Thursday, 15 October 2009

Bringing Rights Home

At a round table discussion held in Bled in Slovenia on 21-22 September, the Court's registrar gave his views on how the Court could deal with repetitive cases pending further reforms. Although these are his personal views, they do give a good insight in the main thrust of the discussion taking place currently. The full text of the speech 'Bringing Rights Home - or how to deal with repetitive applications in the future', can be found here.

Many thanks to professor Rick Lawson of Leiden University for pointing this out to me!

2 comments:

Eleni said...

It is perplexing and worrying that the Court's Registrar, in this speech, considers that the issues of "property in northern Cyprus" are comparable to those regarding violations of Art 1 Prot 1 in the post communist eastern european states and can be similarly rectified by a simple change of legislative provision or administrative practice. The Court is in fact holding a hearing in November on whether or not the legislative measure introduced in northern Cyprus following the adoption of the pilot judgment procedure, is an effective one in curing the existing violations and providing adequate redress; it would be most interesting to see whether the Court agrees with its Registrar that all the repetitive cases arising out of the art1 Prot 1 and Art 8 violations in that part of the world can be summarily dealt with in the way he envisages, i.e. by getting the State responsible and the CoM somehow to respectively introduce the right legislative measures and have them properly implemented whilst the Court sits back and waits for results. Repetitive cases, such as thoses re the property issues in the northern part of Cyprus, may arise from structural issues that can not be wished away by a simple piece of legislation and may require a wider and more active judicial supervision than the one suggested here.

jailhouselawyer said...

I recall the UK government with its Bringing Rights Home. I still had to go to Europe with Hirst v UK(No2). Even now, 5 years on, I am still trying to get the UK to implement the Court's decision.