Based on an ongoing case in Sweden, where Girjas Sami village sued the Swedish state for violation of property rights, this article examines the European Court of Human Rights’ potential influence in the Arctic region’s legal system when it comes to protection of property of Arctic indigenous peoples. This article shows that notwithstanding the historical background of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the case law of the Court provides a solid foundation to advocate that the Court can take a more active role in protecting the rights of Arctic indigenous peoples. What is different in the case of indigenous peoples is that their rights pre-exist that of a modern state, and this does not correlate with the structure of the Convention, which seemingly leads to less protection under the Convention for indigenous peoples. This puts a higher level of responsibility both upon the applicants, as well as on the Court to scrutinize, and apply, the case law of the Court in line with the Convention and the adopted principle of interpretation.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/157180810X520327 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 25 (2010) 437–442 brill.nl/estu THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MARINE AND COASTAL LAW Current Legal Developments European Court of Human Rights Mevedyev and Others v. France
Joseph Dute Kunoy
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/157180910X12665776638704 European Journal of Health Law 17 (2010) 165-175 brill.nl/ejhl S ELECTED L EGISLATION AND J URISPRUDENCE European Court of Human Rights * ECHR 2009/5 Case of Grori v. Albania, 7 July 2009, no. 25336/04 (Fourth section
Nina Vajić and Vadim Pak
Essays in Honour of Budislav Vukas
Edited by Rüdiger Wolfrum, Maja Seršić and Trpimir Šošić
International Law, State Practice and EU Harmonisation
Lawyers, academics, and legal researchers, will appreciate Criminal Jurisdiction over Perpetrators of Ship-Source Pollution: International Law, State Practice and EU Harmonisation as a thorough source of information on the existing rules and practice in criminal cases involving pollution violations from ships.
principles of jurisdiction found in the law of the sea. The failure to do so can lead to odd results. Papanicolopulu points to the Medvedyev case in which the European Court of Human Rights held that an authorisation to take action against a ship did not cover enforcement action against the crew and so the
and American courts, 2 the European Court of Human Rights, 3 and other negotiating fora. This brief note presents the con- tent of the application, puts it in context by referring to the genesis of the dispute and the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights and brieﬂy comments upon the
Efthymios D. Papastavridis and Maria Xernou
justify resorting to the ILC ’s work. Noteworthy is that this Chapter makes a masterful use of theory and case law from the European Court of Human Rights on matters concerning the application of ARSIWA and ARIO . The role of the Commission, the legal nature of the operational plan of Frontex, as well
Introduction On 4 December 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rendered its decisions in Hassan and Others v. France 1 and Ali Samatar and Others v. France . 2 These decisions address several issues of recurrent interest, which have arisen out of prosecutions for piracy