European Court Of Human Rights In Strasbourg Research Articles

Mater Sempre Certa Est – Should We Register Transsexual Woman-to-Man as a Father? Remarks on the ECHR Judgment O.H. and G.H. v. Germany

The study is designed as an in-depth interdisciplinary report of the case O.H. and G.H. against Germany, which was analyzed by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECHR). The authors explain why the best interest of the child should prevail over the interests of a trans man, who gave birth to a child and requests to be registered as the father of the child. One of the reasons is mater semper certa est, a universally known principle of Roman law stating that “the mother is always certain” and no counterevidence can be made against this principle. In this regard, the best interest of the child and the child’s right to know his or her origin shall be observed. There are also several other life areas, that would be negatively impacted by breaking this principle.

Reassessment of the Ireland v. the United Kingdom ECtHR case: A lost opportunity to clarify the distinction between torture and ill-treatment.

In the 1978 Ireland v. the United Kingdom case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) did not consider that the so called "five techniques" caused enough severity to be considered torture. The intentionality criterion, outlined in the Convention against Torture's definition of torture, was also not fully considered. The Istanbul Protocol, which is critical for evidencing torture, did not exist at that time. Although a re-opening of the case was requested in 2014 by Ireland, forensic documentation using the Istanbul Protocol was not used; in 2018, the ECtHR decided against re-opening the case. By using the Ireland v. The United Kingdom case, this paper aims to map the origins of the five techniques, review whether applying them constitutes torture, analyze the information about the claimants available 30 years later, and explore the ramifications of the ECtHR decision not to revise its judgment. Relevant texts were gathered from the HUDOC database, Cambridge University Press, Wiley Online Library, SCOPUS and MEDLINE /PubMed, and the Library of the ECtHR in Strasbourg. The five techniques, elaborated upon in the case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom, were used well before the incidents in Northern Ireland in 1971 and there is evidence that United Kingdom officials have, subsequently, used the techniques. Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the "Hooded Men" had cognitive, psychological and neurovegetative symptoms as a result of the five techniques, which had long-term effects. The ECtHR did not take this into consideration when it decided not to re-open the case and the full implications of this decision for future cases and victims remain to be seen.

RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE UNDER ARTICLE 8 ECHR IN IMMIGRATION CASES: A HUMAN RIGHT TO REGULARIZE ILLEGAL STAY?

AbstractApplying the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to immigration cases has always been a balancing exercise between the effective protection of human rights and the Contracting States' autonomy to regulate migration flows. In its recent case law, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR) has considerably extended the protective scope of Article 8 ECHR by granting autonomous human rights protection to the long-term resident status independent of the existence of family bonds under the heading of ‘private life’. This has important repercussions for the status of legal and illegal immigrants across Europe, since the new case law widens the reach of human rights law to the legal conditions for leave to remain, effectively granting several applicants a human right to regularize their illegal stay. The contribution analyses the new case law and develops general criteria guiding the application of the ECHR to national immigration laws and the new EU harmonization measures adopted in recent years.