SELECTION FOR THE COURSE
The course and lecture room capacity are limited to 16 students. If more students apply for the course, the following selection procedure applies.
1. Choice of the case law for the essay
Choose one of the ECtHR judgments to write an essay about and "book" your case by letting other students know about your choice in the following discussion thread. Before you select, check that no one else has chosen your case - first come, first served. If you select a case someone else has already selected, I will not review your essay.
List of cases:
| A, B and C v. Ireland (Application no. 25579/05) |
| A.E. v Bulgaria (Application no. 53891/20) |
| A.L. v. France (Requête no 13344/20) - only in French |
| Bogomolova v. Russia, judgement of 20 June 2017 |
| Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway [ Grand Chamber ] (Application no. 15379/16) |
| Beeler v. Switzerland [ Grand Chamber ] (Application no. 78630/12) |
| Cupiał v Poland (Application no. 67414/11) |
| D.B. and Others v. Switzerland (Requêtes nos 58817/15 et 58252/15) - only in French |
| D.M.D. v. Romania, judgement of 3 October 2017 |
| E.B. v. France, judgment of 22 January 2008 |
| Fabris v. France [ Grand Chamber ], judgement of 7 February 2013 |
| Fedotova and Others v. Russia [ Grand Chamber ] judgement of 17 January 2023 |
| Christine Goodwin v. UK, (Application no. 28957/95) |
| Gard and Others v. UK, the decision of 27 June 2017 |
| G.T.B. v. Spain, judgement of 16 November 2023 |
| Hämäläinen v. Finland, [ Grand Chamber ] judgement of 16. July 2014 |
| Hokkanen v. Finland, judgment of 23 September 1994 |
| Kautzor v. Germany judgement of 22 March 2012 |
| Keegan v. Ireland (application No. 16969/90) |
| Konstantin Markin v. Russia, judgement of 22 March 2012 |
| Kutzner v. Germany, judgment of 26 February 2002 |
| M. and M. v. Croatia (Application no. 10161/13) |
| M.L. v. Poland, judgement of 14 December 2023 |
| Mikulic v. Croatia, judgement of 7 February 2002 |
| Nielsen v. Denmark (application no. 10929/84) |
| Odièvre v. France, judgment of 13 February 2003 |
| Oliari and Others v. Italy, judgement of 21 July 2015 |
| Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [ Grand Chamber ] (application no. 25358/12) |
| Przybyszewska and Others v. Poland, judgement of 12 December 2023 |
| S. – H. v. Poland (Applications nos. 56846/15 and 56849/15) |
| Sahin v. Germany, judgment of 8 July 2003 |
| Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, judgment of 24 June 2010 |
| T.C. v. Italy (Application no. 54032/18) |
| V.I. v. The Republic of Moldova, judgement of 26 March 2024 |
| X. and others vs. Austria, [ Grand Chamber ] judgment of 19 February 2013 |
| X v. Latvia, [ Grand Chamber ] judgement of 26 November 2013 |
| X, Y & Z v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 April 1997 |
| Zherdev v. Ukraine, judgement of 27 April 2017 |
| X, Y & Z v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 April 1997 |
You will find the text of the judgment on the web pages of the Court:
2. Writing the essay
Read the court decision carefully. Ensure you read the decision or judgement (not the Legal Summary, Press Release, etc., as long as those do not include all the information you need). Suppose you struggle with some concepts described below (e.g., margin of appreciation, derogable rights). In that case, you should read the reading materials for the first lecture in the syllabus, which will help you understand them.
Write an essay of no longer than 1,000 words. The essay should include:
a. Summary of case facts (up to 200 words)
- focused on substantive facts that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) considered essential for its decision on merits
b. Which European Convention of Human Rights Articles the applicant alleged were violated and why (up to 300 words)
- Explain why the applicant(s) thought that their Convention rights were violated.
- Are the Convention rights at stake, absolute, unqualified, or qualified, and why?
Are the Convention rights at stake derogable or non-derogable, and why?
c. How the ECtHR decided on case merits (up to 500 words)
- Explain why the ECtHR has found a violation or no violation of every Convention article at stake.
- Explain whether the ECtHR considered there is a positive obligation of the state under any convention article at stake.
- Explain whether the ECtHR applied a margin of appreciation doctrine in connection with any alleged violation and its application's outcome.
- Explain whether the ECtHR applied the principle of proportionality in connection with any alleged Convention violation and its application's outcome.
SUBMIT THE ESSAY TO THE ESSAY VALUT NO LATER THAN 20 SEPTEMBER 2024 (INCLUDED):
3. Essay review and enrollment
I will review all the essays until 25 September 2024 and evaluate the following criteria:
1. Clarity, argument and information
Are all the information in your essay correct? For example, did you classify the Convention correctly? Or did you correctly identify the application of the margin of appreciation doctrine?
2. Organization
Is your text well structured (paragraphs, the text flow...)? Did you follow the assignment?
3. Language
How good is your command of academic prose (syntax, spelling, punctuation etc.)
You may get up to three points in each category (nine combined is the maximum). I will send every student my assessment, and based on the point rankings, the 16 students with the highest marks will get my approval for enrollment.