Today: Seminar on Bridging the Implementation Gap

As a very late announcement, but maybe of interest to those living in the Netherlands: The Netherlands Helsinki Committee, formerly focusing mostly on the OSCE, is today organising a seminar on implementation problems and the ECHR. It is entitled 'Bridging the Implementation Gap - Enlarging Civil Society’s Role in the European Court of Human Rights’ Implementation Process' and takes place in The Hague. This is the conference announcement:

The Netherlands Helsinki Committee (NHC) wishes to stimulate a more serious and consistent implementation of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgments with a view to help bridge 'the implementation gap'. As a civil society organisation, we will focus on the role of NGO’s in the implementation process. To start off our contribution to improved implementation we have planned a seminar entitled

BRIDGING THE IMPLEMENTATION GAP
- Enlarging Civil Society’s Role in the European Court of Human Rights’ Implementation Process -

to take place in The Hague on 31 October 2011. The seminar will be followed by an informal NGO meeting to discuss and adopt an NGO Action Plan on the following day. We would like to cordially invite you to attend and participate in this seminar and contribute to the adoption of the Action Plan.

When discussing the ECtHR with our partners and experts we often notice that they place more emphasis on bringing well-reasoned applications and obtaining equally well-reasoned judgments than on following up on judgments to ensure their full and effective implementation. We are of the opinion that improved implementation has a strong potential to save the ECHR protection system from asphyxiation. Civil society can play a major role in this and a larger role than it has played to date. We define full and effective implementation as taking measures relating to legislation, policy and practice that go beyond the individual case and that remedy the structural problem that is at the root of a violation.

During the seminar we will discuss activities that civil society can initiate to rise to the challenge of bridging the implementation gap. We will invite civil society organisations from across Europe, professionals working at the Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly politicians and academics to participate. It is our intention that the seminar serves as the starting point for a Europe-wide civil society alliance to become exceedingly actively involved in the implementation process. This alliance will follow the Action Plan that we will adopt during the informal NGO meeting on the day following the seminar.

The first part of the seminar is dedicated to the importance of implementation and the (potential) role of civil society in the implementation process from the perspective of the Parliamentary Assembly, academia and the NHC. During the second part of the seminar, we will discuss examples of good practice, such as European NGO coalitions established to follow-up on a judgment, examples of structural non-implementation and formal and informal ways to press for implementation available to civil society. You are warmly invited to share your thoughts on this and tell us about initiatives of your organisation during this interactive and rather informal part of the seminar. At the end of the day, we will start brainstorming about an Action Plan and present our preliminary conclusions.

More points of view on Google News

By Jayakumar Hoskere, Software Engineer

When a big story breaks, there are often over a thousand articles written about the news event. At Google News, we work hard to surface the most relevant and interesting content to you -- so you can spend less time sorting through thousands of articles, and more time consuming news from a range of diverse perspectives.

For instance, since introducing expandable stories, we have added additional labels to call out special types of articles in many editions. These labels are designed to highlight different content types on Google News, and show you stories that complement and expand upon standard news reporting. The four labels we recently launched include:

• Live Updating: A live-updating article, such as a liveblog.
• Featured: An article a publisher has told us is standout.
• Fact-check: An article providing fact-check content about the story.
• Your Preferred source: An article from a source that you preferred.

Evaluating a story from different angles often provides a sharper perspective. That is why we also now highlight special types of articles in many Google News search results. Your search results will not only show recent articles, but also those from diverse perspectives that relate to a given query.

We also recently added the Translate button to non-English international stories in expandable story boxes in the U.S edition, giving you the ability to read pieces from all over the world -- even if you don’t speak the language.

 

We hope you find these changes useful as we continue to develop opportunities for you to find more interesting and valuable content.

News joins Google Dashboard

Posted by Panchapagesan Krishnamurthy, Software Engineer

Halloween is almost here and we're celebrating early. No trick -- just a treat. As of now, you can access Google News in the Google Dashboard. This gives you the ability to see basic information about your Google News personalizations, check out our privacy policy and click through to edit your preferences.

We're excited to bring you this additional level of control and encourage you to give it a whirl.

Article on Same-Sex Partners and ECHR

The Child and Family Law Quarterly (vol. 23, No. 1) includes an article entitled 'Families But Not (Yet) Marriages? Same-Sex Partners and the Developing European Convention ‘Margin of Appreciation’ by Nicholas Bamforth of the University of Oxford. This is the abstract:

This commentary examines two recent decisions of the First Section Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, namely Schalk and Kopf v Austria and P.B. and J.S. v Austria. Both are significant in accepting that same-sex partnerships may fall within the ‘protection of family life’ limb of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, but Schalk and Kopf rejects the notion that Convention signatory states are required under Article 12 to admit same-sex couples to the right to marry, and declines to determine whether any minimal level of legal protection must be offered under Article 8. Both decisions highlight the central role currently played by the ‘margin of appreciation’ in this area.

Guide on Admissibility Criteria Translated

The Courts' Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, launched at the end of last year, already existed in the Court's working languages English and French. This week, the Guide has been made available in Italian, German, Greek and Bulgarian. Hopefully, up-to-date Russian, Romanian and Turkish translations will follow soon in order to enable access by lawyers from the states from which most applications stem. One may note that the small Principality of Liechtenstein, not really the biggest problem-maker for the Court, has paid for the German translation! Austrian and German lawyers will be grateful.

Prepositions: The Nightmare Begins

 I am shocked by your remarks! But I am not surprised with them.

Whether you study translating at school or teach yourself from books, you will find that it is a  necessarily detailed and highly technical subject. Non-linguists are often shocked when I show them a Baker, Newmark or Owens. So I like to think that the Bad Article is an oasis of simplicity in a desert of complications and nested problems. This is why I try to present everything in a more off-the-cuff way - if you want the full explanation, you can ask one of your teachers, or dive into a textbook. If you want a wider overview of the problem, illustrated with lots of real-life examples of it, then I'm your man. It’s not completely ‘gut instinct’, as someone once asked me, but it is verifiable information, based on years of solid examples, and also the biggest reason for my not posting more often here – I’ve got tons of notes and half-written articles, which await only the light bulb of understanding to click on over my head before I feel secure in presenting them to you, esteemed readers!

And so, after yet another long, rambling introduction in which I again try to justify my ramshackle methods, let’s get to the point of today’s post – prepositions! I’m often asked about these Smurfy little words, because there are quite a few of them and it’s not always immediately apparent or even logical as to which one to use where. After a while, it gets easier, and a lot of the corrections I make to peoples’ prepositions are in texts by less experienced translators. But beware, not even the old pros are immune to prepositional errors.

So this is clearly a topic that needs addressing, but I've never really found anything which explains it in a really good, clear way. So, I've defaulted back to the Wiki entry, which describes all the different species of preposition – time, place, la la la... So I'm proposing this: We’ll read the Wiki, then meet back here for some examples. The advantage here is that you get all the heavy lifting done by a reliable source, as well as some ‘live’ examples and a bit of analysis from Captain Colourful here. Deal?

Bad Prepositions
Numbered, with the bad ones bolded.

1) We are very pleased at this award, which justifies all our efforts so far.
2) But the programme is relevant forour company, because it aims to improve our sales.
3) This is an acknowledgement to our actions, and confirmation that we are on the right track.
4) Following a special mention ofthe International Federation, interest shot up.
5) These included the 2003 hit ofthe American artist Kelis, entitled Milkshake.
6) The critical details were either peripheral or relatively unimportant for a given incident.
7) It is impossible to specify the set of traits that put a given adult at risk for Type II insanity.
8) Children may indeed be suggestible to a degree which renders their testimony unusable for the truth-seeking process.
9) This may be of relevance forhealth experts.
10) Most of the rest of the conference was not of interest for our representatives.
11) This is the best recognition forour activity, in which we always try to be the best.
12) The book of the former journalist has sold well in many countries.

Good Prepositions
Numbered, with the corrected ones bolded.

1) We are very pleased with this award, which justifies all our efforts so far.
2) But the programme is relevant toour company, because it aims to improve our sales.
3) This is an acknowledgement of our actions, and confirmation that we are on the right track.
4) Following a special mention bythe International Federation, interest shot up.
5) These included the 2003 hit bythe American artist Kelis, entitled Milkshake.
6) The critical details were either peripheral or relatively unimportant to a given incident.
7) It is impossible to specify the set of traits that put a given adult at risk of Type II insanity.
8) Children may indeed be suggestible to a degree which renders their testimony unusable in the truth-seeking process.
9) This may be of relevance tohealth experts.
10) Most of the rest of the conference was not of interest to our representatives.
11) This is the best recognition ofour activity, in which we always try to be the best.
12) The book by the former journalist has sold well in many countries.

 Apparently, the song is some kind of metaphor for something.

Analysis
Despite the abundance of different flavours in the Bad Preposition shop, there are really only a handful that re-occur consistently in Pl>En translations. The examples here are (as usual) all lifted from things I’ve seen in my own work. This makes it easy to see that incorrect use of for, by and to are the main offenders.

Bad: of importance for, of relevance for, of interest for; unimportant for, not relevant for...
Good: of importance to, of relevance to, of interest to; unimportant to, not relevant to...
Remember: X is of noun/adjective to person/group.

Bad: the hit of the artist, a mention of the Federation, the book of the journalist...
Good: the hit by the artist, a mention by the Federation, the book by the journalist...
Remember: the noun by the person/group.

Bad: surprised at his statement, moved at her words...
Good: surprised by his statement, moved by her words...
Remember: verb by pronoun noun

Bad: pleased at this award,
Good: pleased by this award, pleased with this award,

Bad: unusable for the final process, unsuitable to our purposes...
Good: unusable in the final process, unsuitable for our purposes...

Remember: un(adjective, noun etc) ina task or operation, un(adjective, noun etc) for goals, aims

Now, there are some exceptions here and there, such as pleased with this award being okay, but not moved with her words, for example. Also note that a mention from someone is okay too, but not the hit from the artist. My theory is that it sometimes depends on the tense of the verb and/or the case of the sentence overall, as well as just whether or not it’s true to the idea of the original statement. For nearly every example up there, there are additional alternatives not listed (for example, one can be shocked at the response, as well as being shocked by the response. Again, it depends on case and tense).

Ultimately, I would urge you to focus on for/to, of/by and at/by, since these are the most common offenders in our translations! Nail those three suckers and you’ll be well on the way to fame and fortune.

If you’d like to shine a light on any of this, add your own examples or otherwise comment on the whole thing, remember that you can stop by our Facebook wall, email me directly, or even leave a comment below! My email address and the Facebook link are at the top of every page, and the commenting system here can be easily signed-in to with your Google details, or a bunch of other systems, all of which can be selected by clicking the “Comment As” button below the form.

Bringing relevant news to you, regardless of language

Posted by Yaroslav Kurovtsev, Software Engineer, Google Translate

To help bridge language barriers between you and the news of interest to you from around the world -- and to bring you more diverse perspectives on foreign events -- we’ve added a new “translate” button to the expandable story boxes in the U.S. English edition of Google News.

Clicking the translate button reveals the English translation of the original headline using Google Translate. Clicking on the headline takes you to the publisher’s website where you can choose to use Google Translate to see an English version of the entire article. Headlines are labeled with their country of origin.

To do this, we look for foreign articles from local sources on a relevant news topic. For example, in the case of the flood in Thailand, in addition to surfacing English articles from international press like New York Times, we might show a related article from a local source like อาร์วายที9.

At the same time, we hope readers will benefit from finding relevant news in other languages and being able to read it without knowing the language.

Report on ECHR and Cypriot Property Issues

The PRIO Cyprus Centre, the Cypriotic branch of the Peace Research Institute Oslo, has published an online report with recommendations on how to move forward in the Cyprus property issue. The report was written by Rhodri Williams, a forced displacement and property restitution expert, and Ayla Gürel, a research consultant at PRIO. It is entitled 'The European Court of Human Rights and the Cyprus Property Issue Charting a way forward'. The report clearly lays bare the ways in which political actors from both sides have used the Court's judgments and it shows convincingly how nuanced the Court's judgments and decisions are, especially the more recent ones. Well worth reading for anyone interested in either property rights or Cyprus! This is the summary:

Since 1995, the European Court of Human Rights has frequently ruled on property claims arising due to the Cyprus problem. Taken as a whole, the resulting judgments have served to establish parameters that should inform any viable resolution of the Cyprus property issue.

The Court’s rulings are not meant to resolve the property issue. However, they do effectively define a set of objective legal norms that any negotiated solution compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights would be expected to satisfy.

The agreed objective of the ongoing Cyprus negotiations is reunification on a bizonal basis. The italicized terms represent a compromise between competing visions of an appropriate Cyprus solution: the Greek Cypriots have long favoured a unitary state while the Turkish Cypriots have typically sought to maintain the distinctive identity of their numerically smaller community. These visions, which would need to be reconciled in any viable solution to the Cyprus problem, are rooted in the two communities’ contradictory perceptions of the post-1974 split.

In this context, the Court’s judgments do no more – and no less – than to exclude the more extreme aspects of the proposals that have been put forward by the two sides. As a result these judgments delineate only the outer parameters of an acceptable solution. Within these parameters there remains much space for political negotiations to arrive at a mutually acceptable compromise.

Country Profiles on the Court's Website

This week the European Court of Human Rights took a new step in making its activities more known. The website of the Court now includes country profiles about all state parties to the ECHR. The profiles include a list of previous and current judges in respect of the country concerned, the country's contribution to the Court's budget and registry (the number of persons of a certain nationality working there), a list of the most important cases, information about the most noteworthy pending cases and a statistical overview of cases for the period 2008-2011 per country. A good way to get a quick overview of the most important human rights problems per country.

Newest Issue of German Law Journal dedicated to ECHR

The newest issue of the respected online German Law Journal (vol 12. No. 10, 2011) is entirely dedicated to ECHR issues. The articles are based on papers presented at University College Dublin in April of this year at a conference entitled "The Legacy and Future of the European Court of Human Rights". This collection of articles was edited by Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou and Alan Green of UCD and focuses on legitimacy issues amongst others. These are the articles included:

* Legitimacy and the Future of the European Court of Human Rights: Critical Perspectives from Academia and Practitioners, Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou & Alan Greene

* The European Court of Human Rights: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, Mr. Justice John Hedigan

* European Consensus and the Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou

* Marriage, Family, Discrimination & Contradiction: An Evaluation of the Legacy and Future of the European Court of Human Rights’ Jurisprudence on LGBT Rights, Sarah Lucy Cooper

* Separating Normalcy from Emergency: The Jurisprudence of Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Alan Greene

* Dismantling the Iron-Cage: the Discursive Persistence and Legal Failure of a “Bureaucratic Rational” Construction of the Admissibility Decision-Making of the European Court of Human Rights, Andrew Tickell

* “A More Secure Europe of Rights?” The European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union and EU Accession to the ECHR, Noreen O’Meara

* The ECHR, the EU and the Weakness of Social Rights Protection at European Level, Roderic O’Gorman

* The Future of the European Court of Human Rights, Michael O’Boyle

Article on Islam, Secularism and the ECHR

The newest issue of the Michigan Journal of International Law (vol. 32-4, 2011) includes an article on the ECHR, entitled 'Islam in the Secular Nomos of the European Court of Human Rights' written by Peter G. Danchin of the University of Maryland. sine it contains no abstracts, this is the table of contents for your information:

Introduction

I. The Concept of the Secular Public Sphere
A. The Antinomies of Secularism
1. The Right to Freedom of Religion and Belief
2. Public Reason and Private Faith
3. The Authority of Public Reason
B. Rethinking the Secular
C. Between Rationality and Reason

II. Religious Freedom in ECHR Jurisprudence
A. The Rights of Religious Minorities
B. Freedom from Injury to Religious Feelings
C. The Claims of Muslim Communities

III. Islam in Article 9 Jurisprudence
A. The Scope of the Right to Religious Freedom
1. Enlightenment Rationalism
2. Value Pluralism
3. Pluralism and Islam
B. Public Order and the Rights of Others
1. Rival Enlightenments
2. From Blasphemy to Incitement to Religious Hatred
C. Is “Secularism” Necessary in a Democratic Society?

Conclusion

New Academic Articles on the ECHR in French

The newest issue of the Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme has been published (No. 88, October 2011). It includes the following ECHR-related articles:

* Dean Spielmann, La reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions judiciaires étrangères et les exigences de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme : Un essai de synthèse.
* Frédéric Vanneste, Droit international général et droit international des droits de l’homme : l’apport de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme.
* Rodolphe Mésa, Les mesures de sûreté post sententiam privatives et restrictives de liberté dans le droit de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.
* Elisabeth Lambert-Abdelgawad, L’exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (2010).
* Michel Puéchavy, La difficile conciliation de l’oralité des débats avec le respect du principe du contradictoire (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Labbé c. France, 12 octobre 2010).
* Amandine Philippart de Foy, La provocation policière devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Bannikova c. Russie, 4 novembre 2010).
* Jean-Pierre Marguénaud, Le nom du couple binational devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Losonci Rose et Rose c. Suisse, 9 novembre 2010).
* Aurélien Antoine, Quand Naomi Campbell fait la une… du droit de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., MGN Limited c. Royaume-Uni, 18 janvier 2011).
* Cédric Raux, La politique d’asile de l’union européenne dans le viseur de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., M.S.S. c. Belgique et Grèce, 21 janvier 2011).

More Administrative Autonomy for the Court

Earlier this week, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted resolution CM/Res(2011)9, which amends the Staff Regulations with regard to delegation of staff management powers to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights. The resolution enables the delegation of certain administrative powers from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to the Registrar. This fits in the Interlaken process which is aimed at making the Court mroe efficient. More administrative autonomy is one way of doing so. Since the resolution is relatively short, I reproduce it here in full:

The Committee of Ministers, in accordance with Article 16 of the Statute of Council of Europe,

Having regard to Articles 36, paragraph c, and 37, paragraph b, of the Statute of the Council of Europe;

Having regard to Article 24, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights and Rule 17, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court;

Having regard to the Staff Regulations and Appendices thereto;

Having regard to the decisions taken at the High-level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights (Interlaken, 18-19 February 2010) and notably point 8 (b) of the Action Plan adopted at that conference, which calls upon States Parties and the Council of Europe to grant to the Court, in the interest of its efficient functioning, the necessary level of administrative autonomy within the Council of Europe;

Bearing in mind the need to preserve the institutional coherence and integrity of the Council of Europe as a whole;

Considering it necessary to accord the Court an appropriate level of administrative autonomy in staff matters;

Considering that Articles 36, paragraph c, and 37, paragraph b, of the Statute of the Council of Europe do not preclude a delegation of decision-making authority in staff related matters in the name and on behalf of the Secretary General;

On a proposal by the Secretary General, who has consulted the Staff Committee under Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Regulations on staff participation (Appendix I to the Staff Regulations),

Resolves as follows:

Article 1The last sentence of paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations shall henceforth read as follows:

“The expression “administrative act” shall mean any individual or general decision or measure taken by the Secretary General or any official acting by delegation from the Secretary General.”

Article 2An article entitled “Article 61bis – Decisions relating to the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights” and worded as follows shall be added before Article 62 at the beginning of Part VIII: Final provisions of the Staff Regulations:

“1. By delegation from the Secretary General, the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights shall take decisions relating to the Registry under the following provisions of these Regulations and Appendices hereto:

a. Article 3, paragraph 2

b. Articles 11 and 13, Article 21 and Article 22bis, paragraphs 1 to 3bis. For the purpose of Article 22bis, paragraph 1, the Deputy Registrars shall have the competence of Head of Major Administrative Entity

c. Article 25, paragraph 2, Article 26 with regard to facts and information concerning the Court, Article 27, paragraphs 1 and 2, with regard to the work of the Court, Article 28 with regard to information concerning the Court, and Articles 32 to 36

d. Article 52

e. Articles 54, 56 and 57 to the extent the alleged disciplinary offence concerns the substantive work of the Court

f. Appendix II: Regulations on appointments

i. Article 3

ii. Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2. For the purpose of paragraph 1bis, the Deputy Registrars shall have the competence of Head of Major Administrative Entity

iii. Articles 6 and 7

iv. Article 15

v. Article 16, paragraphs 2 to 5

vi. Articles 17 and 18

vii. Article 21, paragraphs 1 to 4

viii. Article 24, paragraphs 1 to 14 and 16. The application of Article 24, paragraphs 2, 7, 10 and 13, shall be without prejudice to the Secretary General’s power to set out, in a Rule, conditions for granting additional steps to candidates with more extensive professional experience

ix. Article 25, paragraphs 1, 2, 5a and 5b, with regard to appointment to grade A6

x. Articles 28 and 29

a. Article 13 of Appendix IV: Regulations governing staff salaries and allowances

b. Appendix VII: Regulations on unpaid leave, with the exception of Article 6, paragraph 1

c. Appendix VIII: Regulations on extra duties and night work

d. Appendix IX: Regulations on part-time work, with the exception of Article 9, paragraph 3

e. Appendix X: Regulations on disciplinary proceedings to the extent the alleged disciplinary offence concerns the substantive work of the Court

2. The authority exercised by the Secretary General under Article 2 of these regulations with regard to the Registry shall have regard to paragraph 1 above.

3. The Registrar shall take the decisions referred to in paragraph 1 above in conformity with these regulations and appendices hereto and any implementing provisions issued by the Secretary General in accordance with these regulations and appendices hereto. The Secretary General shall inform the Registrar of any complaint under Article 59 of these regulations relating to such decisions

4. For the purposes of application of paragraph 1 above, the recommendations of the Appointments Board under the provisions of Article 9, Article 12, Article 13, Article 14, Article 16, paragraph 1, and Article 20 of Appendix II of Regulations on Appointments, shall be made to the Registrar.”

Article 3An article entitled “Article 61ter – Regrading of posts at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights” and worded as follows shall be added after Article 61bis of the Staff Regulations: “With respect to the regrading of posts at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, the Secretary General shall exercise the powers provided in Article 2, paragraph 5, of Appendix III: Regulations on the table of posts, with the agreement of the Registrar, except where, in the context of an overall job classification review, the Secretary General exercises this power in a way which affects posts in all sectors and Major Administrative Entities of the Council of Europe.”

Article 4A paragraph 1bis shall be inserted after paragraph 1 of Article 21bis of the Regulations on Appointments (Appendix II to the Staff Regulations) and worded as follows: “The provisions of paragraph 1 do not apply to staff members carrying out their duties at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights.”

Article 5Article 26, paragraph 2, indent a, of the Regulations on Appointments (Appendix II to the Staff Regulations) shall be deleted.

Article 6This resolution shall enter into force on 1 January 2012.he

New Book on Positive Obligations and the ECHR

A new book has been published with Routledge by Dimitris Xenos (of the European Public Law Organisation in Athens)entitled 'The Positive Obligations of the State under the European Convention of Human Rights'. This is the abstract:

The system of the European Convention of Human Rights imposes positive obligations on the state to guarantee human rights in circumstances where state agents do not directly interfere. In addition to the traditional/liberal negative obligation of non-interference, the state must actively protect the human rights of individuals residing within its jurisdiction. The liability of the state in terms of positive obligations induces a freestanding imperative of human rights that changes fundamentally the perception of the role of the state and the participatory ability of the individual, who can now assert their human rights in all circumstances in which they are relevant. In that regard, positive obligations herald the most advanced review of the state’s business ever attempted in international law.

The book undertakes a comprehensive study of positive obligations: from establishing the legitimacy of positive obligations within the system of the Convention to their practical implementation at the national level. Analysing in depth legal principles that pervade the whole system of the Convention, a coherent methodological framework of critical stages and parameters is provided to determine the content of positive obligations in a consistent, predictable and realistic manner.

This study of the Convention explains and critically analyses the state’s positive obligations, as imposed by the European Court of Human Rights, and sets out original proposals for their future development. The book will be of interest to those who study, research or practice public law, civil rights and liberties or international/European human rights law.

Trying it Twice

Rare are the cases in which applicants win their case in Strasbourg and then return to Strasbourg and again win a case when they are not satisfied with the way the state handles the outcome. This happened in this week's judgment in the case of Emre v. Switzerland (No. 2) . Emre is a Turkish national who had been living in Switzerland from the age of six. In his late teens and early twenties, he was convicted for a range of offences, including robbery and assault. As a result, he was expulsed and an indefinite ban on re-entry was pronounced by domestic courts in Switzerland. Emre lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that this violated his right to private andd family life (Article 8 ECHR). In August 2008, the Court held in its first judgment on the situation that this was indeed the case. Indicating in detail a wide range of factors (nature of the offences, severity of the penalties, strength of his ties with Switzerland and Turkey, among others) to be taken into account, it concluded that the Swiss authorities had not struck a fair balance. To their credit, the Swiss courts subsequently re-assessed the case and came to a new conclusion: the ban would now be for ten years instead of indefinitely. Arguing that this new judicial assessment constituted a new violation of his rights, Emre went to Strasbourg again.

The question then presented itself not only whether the new, shorter ban constituted a violation of Article 8 but also whethwer the previous judgment of Switzerland had been complied with (the obligation of Article 46 ECHR). The Court dealt with these two issues in conjunction. It assessed that the ten year ban did not comply with the conclusions and spirit of its own 2008 judgment. It held that the Swiss domestic court (le Tribunal fédéral) had subsituted the Court's balancing of interests by its own. Even if one would suppose, the Court went on to ascertain, that such a thing would be admissible, such renewed balancing should be complete and convincing in dealing with all the relevant factors the Court had identified. The Swiss court had, in the European Court's view, mainly focused on the element of unlimited duration at the detriment of other factors. Ten years was still disproportionate, in the Court's eyes.

And then, in a rather far-reaching conclusion, the Court held the following (in para. 75):

"l’exécution la plus naturelle de l’arrêt de la Cour, et celle qui correspond le plus à la restitutio in integrum, aurait été d’annuler purement et simplement, et avec effet immédiat, l’interdiction de territoire contre le requérant. A supposer même qu’un autre résultat aurait pu être acceptable, la Cour estime que la nature obligatoire des arrêts au sens de l’article 46 § 1 et l’importance de leur exécution effective, de bonne foi et compatible avec les « conclusions et l’esprit » de l’arrêt auraient commandé, dans les circonstances concrètes de l’affaire, un examen plus complet des considérations du premier arrêt de la Cour."

Thus, the most "natural interpretation" (whatever that may mean in legal terms) and the one closest to restitutio in integrum would have been to annul immediately and completely the ban. And even if another result (a shorter ban) would have been acceptable, a good faith execution of the Strasbourg judgment by Switzerland would have necessitated a more complete application of the considerations in the first judgment of the European Court in this case.

What does this tell us? That is not easy to answer. The Court leaves the door slightly open for a state's own assessment, as long as it scrupulously applies all considerations indicated by the Court, or in the alternative the more "natural" solution is one which is as close as possible to restitutio in integrum. Is this another step towards more specific application of the Court's judgments? It certainly requires taking all the pointers the Court gives when finding a violation very seriously, even if no precise indication is given in the operative part of the judgment under Article 46 ECHR. The judgment shows that in this case the most beneficial solution for the applicant should have been chosen if the state was not prepared to be procedurally thorough enough to work in a convincing and complete way with all the Court's yardsticks. The more obedient the state is procedurally (following the Court's criteria), the more the Court is prepared to give leeway on the material assessment (the actual outcome of the balancing), it may seem. How this would apply to other situations than re-entry bans, and to situations covering other articles than 8 ECHR, remains to be seen ...

Judges Malinverni (the judge elected in respect of Switzerland, now succeeded by Helen Keller) and Björgvinsson dissented, arguing that under Article 46 ECHR states have the liberty to chose the way in which they implement the Court's judgments, especially - as in this case - when the judgment did not indicate specific measures to be taken. The renewed assessment by domestic courts, in their view, fell within the margin of appreciation.

The judgment itself is in French but the press release in English can be found here.

Pointless Repetition II: Editor's Revenge (Revenge)

So, I wouldn’t necessarily call this the “larger article” threatened last month, more a sort rambling continuation in the same general direction. Yes, we’re talking about repetition again, and over the last four weeks I’ve been collecting some more examples. The problem is that often, something that looks bad today looks innocent tomorrow, so these ones today have been distilling down to the essence of pure badness! All of them are (as always) actual Pl>En translations.

Now at this point, you might be thinking one of several things. One is that you don’t have time for all this editing and tidying and removal of repetitious segments. To that I say, fair enough. As always, you must take from this blog what you will. My aim is always to provide you with insight into what, ultimately, makes for good, smooth, flowing English – within the context of translations, and therefore within the context of the time and practical constraints that translators face. Sometimes you’ll have the luxury of extra time and you can stop and edit, or go back over and edit. Ideally of course, one must go over one’s work at least once before returning it, and at that point you might consider implementing some of the fixes I’m suggesting to you here.

The other big thing you might be thinking is that your job is only to translate what’s given in the ST, not to improve or polish it once it’s in TT clothes. I don’t only mean ‘It’s the editor’s job, not mine’ (to which the answer is, what if your translation isn’t going to be edited or checked?), but also perhaps that you’re a very literal translator, who given a really badly written source text, will produce a target text that also appears to be really badly written. And I know there are some of you out there who do that, you can’t hide. ;)

The third major thought when discussing something like repetition that requires fairly radical surgery (i.e. removing or re-writing whole words and phrases) is that It Is Not Allowed. Editing ist verboten! Well, again this is a philosophy that comes in varying degrees. We can all agree that some degree of editing is always necessary, even if just to correct our own obvious mistakes or because we later come up with a better translation for something that has a knock-on effect, or la la la. You know what I mean. 

We don’t really have the time or space to have this debate here, although it’s certainly an interesting topic and something we can look at in the future. Anyway, let’s get on with our look at repetitions before I get confused and start repeating myself anyway. Anyway, let’s get on with our look at repetitions before I get confused and start repeating myself anyway.

 Example 1
BadArticle Ltd. is one of the most innovative companies on the Polish market and new products launched on the market motivate companies to develop and invest in modernization and innovation.

Apart from the desperate need for a comma, what we have here is a slightly kaleidoscopic effect caused by repetition of the same words within one breathless sentence innovate, company and market (and their different forms). We could employ some synonyms here, or even just cut the slightly offensive middle part. Perhaps:

BadArticle Ltd. is one of the most innovative companies on the Polish market. Our new products motivate companies to develop and invest in modernization and innovation.

The cut phrasing was at best slightly ambiguous anyway, and specifying that their products are launched somewhat pointless. If you don’t feel comfortable making that kind of change, then grab the dictionary and beat some life into that Bad Sentence! 

Now look at this:

BadPiwo S.A.’s Definitearticle flavoured beer – beer that deserves an award mainly for its sales growth. Although it is a flavoured beer, it is capable of competing with the standard beers that previously significantly outdistanced flavoured beers.

Good, bad, indifferent? Are we justified in using the phrase ‘flavoured beer’ there three times in one small paragraph?

Example 2 

Okay, pictures! (click to enlarge)

Two things about this one. First of all, the repetition of meeting is itself fairly innocuous and could be left as it is. But, this repetition is magnified and amplified to the point of needing a change because of the other thing – the fragmentary nature of the second sentence (although I blurred it out, that’s one whole sentence. Unless you’ve just sneezed on your screen, you might even be able to make out the final kropka there ;)

 

Because we’ve just gone ‘Lots of words lots of words lots of words lots of words’, it sounds funny if we then go ‘Full stop. Not so many words’. Fortunately, we can fix the repetition and the fragment with one fix – the now-legendary Comma And fix, which I urge everyone to learn and use as a matter of life and death. Zob:

Change the full-stop to a comma and change/add the following word with some variety of pronoun, or something that will bridge the two ideas (and, which, that etc).

Example 3

Okay, take a look at this ugly bugger:

That is one mean and desperate desperado there. In terms of repetition, it’s an Olympic gold medallist, a symmetrical mentalist and a mirror-image specialist. Clearly, the most appropriate course of action is to shout ‘Look out behind you!’ and give it a fist full of fives. Right?

But before we come with the heavy mob, let’s just make sure about one thing. If you get a text full of news items for a website, it often happens that the first paragraph you'll translate is a kind of summary paragraph that they’ll stick on the front page of the site, which you’ll then click on to go to the full article. This is a fairly common, if now outdated, print journalism practise. You summarise in paragraph one, then start methodically breaking it down thereafter.

So before you go thinking that whoever wrote the thing must be mad or in need of a trip to Specsavers, make sure that it’s not all Working As Intended. Look through the rest of the text and see if this mindless formula is recurrent throughout, or if you can, check the client's website and see if they have an existing news section that you can confirm your suspicions with.

That's about it for repetition I think. If you have any questions or ideas on the subject, post below or Facebook us. I'd like us to talk more about the issue we tripped over of how closely you stick to the ST, since it's quite a big field with more than a few stones in it. Again, you can Facebook us, or email me directly (and in confidence) with your own opinions. (links and addresses at top of page). Let's see what we can cook up together!

Agnieszka Radwańska, China Open Champion 2011

 Aga Rad - Polish champion and Krakówian!

 "The victory awarded the Pole the 11th straight WTA match and second title in a row. It was also the biggest victory ever for Radwanska.

BEIJING, Oct. 9 (Xinhua) -- Agnieszka Radwanska from Poland experienced a 154-minute battle to disarm German world No. 11 Andrea Petkovic 7-5, 0-6, 6-4 to seal the title of China Open here on Sunday."  More here!

(Whilst you're there, see if there's anything in the English in that report that sounds stiff or unusual to you and post it below or over on Facebook :)

New Book on Non-ECHR Monitoring in Council of Europe

Gauthier de Beco, of the Centre for Philosophy of Law at the University of Louvain, has written 'Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms of the Council of Europe' published with Routlegde. Finally a book that introduces and systematically compares, in short introductions in one volume, all the non-ECHR human rights monitoring mechanisms of the Council of Europe. This is the abstract:

The book studies the human rights monitoring mechanisms of the Council of Europe. It provides an in-depth examination of six such mechanisms: the Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the CPT), the European Committee of Social Rights (the ECSR), the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (the ACFC), the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) and the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (the CECL).

The human rights monitoring mechanisms of the Council of Europe seek to establish a permanent dialogue with governments to encourage them to better implement human rights treaties. They function principally through the use of national reports, on which basis they make recommendations, and may also visit or question states directly. The book looks at each mechanism in turn, discussing their composition, functions and working methods, as well as their relationship with other actors. It includes both a general discussion of the role of European human rights monitoring mechanisms as well as a comparative analysis of these mechanisms. The book aims to provide a clear understanding of the underlying approach of European human rights monitoring mechanisms and the challenges faced by them in terms of effectiveness. It will be useful for practitioners and students alike, especially those following courses in human rights or related fields.

And these are the chapter with contributors:

* Preface by Thomas Hammarberg
* Introduction: The Role of European Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms, Gauthier de Beco
* 1. The Commissioner for Human Rights, Lauri Sivonen
* 2. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (The CPT), Renate Kicker
* 3. The European Committee of Social Rights (The ECSR), Olivier De Schutter and Matthias Sant’Ana
* 4. The Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (The ACFC), Gauthier de Beco and Emma Lantschner
* 5. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), Lanna Yael Hollo
* 6. the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (The CECL)
* Robert Dunbar Conclusion: A Comparative Analysis of European Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms, Gauthier de Beco