Lecture by Court's President on Judicial Dialogue

Earlier this week, the President of the European Court of Human Rights, Dean Spielmann, in one of the last weeks of his term, delivered the Thomas More lecture at Lincoln's Inn in London. The lecture, entitled "Whither Judicial Dialogue", president Spielmann argues for the importance of dialogical mechanisms between European and national judges (and between the two highest European courts) both in formal ways, through case-law) and informally through face-to-face meetings. This should not only be done in the classical ways - national judges in case-law formulate reactions to European judgments and vice versa - but also through Protocol 16 (allowing for advisory opinions and so far not yet entered into force due to the small number of ratifications) and through the recently created network of superior courts. This network can not only help the highest national courts to stay up-to-date with Strasbourg case-law but may also help, the other way around, Strasbourg in its comparative-law endeavours which it frequently undertakes. Spielmann also pointed to the use of Article 46, para 3 ECHR, on the elucidation of judgments, which may not only be useful to domestic executives, but also to domestic courts. The Court's President, in the lecture, called judicial dialogue  "a necessity, a corrective and an incentive" and even "the golden key" to the future protection of human rights. The full lecture can be found here.

Guest Blog: Court Judgment on Electoral Irregularities in Azerbaijan

It is a pleasure to introduce a guest post by one of my colleagues, Paulien de Morree, a PhD researcher here at Utrecht University. She has written a short commentary on the judgment of the Court of this week in Gahramanli and others v. Azerbaijan which deals with problems in the electoral process. please find her short commentary below:

Court reprimands Azerbaijan for continually failing to adequately address complaints about electoral irregularities

Paulien de Morree

Yesterday, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment concerning the 2010 parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan in the case of Gahramanli and other v. Azerbaijan (8 October 2015, appl. no. 36503/11). The applicants, who were all candidates for various opposition parties, alleged that due to numerous irregularities the elections in their constituency had not been free and fair. Because of the domestic authorities’ failure to adequately address their complaints, the Court found a violation of their right to stand for election guaranteed in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (para. 89).

The main issue submitted by the applicants concerns the lack of impartiality of the electoral commissions. One-third of the members of these commissions at all levels, including the Central Electoral Commission (CEC), are nominated by or on behalf of the parliamentary-majority party. In addition, one other member who is formally unaffiliated with any political party, is appointed “in agreement” with the majority party. Essentially, pro-ruling forces therefore have a relative majority vis-à-vis the representatives of other political parties in all electoral commissions (para. 75).

Normally the Court does not go into an evaluation of the compatibility of a national system of electoral administration with Convention requirements in a way that goes beyond the case at hand. But here, given the particular context of the issue, the Court found that “the method in question was  one of the systemic factors contributing to the ineffectiveness of the examination by the CEC of the applicants’ election-related complaint in the present case” (para. 79). 

The Court referred to observations by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and concerns of the European Commission for Democracy through Law of the Council of Europe (Venice Commission) regarding the lack of impartiality of the electoral commissions (see in particular the final report of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission on the parliamentary elections of 7 November 2010). In addition, the Court recalled that in the past it has found violations of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in numerous election-related complaints against Azerbaijan regarding arbitrary decisions by electoral commissions in relation to opposition candidates (see for example ECtHR 8 April 2010, Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, appl. no. 18705/06; ECtHR 30 September 2010, Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, appl. no. 20799/06; ECtHR 10 January 2012, Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), appl. no. 4641/06; ECtHR 10 January 2012, Hajili v. Azerbaijan, appl. no. 6984/06; ECtHR 21 February 2012, Khanhuseyn Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, appl. no. 19554/06; 25 September 2014, Karimov v. Azerbaijan, appl. no. 12535/06). Yet, so far the issue continues to not be adequately addressed by the Azerbaijani government. In that context, the Court strongly encourages the Azerbaijani authorities to reform the composition of the electoral commissions in order to improve the effectiveness of the examination of election-related complaints.

 

The relevance of this call for reform of the electoral commission is emphasised by the fact that new parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan will take place on 1 November. In the light of these upcoming elections, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recently adopted a Resolution calling on the Azerbaijani authorities “to take the necessary measures to avoid the shortcomings highlighted during previous elections” (Resolution 2062(2015) The functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan” of 23 June 2015, par. 4). In the build up to the elections, a Needs Assessment Mission of the OSCE has visited Azerbaijan in August. This Mission yet again reported concerns about the candidate registration process, the lack of respect for the fundamental freedoms of members of the opposition, the limited access to pluralistic views and impartial information and the lack of confidence in the independence of electoral dispute resolution bodies (Report of the OSCE/ODIHR Needs Assessment Mission, 31 August 2015, at 2). All in all, these preliminary developments are far from comforting on whether the 2015 elections will show much democratic improvement.

New Book on UK and European Human Rights

The difficult relation between the United Kingdom and European human rights institutions has become a 'topos' in academic literature, as literary scholars would call it. A new book has just been published to take stock of these discussions. Katja S Ziegler, Elizabeth Wicks, and Loveday Hodson (all from the University of Leicester) are the editors of a collection of scholarly articles brought together in a book entitled 'The UK and European Human Rights A Strained Relationship?', published by Hart. The introductory chapter is freely available online as a sample here. The great merit of the book is that it is so multifaceted, going far beyond looking just at British politicians criticising the Strasbourg Court. Rather, the book assesses the issue from a myriad of perspectives, including the positions and perspectives of national judges, the press, and other actors. It also looks at the EU and makes a comparison with a selected number of other countries (including Italy, Russia, Germany and France). To some, the book, like many edited volumes, may be too broad-ranging, but it does include so many valuable contributions about its core theme, including historical perspectives on the issue, that it is more than worthwhile. This is the book's abstract:

"The UK’s engagement with the legal protection of human rights at a European level has been, at varying stages, pioneering, sceptical and antagonistic. The UK government, media and public opinion have all at times expressed concerns about the growing influence of European human rights law, particularly in the controversial contexts of prisoner voting and deportation of suspected terrorists as well as in the context of British military action abroad. British politicians and judges have also, however, played important roles in drafting, implementing and interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights. Its incorporation into domestic law in the Human Rights Act 1998 intensified the ongoing debate about the UK’s international and regional human rights commitments. Furthermore, the increasing importance of the European Union in the human rights sphere has added another layer to the relationship and highlights the complex relationship(s) between the UK government, the Westminster Parliament and judges in the UK, Strasbourg and Luxembourg.

The book analyses the topical and contentious issue of the relationship between the UK and the European systems for the protection of human rights from doctrinal, contextual and comparative perspectives and explores factors that influence the relationship of the UK and European human rights."

The table of contents can be found here.

Court Launches Case-Law Exchange Network with Highest Courts

This week, the European Court of Human Rights created a network aimed at the exchange of information on case-law between Strasbourg and the highest national courts. The idea was announced at the opening of the judicial year and supported by the Council of Europe's member states. The nodes in this network of exchange will be the Jurisconsult of the European Court and the research departments of the domestic superior courts. The French Court of Cassation and Conseil d’État were the first to join, but the highest judicial institutions of several other ECHR state parties have indicated their interest to join. The Court's President Dean Spielmann expressed that this new way of sharing information is part of the shared responsibility between the European and national levels to implement the European Convention. One of the aims is consistency of national decisions with ECHR case-law. See the full press release here.

Article 46 ECHR to the Rescue?

This week, both the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the President of the European Court of Human Rights have called upon the Committee of Ministers to start making use of the 'infringement' procedure of Article 46 ECHR, introduced as part of the reforms of Protocol 14. The procedure offers the possibility to refer to the Court an issue when implementation of a judgment is hindered by either questions of interpretation (para. 3) or a refusal to abide by a judgment (para. 4). Thus far this procedure has not yet been used.

The trigger was a new report (no. 8 of this kind) by rapporteur Klaas de Vries on recurring, systemic implementation problems in a number of state parties. As in previous yeas, a small group of countries (although admittedly some very populous ones) is responsible the large majority of the Court's backlog. Almost 80% of applications stems from just nine state parties where structural problems (poor detention conditions, ill-treatment by security forces and overly long domestic court procedures) lead to repetitive cases: Italy, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Greece, Poland, Hungary, and Bulgaria. More generally, almost 11,000 of the Court's judgments remain unimplemented.

The recommendation of PACE on the issue can be found here and the statement of the Court's President here. In a resolution, the Parliamentary Assembly deplored "the delays in implementation and the lack of political will of certain States Parties to implement judgments of the Court." Close followers of Strasbourg may see this newest episode as another shot in a long series of similar calls. Only the emphasis on Article's 46 yet unused possibilities is relatively new - using it may be worth a try.

New President of the Court Elected (and conference announcement)

Yesterday, The European Court of Human Rights elected amongst its midst a new President, the judge in respect of Italy, Guido Raimondi. He will take office as of 1 November, succeeding current President Dean Spielmann. Judge Raimondi has been working at the Court since 2010 and before that in the early 2000s in an ad hoc capacity. He was also, amongst others, active within the ILO. He wil be the Court's fourth president in four years - a much higher turnover than the average in the earlier decades of the Court's history. For more background information about judge Raimondi, please see the Court's press release. Congratulations to the new President!

On the same day two new vice-presidents were elected by the Court. As of 1 November, these will be: Işıl Karakaş (judge in respect of Turkey) and András Sajó (judge in respect of Hungary). In addition, two new section presidents were elected: Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (judge in respect of Macedonia) and Angelika Nußberger (judge in respect of Germany). All of this taken together means that the Court will have an almost entirely new top layer, due to many experienced judges' mandates terminating. The institutional memory is of course also guarded by the registry, but to maintain a balance between judges and registry, this poses new challenges.

  

And something completely different: partly ECHR-related, event is a conference organized bon 22-23 October in Poland on 'Damages for violations of human rights - domestic, comparative and international perspectives'. More info, also on participating, can be found here. 

The European Court of Human Rights Uncovered - Infographic

Much of the discussion in the past years around the European Court of Human Rights and about human rights in general in the media and even among some academics has been based on misperceptions coming from a lack of informed views. In order to counter these misperceptions, Adam Wagner and his team of the valued UK Human Rights Blog have launched a special website some time ago which elucidates key human rights issues by way of clear and appealing infographics. They have recently added a set on infographics entitled 'The European Court of Human Rights Uncovered' with a lot of easily accessible information. While mainly geared towards a UK audience, the country were some of the most vitriolic views about the Court have been uttered in the past years, it is of great interest to the whole of Europe. The page includes information about when countries joined the ECHR system, which countries do relatively well and which ones do not, and on how much the whole system costs. While the infographics have some very minor flaws (Kosovo does not exist yet on their map of Europe and Malta has invisibly disappeared into the Mediterranean), it is on the whole a very well done overview of some key ins-and-outs of the ECHR system. Well worth to take a look at and to spread further!

Workshop on ECHR in Tampere Finland

On October 22 and 23, the University of Tampere in Finland is organising a workshop on the European Court of Human Rights for doctoral students. The University would like to invite ten to fifteen doctoral students from different universities. The workshop is intended for students who are doing their research on the European Court's case-law. Doctoral students at different stages of their dissertation process are invited to share their experiences and discuss the specific questions typical to the ECHR-related research. There are prominent Finnish and foreign ECtHR scholars that are hosting the workshop sessions and sharing their good practices.

The workshop is organized by the Research Group of Public Law in co-operation with the Doctoral Network on Realizing Human Rights. For additional information please contact Jukka Viljanen, University of Tampere, e-mail: jukka.viljanen at uta.fi . Please note: the deadline for registration is 11th September 2015. 

To register fill in the form here and send your abstract proposal related to the session themes to Heta Heiskanen (heta.heiskanen at uta.fi). Participants will be chosen based on their motivation and abstract proposal in the event that the number of registrations exceeds fifteen people.

This is the draft programme:

Day 1 Thursday 22 October

14.15-16.30 Opening lectures*

”Reconciliation between Human Rights and Development Policy”

Dr. Nina Nordström, Director, Unit for Human Rights Policy, Ministry for Foreign Affairs 

“Why the United Kingdom is so Uncomfortable with Strasbourg?”

Dr. Ed Bates, University of Leicester, author of the book ”Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights” 

“Linking European Consensus and International Human Rights Law”

Dr. Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, University of Liverpool, author of the book “European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights” 

* These lectures are arranged in co-operation with the Course of Fighting against human rights violations and social injustices

17.00-18.00 ECtHR Poster Café: participants are invited to provide posters introducing their research and its relation to the European Court of Human Rights to other participants.

19.00-21 Dinner. Informal gathering with some food and drinks to meet the participants

Day 2: Friday 23 October Doctoral Workshop 9.15-16.30

9.15-9.45 Key note presentation

“Some observations on the ECtHR and development of its doctrines: Interpretation in light of the object and purpose of the Convention” 

Dr. Matti Pellonpää, Former Judge of the ECtHR, Justice at the Supreme Administrative Court 

9.45-16.30 Workshop meetings with doctoral students and senior staff.

All participants are to present a 1000-1500 word presentation related to topics in one of the sessions. There are also prepared presentations on good practices from those who have done their dissertations.

9.45-11.30 Session I: “Living instrument” (Facilitators Ed Bates & Jukka Viljanen)

How the changes in a society should be reflected in the research on European Court of Human Rights? How the Brighton Declaration can be seen? Disguised or concealed change of interpretation?

11.30-12.15 Lunch Break

12.15-13.45 Session II: “Emerging consensus” (Facilitators Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou & Pauli Rautiainen)

What kind of different approaches there is within the ECtHR research? What is the role of academics in developing the doctrines? How should we understand key concepts e.g. margin of appreciation?

Coffee Break

14.15-15.30 Session III: “Effective and practical” (Facilitators Matti Pellonpää & Jukka Viljanen) 

What kind of practical and concrete issues should be acknowledged within ECtHR research? (Case selection etc.)

15.30-16.30 Final session. Summary discussion: What have we learned?

New Registrar for the Court

Yesterday, the judges of the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in plenary, elected a new registrar, Mr Roderick Liddell. The registrar leads the legal and administrative support staff of the Court, comprising over 600 people. They process and prepare the complaints coming to the Court for adjudication by the Court's judges. Liddell will be the successor of Erik Fribergh, who has been the Court's registrar since November 2005. This is the short biography provided by the Court on Mr Liddell's previous experience:

"A British national, born in 1955 in the United Kingdom, Roderick Liddell studied law at Oxford University. He was lawyer-linguist at the Court of Justice of the European Communities from 1982 to 1987, translator with the Council of Europe (1987) and the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights (1988), Assistant to the President of the Court in 1995 and Legal and Executive Assistant to the President on the establishment of the single Court in 1998. He then served as Head of the Private Office of the President from 2000, Head of External Relations and Communication of the Court from 2003 to 2006 and was appointed Section Registrar in 2006 before taking up his present post of Director of Common Services of the Court."

Mr Liddel was elected for a five-year term, which will start on 1 December. In addition, yesterday, two judges, András Sajó (Hungary) and Luis López Guerra (Spain) have been elected Section Presidents. 

New Judges Elected in Strasbourg

Last week, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe elected four new judges to the European Court of Human Rights. These elections followed the recommendations of the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights. 

In respect of Armenia, Mr Armen Harutyunyan was elected. Mr Harutyunyan is the former Ombudsperson of Armenia and currently heads the Central Asia regional office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as well as of the UN human rights monitoring mission in Ukraine.

In respect of Latvia, Mr Mārtiņš Mits as elected. Mr Mits is the current Prorector of Riga Graduate School of Law. Formerly, he was also a member of the Constitutional Rights Committee of the President of the Republic of Latvia.

In respect of Luxembourg, the newly elected judge is Mr Georges Ravarani. Mr Ravarani is currently both the President of the Luxembourg Administrative Court (the administrative supreme court) and the Vice-President of the Constitutional Court of Luxembourg.

In respect of Monaco, PACE elected Ms Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström. Ms Mourou-Vikström is the President of Children’s Tribunal and member of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ).

With these four new judges, a good mix of representatives from the judiciary, academia, and national and international human rights institutions will add their expertise to the Court's work.