Peggy Ducoulombier’s research while affiliated with University of Strasbourg and other places

Following the 2015 terrorist attacks, France declared the state of emergency on the basis of the 1955 statute. This statute opens the door to important restrictions to civil liberties, thus requiring that efficient supervision exists for the Rule of Law to be preserved. This contribution seeks to briefly present how Parliament and the Judiciary performed their democratic function of controlling the government’s measures in these exceptional circumstances. It appears that Parliament’s supervision was almost non-existent, while the control exercised by the administrative courts and the constitutional council presented some defects and was often criticised.

While the case of Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland may be considered as an interesting example of how the European Court of Human Rights searches for the right balance between the conflicting demands of freedom of expression and the protection of privacy, put into the wider jurisprudential context, in particular in light of the development of the notion of “responsible journalism”, it raises some concerns as to the real scope of the protection afforded to journalists and those wanting to impart information to the public.

This article seeks to explore the forms of dialogue existing between the European Court of Human Rights and national authorities, in particular the Judiciary and the Legislative power. The renewed use of the subsidiarity principle has increased dialogue between the domestic and European level. However, in the difficult context experienced by the European system, the Court must prevent dialogue from turning into deference to the detriment of Human Rights protection.