G.L. v. Italy: the inclusive course of the Strasbourg Case Law

2020 saw the appearance of the book ‘Les grands arrêts en matière de handicap/ De belangrijkste arresten inzake handicap’. The book offers a compilation and critical analysis of the principal case law (at Belgian, European and international level) concerning persons with disabilities from various legal perspectives. In a series of posts we shine a light on various contributions to the book. In this post Marie Spinoy and Kurt Willems write a ‘sequel’ to their chapter on inclusive (higher) education in light of the new Strasbourg decision of G.L. v. Italy.  

Continue reading “G.L. v. Italy: the inclusive course of the Strasbourg Case Law”

Iers Hooggerechtshof vernietigt klimaatactieplan: onzekerheid is geen excuus voor vaagheid

Op 31 juli 2020 heeft het Ierse Hooggerechtshof het klimaatactieplan van de overheid vernietigd. Een grote kamer van uitzonderlijk zeven rechters oordeelde unaniem dat het vooropgestelde actieplan onvoldoende specifiek was en daardoor niet voldeed aan de wettelijke vereisten van de Ierse klimaatwetgeving. Ierland is zo het tweede land na Nederland (met de Urgendazaak) waar het hoogste rechtscollege zich uitspreekt over een klimaatzaak waarin de eisers aan de staat een gebrekkig klimaatbeleid verwijten. Een historisch arrest of eerder een logische toepassing van de regels van de rechtstaat? Continue reading “Iers Hooggerechtshof vernietigt klimaatactieplan: onzekerheid is geen excuus voor vaagheid”

¡A.I. Caramba! – The reconciliation of AI judges with the ECHR

Artificial intelligence is rapidly being deployed in legal systems all over the world. While certain types of software offer to replace the lawyer for several relatively simple issues, others aim to help the lawyer to conduct research faster than any human ever could. Globally, AI has already proven to be a valuable ally in the distribution of justice. Consequently, it is no surprise that voices are calling to replace, or at least support, human judges with artificial intelligence. Is this the future of humanity or the start of the apocalypse? 

Continue reading “¡A.I. Caramba! – The reconciliation of AI judges with the ECHR”

Ghoumid v France: A Problematic Seal of Approval

On 25 June 2020, the Strasbourg Court delivered judgement in the case of Ghoumid and others v France. An important question in the case was whether the French administrative measure of citizenship deprivation constituted a punishment in the sense of Article 4 Protocol 7 ECHR. According to Louise Reyntjens, the Court’s conclusion is difficult to defend. Continue reading “Ghoumid v France: A Problematic Seal of Approval”

The Existence of a Judicial Dialogue between the ECtHR and International Investment Arbitration?

On Friday 22 November 2019, a celebration in honour of Paul Lemmens’ emeritus status was held, in the company of many of his friends and colleagues. For this occasion, a number of them wrote a contribution for the wonderful Liber amicorum Paul Lemmens. In this blog series we draw attention to several contributions in this book. This week, dr. Charline Daelman discusses the existence and nature of a judicial dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights and international investment arbitration. Continue reading “The Existence of a Judicial Dialogue between the ECtHR and International Investment Arbitration?”

Claiming the Convention’s ‘Duties and Responsibilities’ in the Face of Illiberalism

On Friday 22 November 2019, a celebration in honour of Paul Lemmens’ emeritus status was held, in the company of many of his friends and colleagues. For this occasion, a number of them wrote a contribution for the wonderful Liber amicorum Paul Lemmens. In this blog series we draw attention to several contributions in this book. This week, Michaël Merrigan considers the potential of ‘duties and responsibilities’ (article 10 ECHR) in the face of illiberalism.
Continue reading “Claiming the Convention’s ‘Duties and Responsibilities’ in the Face of Illiberalism”