New ECHR Readings and Comments

A large number of recent articles and ECHR case comments have been put online in the past few weeks. Please find an overview here:

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-GB
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
line-height:150%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

* Paul
P. Craig, ‘EU Accession to the ECHR: Competence, Procedure and Substance’, Fordham International Law Journal, (Vol. 36, No. 1115, 2013):

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-GB
X-NONE
X-NONE

The
issues raised by EU Accession to the ECHR have already generated a
valuable and growing literature. This article seeks to contribute to
this literature. The discussion begins with an overview of the European
Union’s competence to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights,
and the process by which the Accession Agreement was negotiated. The
focus then shifts to analysis of whether the EU needs its own Charter of
Rights in addition to membership of the ECHR.

This is followed
by examination of a range of procedural issues raised by EU accession to
the ECHR. This includes the choices open to claimants when pursuing
rights-based claims and the constraints placed on those choices
resulting from EU accession to the ECHR. It will be seen that accession
raises difficult issues concerning who should be the respondent and
co-respondent in any particular case, and the manner in which a case
concerning Convention rights is routed to the European Court of Human
Rights. The new schema will moreover generate problems of delay.

The
final section of the article addresses some of the prominent
substantive issue raised by EU accession to the ECHR. This includes a
re-assessment of the case law defining the relationship between the EU
and the ECHR prior to accession and evaluation of the extent to which it
is relevant post accession; discussion of the impact of accession on
the autonomy of EU law; and consideration of the way in which the ECHR
rights and Charter rights will interact in the future.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-GB
X-NONE
X-NONE

* Henning
Grosse Ruse-Khan, ‘Overlaps and Conflict Norms in Human Rights Law: Approachesof European Courts to Address Intersections with Intellectual Property Rights’,
forthcoming in: Ch. Geiger (ed), Research
Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK /
Northampton, MA, 2014):

The
relationship between the protection of intellectual property (IP) and
human rights has been examined in a growing number of publications. Most
focus on the substantive law overlaps, interfaces, tensions and maybe
even conflicts between the two areas of law – be it on the national,
regional (e.g. European) or international plane. This contribution does
not purport to advance this debate on substantive intersections – such
as access to medicines under the right to health versus patent
protection for pharmaceutical products. Instead, it focuses on the legal
mechanisms and approaches to address some of these intersections
between the two systems. In that way, it builds on the discourses
concerning fragmentation, regime interaction and global legal pluralism
that offer different narratives on how specific areas of international
law view, define and delineate their relations to another.

Within
this context, the contribution focuses on the direct and indirect
conflict avoidance and resolution approaches adopted by the two main
European Courts which have been increasingly asked to rule on cases
where intellectual property (IP) protection and human rights are
intersecting. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court
of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) are both charged with examining
the consistency of national laws and measures with human rights
protection for IP. Both courts are equally confronted with cases where
national IP protection and enforcement measures are argued to interfere
and conflict with other human rights, such as freedom of expression and
information, the right to privacy or to conduct one’s own business. In
reviewing the decisions of the two courts in these areas, this
contribution highlights the range of tools and approaches available for
human right law to deal with its various interfaces with IP protection.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-GB
X-NONE
X-NONE

And a number of comments on recent case-law:

* David Hart reports on the Putistin v. Ukraine judgment on UK Human Rights Blog in ‘Strasbourg: defaming the dead, football and historical revisionism’.

* Ronan
Ó Fathaigh & Dirk Voorhoof have written a case note on Belpietro v Italy in European
Human Rights Cases (14(12) 2013): ‘Belpietro v. Italy: Does ParliamentaryPrivilege Extend to the Press?’.

* Judit Geller and Adam Weiss, third party interveners on behalf of ERRC have written a comment on Winterstein v. France on Strasbourg Observers.

New ECHR Readings and Comments

Search

Subscribe

Further Reading

Earlier posts