Exam sheet for Human Rights Protection in
Europe
Firstly, I shall give a short explanation of how this summary is structured. This summary shall
give an overview of the most relevant articles and protocols per week. Per week you will find
a plethora of jurisprudence. Not all jurisprudence is mentioned in the syllabus, I have marked
the jurisprudence from the syllabus in a blue color and the jurisprudence from the
lectures/powerpoints in a yellow color. The most important jurisprudence will have a
summary of the facts, the relevant legal provisions and the legal relevance.
The color scheme thus works as follows:
[orange] = A new week
[blue] = Required jurisprudence from the syllabus
[yellow] = Other jurisprudence mentured in the lectures/powerpoint sheets
How does the test work?
The test has up to five questions, they will be in the form of a semi-essay. You can be asked
to explain jurisprudence, certain concepts that were talked about or to give your opinion on
certain court cases. It is most important to know the name of all the jurisprudence, what
occurred in said case, which articles (provisions) applied and what the court concluded in
said case.
You may bring a copy of the European Convention on Human Rights but no case law or
summaries.
The following tips may help when prepping for the exam:
● Make note cards to memorize jurisprudence;
● Re-read the lecture sheets;
● Look at the requirements to come to a violation of rights, you need to be able to say
when there is a violation and for example if a margin of appreciation is narrow or
wide.
Disclaimer: this summary is up to date as of 25-3-2023. The course might be subject to changes that make some
of the information below obsolete or incomplete.
, Week 2 (prohibition of discrimination):
Article 14 ECHR
Article 14 is always applicable in conjunction with a substantive right, this means that
another right needs to be called in. Look for example at Opuz v. Turkey, where article 2 (right
to life) and article 3 (prohibition of torture/ill treatment/degrading treatment) were called upon
in conjunction with article 14. This article cannot stand on its own.
Protocol 12 ECHR
Protocol 12 has a broader scope than article 14. It talks about enjoyment of any right set by
law, not just through the convention. It’s a general prohibition of discrimination;
I) in the enjoyment of any right specifically granted to an individual under national law
II) In enjoyment of a right that derives from an obligation for a public authority to behave
in a particular manner under national law;
III) By a public authority in the exercise of discretionary power (e.g. subsidies);
IV) by any other act or omission by a public authority (e.g. behavior of law enforcement
officers).
Direct discrimination:
Being treated less favourable on the basis of protected grounds. There must be a difference
in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations.
1. Discriminatory rule (different treatment)
2. Places protected group at a particular disadvantage
3. Comparative group
Indirect discrimination:
Indirect discrimination occurs when an apparently neutral rule disadvantages a person
or a group sharing the same characteristics.
1. Neutral rule (similar treatment)
2. Places protected group at a particular disadvantage
3. Comparative group
Margin of appreciation:
Standard: the court needs to test if there is an objective and reasonable justification for the
discrimination (legitimate aim & proportional to aim) → Napotnik v. Romania
Exception: some discrimination grounds require a very weighty reason test. When ethnic
grounds are called upon, this makes for a very narrow margin of appreciation → Horvath and
Kiss v. Hungary
ECtHR Novruk and others v. Russia
There must be a difference in the treatments of persons in relevantly similar situations. This
difference is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification. It does not
Europe
Firstly, I shall give a short explanation of how this summary is structured. This summary shall
give an overview of the most relevant articles and protocols per week. Per week you will find
a plethora of jurisprudence. Not all jurisprudence is mentioned in the syllabus, I have marked
the jurisprudence from the syllabus in a blue color and the jurisprudence from the
lectures/powerpoints in a yellow color. The most important jurisprudence will have a
summary of the facts, the relevant legal provisions and the legal relevance.
The color scheme thus works as follows:
[orange] = A new week
[blue] = Required jurisprudence from the syllabus
[yellow] = Other jurisprudence mentured in the lectures/powerpoint sheets
How does the test work?
The test has up to five questions, they will be in the form of a semi-essay. You can be asked
to explain jurisprudence, certain concepts that were talked about or to give your opinion on
certain court cases. It is most important to know the name of all the jurisprudence, what
occurred in said case, which articles (provisions) applied and what the court concluded in
said case.
You may bring a copy of the European Convention on Human Rights but no case law or
summaries.
The following tips may help when prepping for the exam:
● Make note cards to memorize jurisprudence;
● Re-read the lecture sheets;
● Look at the requirements to come to a violation of rights, you need to be able to say
when there is a violation and for example if a margin of appreciation is narrow or
wide.
Disclaimer: this summary is up to date as of 25-3-2023. The course might be subject to changes that make some
of the information below obsolete or incomplete.
, Week 2 (prohibition of discrimination):
Article 14 ECHR
Article 14 is always applicable in conjunction with a substantive right, this means that
another right needs to be called in. Look for example at Opuz v. Turkey, where article 2 (right
to life) and article 3 (prohibition of torture/ill treatment/degrading treatment) were called upon
in conjunction with article 14. This article cannot stand on its own.
Protocol 12 ECHR
Protocol 12 has a broader scope than article 14. It talks about enjoyment of any right set by
law, not just through the convention. It’s a general prohibition of discrimination;
I) in the enjoyment of any right specifically granted to an individual under national law
II) In enjoyment of a right that derives from an obligation for a public authority to behave
in a particular manner under national law;
III) By a public authority in the exercise of discretionary power (e.g. subsidies);
IV) by any other act or omission by a public authority (e.g. behavior of law enforcement
officers).
Direct discrimination:
Being treated less favourable on the basis of protected grounds. There must be a difference
in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations.
1. Discriminatory rule (different treatment)
2. Places protected group at a particular disadvantage
3. Comparative group
Indirect discrimination:
Indirect discrimination occurs when an apparently neutral rule disadvantages a person
or a group sharing the same characteristics.
1. Neutral rule (similar treatment)
2. Places protected group at a particular disadvantage
3. Comparative group
Margin of appreciation:
Standard: the court needs to test if there is an objective and reasonable justification for the
discrimination (legitimate aim & proportional to aim) → Napotnik v. Romania
Exception: some discrimination grounds require a very weighty reason test. When ethnic
grounds are called upon, this makes for a very narrow margin of appreciation → Horvath and
Kiss v. Hungary
ECtHR Novruk and others v. Russia
There must be a difference in the treatments of persons in relevantly similar situations. This
difference is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification. It does not
