[
A, B and C v. Ireland. ECtHR. Judgment of 16 December 2010. Application no. 25579/05. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-102332> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
ARAI, Yutaka. The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Jurisprudence of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 1998, vol. 16, Issue 1, pp. 41–61. doi: 10.1177/09240519980160010410.1177/092405199801600104
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chassagnou and Others v. France. ECtHR. Judgment of 29 April 1999. Application no. 25088/94; 28331/95; 28443/95. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58288> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
DAVYDOVA, Nataliya, DASHKOVSKA, Olena, MENDZHUL, Marija, YAVOR, Olga, KHOKHLOVA, Tetiana. The Right To Respect For Family Life: Legal Basis For State Interference. Revista San Gregorio, 2021, vol. 1, no. 44, pp. 1–8.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Djavit An v. Turkey. ECtHR. Judgment of 09 July 2003. Application no. 20652/92. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60953> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
DZEHTSIAROU, Kanstantsin. Does consensus matter? Legitimacy of European consensus in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Public Law, 2011, vol. 534, pp. 534–553.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Engel and Others v. the Netherlands. ECtHR. Judgment of 08 June 1976. Application no. 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57479> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eriksen v. Norway. ECtHR. Judgment of 27 May 1997. Application no. 17391/90. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58036> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
European Convention on Human Rights of 4 November 1950 (as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, supplemented by Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13). European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, 62 p. [online]. Available at: <https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. The Netherlands. ECtHR. Judgment of 23 February 1995. Application no. 15375/89. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57918> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Glien v. Germany. ECtHR. Judgment of 28 November 2013. Final Judgement of 28 February 2014. Application no. 7345/012. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-138580> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Golder v. the United Kingdom. ECtHR. Judgment of 21 February 1975. Application no. 4451/70. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57496> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
GREER, Steven. The Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights: Universal Principle or Margin of Appreciation? UCL Human Rights Review, 2010, vol. 3, pp. 1–14.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
GREER, Steven C. The margin of appreciation: interpretation and discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2000, 58 p.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ilnseher v. Germany. ECtHR. Judgment of 04 December 2018. Application no. 10211/12 and 27505/14. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187540> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
ITZCOVICH, Giulio. One, None and One Hundred Thousand Margins of Appreciations: The Lautsi Case. Human Rights Law Review, 2013, vol. 13, Issue 2, pp. 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngs038
]Search in Google Scholar
[
König v. Germany. ECtHR. Judgment of 28 June 1978. Application no. 6232/73. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57512> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania. ECtHR. Judgment of 15 October 2015. Application no. 37553/05. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-158200> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
LETSAS, George. The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How to Interpret the ECHR? European Journal of International Law, 2004, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 279–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/15.2.279
]Search in Google Scholar
[
LUGATO, Monica. The Margin of Appreciation and Freedom of Religion: Between Treaty Interpretation and Subsidiarity. Journal of Catholic Legal Studies, 2013, vol. 52:49, no. 1, pp. 49–70.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
MACDONALD, Ronald Saint John, MATSCHER, Franz (eds). The European system for the protection of human rights. Dordrecht; Boston: Nijhoff, 1993.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
MAROCHINI, Maša. The interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, 2014, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 63–84.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
National Federation of Sportspersons’ Associations and Unions (FNASS) and Others v. France. ECtHR. Judgment of 18 April 2018. Application no. 48151/11 and 77769/13. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-180442> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Navalnyy v. Russia. ECtHR. Judgment of 15 November 2018. Application no. 29580/12. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187605> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pellegrin v. France. ECtHR. Judgment of 08 December 1999. Application no. 28541/95. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58402> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Prokopovich v. Russia. ECtHR. Judgment of 18 November 2004. Final Judgement of 18 February 2005. Application no. 58255/00. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-67538> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
RABINOVYCH, Petro. The rule of law in the interpretation of the Strasbourg Court and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Bulletin of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, 2006, no. 1, pp. 37–46.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom. ECtHR. Judgment of 25 March 1983. Application no. 5947/72; 6205/73; 7052/75; 7061/75; 7107/75; 7113/75; 7136/75. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57577> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway. ECtHR. Judgment of 10 September 2019. Application no. 37283/13. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-195909> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (No. 1). ECtHR. Judgment of 26 April 1979. Application no. 6538/74. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57584> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Welch v. the United Kingdom. ECtHR. Judgment of 09 February 1995. Application no. 17440/90. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57927> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom. ECtHR. Judgment of 22 April 1997. Application no. 21830/93. [online]. Available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58032> Accessed: 10.06.2022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
YOUROW, Howard Charles. The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of the European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence. London, New York, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Kluwer Press, 1996. 224 p.10.1163/9789004482265
]Search in Google Scholar
