{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016840417000801924, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0048115477145148355, 'mean_word_length': 5.117647058823529, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Olive Branch from Strasbourg? Interpreting the European Court of Human Rights’ Resurrection of Bosphorus and Reaction to Opinion 2/13 in the Avotiņš Case

The existence of different and juxtaposed bodies of law will necessarily result in occasional normative conflicts between them. Especially in the case of European integration, much judicial and academic ink has been spilt on the relationship between the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) and the law of the EU, as well as on the latter’s planned accession to the former. With Avotiņš v Latvia, the European Court of Human Rights has added another chapter to this saga and reacted toOpinion 2/13 of the European Court of Justice, in which the latter had declared the EU/ECHR Accession Agreement to be incompatible with the specific characteristics and the legal autonomy of the Union. Thus, the question arose whether the European Court of Human Rights would still apply the Bosphorus doctrine following the European Court of Justice’s critical approach. For the uninitiated, this means that, given its lack of jurisdiction ratione personae over the EU, the European Court of Human Rights generally calls attention to the responsibility of all Contracting Parties for all