to concentrate on the political approach. I will analyze the interaction between the Moscow Patriarchate and the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “ecthr”) following Russia’s accession to the Statute of the Council of Europe in 1996. 2 In concentrating on the political angle, however, I
omitted unless they appear in the database of the ECtHR and in literature. 1.2 The Case Law of the ECtHR The European Commission of Human Rights (until 1998) and the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter ECtHR) in Strasbourg, among thousands of judgments and decisions, have issued several hundred
Geir Ulfstein and Andreas Zimmermann
1 Introduction In an, at least so far, largely unnoted judgment of 12 October 2017, in the case of Burmych and Others v. Ukraine , 1 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) rejected more than 12,000 applications originating from Ukrainian applicants. It did so
Anicée Van Engeland
expectations and demands stemming from their beliefs or their community, the other dictated by courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and by domestic law. 3 Women are told both to veil and not to veil, and their access to the public sphere is monitored, if not restricted. As a result
structural problems. Nevertheless, it is not the only measure of solving large-scale dysfunctions arising from the legal systems of States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR) has developed several mechanisms designed to eradicate systemic and
the former or the latter; it is uncommon to build, argue, and decide a case using both. Second, it is a case where the Russian Constitutional Court effectively overruled itself and acted to implement a series of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights on a legal issue affecting almost any
Dominik Haider examines to which extent the Pilot-Judgment Procedure is reconcilable with the European Convention on Human Rights. After an analysis of the member states’ obligations to resolve structural deficiencies, the author asks if the European Court of Human Rights is empowered to take the procedural steps which are characteristic of the Pilot-Judgment Procedure. In particular, the Court's express orders are critically scrutinised.
Judge Loukis Loucaides. An Alternative View on the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights
A Collection of Separate Opinions (1998-2007)
Edited by Leto Cariolou, Anatoly Kovler, Françoise Tulkens and Dean Spielmann
Laurence A. Groen
This note analyzes the functioning of the Russian judiciary on the basis of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgments in the cases of OAO Neftianaia Kompaniia Iukos and three of the company’s former leading executives, Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovskii, Platon Leonidovich Lebedev and the late Vasilii Aleksanian. The analysis turns to the breaches by the Russian state of Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 18 (permissible restrictions to the rights guaranteed) of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as established by the Court in the aforementioned cases, and the role of the Russian judiciary therein. In light of the fundamental flaws and structural nature characterizing the violations found, the conclusion is reached that the Russian judiciary (still) appears not to be entirely free from undue influence by the other branches of government.