Articles for tag: BalkansDaytonDemokratieEGMRKriegYugoslavia

False Hope for Democracy in Bosnia & Herzegovina

Bosnia & Herzegovina (B&H) is notoriously hard to govern. Scarred from a bloody war in the 1990s after the collapse of Yugoslavia, the country’s constitutional order emerged in international peace talks in the United States. What later became famous as the Dayton Peace Agreement (DPA) might have stopped the war but, in our opinion, sowed the seeds for complex democratic problems today. As we will show in this text, the ECtHR’s judgments represent a false hope for democracy in B&H, because ethnopolitical parties in B&H will not agree on how to implement the ECtHR’s judgments and the Office of the High Representative will not take a more active role in this context. We therefore argue against an earlier contribution on this blog by Woelk (2023), who suggested that the solution for the implementation of the ECtHR’s judgments should come from within the country, as we will show, ethnopolitical actors do not have a real interest in implementing these judgments. To put it bluntly, change from within is, alas, pie in the sky. It is much more likely that nothing changes and the powers that are remain the powers that will be.

Act Three for Climate Litigation in Strasbourg

Yesterday, on 27 September 2023, a historic hearing took place before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. The Court heard the Duarte Agostinho case, brought by six Portuguese children and young people against a whopping 33 Member States of the Council of Europe. Having heard two other climate cases this past March (the KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland and Carême v. France cases, respectively), this was the Court’s final hearing before it issues its first-ever findings on climate change. It was also the Court’s first youth climate case. For several reasons, yesterday’s hearing was a historic one: Duarte Agostinho is the Grand Chamber’s biggest-yet climate case, both in terms of the substantive rights invoked and the number of States involved.

Be Careful What You Wish For

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.

The Strasbourg Court Goes Astray

On 1 June 2023, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR concluded a saga that even experts of the Strasbourg Court might have overlooked. In the Grosam case, the alleged shortcomings in the disciplinary procedure involving a Czech enforcement officer (bailiff) have been addressed. The Grosam chamber judgment was certainly not a routine case. The chamber judgment went to the core of the role of the ECtHR and, if it would have been allowed to stand, it could have seriously undermined the legitimacy of the whole system of the Strasbourg protection.

A Human Rights Breakthrough in Sports Law?

On 11 July 2023, the ECtHR found in its Chamber judgment in Semenya v. Switzerland that international-level athlete Mokgadi Caster Semenya had been discriminated against by the Eligibility Regulations for Female Classification of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF, now World Athletics). These regulations required her to undergo hormone treatment to lower her natural testosterone levels in order to be admitted to international competitions in the female category. In the Chamber's view, Switzerland had violated the Convention by failing to provide sufficient institutional and procedural safeguards to enable Ms. Semenya to have her discrimination complaints effectively examined. If the GC upholds the Chamber’s findings on jurisdiction and scrutiny, the Semenya judgment will have a significant impact on the human rights approach of sports federations and on future CAS proceedings.

Judges and Organized Crime

Scandalous arrests of judges taking millions in bribes continue to make headlines. For purging the judiciary from corruption, vetting the integrity of judges through internationally supported commissions has become one of the most promising tools. In July 2023, the ECtHR has upheld the dismissal of yet another prominent judge – who had served, both, at the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Albania (Thanza v. Albania). While it is obvious that a judge should be dismissed for engaging in organised crime, this case may be the first in the world to raise another, rather unusual question: Can a judge be dismissed simply for having contact with organised crime, even if he has never committed any offence?

Die »Letzte Generation“, die EMRK und das Strafrecht

Die Aktionen der „Letzten Generation“ haben den gesellschaftlichen und juristischen Diskurs der letzten Monate geprägt. So engagiert die juristische Diskussion jedoch geführt wird, so sehr verharrt sie ganz überwiegend noch im nationalen Recht. Die zuständigen deutschen Strafrichter:innen werden sich jedoch auch dem Blick nach Straßburg nicht entziehen können – die Blockadeaktionen der „Letzten Generation“ stehen unter dem Schutz der in Artikel 11 Abs. 1 EMRK kodifizierten Versammlungs- und Vereinigungsfreiheit. Dieser Schutz steht einer strafrechtlichen Sanktionierung der Aktionen nicht grundsätzlich im Weg; eine Rückbesinnung auf die menschenrechtliche Dimension der Proteste kann und sollte aber ein Korrektiv für allzu ausgeartete Kriminalisierungs- bzw. Selbstjustizfantasien darstellen.

Strasbourg’s Coming Out

On June 1st, in Maymulakhin and Markiv v. Ukraine, the ECtHR determined for the first time in clear terms that the general absence of legal recognition for same-sex couples is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights. This marks a significant addition to the Court’s case-law concerning the rights of same-sex couples with implications for future litigation on this subject.

Strong on Hate Speech, Too Strict on Political Debate

Online hate speech is a topic that has gained importance in recent years. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) made an important ruling in this context on 15 May 2023 in Sanchez v. France. From a democratic theory and individual rights’ perspective, I would endorse the first decision because it tackles the so-called “silencing” and “desensitization effect” of hate speech. The second decision, however, runs the risk of adversely affecting free political debate, especially when individual politicians are called upon to delete comments by third parties.

The UK vs the ECtHR

In recent months, the UK government has tabled two Bills - the Bill of Rights Bill and the Illegal Migration Bill - before Parliament which would have the consequence - and almost certainly have the intention - of setting the UK on a collision course with the Council of Europe, and especially the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This post details how these Bills serve to undermine the UK’s obligations under the ECHR and explains their significance within the larger debate surrounding the UK’s possible withdrawal from the Convention. It places this debate in the context of the rarely-convened Council of Europe summit of heads of state and government in Reykjavik in May 2023, whose ambitious agenda is to protect the ‘common heritage’ of respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law in the face of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and other existential threats.