The Strasbourg Court: Judges Without Borders

  • Marc BossuytEmail author
Part of the European Yearbook of Constitutional Law book series (EYCL, volume 1)


In 2010, I wrote that ‘in the name of a dynamic and teleological interpretation, the European Court of Human Rights progresses on the road to an ever greater “juridisation” of European society, without caring very much what the States had in mind when they accepted to become parties to the Convention.’


  1. Bossuyt M (2007) Should the Strasbourg Court exercise more self-restraint? On the extension of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights to social security regulations. Human Rights Law Journal 28:321–332Google Scholar
  2. Bossuyt M (2009–2010) L’extension de la compétence de la Cour de Strasbourg aux prestations sociales: sur l’interprétation de l’article 14 de la Convention combiné avec l’article 1er du Protocole n° 1 dans les affaires Gaygusuz, Koua Poirrez, Stec et autres, Burden et Andrejeva. Revue de droit monégasque 10:91–130Google Scholar
  3. Bossuyt M (2010) Judges on Thin Ice: the European Court on Human Rights and the Treatment of Asylum Seekers. Inter-American and European Human Rights Journal 3(1):3–48Google Scholar
  4. Bossuyt M (2010) Strasbourg et les demandeurs d’asile: des juges sur un terrain glissant. Bruylant, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  5. Bossuyt M (2011) Belgium condemned for inhuman or degrading treatment due to violations by Greece of EU Asylum Law, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Grand Chamber, European Court of Human Rights, 21 January 2011. European Human Rights Law Review 5:582–597Google Scholar
  6. Bossuyt M (2012) The Court of Strasbourg acting as an Asylum Court. European Constitutional Law Review 8(2):203–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bossuyt M (2014) Des limites à la juridiction de la Cour de Strasbourg? In L’homme et le droit (en hommage au Professeur Jean-François Flauss). Pedone, Paris, pp 117–127Google Scholar
  8. Bossuyt M (2015) Judicial Activism in Strasbourg. In: Wellens K (ed) International Law in Silver Perspective: Challenges Ahead. Brill-Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 31–56Google Scholar
  9. Bossuyt M (2015) The European Union Confronted with an Asylum Crisis in the Mediterranean: Reflections on Refugees and Human Rights Issues. European Journal of Human Rights 32(5):581–605Google Scholar
  10. Bossuyt M (2016) Categorical Rights and Vulnerable Groups: Moving Away from the Universal Human Being. The George Washington International Law Review 48:717–742Google Scholar
  11. Bossuyt M (2016) Unduly Harsh Treatment of Sweden in Asylum Cases in Strasbourg? Human Rights Law Journal 36:323–334Google Scholar
  12. Bossuyt M (2016) International Human Rights Protection: Balanced, Critical, Realistic. Intersentia, Antwerp/CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bossuyt M (2017) La Cour de Strasbourg souhaite que les Etats parties instaurent une procédure d’‘asile médical’. Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 111:651–668Google Scholar
  14. Caflisch L (2006) Provisional Measures in the International Protection of Human Rights: The Mamatkulov Case. In: Dupuy P M et al (eds) Common Values in International Law: Essays in Honour of Christian Tomuschat. Engel, Kehl-am-Rhein, pp 493–515Google Scholar
  15. Hale B (2011) Common Law and Convention Law: The Limits to Interpretation. European Human Rights Law Review 5:534–543Google Scholar
  16. Hoffmann L (2009) The Universality of Human Rights (Judicial Studies Board Annual Lecture, 19 March 2009). Law Quarterly Review 125:416–432Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations