Articles for tag: EGMREMRKRechtsstaatlichkeitVenedig-KommissionWe need to talk about the rule of law

LawRules #10: We need to talk about the European Convention on Human Rights

Europe is larger than the EU – and a European framework aiming at preserving basic rights and freedoms as well as rule of law safeguards has been in place for 70 years precisely this November: the European Convention on Human Rights. Today, we take a deeper look at the Convention and at the institutions that work to enforce it: The European Court of Human Rights and the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. Are they capable of adding another layer of human rights and rule of law protection to the European legal framework? What kind of support do those institutions need in order to be able to fulfill their task? And how is their status today, 70 years after the European Convention on Human Rights has been signed?

Continuing Violation

Since the failed coup attempt in 2016, lawyers, judges and prosecutors have persistently been subject to illegal surveillance and mass arrests. The latest such arrest of 50 lawyers took place on September 11th, 2020, during police raids in Ankara in the dawn. Arrests of lawyers have become the new normal although legal professionals should enjoy strong protections by law. Turkey’s Court of Cassation, however, has deprived these guarantees of any practical effectiveness by unlawfully expanding the meaning of in flagrante delicto.

Contested Justice

As the UK and the EU are entering the final phase in the negotiations over a post-Brexit trade deal, it has become clear that there is a fundamental clash of interests not only about fishing and governance issues but also about human rights. For people outside the UK it has often been difficult to comprehend the persistent contestation of the HRA and the European Convention, as well as their lack of public support. There are three main reasons behind this conundrum.

Technology and Law Going Mental

On 28 August 2020, Neuralink gave a much anticipated update on their progress to connect humans and computers. In the near future, the activities within our brain will be recorded, analysed, and altered, shaking our conception of inaccessible mental processes. A multitude of legal issues will arise, in particular to what extent fundamental and human rights protect mental processes and neurological data collected by (therapeutic or enhancing) brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) from being accessed by states without the individual’s consent. To date, however, there remains a significant gap as neurological data does not enjoy absolute protection from any interference within the existing European human and fundamental rights frameworks. This gap could be remedied by introducing new mental rights.

VB Live: Judicial Independence – a Public Talk by Robert Spano, President of the ECtHR

Today on VB: In his first public talk since taking over the presidency of the European Court of Human Rights, Judge Robert Spano speaks about "The Principle of Judicial Independence and the Democratic Virtues of Human Rights Law." The talk will be followed by questions from the online audience, chaired by iCourts Director, Professor Mikael Rask Madsen.

Dissecting Covid-19 Derogations

Does the pandemic require derogation from human rights treaties? This question has sparked significant debate, notably spurred by Alan Greene’s provocative argument that failing to derogate would denature ordinary human rights law and leave the start and end points of the crisis unclear. Others disagree: Scheinin argues the principle of normalcy, contained in General Comment 29, should continue to apply. Only where ordinary human rights provide inadequate flexibility should derogation be considered, and even then the principle should continue to limit the derogations. Several analyses have complemented this debate, analysing the ECtHR’s practice (Molloy), the detail of the European derogations ... continue reading

Österreich setzt das Asylrecht aus

Österreich hat aufgrund der grassierenden Coronapandemie de facto einen Einreisestopp für Asylwerber*innen erlassen. Diese (völker-)rechtswidrige Vorgehensweise scheint für nicht viel Empörung zu sorgen, da in Österreich bekanntlich das Recht der Politik folgt. Dass dadurch aber ein EU-Mitgliedstaat die Genfer Flüchtlingskonvention mit Füßen tritt und das Asylrecht aussetzt, sollte – vor allem auch aus juristischen Kreisen – zu einem lauteren Aufschrei führen. In der Folge wird daher gezeigt, inwiefern die österreichische Praxis sowohl völkerrechtswidrig ist als auch dem nationalen Recht widerspricht.

Covid-19 and Derogations Before the European Court of Human Rights

Many argue that derogations, permitted under many human rights instruments, provide a useful framework for assessing whether any human rights infringements that arise from emergency provisions adopted in response to Covid-19 are justified. Drawing on jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) in relation to Northern Ireland, this post argues that it is likely that the vast majority of cases exploring derogation will be found in a government’s failure.

Before it Spreads »Like Wildfire«: Prisoners‹ Rights in the Time of COVID-19

There are more than 10.7 million people imprisoned throughout the world. Prisons are notorious incubators and amplifiers of infections, and the fear among inmates due to COVID-19 is deepening all across the world (France, UK, US and Australia among many others). During the current pandemic, protecting prisons from the ‘tidal wave of COVID-19’ proves to be a challenging issue for States. After all, they have obligations and duties under international law to safeguard the human rights of prisoners, particularly their right to life, health and human treatment.