ECtHR

What can UNCITRAL Working Group III learn from the ECtHR? – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

by
What can UNCITRAL Working Group III learn from the ECtHR? – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

The ISDS reform process at UNCITRAL Working Group III provides a unique opportunity to consider new institutional dispute settlement designs. As EJIL:Talk! Readers will know from earlier blogs on this reform process, a standing mechanism to resolve investment disputes is one of the key proposals in the strengthening of the institutional design, with a Draft Statute for the mechanism up for discussion in this month’s session.

Previous debates on the standing mechanism touted enforcement as a “key feature of any system of justice” and essential to ensure the effectiveness of the standing mechanism (see [62] of the Report on the 38th session). Early work on enforcement options for the standing mechanism suggested limited concerns with compliance, commenting anecdotally that “most decisions by ISDS tribunals were voluntarily complied with” (see [74] of the Report on the 38th session). Consequently, the current Draft Statute for the standing mechanism continues the arbitral tradition of enforcement proceedings in domestic courts as a means to ensure compliance (see Articles 25 and 36). Domestic court enforcement proceedings were considered appropriate “to maximise the chances of having [the standing mechanism’s] decisions enforced” (see [102] of the Report of the Singapore Intersessional).

Read more

Up in Smoke? Victim Status in Environmental Litigation before the ECtHR – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

by
Up in Smoke? Victim Status in Environmental Litigation before the ECtHR – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

While the ripples of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen continue to spread in the academic world, with discussions about potential implications for the future jurisprudence of the ECtHR, on January 30, 2025, the Court handed down another landmark judgment in the field of environmental litigation. The case of Cannavacciuolo and Others v. Italy addressed the systematic and large-scale pollution phenomenon caused by the mismanagement of hazardous waste in parts of the Campania region in the South of Italy. The judgment is ground-breaking for finding a violation of the right to life (Article 2 ECHR) for the first time in connection with environmental pollution (further aspects of the case have been discussed on the blog here).

Read more

ECtHR finds imposition of Russian citizenship in Crimea a breach of article 8 ECHR – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

by
Up in Smoke? Victim Status in Environmental Litigation before the ECtHR – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

A. Introduction

The term ‘passportisation’ refers to the practice of extending nationality to substantial numbers of individuals beyond the boundary of the state, including by forcible imposition of nationality.  At an international level, two effects – each potentially an aim of value to the state extending its nationality –  are the erosion of the territorial sovereignty of the state of residence by the new ability of the state of nationality to intervene to protect those possessing its nationality, conformably with article 51 of the UN Charter, and reduced scope for the individual to seek international protection as against a state of his or her nationality.  In the post-Soviet period passportisation been much practised by the Russian Federation, in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere.  On 18 June 2024 Dr Gaiane Nuridzhanian provided a helpful account of recent decisions touching on it, including in the context of human rights.  Since then the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has decided an interstate case concerning Russian activities concerning Crimea, Ukraine v Russia (Re Crimea) appns 20958/14 and 38334/18) [2024] ECHR 569, which within its wider decision sets out significant findings regarding passportisation.

Read more

The Long-Awaited Election of a Judge to the ECtHR in Respect of Poland – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

by
Up in Smoke? Victim Status in Environmental Litigation before the ECtHR – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro

The year 2024 has been of significant electoral importance, not only in various countries but also for the judges at the ECtHR. While 5 judges are elected each year on average, no fewer than 15 judges were supposed to be elected in 2024 (see here, § 65), with 10 ultimately elected, including one from Poland. … Read more