Homework to be done before the lecture:

Each student should read and analyze one of ECHR's judgements related to family law issues (pick one from those listed below). Let others know which case you have chosen on the subject discussion group accessible via syllabi. No one is allowed to choose a case which is already "booked" by another student.

Your case analysis should include:

a) a short description of facts

b) explanation of the court's argumentation

c) did the ECtHR judgement handle with the doctrine of positive obligation, the margin of appreciation or proportionality? where specifically and how?

d) your own assessment of the case

 

Your written case analysis should be put into the file for homework no later than 7. 10. 2022.

 

List of ECHR cases involving family law issues:

• Marckx v. Belgium (application No. 6833/74)
• Johnston v. Ireland (application no. 9697/82)
• Nielsen v. Denmark (application no. 10929/84)
• Keegan v. Ireland (application  No. 16969/90)
• Hokkanen v. Finland, judgment of 23 September 1994
• X, Y & Z v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 April 1997
• Grand Chamber judgement on PARADISO AND CAMPANELLI v. ITALY (application no. 25358/12)
• Kutzner v. Germany, judgment of 26 February 2002 
• Fretté v. France, judgment of 26 February 2002
• Odièvre v. France, judgment of 13 February 2003
• Sahin v. Germany, judgment of 8 July 2003 
• E.B. v. France, judgment of 22 January 2008
• Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, judgment of 24 June 2010
• Oliari and Others v. Italy, judgement of 21 July 2015
• Mikulic v. Croatia, judgement of 7 February 2002
• M. and M. v. Croatia (application no. 10161/13)

Lesson outline:

• What the family and family life mean according to the Court
• Art. 8 of the Convention (what kind of rights might be protected within the scope of family life)

Reading:

Mowbray, Alastair. Cases, Materials, and Commentary on the European Convention on Human Rights. 10. Article 8 Right to Private and Family Life (only pages 523-553, and  589-598)