HRL cases 1-6

cases

Class 1: H.R., Cttee 2002, Wakenheim v. France

Facts: The case involved a French law banning dwarf-tossing events, where a dwarf is thrown onto a mattress or into a pool as entertainment. Mr. Wakenheim, a dwarf, challenged the ban, arguing that it restricted his ability to work and violated his human dignity.

Decision: The Human Rights Committee upheld the ban, reasoning that it aimed to protect human dignity, even if Mr. Wakenheim consented to the activity. The ban was justified as a measure to safeguard societal values of dignity.

Class 1: ECtHR 2024, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Other v. Switzerland

Facts: The case was brought by a Swiss-based environmental group, KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz ("Climate Seniors Switzerland"), consisting mainly of elderly women. They argued that they are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, especially heatwaves, which disproportionately impact older individuals.

The applicants claimed that Switzerland’s inadequate action on climate change violated their fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):

• Article 2 (right to life): They argued that insufficient climate policies posed a direct threat to their lives due to increased mortality risks from extreme heat events.

• Article 8 (right to private and family life): They contended that climate change adversely affected their well-being and daily lives, thereby breaching their right to respect for private and family life.

Outcome: The court ruled that the women were no direct victims and therefor found the application inadmissible, however it did stress that NGO’s or other private entities could bundle complaints and take over the case. The state must protect against the loss of life and certain risks to life. However this risk must be real and immediate to somebodies life. It was not certain where harm was going to materialise, so the risk was not immediate.

Significance:

• Positive Obligations: It explored how far states must go in taking measures to mitigate the effects of climate change to fulfil their obligations under the ECHR.

• Transnational Impact: The case could set an important precedent for climate litigation in Europe, potentially expanding the scope of human rights law to address global environmental issues

Class 1: Supreme Court, Christian Baker

Facts: A Christian baker in the United States refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing religious objections. The couple argued this was discriminatory under anti-discrimination laws.

Decision: In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the baker, finding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown hostility toward his religious beliefs. The Court did not rule on broader questions of discrimination versus religious freedom.

Class 2: ICJ 2004, Wall Advisory Opinion

Facts: The ICJ evaluates whether the construction of the wall by Isreal for ‘security reasons’ in the occupied Palestinian territory violates international humanitarian law and human rights law.

Outcome: The wall violates the human rights of the Palestinians. There is a continued application on international human rights law in situations of armed conflict and states can be held responsible for those violations.

Class 2: ECtHR, 2014, Hassan v. UK

Facts: The case concerned the detention of an Iraqi civilian during the U.S.-UK invasion of Iraq. Mr. Hassan’s family alleged his detention violated Articles 5 (right to liberty) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) ECHR.

Decision: The ECtHR ruled that Art. 5 ECHR could be adapted in wartime situations to accommodate international humanitarian law (e.g., the Geneva Conventions). Hassan’s detention was not deemed a violation as it aligned with lawful wartime detention under international law. The Court based it’s decision on the ICJ and humanitarian law

Class 4: BVerfGE 1970, Solagne I

Facts: This landmark German Constitutional Court decision addressed the relationship between German constitutional law EU-law. The Court held that it would not review the compatibility of EU law with German constitutional rights "so long as" (Solange) the EU ensured an equivalent level of fundamental rights protection.

Significance: Established a framework for EU-German constitutional interactions, balancing EU supremacy with national sovereignty.

Class 4: BVerfGE 1986, Solagne II

Facts: Revisiting the Solange I doctrine, the German Constitutional Court acknowledged that the European Community had sufficiently developed its fundamental rights protection. The Court decided it would no longer review EU law "so long as" this protection remained adequate.

Class 5-6: ECtHR 2005, Bosphorus Airways v. Ireland

Facts: Bosphorus Airways, a Turkish airline, leased an aircraft from Yugoslav Airlines. At the time, UN sanctions were imposed against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia due to the conflict in the Balkans. The EU implemented these sanctions through regulations, requiring member states to seize property owned by Yugoslav entities. In 1993, Irish authorities impounded the aircraft in Dublin under these EU regulations, even though Bosphorus Airways, a Turkish company, was using the plane lawfully.

Bosphorus Airways argued that the seizure violated its property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR. The airline contended that it was not responsible for Yugoslavia’s actions and that Ireland’s enforcement of EU regulations unjustly deprived it of the use of the aircraft.

Judgment:

1. No Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The ECtHR found that Ireland’s actions were justified under EU law, which had been adopted to comply with UN sanctions. These sanctions pursued legitimate aims, such as maintaining international peace and security.

2. Presumption of Equivalent Protection:

o The Court introduced the "Bosphorus presumption," stating that when a state implements legal obligations derived from EU law, it is presumed to provide "equivalent protection" to the ECHR.

o This presumption applies because the EU legal system includes mechanisms (e.g., the Court of Justice of the European Union) to safeguard fundamental rights.

o The presumption of equivalent protection can be rebutted only if the applicant demonstrates a manifest deficiency in the protection of ECHR rights within the EU legal framework.

Significance:

• The case established the Bosphorus doctrine, which governs the relationship between EU law and the ECHR.

• It reaffirmed that member states remain bound by the ECHR, even when implementing EU law, but recognized the high level of human rights protection within the EU legal system.

• It established, even though it is not applicable to here, that states remain responsible for their acts as member of international organizations.

Class 5-6: ECtHR 2010, Korolev V. Russia

Facts: Mr. Korolev complained about the Russian authorities’ failure to pay him a trivial sum of money (less than one euro). He argued this violated his right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Decision: The ECtHR dismissed the case as inadmissible, stating that claims must meet a minimum threshold of significance to qualify as violations under the ECHR (minimis rule in art. 35, 3, b ECHR: there must be a ‘significant disadvantage'

Class 5-6: CJEU 2014, Opinion 2/13 Accession of the European Union to the ECHR

Facts: The CJEU was asked to review the draft agreement for the EU’s accession to the ECHR.

Opinion: The CJEU found the draft incompatible with EU law, citing concerns about the autonomy of EU law and the potential for external interference by the ECtHR. This blocked the EU’s accession at that time.

Class 5-6: ECtHR 2017, Burmych v. Ukraine

Facts: This case arose from Ukraine’s failure to enforce previous ECtHR judgments regarding property disputes. Thousands of applicants joined, alleging systematic non-compliance by Ukraine.

Decision: The ECtHR declared the case inadmissible, transferring enforcement responsibility to the Committee of Ministers. It highlighted the limitations of the ECtHR in addressing systemic issues.