BEGIN:VCALENDAR PRODID:-//eluceo/ical//2.0/EN VERSION:2.0 CALSCALE:GREGORIAN BEGIN:VEVENT UID:c83a5646e24d24a3de52d2c837995a16 DTSTAMP:20260308T094239Z SUMMARY:Workshop on Positive Obligations and Discrimination in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights DESCRIPTION:Contact: vladislava.stoyanova@jur.lu.se\n\nWorkshop on Positive Obligations and Discrimination in the Case Law of the European Court of H uman RightsLund University\, 4-5 June 2026 \; \;Conveners: \;V ladislava Stoyanova - Lund University &\; \;Karin de Vries - Utrech t UniversityPart of the \;The Borders Within: the Multifaceted Legal L andscape of Migrant Integration in Europe - Activities - Lund UniversityAi m and scientific relevance of the workshopThis workshop aims to explore th e potential and limitations of the European Court of Human Rights’ case law on positive obligations and the prohibition of discrimination.Question s/topics to be addressed include\, but are not limited to:1. Which (types of) positive obligations have been recognised by the ECtHR in relation to the prohibition of discrimination (Articles 14 and 1 Twelfth Protocol ECHR )? (How) does the scope and/or nature of these obligations differ dependin g on the type of discrimination at stake (eg hate speech/hate crime\, dire ct/indirect discrimination\, by public or private actors)\, the context in which discrimination occurs (employment\, education\, policing\, immigrat ion\, etc..) and/or across discrimination grounds and can these difference s be justified?2. How do the elements of knowledge\, causation and reasona bleness play a role in ECtHR case law on discrimination? How does the form ulation of a discrimination argument\, as opposed to arguments about breac h of substantive provisions\, affect the role of these three elements (kno wledge\, causation and reasonableness)? More specifically when it comes to causation\, how does the Court perceive and argue in favour of any links between state omissions and harm?3. Which remedies are prescribed (or shou ld be/could be prescribed) by the ECtHR in order to address breaches of po sitive obligations in the field of discrimination law? Which forms of Stat e action are required (or should be/could be required) to execute the Cour t’s judgments? What role does causation (understood as a link between re medial actions and prevention of harm) have in the context of remedies? Is this role the same as in the determination of breach?4. How does the conc eptualisation of positive obligations to prevent or remedy discrimination\ , as established by the ECtHR\, relate to and serve different theories of justice (distributive v. corrective or individual v. constitutional)? &nbs p\;How does the conceptualisation of positive obligations to prevent or re medy discrimination\, as established by the ECtHR\, relate to notions of s tructural (or systemic or institutional) discrimination?5. What are the po tential and limitations of ECtHR case law on positive obligations to addre ss specific forms of (structural) discrimination\, such as segregation in education\, domestic and gender-based violence\, hate speech/hate crime\, racial profiling or discrimination resulting from the use of technology or automated decision-making?6. How do positive obligations to prevent or re medy discrimination\, as established by the ECtHR\,  \;relate to conce pts from equality/discrimination law including positive action\, equality duties or reasonable accommodation?7. Can the conceptualisation of positiv e obligations to prevent or remedy discrimination\, as developed by the EC tHR\, be compared with concepts and reasoning emerging from other jurisdic tions? Can comparative parallels be drawn from the case law of other regio nal human rights courts (the IACtHR or AfCHPR) or from national doctrines and developments\, to inform and evaluate the case law of the ECtHR? Can s uch comparative frameworks offer explanatory force for better understandin g the ECtHR’s discrimination reasoning? \;InstructionsInterested sch olars should submit the following:(1) proposal of at least 1 500 words out lining the planned article for the workshop(2) one page bio containing inf ormation how the scholar’s background is relevant to the workshop.Submis sion GuidelinesProposals should be submitted to both Conveners by email (v ladislava.stoyanova@jur.lu.se \; \;k.m.devries@uu.nl) by 8 November 20 25. \; \;Selected participants will be notified by 18 November 202 5.Draft papers will be due by 12 April 2026. Published articles and those in the process of publication are not eligible.  \;Funding will be ava ilable for travel and accommodation.Additional Information \;For inqui ries\, please contact Vladislava Stoyanova (vladislava.stoyanova@jur.lu.se ) and Karin de Vries ( \;k.m.devries@uu.nl)We look forward to your co ntributions! \; \;--- \; \;Hosted by Lund University as pa rt of the project \;The Borders Within: the Multifaceted Legal Landsca pe of Migrant Integration in Europe - Lund University &\; Utrecht Unive rsity | Research platform Equality Legal Studies (EQUALS)Convened by Dr. V ladislava Stoyanova (Associate Professor in Public International Law) & \; Prof. dr. Karin de Vries (Professor of fundamental rights law)OutputWe envisage publication of the papers presented during the workshop in a spec ial issue with the \;German Law Journal.Download call for papers \ ;\n\nMore information about the event: https://www.law.lu.se/calendar/work shop-positive-obligations-and-discrimination-case-law-european-court-human -rights DTSTART;TZID=GMT:20200603T220001 DTEND;TZID=GMT:20250605T215900 LOCATION:tba END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR