013):
* Maarten den Heijer, ‘Shared Responsibility Before the European Court of Human Rights’, Netherlands International Law Review, vol. 60, no. 3 (2013).
* Triestino Mariniello, ‘The ‘Nuremberg Clause’ and Beyond: The Legality Principle and Sources of International Criminal Law in the European Court's Jurisprudence’, Nordic Journal of International Law, vol. 82, no. 2 (2013):
Legislative acts or constitutional courts’ decisions allowing
the prosecution of alleged perpetrators of international crimes committed in the
past continue to attribute to the legality principle a central role within
domestic criminal proceedings or complaints before the European Court of Human
Rights. This article assesses the evolution of the recent jurisprudence of the
Strasbourg Court, which in the 2008 Korbely and Kononov cases for the first time
extended the standards of the legality principle over war crimes and crimes
against humanity. It examines the rationale for this development, which
constitutes an attempt by the Court to restore a proper balance between
substantive justice and individual protection, by ascertaining whether domestic
convictions were consistent with the qualitative elements of the legality
principle, such as accessibility and foreseeability. Through a detailed analysis
of the European jurisprudence, the article argues that, although the new
approach of the Court entails in abstracto a strengthening of individual
safeguards from the arbitrariness of state power, the meaningful protection of
the legality principle may be in concreto significantly narrow. The reasons for
such a result are two-pronged: first, the Court seems to provide an
interpretation of past law which radically diverged from the interpretation of
the law in place in the legal system at the material time of the events; second,
the international sources accepted by the Court as a valid basis for the
applicants’ convictions – pursuant to the standards of the legality principle –
were intended to create obligations only upon states, rather than
individuals.
In addition, a case comment on Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung eines wirtschaftlich gesunden land- und forstwirtschaftlichen Grundbesitzes v. Austria has been written by Dirk
Voorhoof & Rónán Ó Fathaigh, entitled ‘The press and NGOs’ right of access toofficial documents under strict scrutiny of the European Court of Human Rights’ on Strasbourg Observers.