Book: Juicio a la desigualdad (Inequality on Trials)
From December 2021 – June 2022, the team of the Vici project ‘Affordable Access to Justice’ at Erasmus School of Law organizes an online seminar series dedicated to Trends and Challenges in Costs and Funding of Civil Justice.
The series kicked off on 15 December 2021, with a general session that addressed several topics of access to justice and costs and funding, including collective redress and costs reforms, and a Law & Economics perspective.
The other seminars will zoom in on topics such as legal mobilization in Europe, the impact of Public Interest Litigation on access to justice, third party funding (TPF) in Europe, austerity policies in southern Europe and funding and costs of ADR in civil justice.
You can register for (one or more of) the seminars here.
19 January 2022, 15-17 CET
This second seminar in the series will discuss recent scholarship on legal mobilization at the Pan-European level in the context of EU Migration Law, EU Data Protection Law, and European Human Rights Law.
Lisa Harms (University of Münster) - Human rights advocacy and the transnational regulation of religion: The case of Muslim legal mobilization
Lisa Harms will focus on the case of Muslim legal mobilization at the ECtHR and present quantitative data collected regarding the legal mobilization of religious groups at the ECtHR as well as in-depth interviews conducted with litigants and their supporters.
Virginia Passalacqua (Utrecht University) - Legal mobilization via preliminary references: the case of migrant rights
Virginia Passalacqua will discuss how the EU Court of Justice became a central venue for migrant rights defenders that increasingly rely on the preliminary reference procedure to challenge national anti-migration policies. However, legal mobilization varies greatly among Member States: some countries make multiple references and others make none. Virginia Passalacqua’s presentation will shed light on the factors that facilitate or hamper legal mobilization for migrant rights before the EU Court.
Sanja Badanjak (University of Edinburgh) - Constitutional review as an opportunity structure for legal mobilization in the EU
Sanja Badanjak will discuss how constitutional complaints offer routes through which citizens’ mobilization in defence of their rights may be realized. In the EU, this can be used to voice opposition and change EU law via the preliminary reference procedure. However, this also requires further consideration of cross-country variation in citizens’ access to constitutional litigation.
Published: September 23, 2021
Human Rights represent —today more than ever— a shared morality that guides us towards subsistence as cohesive communities. From this perspective, Public Interest Litigation becomes fundamental as a way of achieving the enforcement of these rights and to some extent, social change. This practice took shape in most of the countries of the so-called Global South after the latest constitutional reforms. It then emerged there as a body of lawsuits oriented by the Public Interest and tending to give effect to the social rights promised in the Constitutions but violated in practice. However, the phenomenon is not exclusive to these countries, and we are beginning to see signs of this in the so-called climate change crisis litigation.
The first debates in the legal theory field were linked to the possibility of ensuring the judicial enforceability of these rights and to the role of the courts in this new scenario. The dialectic was oriented, centrally, towards the demonstration of the analogies that exist between civil and political rights, on the one hand, and social rights on the other. In practice, the lack of specific regulations replicated —at its turn— the existence of social inequalities. First because of the limited access to justice and then because of the overuse of the procedural instruments specific to individual rights.
JUICIO A LA DESIGUALDAD suggests an alternative view, which at the same time serves as a guide for the new forms of litigation emerging. For this, the author analyses the theoretical and institutional difficulties derived from social rights and suggests the elaboration of categories according to their speciality. She develops her argument in two parts, the first specifies the reasons why social rights should not be totally equated with civil and political rights, showing, instead, the convenience of a specific theoretical and procedural treatment. The second part is based on the experience of Public Interest Litigation and sets out the guidelines that will serve for the development of a collective procedural paradigm —with participatory and deliberative bases— that allows ensuring the effective protection of these rights.