(Re-)Election of Judges

Yesterday, the Court re-elected Jean-Paul Costa as its president for a period of three years. On the same day the British judge Bratza was re-elected as one of the two vice-presidents of the Court, also for three years (the other vice-president is Christos Rozakis). Finally, the Belgian judge Francoise Tulkens was re-elected as president of the Second Section of the Court. All elections were conducted by secret ballot. The re-affirmation of some of the Court's key positions comes at a crucial time. With the upcoming conference at Interlaken and with the expiry of the terms of a number of judges in 2010 (unless Russia ratifies Protocol 14, which would extend some of he terms), experience within the Court is something to be cherished.

The full composition of the current Court can be found here.

Concerns on Cooperation Duty of States

The Committee of Ministers has replied to a recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly concering the duty of states to co-operate with the European Court. As readers will read below, this reaction is rather non-committal in spite of its explicit support for the Assembly's stance. This is worrying since it, inter alia, refers to undue pressure on applicants, their families and lawyers...

Doc. 12067, 13 October 2009

Member states’ duty to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights

Recommendation 1809 (2007)

Reply from the Committee of Ministers

adopted at the 1067th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (9 October 2009)

1. The Committee of Ministers has examined Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1809 (2007) on “Member states’ duty to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights”. It has brought the recommendation to the attention of member states and forwarded it to its Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH). The CDDH has given an opinion, appended to this reply, with which the Committee fully concurs.

2. It points out that in its interim reply adopted at the 1009th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (24 October 2007), it had congratulated the Parliamentary Assembly on the work accomplished in the preparation and adoption of Resolution 1571 (2007) and Recommendation 1809 (2007) on “Member states’ duty to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights”.

3. As stated in the recommendation itself, the Committee of Ministers has, on numerous occasions, stressed the importance of member states’ obligation to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights. For example, in its Resolution ResDH(2006)45, the Committee of Ministers, emphasising that respect of this obligation was of fundamental importance for the proper and effective functioning of the Convention system, deplored the fact that violations of this obligation had nevertheless continued to be found in recent judgments of the Court. In this resolution, the Committee of Ministers called on contracting states to ensure that all measures had been taken so that the relevant authorities complied with requests for assistance from the Court under Article 38 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) and to ensure that authorities effectively seized with such requests complied strictly with them.

4. The Committee of Ministers notes that questions relating to unlawful acts from which applicants to the Court, or people close to these applicants, had suffered, have been discussed on several occasions by the Ministers’ Deputies.

5. In view of the fundamental importance of member states’ duty to co-operate with the Court, the Committee of Ministers informs the Parliamentary Assembly that, in accordance with the opinion of the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), it is intending to draw up a draft resolution addressing the concerns expressed by the Assembly in its Resolution 1571 (2007) and its Recommendation 1809 (2007), in particular with regard to the protection of applicants, their lawyers and members of their family, the investigations to be carried out and the measures to be taken.

Appendix to the reply

CDDH opinion on Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1809 (2007) and Resolution 1571 (2007) on “Member states’ duty to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights”

1. The Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) concurs entirely with the Assembly that whilst states generally co-operate well with the Court, it is a matter of grave concern that isolated cases persist of interference with applicants, their families and their lawyers and other representatives.

2. The CDDH agrees fully with the Assembly’s conclusion that “the right of individuals to apply to the Court is a central element of the human rights protection mechanism in Europe and must be protected from interference at all levels.” It strongly supports the philosophy running through the Assembly’s report and adopted texts and shares the Ministers’ Deputies’ conclusion that the issues raised are of great importance for the effectiveness of the European system of human rights protection.

3. All States Parties to the Convention have undertaken not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right (Article 34 of the Convention). Furthermore, the Court’s case law has now clearly established that all States Parties are obliged to comply with an order of interim measures made under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and that non-compliance may imply a violation of Article 34.

4. In particular, the CDDH would underline the Assembly’s recommendations to member states made in paragraphs 17.2 and 17.3 of Resolution 1571 (2007). These duties to protect and to investigate reflect states’ basic positive obligations that are an essential characteristic of the Convention system as a whole.

5. As regards the question posed by the Ministers’ Deputies concerning the advisability of drawing up a recommendation to member states along the lines proposed by the Assembly, the CDDH is of the opinion that such a course of action would not be appropriate at present. It suggests that the Deputies, by means of a resolution, echo the worries expressed by the Assembly in particular in paragraphs 17.2 and 17.3 of the aforementioned resolution. Finally, it considers that the issue of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, including the question of its status, should be examined in detail in the context of future work on a Statute for the Court.

PACE : EU Accession to ECHR a Priority

The Lisbon Treaty which will reform the European Union will, after the final signature of the Czech president, enter into force in December. One of the innovations is the possibility for the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Lluís Maria de Puig, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), welcomed this development last week. He expressed the hope that accession would be a priority for the EU:

"As from next month, the 27-member EU will be in a position to become more democratic, more transparent and more effective. First and foremost, however, the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty will afford the EU an opportunity to strengthen the principle of legal certainty by acceding to the ECHR of the Council of Europe, so that the actions and decisions of EU institutions will be subjected to the same external scrutiny as those of the member states.

Although there is now broad support for this accession, it is important that the declarations of intent swiftly be matched by deeds. As our Assembly recently pointed out, accession will convey a strong message of a clear commitment to the protection of human rights not only within the boundaries of the European Union but also Europe-wide, in keeping with the community of values shared by the Council of Europe and the European Union.

From now on, the preparations for accession must be top of the agenda in discussions between the two organisations."

However, the other end of the equation should not be forgotten: it is Protocol 14 to the ECHR which provides for EU accession. As readers of this blog will know, this Protocol still awaits its last ratification by the Russian Federation. Would the prospect of making the EU more accountable for human rights violations be a reason for the Russian Duma to look more postively at Protocol 14? In any event, Protocol 14-Bis, which was meant to increase the speed of reforms of the Court does not contain the EU accession provision from Protocol 14. No help can thus be expected from that side. EU and ECHR - never the twain shall meet?

Structure of Strasbourg Judgments

Professor Robin White of the University of Leicester has published the following article on SSRN: 'Judgments in the Strasbourg Court: Some Reflections'. This is the abstract:

This essay, which will in due course appear in M Andenas and S Vogenhauer (Eds), A Matter of Style? The Form of Judgments in the United Kingdom and Abroad: Essays in Honour of Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Hart Publishing, forthcoming, examines the structure of judgments in the European Court of Human Rights, and offers some reflections on the extent to which the form of judgments contributes to the aims of the Convention system.

Book on International Law and ECHR

Frédéric Vanneste, formerly at the University of Leuven and now working for the Belgian Council of State, has just published his book General International Law Before Human Rights Courts - Assessing the Specialty Claims of Human Rights Law. Although it deals with a wider issue, an analysis of ECHR case law is one of the core elements of the book. This is the abstract:

This book analyzes how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) deal with general international law. In the light of the concerns of various authors about the fragmentation of international law and the “human rightist” aspirations of human rights law, the question arises whether these human rights courts put the unity of general international law into danger.

The main idea of this study is that the ECtHR and the IACtHR may in principle only “elaborate” and not “depart” from or “contradict” general international law. A departure is only acceptable if a clear lex specialis has been established for human rights law.

The author researches whether or not the sometimes different case law of both human rights courts fits into this assumption. Almost all topics of general international law that have been dealt with by the ECtHR and IACtHR are analyzed: reservations, application of treaties ratione temporis, ratione loci and ratione personae, interpretation rules, the theory of the sources of international law, jus cogens, modification and withdrawal from treaties, diplomatic protection, exhaustion of local remedies, State responsibility (including the law of reparations), foreign State immunity and State succession.

This volume is of interest not only to human rights lawyers, but to all international lawyers. It explains how certain traditional concepts of general international law appear to function, and how other concepts need to be refined in order to create a more effective international order. This analysis may be a source of inspiration for other subsystems of international law like environmental law, WTO law, maritime law, space law, etc.

At the same publisher, a guide for practioners and others interested in bringing cases to the European Court of Human Rights has just been published by my colleague Yves Haeck - in Dutch: Procederen voor het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens, an impressive and very complete roadmap to Strasbourg.

Cruxifix in the Classroom Judgment

Religious symbols in public places have been a bone of contention in public discussions in many places around the world. Yesterday, the European Court added its contribution in the judgment Lautsi v. Italy. (Appl.no. 30814/06). The case concerned a complaint by a mother of children of 11 and 13 years old that the public school which they attended had a crucifix in each classroom. She contended that this was contrary to secularist principles by which she wanted to raise her children. Italian laws and regulations, partly dating from the Mussolini era, obliged public schools to display the crucifix in classrooms. In the Strasbourg proceedings Italy had argued that that the crucifix was not only a religious symbol, but also a symbol of Italian state and culture and therefore even could represent secularism. The reasoning of the Italian state, summarised in the judgment, is worth reading for the mere curiosity of its logic alone (even if one may understand the underlying concerns). The Court disagreed and found - unanimously - a violation of the freedom of religion (Art. 9 ECHR) jointly with the right to education (Art. 2 of Protocol 1). The Court, amongst others, took into account the nature of the religious symbol concerned (amongst the plurality of meanings, the Court held that the religious connotation of the crucifix was dominant) and its impact on young children. In two of the key paragraphs (para. 55-56) the Court held that the demands of pluralism in public schools called for a change in the Italian situation:

55. La présence du crucifix peut aisément être interprétée par des élèves de tous âges comme un signe religieux et ils se sentiront éduqués dans un environnement scolaire marqué par une religion donnée. Ce qui peut être encourageant pour certains élèves religieux, peut être perturbant émotionnellement pour des élèves d'autres religions ou ceux qui ne professent aucune religion. Ce risque est particulièrement présent chez les élèves appartenant à des minorités religieuses. La liberté négative n'est pas limitée à l'absence de services religieux ou d'enseignement religieux. Elle s'étend aux pratiques et aux symboles exprimant, en particulier ou en général, une croyance, une religion ou l'athéisme. Ce droit négatif mérite une protection particulière si c'est l'Etat qui exprime une croyance et si la personne est placée dans une situation dont elle ne peut se dégager ou seulement en consentant des efforts et un sacrifice disproportionnés.

56. L'exposition d'un ou plusieurs symboles religieux ne peut se justifier ni par la demande d'autres parents qui souhaitent une éducation religieuse conforme à leurs convictions, ni, comme le Gouvernement le soutient, par la nécessité d'un compromis nécessaire avec les partis politiques d'inspiration chrétienne. Le respect des convictions de parents en matière d'éducation doit prendre en compte le respect des convictions des autres parents. L'Etat est tenu à la neutralité confessionnelle dans le cadre de l'éducation publique obligatoire où la présence aux cours est requise sans considération de religion et qui doit chercher à inculquer aux élèves une pensée critique.

La Cour ne voit pas comment l'exposition, dans des salles de classe des écoles publiques, d'un symbole qu'il est raisonnable d'associer au catholicisme (la religion majoritaire en Italie) pourrait servir le pluralisme éducatif qui est essentiel à la préservation d'une « société démocratique » telle que la conçoit la Convention, pluralisme qui a été reconnu par la Cour constitutionnelle en droit interne.

One may note, that the Court thinks this applies in general in the exercise of public functions by the state and particularly (but not solely) in classrooms.

Italy has already indicated that it wants the Grand Chamber of the Court to have a look at the case. Even if the judgment was unanimous - which would decrease chances for reconsideration - this could happen since it is an issue which can be considered of major importance in many ECHR state parties. In addition, a bit more clarity would be welcome on the extent to which this judgment should be explained as a complete and aboslute ban on religious symbols in public schools (as the reasoning of the judgment seems to argue towards that conclusion) or simply that the obligation for public schools to display such symbols is contrary to the Convention (as the final part of the judgment seems to indicate as one of the key reasons for concluding that the Convention was violated). The judgment seems to lean towards the first of these two explanations. Some pragmatism might be called for here and this will certainly not be the end of the discussion of this issue.

For coverage in the European press, see the article in yesterday's Guardian newspaper here and in Le Monde here. Both newpapers report that the Italian government has classified the Court's ruling as ideologically motivated. The judgment has provoked strong reactions amongst Italians themselves as well, with a on online petition being signed by tens of thousands of people within a day. This is the report from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, in which - one may note - the nationality of all the judges in the Chamber are mentioned (sic!).

Seminar on 50 years ECtHR in Athens

On Monday 9 November, the Athens Bar Association will organise a seminar entitled '1959-2009: 50 years since the creation of the European Court of Human Rights'. Speakers at this event include the Court's president Jean-Paul Costa, President of the ECtHR, the Greek judge in Strasbourg (and one of the Court's vice-presidents) Christos Rozakis, and the head of the Greek section in the registry of the Court, Marialena Tsirli. Also speaking: Dimitrios Paxinos, the President of the Athens Bar Association, the Presidents of the Supreme Courts of our Greece, and the Minister of Justice. The event starts at 17h30 at Odos Aiolou 82-84 in Athens. Later this month a special issue of the Greek law journal Nomiko Vima will be published on the same theme.

ECHR Articles: Miscellaneous

Each month, our library at the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights SIM, publishes online overviews of human rights articles in academic journals and yearbook - a truly helpful resource. Here are some references to ECHR-related articles in the most recent overview of some more unlikely series in which you can find something on the ECHR:

* P. Rowe, 'Non-international armed conflict and the European Court of Human Rights: Chechnya from 1999', New Zealand Yearbook of International Law (available at heinonline) vol. 4 (2007) pp. 205-228.
* A. Garay, 'Association les Témoins de Jéhovah v France: the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on religious activities and taxation issues', Religion and Human Rights, vol. 3, no. 2 (2008), pp. 185-190.

Conference on ECHR and (International) Criminal Law

On 19 and 20 February 2010 the University of Geneva is organising a conference on the influence of the ECHR on (international) criminal law. The conference will largely be in French. This is the programme:

Si le droit international des droits de l’homme peut justifier l’organisation d’une répression internationale pour réagir à la violation massive de droits fondamentaux les plus indérogeables, il doit aussi impérativement la légitimer. Ce qui veut dire qu’un strict respect des droits de l’homme devrait s’imposer aux juridictions pénales internationales. Selon certains critiques, cependant, la justice pénale internationale se caractérise plutôt par un certain affaiblissement des garanties traditionnellement reconnues par les instruments de protection des droits de l’homme, à la fois dans le registre du droit matériel et dans celui du droit procédural. Ce colloque a pour objectif de discuter en profondeur des paradoxes et des tensions qui entourent le binôme « droits de l’homme-justice pénale internationale ». Les conférences seront données en français ou en anglais, sans traduction

L’INFLUENCE DE LA JURISPRUDENCE DE LA COUR EUROPEENNE DES
DROITS DE L’HOMME SUR LE DROIT PENAL (INTERNATIONAL)

Vendredi 19 février 2010

9 h 00 Accueil et mot de bienvenue de Christian Bovet, doyen de la
Faculté de droit
Présidence : Robert Kolb/Marco Sassòli (Université de Genève)
9 h 15 Introduction (Paola Gaeta et Robert Roth, Université de Genève)
9 h 30 Enjeux généraux (William A. Schabas, National University of
Ireland, Galway)
10 h 00 La place des juridictions des droits de l’homme et des tribunaux
pénaux internationaux dans le système international (Emmanuel
Decaux, Université de Paris II)
10 h 30 Pause café
11 h 00 Enjeux procéduraux; les droits de l'accusé (Christoph Safferling,
Universität Marburg, et Salvatore Zappala, Università di Catania)
12 h 00 Discussion
12 h 30 Pause déjeuner
Présidence : Françoise Tulkens, juge à la Cour européenne des
droits de l’homme
14 h 00 Ne bis in idem et le concours d'infractions (Andre Klip, Université de
Maastricht)
14 h 30 L'influence de la CourEDH sur la détermination du droit matériel:
liberté d'opinion et incrimination de la publicité faite aux crimes
internationaux (Emanuela Fronza, Università di Trento)
15 h 00 Discussion
15 h 30 Pause café
16 h 00 La torture et les traitements inhumains et dégradants (Olivier de
Frouville, Université de Montpellier)
16 h 30 Les peines de longue durée (Damien Scalia, Université de Genève)
17 h 00 Discussion

Samedi 20 février 2010

Présidence : Nicolas Michel (Université de Genève et Institut de
hautes études internationales et du développement)
9 h 00 Table ronde
· Christine Van den Wyngaert, juge à la Cour pénale
internationale
· Antonio Cassese, président du Tribunal spécial pour le Liban
· Stefan Trechsel, juge ad litem au Tribunal pour l’ex-
Yougoslavie
· Françoise Tulkens, juge à la Cour européenne des droits de
l’homme
· Luc Walleyn, avocat à Bruxelles, Conseil à la Cour pénale
internationale
11 h 30 Discussion générale
12 h 30 Conclusions
Andrew Clapham, Directeur de l’Académie de droit international
humanitaire et des droits humains, Genève
13 h 00 Fin du colloque

Attendance is free, but participants are required to register in advance. For more information, one can email jacqueline.messerli at unige.ch

Article on Structure of Fundamental Rights and ECHR

Two former colleagues of mine at Leiden University, Janneke Gerards and Hanneke Senden, have written a clear analysis of the Court's sometimes not very precise reasoning in distinguishing between the definition of the scope of rights and the examination of the justification for interferences of such rights. The article, set to appear in the upcoming issue of the International Journal of Constitutional Law is entitled 'The Structure of Fundamental Rights and the European Court of Human Rights'. This is the abstract:

An important aspect of the structure of fundamental rights is the bifurcation between the definition of scope and the review of justification. This bifurcation is of great importance to the division of the burden of proof and to the use of argumentative tools such as the doctrine of the margin of appreciation. Nonetheless, it appears that the European Court of Human Rights does not always take the bifurcation seriously. It often omits to address issues of definition or merges the two elements into one single test. This paper highlights some of the problematic consequences of the Court’s approach towards the structure of fundamental rights. In the end, the Court’s current approach may hamper the effectiveness of the Convention system and limit the protection offered to individual citizens. A more structured approach towards the scope and definition of Convention rights may help to avoid or solve these problems.