This week in Strasbourg - A roundup of the European Court of Human Rights' case law - week 48

INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION - Article 8 - In its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia the Court held that in case of international child abduction a child should not be returned to the country of origin without an effective examination of allegations of a “serious risk” to the child. The case concerned the procedure for the return of a child to Australia, her country of origin, which she had left with her mother at the age of three years and five months, in application of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and the mother’s complaint that the Latvian courts’ decision ordering that return had breached her right to respect for her family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court reiterates at the outset certain principles which must guide it in its examination of the case, and to which it drew attention in its recent judgment in Nada v. Switzerland: 

This week in Strasbourg - A roundup of the European Court of Human Rights' case law - week 47

 

 REPUTATION DAMAGE - The case of Putistin v. Ukraine is important because it accepts that under certain conditions the damage to the reputation of a deceased person can affect the private life of that person’s surviving family members. The judgment makes very clear, however, that such a situation will occur only in relatively exceptional circumstances.

This week in Strasbourg - A roundup of the European Court of Human Rights' case law - week 46

NO REASON FOR SMILING THIS TIME (Art. 8) In the case of Söderman v. Sweden. The European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that the Swedish legal system did not protect a minor girl whose stepfather attempted covertly to film her naked. In 2002, when she was 14 years old, the applicant discovered that her stepfather had attempted to secretly film her naked by hiding a video camera in the bathroom, which was in recording mode and directed towards the part of the room where she would undress to take a shower.  She complained that the Swedish legal system, which at the time did not prohibit filming without someone’s consent, had not protected her against the violation of her personal integrity. The Court found that Swedish law in force at the time had not ensured protection of Ms Söderman’s right to respect for private life – whether by providing a criminal or a civil remedy – in a manner that complied with the Convention. The act committed by her stepfather had violated her integrity and had been aggravated by the fact that she was a minor, that the incident took place in her home, and that the offender was a person whom she was entitled and expected to trust. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

Europese rechtspleging in Nederland (in Dutch only)

Marc de Werd - deze blog post werd eerder als essay gepubliceerd in Nederlands Juristenblad, 5 juli 2013, Afl. 27, p. 1780-1784.

 

Hoe moet de rechterlijke organisatie (rechters, officieren van justitie en gerechtelijke ondersteuning) zich inhoudelijk en organisatorisch voorbereiden op haar Europese toekomst? Die vraag dringt zich op nu de rechtspraktijk steeds vaker aanloopt tegen de weerbarstige materie van het internationale en Europese recht. Daarbij komt dat de stroom jurisprudentie uit Luxemburg (Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie) en Straatsburg (Europees Hof voor de rechten van de mens) niet meer valt bij te benen. Het zicht op de materie wordt bovendien ontnomen doordat ‘Europa’ zich weinig aantrekt van de hokjes waarin we het recht hebben opgedeeld. Het klassieke straf-, bestuurs- en civielrecht lopen steeds vaker door elkaar. En juist op een rechtsterrein waar de EU zich tot voor kort principieel buiten hield (het strafrecht) doen zich momenteel de lastigste EU-problemen voor. Het is kortom tijd om na te denken over ‘Europese rechtspleging’.

This week in Strasbourg - A roundup of the European Court of Human Rights' case law - week 45

 

AIRPORT SECURITY -  In the case of Gahramanov v. Azerbaijan the Court dealt for the first time with the issue of deprivation of liberty in the context of airport security checks. The case concerned an airline passenger who complained in particular that his detention by the State Border Service (SBS) for airport security checks had been unlawful:

Nieuwsbrief Rechtspraak Europa no. 11 - november 2013 (European Courts' newsletter in Dutch)

Klik voor onze nieuwsbrief met een overzicht van de rechtspraak van de afgelopen maand van het Europese Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens in Straatsburg en het Hof van justitie van de Europese Unie in Luxemburg