Religious courts have been part of the European legal landscape for centuries. Almost all churches and religious communities have their own judicial systems, often composed of courts or tribunals ordered hierarchically. The aim of this book is to present cases from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, in which a religious court was involved at the stage of domestic proceedings. The twelve cases in question originate from a number of European States, in which the applicants belonged to many denominations, although predominantly Christian. The Court of Human Rights has mainly been concerned with religious courts in terms of compliance with the requirement for a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and has come to various conclusions. The most recent judgment from September 2017, Nagy v. Hungary, and in particular many associated dissenting opinions, demonstrate that the matter is worthy of study, particularly in the contemporary context of religious freedom.

As the tensions involving religion and society increase, the European Court of Human Rights and the Freedom of Religion or Belief is the first systematic analysis of the first twenty-five years of the European Court's religion jurisprudence. The Court is one of the most significant institutions confronting the interactions among states, religious groups, minorities, and dissenters. In the 25 years since its first religion case, Kokkinakis v. Greece, the Court has inserted itself squarely into the international human rights debate regarding the freedom of religion or belief. The authors demonstrate the positive contributions and the significant flaws of the Court's jurisprudence involving religion, society, and secularism.

Since the turn of the millennium, the European Court of Human Rights has been the transnational setting for a European-wide 'rights revolution'. One of the most remarkable characteristics of the European Convention of Human Rights and its highly acclaimed judicial tribunal in Strasbourg is the extensive obligations of the contracting states to give observable effect to its judgments. Dia Anagnostou explores the domestic execution of the European Court of Human Rights' judgments and dissects the variable patterns of implementation within and across states. She relates how marginalised individuals, civil society and minority actors strategically take recourse in the Strasbourg Court to challenge state laws, policies and practices. These bottom-up dynamics influencing the domestic implementation of human rights have been little explored in the scholarly literature until now. By adopting an inter-disciplinary perspective, Anagnostou goes beyond the existing studies--mainly legal and descriptive--and contributes to the flourishing scholarship on human rights, courts and legal processes, and their consequences for national politics.

This book details the legal ramifications of existing anti-blasphemy laws and debates the legitimacy of such laws in Western liberal democracies.

The goal of this study is to provide a general overview and thorough analysis of how the European Court of Human Rights deals with tort law issues such as damage, causation, wrongfulness and fault, the protective purpose of rules, remedies and the reduction of damages when applying art 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These issues have been examined on the basis of a comprehensive selection and detailed analysis of the Court’s judgments and the results compared with different European legal systems (Austria, Belgium, England and Wales, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Romania, Scandinavia, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey), EC Tort Law and the Principles of European Tort Law. The introduction of art 41 (ex art 50) ECHR in 1950 as a compromise and the issues it raises now, the methodological approaches to the tort law of the ECHR, the perspectives of human rights and tort law and public international law as well as the question of whether the reparation awarded to victims of ECHR violations can be considered real ‘just’ satisfaction are addressed in five special reports (two of which are also available in German). Concluding remarks try to summarise the outcome.

The question of accommodations that institutions and citizens must make to ensure social cohesion in pluralist societies is of concern to the Council of Europe. How will we live and interact together in diversity? It is becoming increasingly important to provide responses and devise innovative frameworks (in the legal sphere, in national education and training in competences and in institutional practice) which can help build a shared vision while at the same time respecting each individual. By comparing European and Canadian responses, among others, the articles featured in this volume explore this complex issue. They contribute to a major social debate and outline a vision of the future that allows us to set aside mutual suspicion and develop institutional arrangements and forms of social interaction capable of making diversity a factor for progress, well-being and social justice. They also remind us that poverty combined with stigmatisation based on identity leads to stasis, social malaise and an increase in security measures, which ultimately prevent societies from evolving through risk taking, shared responsibility, dialogue and consultation.

Confusion about the differences between the Council of Europe (the parent body of the European Court of Human Rights) and the European Union is commonplace amongst the general public. It even affects some lawyers, jurists, social scientists and students. This book will enable the reader to distinguish clearly between those human rights norms which originate in the Council of Europe and those which derive from the EU, vital for anyone interested in human rights in Europe and in the UK as it prepares to leave the EU. The main achievements of relevant institutions include securing minimum standards across the continent as they deal with increasing expansion, complexity, multidimensionality, and interpenetration of their human rights activities. The authors also identify the central challenges, particularly for the UK in the post-Brexit era, where the components of each system need to be carefully distinguished and disentangled.