Commentary on the Judgment of the ECtHR Grand Chamber in the Case “Gudmundur Andri Astradsson v. Island”

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Dmitriy Dedov ◽  
Hanlar Gadzhiev
Keyword(s):  
Grand Chamber

Legal Maxims: Summaries and Extracts from Selected Case Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sébastien Brisard ◽  
Guglielmo Cantillo ◽  
Ramona Grimberger ◽  
Victoria Hanley-Emilsson ◽  
Rebeka Hevesi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Grand Chamber

Council of the European Union v. European Commission, Case C-409/13, Grand Chamber, Judgment, 14 April 2015European Commission v. Vanbreda Risk & Benefits, Case C‑35/15 P(R), Order of the Vice-President of the Court, 23 April 2015Geoffrey Léger v. Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé et des Droits des femmes, Établissement français du sang...

Legal Maxims: Summaries and Extracts from Selected Case Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarik Atmane ◽  
Simona Fanni ◽  
Adriana Fillol Mazo ◽  
Ana Cristina Gallego Hernández ◽  
Yolanda Gamarra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Republic Of Moldova ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Grand Chamber

Case of Meier v. Switzerland, Application No. 10109/14, Third Section, Judgment, 9 February 2016Case of Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, Application No. 11138/10, Grand Chamber, Judgment, 23 February 2016Case of Pajić v. Croatia, Application No. 68453/13, Second Section, Judgment, 23 February 2016...

Freedom of Expression versus Privacy and the Right to Reputation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Voorhoof
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Investigative Journalism ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The One ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The normative perspective of this chapter is how to guarantee respect for the fundamental values of freedom of expression and journalistic reporting on matters of public interest in cases where a (public) person claims protection of his or her right to reputation. First it explains why there is an increasing number and expanding potential of conflicts between the right to freedom of expression and media freedom (Article 10 ECHR), on the one hand, and the right of privacy and the right to protection of reputation (Article 8 ECHR), on the other. In addressing and analysing the European Court’s balancing approach in this domain, the characteristics and the impact of the seminal 2012 Grand Chamber judgment in Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no. 1) are identified and explained. On the basis of the analysis of the Court’s subsequent jurisprudence in defamation cases it evaluates whether this case law preserves the public watchdog-function of media, investigative journalism and NGOs reporting on matters of public interest, but tarnishing the reputation of public figures.

In Search of a Standard: References to the Rule of Law in the Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights

ICL Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-69
Author(s):  
Eszter Polgári
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Working Definition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Structured Analysis ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Grand Chamber

AbstractThe present article maps the explicit references to the rule of law in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR by examining the judgments of the Grand Chamber and the Plenary Court. On the basis of the structured analysis it seeks to identify the constitutive elements of the Court’s rule of law concept and contrast it with the author’s working definition and the position of other Council of Europe organs. The review of the case-law indicates that the Court primarily associates the rule of law with access to court, judicial safeguards, legality and democracy, and it follows a moderately thick definition of the concept including formal, procedural and some substantive elements. The rule of law references are predominantly ancillary arguments giving weight to other Convention-based considerations and it is not applied as a self-standing standard.

Overview of recent cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (November 2020-March 2021)

2021 ◽  
pp. 138826272110092
Author(s):  
Pauline Melin
Keyword(s):  
Parental Leave ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Framework Agreement ◽  
The Third ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Rest Periods ◽  
First Case ◽  
Family Benefits ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Italian Legislation

In this reporting period (November 2020-March 2021), five cases will be presented. The first case is INPS v WS (C-302/19), dealing with the Italian legislation that excludes Single Permit holders from receiving family benefits for their family members residing in a third country. In the second report, two cases rendered on the same day by the Grand Chamber of the Court are discussed. In D.J. v Radiotelevizija Slovenija (C-344/19) and RJ v Stadt Offenbach am Main (C-580/19), the Court clarified the circumstances under which periods of stand-by time could be considered as ‘working time’ or, alternatively, ‘rest periods’ under Directive 2003/88. XI v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants (C-129/20) is the third case reported. It concerns an interpretation of the Framework Agreement on parental leave in the light of the Luxembourg legislation, which requires parents to be employed at the time of their child’s birth to benefit from parental leave. Finally, the case report ends with VL v Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie (C-16/19), a case of discrimination on grounds of disability.

scholarly journals Khlaifia and Others v. Italy

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-280
Author(s):  
Jill I. Goldenziel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Detention Centers ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Arab Spring ◽  
Domestic Law

In Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber or Court) released a landmark opinion with broad implications for how states must respect the individual rights of migrants. In the judgment, issued on December 15, 2016, the Court held that Italy's treatment of migrants after the Arab Spring violated the requirement of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that migrants receive procedural guarantees that enable them to challenge their detention and expulsion. The Court also held that Italy's treatment of migrants in detention centers did not violate the ECHR's prohibition on cruel and inhuman treatment, in part due to the emergency circumstances involved. The Court further held that Italy's return of migrants to Tunisia did not violate the prohibition on collective expulsion in Article 4 of Protocol 4 of the ECHR. Enforcement of the judgment would require many European states to provide a clear basis in domestic law for the detention of migrants and asylum-seekers. Given the global diffusion of state practices involving migrants, and other states’ desires to restrict migration, this case has broad implications for delineating the obligations of states to migrants and the rights of migrants within receiving countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document