This blog is an academic free service to our audience and it is heartening to see the many hours of time we invest in it is reflected in the ways in which many readers find and read the blog. Last year, in 2024, the blog had a record of 981,000 pageviews, higher than ever. Thank you to all our readers, and especially to those among you who keep sending us announcements of ECHR-related events, case commentaries, publications etc. You are the oxygen of our blog. Many, many thanks!
For now, please find below our newest batch of selected academic publications about the European Convention on Human Rights and its Court:
* Antoine De Spiegeleir, ‘Climate change storytelling and masterplots at the European Court of Human Rights’, Law and Humanities (2024):
‘Talk of climate change litigation is on everyone’s lips. While some hope binding rulings will drive climate action, others question courts’ expertise, legitimacy, and enforcement capacities. This article adds to the growing literature on climate change litigation by adopting a narrative perspective and centring climate change storytelling, which has so far received little attention in legal circles. To draw broader conclusions about climate narratives in law and pave the way for further research, this article studies the three climate rulings rendered by the European Court of Human Rights on April 9, 2024, through the lens of the concept of ‘masterplots’, that is, story-types that structure our collective narrative expectations.’
* Michelle Bruijn, ‘X Factors and Tipping Points in Eviction Cases: A Statistical Analysis of Eviction Litigation of the European Court of Human Rights’ Human Rights Law Review (2024):
‘This study is the first to statistically analyse all eviction case law of the European Court of Human Rights up to 2024. It examines the impact of various case characteristics, such as the type of tenure, the reason for eviction and the involvement of vulnerable people, with a specific focus on the role of ownership and property rights. The study evaluates whether evicted homeowners have a higher success rate compared to non-owners, as they can invoke both Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Additionally, it investigates whether landmark cases like McCann v the United Kingdom and F.J.M. v the United Kingdom serve as ‘tipping points’ that significantly altered the Court’s jurisprudence. The findings highlight the substantial influence of the McCann case on subsequent eviction rulings and reveal that being a tenant in the public rental sector significantly increases the likelihood of the Court finding a violation of Article 8.’
* Faraz Shahlaei, ‘A Jurisdictional Vertigo: Compulsory Arbitration, Sports and the European Court of Human Rights’, Journal of Human Rights Practice (2024):
‘This article discusses jurisdictional issues when cases related to arbitral awards of the Court of Arbitration for Sport end up before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). By focusing on the ECtHR’s Third Chamber judgment in the Semenya case, it discusses how the unique governance structure of sports governing bodies, as the benchmark for such disputes, has distorted the traditional jurisdictional paradigms of the ECtHR, posing challenges for the Court in addressing potential human rights violations in the realm of sports. This article argues that human rights claims arising from sports activities form a new class of human rights litigation stemming from the activities of private actors with a strong public character. Such dynamics grant the ECtHR a central role as the ultimate arbiter in protecting human rights within the realm of sports and require it to subject the sports proceedings to a comprehensive review both on procedural and substantive grounds, even with relation to athletes residing outside the territory of Council of Europe member States.’
* Ceyda Knoebel & Stephanie Collins, ‘Enforcing intra-EU ICSID arbitration awards in a post-Achmea world in Europe: could the European Court of Human Rights assist in resolving the deadlock?’, Arbitration International (2024):
‘When, at the enforcement stage, a European Union (‘EU’) Member State’s national court refuses to recognize and/or enforce a final intra-EU arbitration award rendered as per the ICSID Convention on the basis of the Court of Justice of the EU (‘CJEU’)’s decision in Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV, the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, guaranteed by article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (‘A1P1’) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ‘ECHR’), may be infringed. This article explores that issue. First, and by way of context, it explains the development of the so-called ‘intra-EU objection’ in the context of investor–State arbitration, culminating in the CJEU’s seminal ruling in Achmea and its progenies. Second, it provides an overview of various efforts to enforce intra-EU awards post-Achmea, focusing on ICSID Convention awards that have cleared any post-award remedies under the Convention, and how national courts have approached this. Third, it details how A1P1 of the ECHR might apply to the non-enforcement of intra-EU ICSID awards—engaging in a detailed analysis of the tests that would be applied by the European Court of Human Rights in such an instance. Finally, it discusses the potential remedy before the Court and the consequences for a finding of violation. While this article is focused on final and enforceable ICSID Convention awards, the analysis may be relevant to other intra-EU enforcement scenarios, subject to the specific factual circumstances in those scenarios.’
* Helen Keller & Pranav Ganesan, ‘The Use of Scientific Experts in Environmental Cases Before the European Court of Human Rights’, International & Comparative Law Quarterly (2024):
‘This article argues that the current approach of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to evaluating scientific evidence is lacking and hampers its ability to properly handle cases involving questions of science, and particularly environmental cases which are replete with them. It identifies three problem areas in relation to the ECtHR's adjudication of such cases: the evaluation of evidence proving the causation of harm; the extent of the Court's deference to the determinations made by national authorities; and the Court's evaluation of evidence adduced by the respondent State in justifying its conduct as being in line with the standard of due diligence. Several cases that illustrate the recurring problem of the lack of science-based reasoning in the Court's judgments are then identified, highlighting the shortcomings of its approach. Such issues have an impact upon the legitimacy of the ECtHR, and it is therefore imperative that it engages more robustly with scientific evidence. The article suggests the best way to do this would be for the ECtHR to make more use of its power to seek assistance from independent scientific experts in environmental cases.’
* Vandita Khanna, ‘Roma vulnerability before the European Court of Human Rights: Towards a structural account’, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (2024):
‘It is well-recognised in human rights law and discourse that the Roma community is one of the most ‘vulnerable’ groups in Europe today, but what remains less developed is why and how the Roma are recognised as vulnerable, and what ‘Roma vulnerability’ means. This article posits that a structural account of Roma vulnerability may help in answering these questions. Such a structural account captures the vulnerability of Roma in the past and the present, as taking economic and cultural forms, spread across laws, policies, and actions, and fundamentally linked to the role of the State. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is, however, yet to acknowledge the structural nature of Roma vulnerability. Without such a structural engagement, there is a risk that human rights violations committed by the State will go unaddressed. The article thus seeks to introduce this structural account in the Court's jurisprudence to better capture the nature, causes, and extent of the vulnerability experienced by the Roma community.’
