. The authors would therefore like to thank him for his input during the process of writing aforementioned paper. This article was finalised June 11, 2015. 1 Introduction The European Court of Human Rights 1 uses different methods of interpretation 2 when deciding a case, hence engaging in
Ilona Bierkens LLM and Caia Vlieks LLM
Centre (London, the United Kingdom), represented a number of applicants in the cases from Chechnya and Ingushetia brought before the European Court of Human Rights, including those discussed in this article. Th e author thanks Professors Bill Bowring and Philip Leach, Dr. Alexei Trochev, Dr. Daniel
-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.
In view of the rapidly growing case-law of the European Court of Human Rights it is difficult to have detailed knowledge of the Court's case-law. As regards the construction of the rights guaranteed under the Convention - namely the frequently used open-textured formulations that require interpre