Locked Up, Logged Off: A closer look at protection and provision of Internet access for prisoners within the ECHR framework

Felix Blommaert
Persbericht

Locked up, logged off? Een juridisch en vooral menselijk antwoord op de vraag van gevangenen en hun claims op internettoegang

In juni 2020 dagvaarden zes gedetineerden de Belgische Staat met één centraal verzoek: toegang tot het online leerplatform van de Katholieke Universiteit Leuven om lessen te volgen. De vraag lijkt simpel en zwart-wit: hebben gevangen eigenlijk wel recht op internettoegang? Zowel onder de bevolking als onder sommige politici worden zulke vragen snel weggelachen, gebaseerd op het idee dat gevangen moeten creperen in de cel. Met mijn werk ga ik op zoek naar een menswaardig juridisch antwoord op deze vraag en houd ik een spiegel voor aan de ongelijkheid en onzekerheid dat het Europees EHRM voor de Rechten van de Mens (EHRM) in stand houdt.

Waarom (hebben) gevangen (mensenrechten)?

De uitoefening van verschillende mensenrechten zoals de vrijheid van meningsuiting, het recht op informatie en het recht op onderwijs gebeurt steeds meer online. Op welke manier de wet deze toegenomen afhankelijkheid van internettoegang beschermt is een vraag die vaak onderbelicht blijft. Voor een specifieke groep zorgt deze grijze zone echter voor een arbitraire behandeling: gevangen.

Mensenrechten houden niet op te bestaan aan de gevangenispoort. Europese rechtspraak en Belgische wetgeving stellen daarenboven duidelijk dat alle beperkingen op de mensenrechten van gevangenen rechtvaardiging vereisen. Deze rechtvaardiging kan rekening houden met veiligheidsoverwegingen en beschikbare middelen, maar moet ook de re-integratie van de gevangene voorop zetten.

In een situatie waar het internet steeds meer mogelijkheden tot re-integratie biedt en een veilige beperkte internettoegang mogelijk is, luidt de vraag of een absoluut verbod op internettoegang voor gevangen in lijn ligt met deze Europese rechtspraak en Belgische wetgeving.

Rechtspraak EHRM en de vrijheid van meningsuiting

Het EHRM in Strasbourg behandelt klachten van individuele burgers tegen staten over vermeende schendingen van het Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens (EVRM).

Volgens het EVRM zijn bepaalde mensenrechten zoals de vrijheid van meningsuiting en de vrijheid van informatie niet absoluut. Beperkingen zijn gerechtvaardigd zolang ze voldoen aan de zogenaamde “driestappentoets”. De beperkingen moeten (1) wettelijk voorgeschreven zijn, (2) een legitiem doel nastreven, en (3) noodzakelijk zijn in een democratische samenleving. Deze driestappentoets in het EVRM staat flexibiliteit toe, maar probeert tegelijkertijd arbitraire beperkingen op mensenrechten te vermijden.

In die optiek oordeelde het EHRM dat website-bans altijd een beperking inhouden op het recht op vrijheid van meningsuiting en het recht op informatie, en dus dienen te voldoen aan de voorwaarden van de driestappentoets om mensenrechtenconform te zijn. Op basis van de maximale gelijke behandeling van gevangenen zou diezelfde redenering moeten gelden voor beperkingen op hun internettoegang. Elke ban daarop houdt een beperking in op het recht van vrijheid van meningsuiting en informatie, en zou daarom moeten voldoen aan de driestappentoets. Cruciaal is dat deze toets dan toelaat om rekening te houden met de specifieke context van de zaak: het gevaar dat een gevangene vertegenwoordigt, de scope van de verleende internettoegang maar ook de beschikbare middelen per lidstaat kunnen voldoende redenen zijn om aan een gevangen bepaalde internettoegang te ontkennen.

Jammer genoeg oordeelde het EHRM meermaals dat het deze toets pas zou toepassen wanneer de aangevochten staat internettoegang voor gevangen niet volledig verboden had. Met deze rechtspraak geeft het EHRM staten de kans om internettoegang volledig te verbieden voor gevangenen. Sterker nog, het EHRM moedigt staten aan om dit te doen aangezien deze de driestappentoets niet zal toepassen, en dus de aangeklaagde lidstaat niet op de rooster zal leggen, wanneer de staten het recht op internet voor gevangenen volledig en expliciet verboden hebben in hun nationale wetgeving.

In alle zaken tot zover baseerde het EHRM zich op nationale wetgeving dat zulk verbod echter niet instelde, om vervolgens te oordelen dat de weigering van internettoegang niet voldeed aan de driestappentoets: de betrokken staten konden nooit de concrete risico’s of extra kosten van de initieel geweigerde internettoegang aantonen. In een zaak waar Turkse gevangen internettoegang voor online lessen werd ontkend, oordeelde het EHRM op diezelfde manier dat dit een schending inhield van hun recht op onderwijs vanwege het gebrek aan een wettelijk verbod, concrete veiligheidsrisico’s en extra kosten.

Het EHRM zou op een veel duidelijkere manier dit vraagstuk kunnen oplossen door vast te stellen dat de beperking van internettoegang voor gevangen altijd een beperking inhoudt van hun recht op vrijheid van meningsuiting, informatie en onderwijs, maar dat specifieke omstandigheden per lidstaat de beperking kunnen legitimeren. Dit zou zulke arbitraire behandeling van gevangen kunnen indammen. Verder had het EHRM tot zekere mate ook richtlijnen tot positieve verplichtingen van staten om hun gevangen met internet te voorzien kunnen opleggen die rekening hielden met de beperkte rol van het EHRM, en de verschillende financiële situaties onder staten. Deze richtlijnen ontwikkel ik verder in mijn werk, gebaseerd op een grote rechtspraakanalyse van het Hof en verschillende zienswijzen in de literatuur.

Belgische rechtszaak

Terug naar de Belgische zaak die zich op dit moment nog voor de Belgische rechtbanken bevindt, die gehouden zijn tot de naleving van de rechtspraak van het EHRM. Omdat Belgische wetgeving in principe geen algemeen verbod oplegt, maar slechts internet verbiedt in zoverre het “niet aangeboden wordt”, zou de driestappentoets ook hier van toepassing zijn. Rekening houdende met het feit dat er in de betrokken gevangenis reeds internettoegang voorzien is, het online leerplatformen geen extra risico’s met zich meebrengt en zelfs kostenbesparend is, zoals blijkt uit mijn onderzoek, lijkt het dan ook weinig overtuigend dat de aangevochten beperking conform het recht op onderwijs van de betrokkenen is. Toch zorgt de rechtspraak van het EHRM voor veel onduidelijkheden en kan het zijn dat deze nuances verloren gaan in Belgische rechtspraak met alle arbitraire gevolgen van dien.

Bibliografie

Law: International Treaties

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3........................................................................................................................... 43

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948, UNGA Res 217 A(III)) ......................... 41

Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331......................................................................................................................................................... 44

Law: CoE Treaties

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (adopted 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953) ................................. 2

Protocol I to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (adopted 20 March 1950, entered into force 18 May 1954) ............................................................................................................ 11

Law: Domestic

Belgian Coordinated Constitution of 17 February 1994, published on 17 February 1994 (De gecoördineerde Grondwet)......................................................................................................................................................... 73

Belgian Parliamentary Preparatory Works DOC 51 K 0231/003 ......................................................................... 73

Belgian Parliamentary Preparatory Works DOC 51 K0231/002 .......................................................................... 74

Belgian Parliamentary Preparatory Works DOC 52 K 0231/009 ......................................................................... 75

Belgian Parliamentary Preparatory Works DOC 52 K 0231/015 ......................................................................... 75

Belgian Parliamentary Preparatory Works DOC 52 K0231/007 .................................................................... 74, 75

Belgian Parliamentary Preparatory Works DOC 54 K 1986/001 ................................................................... 75, 76

Belgian Prison Law of 12 January 2005, published on 1 February 2005 (Wet 12 januari 2005 betreffende het gevangeniswezen en de rechtspositie van gedetineerden)................................................................................ 72

Cooperation agreement between the Federal State, the Flemish Community and the Flemish Region concerning assistance to prisoners of 8 July 2014 (Samenwerkingsakkoord tussen de Federale Staat en de Vlaamse Gemeenschap en het Vlaams Gewest inzake de hulp- en dienstverlening aan gedetineerden) ....................... 73

Flemish Decree concerning the organization and of assistance to prisoners of 8 March 2013, published 11 April 2013 (Decreet betreffende de organisatie van de hulp- en dienstverlening aan gedetineerden) ...................... 73

French Law 2009-669 protecting the diffusion of content on the Internet of 12 June 2009, published 13 June 2009 (Loi 2009-669 du 12 juin 2009 favorisant la diffusion et la protection de la création sur internet) .................. 1

Special Law Concerning the Restructure of Institutions of 8 August 1980, published on 8 August 1980 (Bijzondere wet tot hervorming der instellingen) ................................................................................................................ 73

Law: Miscellaneous

Council of Europe, ‘Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Prison Rules’ (Strasbourg, 11 January 2006)..................................................................................... 8

United Nations, General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression David Kaye, A/73/348 (29 August 2018) ............................................ 52

United Nations, General Assembly, The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, A/HRC/32/13 (18 July 2016) ..................................................................................................................... 20, 40

United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment 34, CCPR/C/GC/34 (12 September 2011).. 20, 40 United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the

right to freedom of opinion and expression David Kaye, A/HRC/29/32 (22 May 2015) ................................ 52 United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the

right to freedom of opinion and expression David Kaye, A/HRC/35/22 (30 March 2017) ....................... 20, 40 United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the

right to freedom of opinion and expression David Kaye, A/HRC/44/49 (24 April 2020) ............................... 52 United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the

right to freedom of opinion and expression Frank La Rue, A/HRC/17/27 (16 May 2011) ............................. 52 United Nations, Human Rights Council, Resolution 39/6, The Safety of Journalists, A/HRC/RES/39/6 ............ 40 Jurisprudence: International Court of Justice
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v Congo) (Merits) [2010] ICJ Rep 639................................................................ 4 Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal) [1991] ICJ Rep 69 ................................................. 44 Jurisprudence: European Court of Human Rights

Airey v. Ireland App no 6289/73 (ECtHR, 9 October 1979) .................................................................... 43, 45, 57

Akdeniz v. Turkey App no 20877/10 (ECtHR, 11 March 2014) ........................................................................... 20

Aliev v. Ukraine App no 41220/98 (ECtHR, 29 April 2003)................................................................................ 11

AlSaadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom App no 61498/08 (ECtHR 30 June 2009).............................. 4, 10

Altuğ Taner Akçam v. Turkey App no 27520/07 (ECtHR 25 October 2011)........................................................ 15

Autronic AG v. Switzerland App no 12726/87 (ECtHR, 22 May 1990) ............................................................... 13

Axel Springer AG v. Germany App no 39954/08 (ECtHR, 7 February 2012)...................................................... 12

Bahçeci and Turan v. Turkey App no 33340/03 (ECtHR, 8 August 2011) .......................................................... 14

Bouyid v. Belgium App no 23380/09 (ECtHR, 28 September 2015 ..................................................................... 10

Bulgakov v. Russia App no 20159/15 (ECtHR, 23 June 2020)................................................................. 21, 23, 25

Casado Coca v. Spain App no 15450/89 (ECtHR, 24 February 1994) ................................................................ 12

Case relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium v. Belgium App nos. 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64 (ECtHR, 23 July 1968)..................................... 59, 60

Cengiz and others v. Turkey App nos. 48226/10 and 14027/1 (ECtHR, 1 December 2015).................... 20, 21, 22 Christine Goodwin v. United Kingdom App. no 28957/95 (ECtHR, 11 July 2002)............................................... 5 Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey App no 28255/07 (ECtHR, 8 October 2013) ........................................ 14 Cyprus v. Turkey App no 25781/94 (ECtHR, 12 May 2014)................................................................................ 59 Dammann v. Switzerland App no 77551/01 (ECtHR, 25 April 2006).................................................................. 16 Dilipak v. Turkey App no 29680/05 (ECtHR, 15 September 2015) ..................................................................... 14 Dink v. Turkey App nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09 (ECtHR, 14 September 2010)15, 56 Engels v. Russia App no 61919/16 (ECtHR, 23 June 2020).......................................................................... passim Epistatu v. Romania App no 29343/10 (ECtHR, 24 September 2013)................................................................. 60

Fadeyeva v. Russia App no 55723/00 (ECtHR, 9 June 2005) .............................................................................. 49

Georgia v. Russia (II) App no 38263/08 (ECtHR, 21 January 2021)............................................................... 4, 10

Guerra and others v. Italy App no 14967/89 (ECtHR, 19 February 1998) .......................................................... 57

Handyside v. the United Kingdom App no 5493/72 (ECtHR, 7 December 1976)................................................ 12

Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) App no 74025/01 (ECtHR, 6 October 2005) ........................................ 10, 61

Hudorovic and others v. Slovenia App nos. 24816/14 and 25140/14 (ECtHR, 10 March 2020)......................... 49

Kablis v. Russia App nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17 (ECtHR, 30 April 2019),...................................................... 17

Kharitonov v. Russia App no 10795/14 (ECtHR, 23 June 2020) .................................................................. passim

Khurshid Mustafa and Tarzibachi v. Sweden App no 23883/06 (ECtHR, 16 December 2008)........................... 14

Leander v. Sweden App no 9248/81 (ECtHR, 26 March 1987)................................................................ 13, 21, 27

Leyla Şahin v. Turkey App no 44774/98 (ECtHR, 10 November 2005)......................................................... 60, 69

Maestri v. Italy App no 39748/98 (ECtHR, 17 February 2004) ........................................................................... 15

Magyar Helsinki Bizottsag v. Hungary App no 18030/11 (ECtHR, 8 November 2016).......................... 13, 21, 27

Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany App no 10572/83 (ECtHR, 20 November 1989)12

Mastromatteo v. Italy App no 37703/97 (ECtHR, 24 October 2002) ................................................................... 11

Mehmet Reşit Arslan et Orhan Bingöl v. Turkey App no 47121/06, 13988/07 and 34750/07 (ECtHR, 18 June 2019).......................................................................................................................................................... passim

Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland App no 16354/06 (ECtHR, 13 July 2012)........................................... 12

Müller and Others v. Switzerland App no 10737/84 (ECtHR, 24 May 1988)...................................................... 12

Murray v. the Netherlands App no 10511/10 (ECtHR, 26 April 2016)................................................................ 11

Muršić v. Croatia App no 7334/13 (ECtHR, 20 October 2016) ........................................................................... 10

Navalnyy v. Russia App nos 29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13,12317/13, 43746/14 (ECtHR, 15 November 2018) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria App nos. 36925/10, 21487/12, 72893/12, 73196/12, 77718/12 and 9717/13 (ECtHR, 1 June 2015) ...................................................................................................................................... 10

Nilsen v. the United Kingdom App no 36882/05 (ECtHR, 9 March 2010)........................................................... 27 Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom App no 13585/88, (ECtHR, 26 November 1991)..................... 16 OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia App nos. 12468/15, 23489/15 and 19074/16 (ECtHR, 23 June 2020).... 21, 25 Papageorgiu and Others v. Greece App nos. 4762/18 and 6140/18 (ECtHR, 31 October 2019) ........................ 59 Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova App no 14462/03 (ECtHR, 4 January 2005) ................................................ 56 Ponomaryovi v. Bulgaria App no 5335/05 (ECtHR, 21 June 2011)..................................................................... 60 Ramazan Demir v. Turkey App no 68550/17 (ECtHR, 9 February 2021, not final as of writing) ................ passim RTBF v. Belgium App no 50084/06 (ECtHR, 29 March 2011) ............................................................................ 15

Schweizerische radio- und fernsehgesellschaft et autres v. la Suisse App no 68995/13 (ECtHR, 12 November 2019)................................................................................................................................................................. 15

Silver v. United Kingdom Apps nos 5947/72, 6205/73, 7052/75, 7061/75, 7107/75, 7113/75, 7136/75 (ECtHR, 25 March 1983) ..................................................................................................................................................... 16

Stec and others v. the United Kingdom App nos 65731/01 and 65900/01 (ECtHR, 6 July 2005) ................. 46, 49

Stevens v. the United Kingdom App no 11674/85 (Commission Decision 3 March 1986, DR 46)...................... 12

Stummer v. Austria App no 37452/02 (ECtHR, 7 July 2011) ............................................................................... 49

Taskin and others v. Turkey App no 46117/99 (ECtHR 10 November 2004) ...................................................... 49

The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) App no 6538/74 (ECtHR, 26 April 1979).............................. 15

Tyrer v. the United Kingdom App no 5856/72 (ECtHR 25 April 1978)............................................................... 45

Ulla Annikki Karttunen v Finland App no 1685/10 (ECtHR, 10 May 2011) ....................................................... 14

Uzun v. Turkey App no 37866/18 (ECtHR, 10 November 2020) ................................................................... 60, 61

Vajnai v. Hungary App no. 33629/06 (ECtHR, 8 October 2008)......................................................................... 14

Velyo Velev v. Bulgaria App no 16032/07 (ECtHR, 27 May 2014) .............................................................. passim

Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom App nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10 (ECtHR, 9 July 2013) ....... 10

Wille v. Liechtenstein App no 23118/93 (ECtHR, 25 November 1999) ............................................................... 14

Yankov v. Bulgaria App no 39084/97 (ECtHR, 11 December 2003) ................................................................... 27

Yıldırım v. Turkey App no 3111/10 (ECtHR, 18 December 2012) ................................................................ passim

Yılmaz and Kılıç v. Turkey App no 68514/01 (ECtHR, 17/07/2008).................................................................... 14

Yurtsever and Others v. Turkey App nos. 14946/08, 21030/08, 24309/08, 24505/08, 26964/08, 26966/08, 27088/08, 27090//08, 27092/08, 38752/08, 38778/08 and 38807/08 (ECtHR, 20 January 2015)................... 27

Jurisprudence: Domestic

Belgian Council of State: department Legislation Nr. 59.226/1/2/3 (19 May 2016)...................................... 75, 76

Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 400–401 (1904)............................................................ 50

Jurisprudence: Miscellaneous

European Court of Human Rights, ‘Guide on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Freedom of Expression’ (31 August 2020) ....................................................................................................................... 3

European Court of Human Rights, ‘Guide on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, Right to Education’ (31 December 2020) .............................................................................................. 3

European Court of Human Rights, ‘Guide on the case-law of the European Convention on Human Rights, prisoners’ guide’ (31 December 2020)............................................................................................................... 3

Books and theses

Alston P and Goodman R, International Human Rights: The Successor to International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics and Morals (Oxford University Press 2012).................................................................. 41, 42, 43

Brems E and Voorhoof D, ‘Politieke vrijheden van gedetineerden: vrijheid van meningsuiting, recht op toegang tot informatie, vrijheden van vergadering en vereniging, recht op deelname aan verkiezingen.’ in Eva Brems and others (eds), Vrijheden en vrijheidsbeneming, mensenrechten van gedetineerden (Intersentia 2005) 11, 27

Brems E, ‘Indirect Protection of Social Rights by the European Court of Human Rights’ in Daphne Barak-Erez and Aeyal Gross (eds), Exploring Social Rights: Between Theory and Practice (Hart 2007)......................... 43

Çalı B, ‘The Case for the Right to Meaningful Access to the Internet as a Human Right in International Law’ in Andreas von Arnauld, Kerstin von der Decken and Mart Susi (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights: Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric (Cambridge University Press 2020) ............................................ 20, 40

David V, Cultural Difference and Economic Disadvantage in Regional Human Rights Courts (Intersentia 2020) 227-235............................................................................................................................................................. 49

De Filippi P and Bourcier D, ‘``Three-Strikes’’ Response to Copyright Infringement: The Case of HADOPI’ in Francesca Musiani and others (eds), The Turn to Infrastructure in Internet Governance (Palgrave Macmillan US 2016)........................................................................................................................................................... 16

Greer S, The European Convention on Human Rights (Cambridge University Press 2006)............................ 4, 41

Jeremy B, The Works of Jeremy Bentham (John Bowring ed William Tait 1843) ................................................. 7

Lavrysen L, ‘Human Rights in a Positive State: Rethinking the Relationship between Positive and Negative Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (PhD, Ghent University 2016) ................... 56

Leijten I, Core Socio-Economic Rights and the European Court of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press 2018).......................................................................................................................................................... passim

Letsas G, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2007).......................................................................................................................................................... passim

Lucchi N, The Impact of Science and Technology on the Rights of the Individual, vol 26 (Springer International Publishing 2016)................................................................................................................................................. 1

Pollicino O, ‘The Right to Internet Access: Quid Iuris?’ in Andreas von Arnauld, Kerstin von der Decken and Mart Susi (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights: Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric (Cambridge University Press 2020) ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Rainey B, MCcormick E and Ovey C, Jacobs, White & Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights (8th edn, Oxford University Press 2020) .......................................................................................................... passim

Schabas WA, The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2015).... 3, 14, 41, 61

Sweeney JA, The European Court of Human Rights in the Post-Cold War Era: Universality in Transition (Routledge 2013) .............................................................................................................................................. 41

Teitgen P-H, ‘Introduction to the European Convention on Human Rights’ in R.S.J. Macdonald and others (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Leiden 1993) ........ 42

Van Dijk P and others, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (5th edition, Intersentia 2018)................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Vande Lanotte J, Goedertier G and Haeck Y, Belgisch publiekrecht (1st edn, Die Keure 2015) .................. 41, 43

Vermeulen B and Van Roosmalen M, ‘Right to Education (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1)’ in Pieter Van Dijk, Fried Van Hoof and Leo Zwaak (eds), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (Intersentia 2017) 889-908 ............................................................................................................................... 61

Voorhoof D, ‘Same Standards, Different Tools? The ECtHR and the Protection and Limitations of Freedom of Expression in the Digital Environment’ in Michael O’Boyle (ed), Human Rights Challenges in the Digital Age: Judicial Perspectives (Council of Europe 2020).............................................................................................. 17

Young KY, ‘Proportionality, Reasonableness, and Socio-Economic Rights’ (20 January 2017) in V.C. Jackson and M. Tushnet (eds.) Proportionality: New Frontiers, New Challenges (Cambridge University Press, 2017) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 50

Zyl Smit D and Snacken S, Principles of European Prison Law and Policy: Penology and Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2009) ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Academic Articles, Essays and Blogs

Arnardóttir OM, ‘Res Interpretata, Erga Omnes Effect and the Role of the Margin of Appreciation in Giving Domestic Effect to the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2017) 28 European Journal of International Law 819......................................................................................................................................... 5

Ayalew YE, ‘The Internet Shutdown Muzzle(s) Freedom of Expression in Ethiopia: Competing Narratives’ (2019) 28 Information & Communications Technology Law 208 .............................................................................. 16

Bagaric M, Hunter D and Fischer N, ‘The Hardship That Is Internet Deprivation and What It Means for Sentencing: Development of the Internet Sanction and Connectivity for Prisoners’ (2017) 51 Akron Law Review 261....................................................................................................................................................... 57

Best M, ‘Can the Internet Be a Human Right?’ (2004) 4 Human Rights & Human Welfare 23 ......................... 19

Brems E, ‘The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights’ 56 Zeitschrift Für ausländische öffentliches recht und Völkerrecht (1996) 240................................................... 48

Cannie H and Voorhoof D, ‘The Abuse Clause and Freedom of Expression in the European Human Rights Convention: An Added Value for Democracy and Human Rights Protection?’ (2011) 29 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 54.......................................................................................................................................... 13

De Hert, P., Kloza, D., 'Internet (access) as a new fundamental right. Inflating the current rights framework?', European Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 3. No. 3, 2012...................................................................... 37

Dworkin R, ‘Unenumerated Rights: Whether and How Roe Should Be Overruled’ (1992) 59 The University of Chicago Law Review 381 ................................................................................................................................ 44

Friday PC, ‘Sanctioning in Sweden: An Overview’ (1976) 40 Federal Probation 48 ............................................ 8 Güngördü A, ‘The Strasbourg Court Establishes Standards on Blocking Access to Websites’ (Strasbourg

Observers, 26 August 2020)............................................................................................................................. 18 Järveläinen E and Rantanen T, ‘Incarcerated People’s Challenges for Digital Inclusion in Finnish Prisons’ [2020]

Nordic Journal of Criminology 1 ..................................................................................................................... 57

Koch IE, ‘Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as Components in Civil and Political Rights: A Hermeneutic Perspective’ (2006) 10 The International Journal of Human Rights 405................................................... 45, 47

Kundu A and Dalmia A, ‘A Case For Recognition Of The Right To Internet Access In The Age Of Information’ (2020) 11 (2) Journal of Indian Law and Society XIII..................................................................................... 40

Lemmens K, ‘The Margin of Appreciation in the ECtHR’s Case Law’ (2018) 20 European Journal of Law Reform .......................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Letsas G, ‘The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How to Interpret the ECHR’, European Journal of International Law 15 (2004) 279 ........................................................................................................................................... 46

Maes E and others, ‘PrisonCloud Voor Gedetineerden. Grenzen Aan Digitale Normalisering?’ (2019) 40 Panopticon 29 ............................................................................................................................................... 9, 75

Okediji RL, ‘Does Intellectual Property Need Human Rights?’ (2018) 51:1 International Law and Politics 1... 53 Palmer E, ‘Protecting Socio-Economic Rights through the European Convention on Human Rights: Trends and

Developments in the European Court of Human Rights’, Erasmus Law Review, 2 (2009) 397...................... 50

Reisdorf BC and Jewkes Y, ‘(B)Locked Sites: Cases of Internet Use in Three British Prisons’ (2016) 19 Information, Communication & Society 771 ................................................................................................... 57

Rydzak J, ‘Of Blackouts and Bandhs: The Strategy and Structure of Disconnected Protest in India’ [2019] Global Digital Policy Incubator, Stanford University 1............................................................................................... 16

Ryssdal R, ‘The Coming of Age of the European Convention of Human Rights’, European Human Rights Law Review (1996) 18 ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Shattock E, ‘Should the ECtHR Invoke Article 17 for Disinformation Cases?’ (EJIL:Talk!, 2021) ................... 13 Szoszkiewicz Ł, ‘“Internet Access as a New Human Right? State of the Art on the Threshold of 2020”’ (2018) 8

Przegląd Prawniczy Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza 50 ...................................................................... 53

News Articles

BBC News, ‘Navalny must be freed, European rights court tells Russia’ BBC News (London, 17 February 2021) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5

Cerf VG, ‘Internet Access Is Not a Human Right’ New York Times (New York City, 4 January 2012) ............... 5

Ovida S, ‘What Internet Censorship Looks Like’ New York Times (New York City, 21 January 2021)............... 1

Scheerlinck H, ‘Gevangenen dagvaarden Belgische Staat omdat ze geen online les mogen volgen aan KU Leuven’ VRT NWS (Leuven, 19 June 2020) ......................................................................................................... 3, 67, 68

Miscellaneous

Access Now, ‘Shattered Dreams and Lost Opportunities: A Year in the Fight to #KeepItOn’ (Access Now, 2021) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Council of Europe, ‘Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 009, Full list, Status as of 05/05/2021’ (Council of Europe, 2021)............................................................................................................................................... 69

Country-economy, ‘COE – Council of Europe’ (Country-economy, 2021) ......................................................... 68 ECtHR Press Unit, ‘Access to Internet and freedom to receive and impart information and ideas’ (March 2021)

.......................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Max R, Ritchie H and Ortiz-Ospinoza E, ‘Internet’ (Our World in Data, 2015) ................................................... 1

Niaki AA and others, ‘ICLab: A Global, Longitudinal Internet Censorship Measurement Platform’, 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (IEEE 2020) ..................................................................................... 1

Noorlander P, ‘Freedom of Expression Module 1, Introduction’ (Presentation).................................................. 16 Smith G, ‘What Is A Proxy Server, How Does Proxy Work and More’ (Tech Excel, 2020)............................... 65 Vocvo, ‘Database opleidingsaanbod gevangenissen, universiteiten’ (Vocvo, 2021)............................................ 78 World Bank, ‘Individuals using the Internet (% of population)’ (Worldbank, 2021)........................................... 10

Universiteit of Hogeschool
Masters of Law in de Rechten
Publicatiejaar
2021
Promotor(en)
Prof. Dr. Eva Lievens
Kernwoorden
Share this on: