On 19 February 2024, the European Court of Human Rights decided not to answer the Estonian Supreme Court’s request for an advisory opinion on the basis of Protocol 16 (P16). For the first time, it dismissed a request because it did not concern a question of principle concerning the interpretation and application of ECHR rights. The decision is significant because the ECtHR provides clear contours as to what types of questions courts should (not) ask.
Restricting the freedom of movement of unwanted asylum seekers is the conceptual core of the CEAS reform package politically agreed upon by the EU’s legislative institutions in December 2023. Large groups of the people seeking international protection in the EU will be subject to so-called border procedures. Their claims will be processed while being ‘kept at or in proximity to the external border or transit zones’ (Commission proposal) in order to prevent their onward movement and to facilitate ensuing deportations. Introducing such confinement measures will be mandatory for all Member States, provided that an asylum seeker meets certain criteria, in particular a low rate of success of earlier protection claims made by his or her fellow nationals, calculated on an EU-wide average. Why did we fail to make asylum-seekers’ right to free movement relevant in context of the CEAS reform?
Zurzeit berät das Oberhaus des britischen Parlaments (House of Lords) die sog. Safety of Rwanda Bill. Zusammen mit dem Illegal Immigration Act soll dieses Gesetz die Abschiebung von Flüchtlingen nach Ruanda ermöglichen, um dort deren Asylverfahren durchzuführen. Während entsprechende Pläne auch in Deutschland Anklang finden, zeigt das Gesetzesvorhaben in bedenkenswerter Deutlichkeit, welche rechtsstaatlichen Konsequenzen mit einem solchen Outsourcing von Asylverfahren verbunden sind. Denn um einen möglichst wirksamen Abschreckungseffekt auf andere Flüchtende zu erzielen, haben die britische Regierung und das Unterhaus des Parlaments (House of Commons) bereits dafür gestimmt, Tatsachen zu erfinden, Grundrechte außer Kraft zu setzen und internationales Recht zu brechen.
The question should perhaps be “what went right?”. I argue that for more than 30 years, as a result of a key provision in the Constitution, and the work of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (CCRF) there were many positive changes to Russian law and practice. These advances were only possible as a result of Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe and ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). But that chapter in Russia’s constitutional history has been closed.
With its decision in Humpert and others v Germany of 14 December 2023, the European Court of Human Rights settled a long-standing debate: The ban on strikes for German Civil Servants does not violate the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. This decision ends the strategic litigating efforts of the applicants and their union to obtain the right to strike for the approximately 1.7 million civil servants in Germany. The judgment is also the culmination of an extraordinarily intense dialogue between Strasbourg and Karlsruhe.
On 14 December 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case M.L. v. Poland. The ECHR decided that the restrictions on abortion rights that Poland had violated Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Contrary to the hopes of the initiators of the case, this is not a European Roe v. Wade moment. The ECHR again refused to affirm that Article 8 can be interpreted as conferring a right to abortion. Nevertheless, the ECHR made significant findings regarding Polish rule of law violations.
In a pivotal judgment delivered by the Grand Chamber, the European Court of Human Rights held that the conviction of a former teacher Yüksel Yalcinkaya violated Articles 6,7 and 11 of the Convention. The applicant Yalcinkaya was a teacher who was dismissed with an emergency decree enacted during the state of emergency rule between 2016 and 2018 and was subsequently prosecuted and convicted for his use of the ByLock app and for his membership in a teachers’ union and an association which were also closed down with an emergency decree. In Erdogan’s ever more repressive Turkey, usage of said app or membership in organizations and unions may lead to arrest. Especially anything that appears remotely related to the oppositional Gulen movement carries the risk of persecution.
The European Court of Human Rights has issued some troubling statements on how it imagines content moderation. In May, the Court stated in Sanchez that “there can be little doubt that a minimum degree of subsequent moderation or automatic filtering would be desirable in order to identify clearly unlawful comments as quickly as possible”. Recently, it reiterated this position. This shows not only a surprising lack of knowledge on the controversial discussions surrounding the use of filter systems (in fact, there’s quite a lot of doubt), but also an uncritical and alarming approach towards AI based decision-making in complex human issues.
A few years ago, France banned buying sex. In M.A. and Others v. France the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) now held that a motion of sex workers against that ban is admissible. The Court did not rule on the merits at this stage – this will follow in a subsequent judgement. Nevertheless, this admissibility decision marks a milestone as, for the first time, the Court will examine whether a sex purchase ban violates the rights of sex workers as guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights. The ruling appears eagerly anticipated due to its legal precedent within Member States that have passed similar legislation.
Die Strafnorm des § 353d StGB steht seit vielen Jahren in der Kritik. Im Kern kommt es zu einer „Kriminalisierung korrekter Berichterstattung“. Dies droht auch Arne Semsrott, seinerseits Journalist und Projektleiter der Plattform „FragDenStaat“. Er hat drei Beschlüsse des Amtsgerichts München aus laufenden Strafverfahren in anonymisierter Form veröffentlicht, um auf streitbare und mitunter unverhältnismäßige Ermittlungsmaßnahmen gegen Mitglieder der sog. „Letzten Generation“ hinzuweisen. Zeit, die Norm aus dem Strafgesetzbuch zu streichen.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters