TableofEuropeanCases
EUROPEANCOURTOFHUMANRIGHTS
AandOthersvUnitedKingdom Applno3455/05(2009)...
AvNorway Applno28070/06(2009) .........................................112
AvUnitedKingdom Applno3455/05(2009) ....................................199
AdvisoryOpiniononCertainLegalQuestionsconcerningtheListsofCandidatesSubmitted withaViewtotheElectionofJudgestotheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights (2008)...
AireyvIreland SeriesAno32(1979) ......................................43,53,54
AksoyvTurkey Applno21897/93(1996)..
Al-AdsanivUnitedKingdom Applno35763/97(2001) .............................206
AlamandKhanvUnitedKingdom Applno2991/66(1967).
Al-NashifvBulgaria Applno50963/99(2002) ...................................189
ARSECandOthersvSpain Applno42916/98(1999)
AssanidzevGeorgia Applno71503/01(2004) ....................................219
AsselbourgandOthers Applno29121/95(1999)...
AssenovvBulgaria Applno24760/94(1998) .....................................214
AssociationofPolishTeachersvPoland Applno42049/98(2003)
AydinvTurkey Applno23178/94(1997)..
BandLvUnitedKingdom Applno36536/02(2005)
Banković vBelgiumetal Applno52207/99(2001).
BelgianLinguisticcase SeriesAno6(1968). ..................................
Biretv15MemberStatesoftheEuropeanUnion Applno13762/04(2008)..
BosphorusAirwaysvIreland Applno45036/98(2005)
Bovinv34StateMembersoftheCouncilofEurope Applno73250/01(2008).
BroniowskivPoland (FriendlySettlement)Applno31443/96(2005)
BroniowskivPoland (MeritsandJustSatisfaction)Applno31443/96(2004). ..........
BruscovItaly (decision)Applno69789/01(2001).. ...............................137
BurdovvRussia(No2) Applno33509/04(2009)..
CantonivFrance Applno17862/91(1996). .....................................166
CastellsvSpain Applno.11798/85SeriesAno236. ...............................111
CFDTvtheECand,inasubsidiarymanner,thecollectiveoftheirMemberStatesandthe MemberStatestakenindividually caseApplno8030/77(1978) ........................166
ChristianFederationofJehovah’sWitnessvFrance Applno53430/99(2001).. ..............85
ChristineGoodwinvUnitedKingdom Applno28957/95(2002) 194,214,215,219 ColombanivFrance Applno51279/99(2002) ....................................111
ComingersollvPortugal Applno35382/97(2000).. ................................86
DvUnitedKingdom Applno30240/96(1997) ....................................93
DeBeckervBelgium SeriesAno4(1962).. ...............................51, 158,188
DeWilde,OomsandVersyp(‘VagrancyCase’)vBelgium (Merits)SeriesAno14(1972)........39
DeWilde,OomsandVersyp(‘VagrancyCase’)vBelgium (Questionofprocedure) SeriesAno12(1970) .....................................................187
DecisionontheCompetenceoftheCourttogiveanAdvisoryOpinion ECHR2004-IV(2004)...188
DemirandBaykaravTurkey Applno34503/97(2008) .............................205
DHandOthersvCzechRepublic Applno57325/00(2007). .......................93,111
DicksonvUnitedKingdom Applno44362(2007).. 111,201
DivagsaCompanyvSpain Applno20631/92(1993) ...............................170
DudgeonvUnitedKingdom SeriesAno45(1981).. .................... 101,195,215,219
DufayvTheEuropeanCommunities Applno13539/88(1989) ........................166
EBvFrance Applno43546/02(2008)
EielectricSrlvItaly Applno36811/97(2000) .....................................86
ElciandOthersvTurkey Applnos23145/93,25091/94(2003) ........................91
EngelandOthersvNetherlands SeriesAno22(1976) ...............................198
ÉonkavBelgium Applno51564/99(2001). ......................................85
ÉskomoravskvCzechRepublic Applno33091/96(1999) ..............................85
FederationofOffshoreWorkers’ TradeUnionsvNorway Applno38190/97(2002)... ........85
FSandNSvFrance Applno15669/89(1993) ...................................170
GoldervUnitedKingdom SeriesAno18(1975) ..........................43,53,
GoodwinvUnitedKingdom Applno28957/95(2002) ............94,
GorouvGreece(No2) Applno12686/03(2009)... ...............................215
GrantvUnitedKingdom Applno32570/03(2006).
GreecevUnitedKingdom Applno176/56(1958)...
HandysidevUnitedKingdom SeriesAno24(1976).
HirstvUnitedKingdom(No2) Applno74025/01(2005)..
HornsbyvGreece Applno18357/91(1997).
Hutten-CzapskavPoland (Friendlysettlement)Applno35014/97(2008)...
Hutten-CzapskavPoland (MeritsandJustSatisfaction)Applno35014/97(2006)... ....
IlaşcuandOthersvMoldovaandRussia Applno48787/99(2004)...
IndependentNewsandMediaplcvIreland Applno55120/00(2003)
IonescuvRomania Applno36659/04(2010) .....................................186 IrelandvUnitedKingdom15Yearbook76 (1972)... ...............................101
IrelandvUnitedKingdom SeriesAno25(1978)...
IsayevavRussia Applno57950/00(2005).. .....................................215
JahnandOthersvGermany Applno46720/99,72203/01,72552/01(2004). .............196
JallohvGermany Applno54810(2006)... .....................................111
JohannischeKircheandPetersvGermany Applno41754/98(2001)..
KarakovHungary ECHRApplno39311/05(2009)
KarnervAustria Applno40016/98(2003). .......................86, 188,215,217,219
KayavTurkey Applno22729/93(1998)... .....................................214
Kjeldsen,BuskMadsenandPedersenvDenmark SeriesAno23(1976) .................43,101 KlassvGermany SeriesAno28(1978)
KönigvGermany SeriesAno27(1978) .......................................43,101
KonstantinMarkinvRussia Applno300078/06(2010) .............................111
Korolev(II)vRussia Applno5447/03(2010) ....................................186
KudlavPoland Applno30210/96(2000).. .....................................136
KyprianouvCyprus Applno73797/01(2004) ....................................196
LawlessvIreland(Merits) SeriesAno3(1961) ..........................50,
LawlessvIreland(PreliminaryObjections) SeriesAno1(1960) ........................187
LeylaSahinvTurkey ECHR2005-XI(2005) .....................................196 LibertyandOthersvUnitedKingdom Applno58243/00(2008) ........................95
Lindon,Otchakovsky-LaurensandJulyvFrance Applnos21279/02,36447/02(2007) .......112
LingensvAustria SeriesAno103(1986)... 101,111
LoizidouvTurkey (Merits)Applno15318/89(1996) ...............................207
LoizidouvTurkey (PreliminaryObjections)SeriesAno310(1995). ...................206
LukendavSlovenia Applno23032/02(2005) ....................................138
MandCovTheFederalRepublicofGermany Applno13258/87(1990) .................166
MaestrivItaly Applno39748/98(2004)... .....................................219
MamatkulovandAbdurasulovicvTurkey Applnos46827/99,46951/99(2003) ............194
MamatkulovandAskarovvTurkey Applnos46827/99,46951/99(2005)... .......... 206,214
MamidakisvGreece Applno35533/04(2007) ....................................228
MarckxvBelgium SeriesAno31(1979)... .............43,53,54, 101,193,214,215,219
Mathieu-MohinandClerfaytvBelgium SeriesAno113(1987) ........................196
I.TheECtHRasaEuropeanCourt
Asindicatedintheseopeningparagraphs,theECtHRcannotbeunderstoodasa staticinstitution.Foranalyticalpurposes,onecanidentityatleastthreemajor
4 CfA.CohenandM.R.Madsen, ‘ColdWarLaw:LegalEntrepreneursandtheEmergenceofa EuropeanLegalField(1945–1965)’ inV.GessnerandD.Nelken(eds), EuropeanWaysofLaw: TowardsaEuropeanSociologyofLaw (Oxford:HartPublishing,2007).
phaseswhichtheECtHRhasundergonesinceitsinaugurationin1959.In itsinitialphase,theEuropeanCourtsoughtonlyverygraduallytodevelopits institutionalautonomyandjurisprudence.Duetothegeneraluncertainties regardingthefutureoftheConvention,particularlythereluctanceoftheMemberStatestoaccepttheCourt ’sfullpowersandindividualpetition,thedevelopmentwassomewhatinverted,asitbecameparadoxicallytheCourt notthe MemberStates thathadtoproveithadasoundunderstandingofEuropean humanrights.
However,initssecondphase,beginninginthemidtolate1970sagainstthe backdropofaseriesofgeopoliticalandsocialchanges,theCourtembarkedonthe developmentofamoreprogressivejurisprudence,evokingnotionssuchas ‘living instrument’ , ‘marginofappreciation’,and ‘practicalandeffective’.Initsthird phase,beginninginthepost-ColdWarera,theCourtwentfrombeingthe guarantorofhumanrightssolelyinWesternEuropetobecomingincreasingly involvedinthetransitiontodemocracyandtheruleoflawinEasternEurope.
Becomingtheprotectorofthehumanrightsofsome800millionEuropeans from47differentcountries,theEuropeansystemistodayonceagaindeeply challengedbyamassivecaseload5 aswellastheMemberStates’ increasedreluctance towardstheCourt.Infact,theCourthasarguablyenteredintoafourthphase,in around2004,focusingincreasinglyontheeffectivenessoftheECHRindomestic lawanddevelopingnewmethodstocopewiththeoverwhelmingcaseload,emanatingtoalargeextentfromnewMemberStates.6 Thepilotjudgmentprocedureis perhapsthestrongestindicatoroftheCourt’snewinitiativesinthisphaseof development.Atthesametime,thereformoftheConvention,mostspecifically theongoingreformprocesspriorto,alongside,andsoonafterProtocolNo14is alsoanintegralpartofthesecurrentdevelopments.
Theseseeminglyinsurmountablechallengesshouldnot,however,overshadow therichhistoryofinstitutionaladaptationandcreativity legalandpolitical whichispartoftherecipeforsuccessoftheECtHR.Inthebroaderpictureofthe build-upofinternationallegalinstitutionsoverthetwentiethandtwenty-first centuries,theECtHRinmanywaysisanunparalleledsuccess,perhapsonly equalledbytheEuropeanCourtofJustice(ECJ).7
Yet,whereastheECJhasfordecadesbeenthesubjectofanalysesfromanumber ofdisciplines,thescholarlyunderstandingoftheECtHRremainscomparatively unexploredinlawandparticularlythesocialsciences.Abriefviewoftheliterature ontheECJisrevealing.Aftersome25yearsofsystematicinquiryintotheECJ,we nowhaveagoodunderstandingofthemanywaystheECJhasinfluenced
5 By31March2010,some124,650allocatedapplicationswerependingbeforetheCourt.Of these,some27.7percentcamefromRussia.See EuropeanCourtofHumanRightsStatistics,1January–31December2010.
6 SeeegJ.Christoffersen, FairBalance:Proportionality,SubsidiarityandPrimarityintheEuropean ConventiononHumanRights (Leiden:MartinusNijhoff,2009),ch4.
7 NowtheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion(CJEU).Inthisintroduction,weuseECJand CJEUinterchangeably.
Europeanintegration.Theseinclude,forexample,itschangingroleasdriverofand passengerontheEuropeantrain,itsinterfacewithnationalcourts,inparticular nationalsupremecourts,itsroleinestablishingthesupremacyofEuropeanlaw, andmanyotherissues,includingthe fiercelydebatedquestionofwhetherthe ECJ deliberatelyornot isconstitutionalizingEuropeanlaw.8
TheonlyareainwhichthescholarshipontheECtHRcancomparetothatof theECJisintheareaoflegal-institutionalanddoctrinalanalysiswhereavery significantliteratureexists.9 However,therichscholarshipontheECJfocusing ontheinterplayofEuropeanlawanditscontextshasonlyrarelybeenreplicatedin respectoftheECtHR.Someattemptshave,however,recentlybeenmadeto addressthelegalcultureoftheECtHR,10 thelegalidentitiesofthejudgesofthe ECtHR,11 thelevelsofactivism,12 thehistoryoftheEuropeanCourtandConventionofHumanRights,13 anditsinterplaywithcivilsociety. 14 Thatsaid,abroader analysisoftheroleoftheECtHRinrespectofEuropeanintegration whichalso considerscomparativelyitsroleandpositioninrespectoftheECJandemerging Europeanlegalspace isgenerallymissing.15 Moreover,anapproachwhichsomehowseekstointegratethesenewinsightshassofarbeenabsent,onlyaddingtothe senseofuncertainlyregardingthepastandfutureoftheECtHR.
ThisbooksetsouttoremedythisgapinscholarlyinquiryintotheECtHR byexaminingtheoriginalandcontemporarylegal,political,andinstitutional historyoftheECtHRandthewaysinwhichithasshapeditsjurisprudenceand
8 SeeegK.Alter, EstablishingtheSupremacyofEuropeanLaw:TheMakingofanInternationalRule ofLawinEurope (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2001);A.-M.BurleyandW.Mattli, ‘Europe BeforetheCourt:APoliticalTheoryofLegalIntegration’,47 InternationalOrganization (2001),41; H.Rasmussen, OnLawandPolicyintheEuropeanCourtofJustice (Dordrecht:MartinusNijhoff, 2001);M.Rasmussen, ‘TheOriginsofaLegalRevolution:TheEarlyHistoryoftheEuropeanCourt ofJustice’,14(2) JournalofEuropeanIntegrationHistory (2008),77;A.StoneSweet, TheJudicial ConstructionofEurope (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004);A.Vauchez, ‘Uneélited’intermédiaires:Genèsed’uncapitaljuridiqueeuropéen(1950–1970)’ , Actesdelarechercheensciences sociales (2007);J.H.H.Weiler, ‘AQuietRevolution:TheEuropeanCourtofJusticeandIts Interlocutors’,26(4) ComparativePoliticalStudies (1994),510.
9 SeeegS.Greer, TheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights:Achievements,ProblemsandProspects (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006);J.G.MerrillsandA.H.Robertson, HumanRightsin Europe:AStudyoftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights (Manchester:ManchesterUniversity Press,2001).
10 N.-L.Arold, TheLegalCultureoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights (Leiden:MartinusNijhoff, 2007).
11 F.Bruinsma, ‘JudicialIdentitiesintheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights’ inA.VanHoek, A.M.Hol,O.Jansen,P.Rijpkema,andR.Widdershoven(eds), MultilevelGovernanceinEnforcement andAdjudication (Antwerp:Intersentia,2006).
12 E.Voeten, ‘TheImpartialityofInternationalJudges:EvidencefromtheEuropeanCourtof HumanRights’,102 AmericanPoliticalScienceReview (2008),417.
13 E.Bates, TheEvolutionoftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights:FromItsInceptiontothe CreationofaPermanentCourtofHumanRights (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010);M.R. Madsen, ‘FromColdWarInstrumenttoSupremeEuropeanCourt:TheEuropeanCourtofHuman RightsattheCrossroadsofInternationalandNationalLawandPolitics’,32(1) Law&SocialInquiry (2007),137;A.W.B.Simpson, HumanRightsandtheEndofEmpire:BritainandtheGenesisofthe EuropeanConvention (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004).
14 L.Hodson, NGOsandtheStruggleforRightsinEurope (Oxford:HartPublishing,2011).
15 See,however,A.CohenandM.R.Madsen,aboven4.
currentproblems.RegardlessoftheCourt’slongandongoingprocessesofinstitutionalautonomizationandjuridification,itisclosetoimpossibletodebateits contemporarypracticesandchallengesifabroaderunderstandingoftheinstitution isnotadvanced.Thisbookisthereforebasedonthepremisethatanunderstanding oftheriseoftheEuropeanCourtnecessitatesananalysisoftheinterdependency betweentheevolutionofEuropeanhumanrightslawandthechangingsociopoliticalandinstitutionalcontextsinwhichthisdevelopmentisembedded.
Weseektoframeamorecomprehensiveanalysisoftheevolutionofthe ECtHRintermsofaninterdisciplinaryapproachthatdetailsthelegal,historical,andsocio-politicalconnectionsinorde rtofurtherunderstandthelegal coreoftheECHRsystemandviceversa.Thechaptersexaminepreciselythe doubledynamicoftheevolutionoftheEuropeanhumanrightssystem thatis, theunderpinninginterplayofsocio-politicalandlegaldevelopmentshapingthe system.Asexplainedfurtherbelow,wethereforegobeyondtheconventional de fi nitionoftheobjectofstudyofEuropeanhumanrightsasbeingtheCourt ’ s jurisprudence,andinsteadmakethecommonobjectofinquirytheevolutionof theCourtintermsofaEuropeanandinternationalinstitutionmarkedbyboth lawandpolitics.
II.TheStructureoftheBook
Thestructureofthebookisdevelopedwiththeobjectiveofrespondingtothis challengeofprovidingacontextualanalysisinordertofurtherthelegal,political, and institutionalunderstandingofEuropeanhumanrightslaw.Dividedintotwo partson,respectively,the ‘PoliticsandInstitutionalization’ andthe ‘Lawand Legitimization’ oftheECtHR,allchaptersaddressasetofcloselyrelatedissues concerningtheevolutionoftheECtHR.
InPartI, ‘PoliticsandInstitutionalization’,wetracktheinstitutionalevolution oftheECtHRfromthegenesisofthesystemtoitscurrentinstitutionalset-upand challenges.The fivechaptersofPartIgenerallyconcurwiththeobservationthat theECtHRhasbeenlargelyinfluencedbyadialecticsofcrisisandinstitutional change.Inotherwords,anunderstandingofthedevelopmentoftheinstitutionand itsjurisprudencenecessitatesabetterunderstandingoftheunderlyingpolitical strugglesoverboththeinstitutionalarchitectureanditslegalbase.
InPartII, ‘LawandLegitimization’,thegeneralargumentputforwardisthatthe effectivenessofEuropeanhumanrightslawis andhasbeen considerablydeterminedbytheCourt’ssocialandpoliticallegitimacy.Thislegitimacy,however,is ensuredmainlythroughlegalanddoctrinaldevelopment,beingtheECtHR’sdirect meansofcommunicationwiththeMemberStatesanditscitizens.Withthe objectiveofaddressingthecontemporaryproblemsofbothlawandinstitutional legitimacyoftheECtHR,all fivechaptersinthispartexaminethevariouswaysin whichtheCourt,bymeansoflaw,hassought,andisseeking,tolegitimizeitselfin itsgraduallytransformingjurisdictionasaresultofthesignificantchangesinthe MemberStates.
PartI:PoliticsandInstitutionalization
Theopeningchapter(Chapter2),writtenbyEdBates,examinesthedraftingofthe EuropeanConventionandoutlinesitsoriginalintent.Revisitingthepost-war negotiationsbetweenEuropeanlawyersandpoliticiansallseekingtopreventa recurrenceoftheatrocitiesofthewar,Batesbringstolightanumberofimportant elementsthatstillhaveabearingontheECtHR.Theoriginalobjectivewasmainly tofreezetheminimumlevelofprotectionbytheContractingStates asimple meanstopreventthepopulationsofEuropefromslippingintothehandsof politicianswithoutrespectforhumanrightsandfundamentalfreedoms,beit fascistsorcommunists.Andalthoughthenegotiatorssoonagreedthatthese commonminimumstandardsshouldbeprotectedonewayoranother,theidea ofinternationalaccountabilitybeforeaninternationalCommissionandCourtwas notmetwithgreatenthusiasm.Somefearedinroadsintonationalsovereignty, whileothershadlittlefaithintheeffectivenessofinternationalinstitutions.The resultwas,ifanything,acompromise.ThePresidentoftheConsultativeAssembly oftheCouncilofEurope,Paul-HenriSpaak,wasnotshyofshowinghisdisappointment,noting,attheoccasionofthesigningoftheConventionin1950atthe PalazzoBarberiniinRome, ‘ItisnotaverygoodConvention,butitisalovely Palace’.Bates’sanalysisgenerallydemonstrateshowdiscussionsoftheECtHR whichtodaystill findanechohavecontinuouslyrevolvedaroundadistinctsetof issues:nationalsovereignty,internationalprotection,federalcontrol,domestic implementation,judicialactivism,andtheCourt’sconstitutionalroleandposition vis-à-visnationalauthorities.Thefundamentalissuesaremuchalike,bothnowand then.However,asEdBatesstresses,theimportanceoftheECHRwasnevertheless thatanumberofEuropeanlawyersandpoliticiansmanagednotonlytodraftthe ConventionbutalsotodevelopacommonEuropeanlegalvisionofinternational humanrightslaw.
InChapter3,MikaelRaskMadsenanalysestheinstitutionalizationofthe ConventionandhowtheCourtsubsequentlywentthroughaninstitutionaland legalmetamorphosisinthe1970s,pavingthewayfortheprogressivehumanrights jurisprudencewhichhasbecomesynonymouswiththeECtHRinlateryears.The firstpartofthechapterhighlightsthedoublechallengetheECtHRfacedduring the first20yearsfollowingthesigningoftheECHR.Asthekeymechanismsofthe ECHRsystem thejurisdictionoftheCourtandindividualpetition weremade optionalinthe1950Convention,acentraltaskofthesystemconsistedin findinga wayofconvincingthelargerEuropeanpowers(inparticularFranceandtheUK) toacceptthekeyoptionalclauses,whilstatthesametimeprovidingjusticetothe casesbeingbroughtbeforetheCommissionandCourtbyindividualsfromother MemberStates.Thisstrategyof ‘legaldiplomacy’ wassuccessfulinthesensethat largerpowerseventuallybecamefullmembers,yetthejurisprudenceoftheearly Courtwaslimitedandevenself-constraining.Inthesecondhalfofthe1970s, thesituationeventuallychangedwhentheECtHRembarkedondevelopingaset oflegalnotions,inparticularthenotionoftheConventionbeinga ‘living
instrument’,whichnotonlytooktheMemberStatesbysurprisebutalsosignalleda newbeginningforEuropeanhumanrights.Madsenarguesthatthisstriking transformationofEuropeanhumanrightshastobeexplainedasaneffectofboth theconsiderablechangingcontextofhumanrightsofthe1970sandtheinstitutionallegitimacybuiltupduringthepreviousperiod.Thereby,theanalysisinserts theriseoftheECtHRasalegalinstitutioninthebroadersocialandgeopolitical transformationsofthe1970s,aswellasunderliningtherelativeinstitutional continuityoftheECtHR.
InChapter4,ErikVoetenexaminestheinternalpoliticsoftheCourt,inparticular theimportanceofappointmentpracticesandindividualopinionsofECtHRjudges. In1980,JudgeMatscherdrylyobservedthattheinterpretationoflegaltextsmay remain ‘amatterofopinion’ . 16 Likewise,in1966,theInternationalLawCommissionnotedthat ‘recoursetomanyoftheseprinciplesisdiscretionaryratherthan obligatoryandtheinterpretationofdocumentsistosomeextentanart,notanexact science’ . 17 ErikVoetenmakesacasefortheviewthatjudgesarepoliticallymotivated actors,andpersonalpreferences,therefore,impingeontheapplicationofabstract humanrightsstandardsinspecificcases.Whilenationalbiasisimportant,itrarely influencestheoutcomeofreportedcasesaccordingtoVoeten’sanalysis.Moreover, Voeten’sstudysuggeststhattheindependenceofjudgeswillbestrengthened somewhatbyProtocolNo14asjudgeswhoareabouttoretireseemlesslikelyto exhibitnationalbias.AccordingtoVoeten,afactorofgreatersignificanceis thepotentialactivistroleofjudgesfromtheformersocialistcountries,whoseem tobeespeciallysensitivetotheimpactofformersocialistregimesonhumanrights. Attheendoftheday,theindividualjudgesdonotemergeasmarkedlydifferentfrom ordinaryjudgesincourtsofappeal.Theyhavedifferencesofopinion,buttheinternal cultureoftheCourtreducestheimpactofpersonalpreferencestoanacceptable level.Butthefundamentallyhumancharacterofadjudicationnonethelessbegs thequestionoflegitimacyandaccountability.Voetensuggeststhatpoliticalinfluence bygovernmentsontheappointmentproceduremaywellbedesirablefromthe perspectiveoflegitimacy,astheoverallideologicaldirectionoftheCourtisthus subjecttopoliticalaccountability.
InChapter5,RachelCichowskitakesupacentral,yetlittleexplored,issue relatedtotheproblemoflawandlegitimacy,namelyhowthelegitimacyofthe ECtHRisverymuchdependentonitsabilitytoprovidejusticetothemany individualslaunchingcomplaintstotheCourt.Thechapterexploreshowthe activismofcivilsocietygroupshasplayedacentralroleinexpandingtheStrasbourg humanrightsrepertoireand,thus,hasfunctionedasanengineintransformingthe Court’sjurisprudence.Theanalysisistwofold.Inthe firstpartCichowskiprovides ahistoricaloverviewwhichoutlinestherulesforNGO/activistparticipationin litigationbeforetheECtHR,highlightinghowthishaschangedovertimeandthe
16 PartlydissentingopinionofJudgeMatscherin GuzzardivItaly judgmentSeriesAno39(1980).
17 InternationalLawCommission:ReportsoftheCommissiontotheGeneralAssembly, II YearbookoftheInternationalLawCommission (1966),218,para4.
importantroletheCourtitselfhashadinchangingthisinterfacewithNGOs. CichowskimoreoversuggeststhewaysinwhichNGO/activistparticipationhas helpedshapethejurisprudenceoftheECtHR.Inthesecondpartoftheanalysis,a comparativecasestudyofcasesagainstTurkeyandtheUKintheareaofminority rightsovera15-yeartimeperiodisundertakeninordertoexamineinmoredetail thedynamicsbetweeninstitutionaldevelopmentandlawandNGOparticipation. CichowskigenerallyarguesthattheevolutionoftheConventionsystemwasand continuestobecriticallylinkedtoadynamicinteractionbetweencivilsocietyand theECtHR.Thelegitimacyofthisprocessremainsa finebalancebetweensocietal inclusionanddomesticgovernmentsupport.Inotherwords,thedoublechallenge alreadyobservedinthepreviouschapterintermsofprovidingjusticeandbalancing governmentsupportcanbeextendedtoexplainingthedynamicofNGOparticipationbeforetheECtHR.
Inthe finalchapterofthe firstpart(Chapter6),LordLesterofHerneHillQC revisitsthekeyargumentssupportingthefurtherdevelopmentoftheCourtinlight ofitshistory.BypayingtributetothediplomaticskillsoftheCommission’sstaffin theformativeyearsofthesystem,LordLesterremindsusofthefactthatmuch couldhavedevelopedverydifferently.LordLestervividlyelucidatesthefundamentalnatureofthechallengesfacingtheCourtandarguesthatmanysolutionsto pendinginstitutionalandjuridicalproblemscanbeprovidedbypayingmore attentiontotheCourt’s50yearsofinstitutionalandlegalexperience.Hence, manyquestionsandanswerscontinuetorevolvearoundissuessuchasimproving user-friendliness,identificationofurgentandessentialcases,strengtheningjudicial independence,creationofastreamlinedreviewsystem,reducingcase-handling time,ring-fencingandincreasingthebudget,improving flexibilityinamending proceduralrequirementsbyastatuteoftheCourt,provisionofreasonsinall decisions,increasingstaffsupporttojudges,andstrengtheningthequalityofthe Court’soutput.Asalawyerandpolitician,LordLesterwarnsthatthepoliticalwill oftheContractingPartiesmaynotsufficetomeetthedemandsofthestrongest voicesofhumanrightsadvocacy.However,astheanalysissuggests,thisdoesnot reduceorchangetheactualchallengesthesystemisfacing.
PartII:LawandLegitimization
Thefocusofthesecondpartofthebookislessontheinstitutionallevelbutrather onthelegitimizationoftheECtHRthroughlaw.Inthe fi rstchapter(Chapter7), RobertHarmsenlinksthetwopartsofthebookby fi rstobservingthatthe institutionalizationandlegitimizationoftheConventionis,seemingly,aneverendingstory: ‘Thelanguageofimperativereformshasbecomesomethingofa reassuringconstantforthoseconcernedwiththeConventionanditsCourt’ .But Harmsenisconcernedlesswiththenatureandscopeofreformandinsteadmakes thereformprocessesastartingpointforabetterunderstandingofthewider evolutionoftheroleoftheConventionsystem.AndHarmseninsiststhatthe Courtisnotthesystem.Nonetheless,thediscussionssurroundingthereform enactedbyProtocolNo11werelimitedinscopeandregardedthereformasa
technicalmatterofimprovingthecase-handlingcapacityoftheCourt.Harmsen suggeststhatthiswasduetothefactthatthesystemitselfhadachievedadegreeof politicallegitimacythatleftthereformtotechnical,legalexperts.Thenarrow focusontheCourtbroughtlittleattentiontotheCourt’ srelationshipwith nationalauthoritiesandtheCommitteeofMinisters.Onlywiththedebate leadinguptotheadoptionofProtocolNo14wasthenatureandroleofthe ECtHRchallenged:shouldtheECtHRremainaCourtlargelyconcernedwith grantingrelieftoindividualapplicantsorshouldtheCourtemphasizeitspowers todeveloplegalprinciplesofbroaderapplicability?Harmsenpointsoutthatthe Courtisnolongerseenasanisolatedinstitutiondividedbetween ‘constitutional’ and ‘individual ’ justice,butisplacedinawiderframeworkofinstitutions, includingtheCouncilofEurope ’sCommissionerofHumanRights,aswellas theCommitteeofMinisters.Itiswithinthiscontextthatthecentralroleofthe Courtshouldbeconsideredwithregardsto,forexample,improvingtheeffectivenessofthesysteme.g.bydevelopingandexpandingtherighttoaneffective remedy,aswellasbythecreationandrenewalofthepilotjudgmentprocedure and,thus,providingalegalplatformfortheresolutionofhumanrightsdisputes atthenationalandinternationallevel.
IndebatesontheECHR,theECtHRmostoftentakescentrestageandthe roleofnationalcourtsisfrequentlyoverlooked,orevenignored.However,in Chapter8StéphanieHennette-Vauchezarguesthatthepredominantconstitutionalist-individualistdivideisill-adaptedtodealwiththeempiricalrealityofthe Convention,whichaccordingtoHennette-Vauchezis,infact,farmorenational thaninternational.Hennette-VauchezconteststheexistenceofasinglyEuropean humanrightslaw:inheranalysis,ECHRlawismadeupofthesumofthevarious nationalversionsofECHRimplementations.Thepluralityofnationalversionsand thecrucialroleofnationalauthoritiesmakethenotionofonebodyofECHRlaw outoftouchwithlegalreality.Hennette-VauchezaddressesthepluralityofECHR lawbyengagingthetwostrikingcasesofFranceandItaly,whichhavebeenexposed todifferentencounterswiththeinternationallimboftheConventionsystem. Thesetwomajorstakeholdershavetothisdayconsiderablydiverseattitudes towardstheECHRand,accordingly,toitsstatusinnationallaw.Thedevelopmentsareshapedpartlybylegalactorsfromdifferentbackgrounds,partlyby thegeneralbackdropofthelinkbetweennationalandinternationallawinthe States.Whicheverperspectiveisadopted,theattemptsatlegitimizingEuropean lawthroughlegalconceptualwork,includingbybuildingontheviewsofinternationalistsandconstitutionalists,placestheECHRatriskoflosing,oratleast reducing,itslegitimacy:thecentralfocusforcitizensremainsthenationallegal systemand,thus,thelegitimizationoftheECHRthroughlawisasnationalasit isEuropean.
Thethirdchapterofthesecondpart(Chapter9),writtenbyLaurentScheeck, looksatanotherincreasinglyimportantlegalinterfaceoftheECtHR,namelyhow thegradualapproximationbetweentheECtHRandtheECJhasinfluenced Strasbourg’slegalpracticesandofferednewformsoflegitimization.Scheeck seestheroleoftheECtHRintheEUas ‘aparadoxicalcaseofasymmetrical
inter-institutionalpowerrelationsinEurope’.Basically,Scheeckargues,the ECtHR,despiteinmanywaysbeingthelesspowerfulofthetwoEuropean Courts,hasmanagedtoinfl uenceEUlawsigni fi cantlyintheareaofhuman rights.ScheeckanalysestheinterplaybetweentheECtHRandtheECJbyfocusing ontheECtHR’ s ‘diplomaticintrusions’ intotheEUlegalorder,forexamplethrough theECtHR’swell-knowndialoguewithEUjudgesandpoliticalactors.Thisdialogue hasnowexistedforsome30yearsandtheimpactofStrasbourgjurisprudenceis, accordingtoScheeck,perhapsnowhereassignificantasintheEU.Whilethepositive receptionofECtHRjurisprudenceintheEUlegalorderisofimportanceforthe legitimacyoftheECtHR,theECJitselfhasalsoinstrumentalizedthisrelationwith theobjectiveofcementingitsviewontheprimacyofEUlaw.Inhisanalysis,Scheeck seesthisinterplayasaformof ‘strategicinterdependence’ whichhasdevelopedas theproductofmanyformsofinteractionandtypesofactors,includingthelargely unexpectedeffectsofjurisprudentialentanglementsbetweenthetwoCourts.Inview ofthepreviouschapter,itisstrikinghowtheaxisoftheECtHR–ECJhasmanaged tobuildarelativelystablestrategicpartnershiparoundhumanrights.Howeverwith theLisbonTreatynowinforce,itisstilltobeseenwhetherthisbalanceofpowercan besustained.Certainly,theimplementationintonationallawoftheECHRinmany EuropeancountriesadecadeortwoagochallengedthehegemonyoftheECtHR intermsofbeingtheultimateauthorityonhumanrights.Asimilartransformation isnotunthinkableinrespectofECtHR–ECJrelations.However,asScheeckpoints out,theprevioussolutionhasprovidedaddedlegitimacytobothpartiesanditwill takesomecouragetochangethat.
Chapter10,writtenbyJonasChristoffersen,analysesthechallengestothe legitimacyoftheCourtandtheECHRsystemmoregenerallyduetoitsincreased inabilitytoprovidetheindividualremediesthatconstitutethecoreofthesystem. Christoffersen’schapterfollowsupsomeoftheissuesraisedinthepreviousthree chapters,namelyhowbesttodeveloptheECHRsysteminlightofitsmanycurrent challenges.Inparticular,Christoffersenmakesacaseforreversingthedynamicsof ECHRadjudicationbydecentralizingtheECHRsystem.Thewayforwardisto considertheMemberStatesasthecentralactorsofthesystem.TheCourtoughtto continuethedevelopmentawayfromindividualjusticetowardsagreateremphasis onconstitutionaljustice thatis,thedevelopmentofstandardsandgeneral elucidationofthesubstantivecontentoftheECHR.Atthesametime,States mustregaintheirindependence.Christoffersenargues,interalia: ‘Statesmayand must,dependingonthecircumstances,deviatefromthecaselawoftheCourtand independentlystrikeafairbalancebetweenopposingforcesandprovidetheirown answerstopertinenthumanrightsissues.Statesneedtoprovideanswersthathave higherlegitimacythanthosegivenbytheCourt.’ Thisviewislinkedwithan objectiveofre-legitimizingtheECtHRastheCourthasbecomeanincreasingly restrictedinternationalhumanrightsremedy.Thissolutionisnotacaseof academicspeculationbutratherageneralizationofanumberofdevelopments alreadytakingplacewherethesubsidiarityofthesystemhasbecomefundamental forunderstandinghowthecentralroleoftheCourtandthedecentralizedroleof Statescaninteractforthebenefitofmorethan800millionindividuals.Yet,
Christoffersenleavesopenthequestionwhetheranyoneisreadytomeetthe challengeandchangethepowerbalanceofECHRadjudication
Inthebook’ s finalchapter(Chapter11),formerPresidentoftheECtHR,Luzius Wildhaber,highlightshowtheever-increasingcaseoverloadischallengingthe legitimacyoftheECtHR.Wildhaberarguesthatitisclosetoimpossibletohave ageneralizedguaranteeofindividualreviewofeachandeveryapplication.Wildhaberlikewiseadmitsthat ‘thelobbyofNGOs,professors,andevenjudgeswho warnagainstwhattheyconsidertoberestrictionsontherightsofindividual applicationhasbeennoisyandeffective,andthatthereisvirtuallynolobby advocatingeffectivereform’.WildhaberproposesrethinkingtheECtHRbeyond themanyincrementaladjustmentswiththegoalofprovidingagreaterdegreeof stabilityandhonesty.WildhabersuggeststhattheCourtiswelladvisedtostayon safegroundratherthantodevelopstandardsofprotectiontooaggressively,justas theCourtshouldstaywithinthefactsofparticularcasesandseektoremedygeneral issuesofthenationallegalorders.Moregenerally,however,Wildhaberpointsout thatthechallengeofthecurrentoverloadcouldbeaddressedmoreeffectively ‘if(andthatisabig “if ”)thejudgesoftheECtHRcouldbepersuadedthatitis theirresponsibilitynotonlytorendertheConventionguaranteeseffectiveandreal, butalsoandjustasmuchtomaketheECHRsystemeffectiveandreal,too’ . Wildhaberfurtherpointstotheroleofpoliticalactorswhohave ‘underestimated thedifficultiesandoverestimatedtherealpossibilitiesoftheECtHRtochange nationaljudicialandpoliticalsystems’.Politicalactorshavethusfailedtodrawthe consequencesofthechangedrealityoftheECHRandofEurope.Wildhaber’ s solutioncomprisesafocusonthemostserioushumanrightsviolations,adeparture fromanunrestrictedrightofindividualpetition,andperhapsaSupremeEuropean CourtofHumanRights.
III.FuturePerspectives
Wehaveoptednottoincludeaconcludingchapterinthisbookbecauseaddressing theevolutionoftheECtHRisindeedaddressingamovingtargetandanyattempt toprovidea finalanalysisis,inpractice,boundtofail.Overthelastyearalonewhile editingthisbook,noticeabledevelopmentshaveoccurred,inparticularinrelation tothebuild-uptoandoutcomeoftheInterlakenconferenceinFebruary2010and, evenmoreimportantlyperhaps,thedecisionbyRussiainJanuary2010 finallyto ratifyProtocolNo14.Thelatterallowedforthelongcalledforstreamliningofthe system,althoughitishighlyuncertainwhetheritwillactuallyprovideareal solutiontotheproblemof,forinstance,theever-increasingcaseload.
TheHighLevelConferenceontheFutureoftheEuropeanCourtofHuman RightsheldatInterlakeninSwitzerlandin2010providesanotherimportant indicationofthepossiblewaysaheadfortheECtHR.TheadoptedInterlaken DeclarationisessentiallyanActionPlandesignedtoprovidepoliticalguidancefor theprocesstowardslong-termeffectivenessoftheConventionsystemandassuch identifiesanumberofshort-andlong-termmeasuresthoughtnecessarytosecure
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
CHARITY UNDERTOOK TO DIVIDE EVERYTHING WITH EQUAL FAIRNESS.
Up to now they had seen very few people. A boy driving cattle in the distance was an Indian chasing buffaloes; an old man with a dog was a chief with his wolf hound.
But when they took to their raft again, their sharp eyes spied a fisherman some distance away with his line across the stream.
"Now you'll hear him swear," said Charlie, with a delighted chuckle. "I know what fishermen are like. I've passed them before."
"He isn't a fisherman," said Hope; "he's a pirate looking out for ships from his island."
"It's a pity we have no gun to blow him to pieces! My dear husband, put a bit more strength into that old punt stick of yours! Let's rush down the stream and pull hold of his line—perchance we may pull in the pirate to his death!"
So all four got hold of their oars, and by dint of prodding the banks in punt-like fashion, the raft began to quicken its pace. The fisherman saw them before they reached him and pulled in his line. He did not swear but laughed heartily as the raft approached.
"Who the dickens is this?" he asked. "Here, hi, don't pass me by! Is there room for me on board?"
He was a tall, broad-shouldered young man.
Charlie threw a ferocious look at him.
"You're a pirate, let us pass!"
The young man had stopped the raft with his foot. Charlie was rather exhausted with his efforts, and the little girls were panting for breath.
"If I'm a pirate, I beg to tell you that this water is mine, and that you are my prisoners. You'll land at once, and forfeit your ship."
With a quick, dexterous stroke, he had seized hold of the rope, and drawn the raft close to the bank.
Winding it round a tree stump, the discomfited voyagers found their passage stopped.
Charity looked up into the pirate's face. She saw that his eyes were twinkling, and she felt reassured.
"The ocean is free to all," she said boldly.
The young man pointed to a board close by.
"Private water. Trespassers will be prosecuted."
And then Charlie saw that he had brought his raft along the wrong bend of the stream. He had seldom before come as far as this.
For a moment the little Captain looked perplexed.
"We are on a peace voyage," he said, "otherwise with cutlasses and guns we would make short work of you. We are searching for an island called 'Tarjak,' and for treasure thereon."
"Ah," said the young man in a mysterious tone, "now you've come to the right party. I know the very spot and will lead you to it, if I may share in the booty."
"He means treachery!" said Charity in a loud whisper.
"I've got you in my power!" said the young man sternly.
Charlie and the little girls hastily consulted together.
"We'll just let him join us," was Charlie's decision.
Then he turned to the stranger.
"Now will you lead us?"
"I'll tow you along," was the cheerful reply. "You have spoilt my fishing, but I'll take you straight to a treasure island such as you have never seen before."
In a very short time, this amazing young man was marching along the banks rope in hand, and the raft was being towed along without any effort on the part of the crew. They gave themselves up to the delight of it, for all small backs and wrists were aching, and it was delicious to be towed along so swiftly, without any effort.
And presently the stream widened considerably and a veritable small island appeared. The Pirate used the oars now, and stood in the middle of the raft himself. He brought it to the edge of the island and told the children to get out.
To their delight there was a tiny thatched hut in the middle of it.
"Years ago," said the pirate, "I landed here in a small boat, having been shipwrecked, and having lost all I possessed. I built myself this hut and lived here in peace, quitting it for rougher waters and sea fishing occasionally. For the most part I lived on fish. One day I was digging for bait, when I stumbled on a—a cache, and in a certain spot on this island is one hidden now. Treasure is in it. If you have brought spades, dig away till you find it. I will give you a clue. Four paces from Security, an arm's length to the right, dig for two feet down!"
"We haven't any spades," said the little girls. "The Captain has the only one."
The young man went into the hut, and soon appeared with a pitchfork and two spades of very small proportions.
"And now," said Charity, "where is Security? It must be the hut, of course!"
In a very few minutes each child was digging four paces from the hut. But Charlie began to flag, whereupon the young man whispered something to him.
"Your Captain is ill," he said; "he's going to rest. I'll take his place."
Charlie sat down on the step leading to the hut and watched the others with a rather bitter face. It was hard to be bowled over so soon, just when he would like to prove his strength to be superior to the girls.
Digging went on steadily, but the three little girls made slow progress.
The young man dug too, but he presently said, "I'll give another clue:"
"By the side of a singer's home, a hand's span from the base."
The little girls were completely puzzled. Charlie's bright eyes roved to and fro. At last his face lightened.
"I have it. A singer's home is a bird's tree, and the base is the trunk of it. There's only one tree which it can mean, and it's the ash tree between Bolt and Ben."
Charity made a rush to the spot, and Charlie sprang up declaring he was quite rested. He and the three girls all attacked the ground round the ash tree, and the young man quietly slipped into the hut, leaving them at work.
It was not long before Charity's spade hit against something hard. Then four eager pairs of hands dragged it to light. It was a rusty tin box tied with string and sealed.
Charlie took command as Captain, and cut the string with his clasp knife. His face was solemn as he did it, but the little girls' faces bubbled all over with curiosity and delight.
It was hard to open, but at last the lid gave way, and then Charlie very carefully lifted out the contents.
Four black farthings, a blue marble, and two peach stones.
Faith's face fell; she was dreadfully disappointed. She had really expected to find it full of precious stones.
Charity danced up and down.
"Golden sovereigns, a blue jewel worth a million pounds, and seeds of a pomegranate that grew in Paradise!" she cried.
Charlie turned to her with an approving face.
"You are right, my wife, wonderful treasure indeed! Does the Pirate mean to let us carry it off?"
"The Pirate invites you to a meal. He is tired of a very lonely life and welcomes treasure seekers to his home."
It was the young man who spoke. The children dashed into the hut, Charlie clutching his tin box. There another surprise awaited them.
A kettle was boiling merrily. A cake was on the table, and some ham sandwiches. The Pirate had cups and saucers, and was measuring tea into a brown teapot.
"We have no cow on the island, but we have sugar and good tea. Let us fall to!"
It seemed like magic. The children sat up round a little table and they had a merry meal. After it was over, the treasure box was produced and the treasures divided. The Pirate took one of the peach stones. Charity took the other.
"I as Captain's wife have first choice," she said. "I am going to plant this wonderful seed, and perhaps it will spring up into a magic tree which will reach the sun."
Charlie gave Hope and Faith a farthing each.
"A guinea for Bolt and Ben," he said. "I being Captain keep the blue diamond and a guinea, my wife can have the other."
Then the Pirate pulled out his pipe, and sitting cross legged on the ground told them the most wonderful story of how the treasures had been obtained and hidden away. The children listened breathlessly, but at last the Captain said it was getting late, and they must go. The Pirate took them back to their raft, and then he surprised them again. He got out a very small boat from under the willows, tucked himself into it, and fastening the rope of the raft to his painter, rowed gaily off down the stream, towing the children back to the spot where he found them. Then he bade them good-bye.
"We shall never meet again most likely," he said, "but I warn you to keep to your own waters. There are other
pirates who would make short work of you should they find you where I did!"
The children waved their hands gaily to him. Charlie was supremely happy, and content at the result of his voyage after treasure, and all their tongues wagged fast as they made their way down the stream towards Charlie's home. It was nearly six o'clock when they got there, so the little girls bade their new friend a hasty good-bye.
"It has been perfect—simply perfect!" said Charity, and the others echoed her words.
They ran home then as fast as they could, and told Granny all of their adventures.
"Who do you think the Pirate can be?" Faith asked. "He has such nice kind eyes, but a very grave face."
Granny said she could not possibly tell, and Aunt Alice could not help them.
But the next day the rector's wife paid a long call. Charity happened to be in the room, and though she was as quiet as a little mouse she kept her ears wide open, and when she was alone with Hope and Faith she was quite excited.
"I believe Mrs. Webster was talking about the Pirate, I believe she was! She told Aunt Alice she had a little grandson staying with her last week, and she wished she had asked us over to tea with him, as he was so lonely. And then she said that Fred Cardwell had been so good to him. He had taken him off fishing with him several days, and had entertained him on an island which the little boy had loved. She asked Aunt Alice if she knew the Cardwells, and I pricked up my ears and listened hard. Aunt Alice said no,
and she said Fred Cardwell lived with a very cross, ill father —I think he's a squire, like Sir George, and they live about five miles from here. The father is parry—something—a long word, and Fred had to come home and look after him, and he's no mother or brothers and sisters, and Mrs. Webster said it was a terrible life for him, and it made him gloomy, and he doesn't go anywhere or won't know anybody, but he likes children and she said her little grandson loved him. Don't you think Fred may be our pirate? Because there can't be lots of islands about, and perhaps that was why he had cake and tea in the hut, he had put them there when the little boy was with him!"
Charity paused for breath.
"I wish we could see him again," said Faith.
"We'll keep a sharp look-out along the roads when we walk," said Hope. "Mrs. Cox wasn't at all right about the country. We do meet people very often, and we may meet him."
"We'll ask Lady Melville if she knows him when we see her next," Charity said; "and now I'm going to plant my magic seed. Come and see me do it."
So Hope and Faith accompanied her to the little garden, and she planted it just below their bedroom window.
"Perhaps it will be like Jack's beanstalk, and grow so high that we can step out of our window on to its branches," said Hope.
"It's sure to be different from any other tree, for it has been hidden away for years, I'm sure," said Charity.
They did not see Charlie for some time after this. They heard that he was ill, and one day a letter came from him addressed to "My Wife and Crew."
The little girls opened it with great delight. It was very short.
"This is to tell you that youre Captin lies dangirosly wunded, and his sickness is suvere. His next voyage will not take plaice, and when he gets better Ben is to come to him to delever messages to his wife and to Bolt.
"Charles, Captain of the 'Success.'"
Faith was Ben. She wondered why she was especially invited. Charity tossed her head.
"He knows he can do what he likes with Faith. I expect none of us will be able to go with him now, for Aunt Alice said we were to begin lessons. This new governess, Miss Vale, is coming next Monday."
"Well, anyhow," said Hope, "I'm glad it isn't school, and Aunt Alice says she will be very nice."
"I must answer his letter," said Faith.
But she was not very fond of letter-writing and put it off. She left Charity and Hope playing in the orchard that afternoon and went off to visit her friend the shepherd. There was nothing she enjoyed so much as creeping into his little cottage and sitting on a small stool in the chimney corner with the old man. Sandy would come and rest his
