problem also arises in law, since members of that community have used the language of human rights to vindicate their identity claims. That is why, as a lawyer, I want to assess to what extent the European Court of Human Rights’ case law reflects this group’s diversity. I wish also to ascertain the
This article addresses how far the effective participation of national minorities is expressly articulated by the European Court of Human Rights in its reasoning and, more fully, how far the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights can protect effective participation by national minorities. To that end, it adopts a broad understanding of the protection and implementation of effective participation and examines case law dealing with several different rights that impact upon the participation of national minorities. Finally, the more general issue of whether a judicial process can adequately achieve effective participation on its own and which non-judicial mechanisms are better placed is also discussed.
, Beijing, and Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Oslo Ineta Ziemele, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg International Journal on Minority and Group Rights (ISSN 1385-4879, E-ISSN 1571-8115) is published 4 times a year by Martinus Nijhoﬀ Publishers, an imprint of Koninklijke Brill NV, PO Box 9000
-Win- discher, "The European Court of Human Rights", 25(3) Journal of European Integration (2003), 249-71, at 249-50. 38 ECtHR, Appl. 29221/95 and Appl. 29225/95, Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, judgment of 2 October 2001. See Medda-Windischer, "The Jurisprudence of
In spite of the absence of a specific provision on minority rights in the European Con- vention on Human Rights (hereinafter 'the Convention) and its Protocols, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter 'the Court') has reviewed, since its early activity, sev- eral cases concerning minority
the Convention which will for the first time provide a right to non-discrimination separate from the other substantive articles. It will come into force when it has been ratified by ten states.2 2 The European Court of Human Rights3 considers that the right not to be discrimin- ated against in the
This article highlights a number of interesting and significant cases concerning minority rights at the Strasbourg Court during the recent period of just over two years. The issues include the continuing deadlock in enforcing the Court’s controversial antidiscrimination judgment in Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina; a new emphasis on and attention to social and economic rights as protected by the Revised Social Charter in the context of forced evictions; the Court’s expanding jurisprudence on the positive duties of the state; the fascinating Slovenian case on the fate of the “erased;” and a continuing focus on discrimination against Chechens as part of the Court’s recent return to a focus on the long-neglected Article 14 of the Convention. The article concludes by summarising a new scholarly interpretation of minority rights through the concept of vulnerability.
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 10 : 97–109, 2004. 97 © Koninklijke Brill NV. Printed in the Netherlands. The European Court of Human Rights and Minority Rights: The ‘Special Consideration’ Standard in Light of Gypsy Council ALEXANDER H. E. MORAWA* 1. Introduction On 14 May
which in principle remains to the competence of national legislators and public authorities. The view of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, ‘the ECtHR’ or ‘the Court’) is that in immigration cases, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation. 2 The present article