This is the first study to examine the awards made by the European Court of Human Rights in respect of non-pecuniary damage from an empirical perspective. It uses a multiple regression analysis based on data (929 cases) drawn from the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Documentation (HUDOC) database. By legal analysis we identified three elements of the “equity principle” used by the Court for the calculation of awards made in respect of non-pecuniary damage (seriousness of the violation, applicant- and overall context-related factors), which we used in our regression analysis. Our empirical results show that there is a statistically significant association between the amount awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the intensity of the violation, the existence of a separate opinion, the respondent state and the fact whether the applicant is a legal or a natural person. Our study therefore contradicts the view voiced in the literature that awards made in respect of non-pecuniary damage under the ECHR are “unpredictable” and “inconsistent”.
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Altwicker-Hamori, Altwicker, & Peters: Measuring Violations of Human Rights
Szilvia Altwicker-Hamori (Zurich Univ. of Applied Sciences), Tilmann Altwicker (Univ. of Basel - Law), & Anne Peters (Max-Planck-Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law) have posted Measuring Violations of Human Rights: An Empirical Analysis of Awards in Respect of Non-Pecuniary Damage Under the European Convention on Human Rights. Here's the abstract: