1 / 16

HUMR5140 Introduction to Human Rights Law Autumn 2014

HUMR5140 Introduction to Human Rights Law Autumn 2014. Lecture 8: Regional Human Rights Systems: Europe. This lecture. Outline of the European human rights system Focus on certain essential features: Margin of appreciation, proportionality. The European Social Charter.

virginiaedwards
Download Presentation

HUMR5140 Introduction to Human Rights Law Autumn 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HUMR5140 Introduction to Human Rights LawAutumn 2014 Lecture 8: Regional Human Rights Systems: Europe

  2. This lecture • Outline of the European human rights system • Focus on certain essential features: Margin of appreciation, proportionality

  3. The European Social Charter Many different European regimes EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights OSCE Other CoE treaties Mainly civil and political rights Some absolute rights, but mainly relative rights Positive and negative obligations The European Convention on Human Rights An impact of ESC rights Integrated interpretation

  4. Three threads in the creation and development of the ECHR • European integration not only a matter of technical needs and economic interests; the ECHR embodies a system of liberal values • The continuing concern for the protection of human rights • Human rights as a tool to spread democracy to Central and Eastern European states

  5. A quick history: The original control mechanisms – until 1998 A tripartite system The European Commission on Human Rights The European Court of Human Rights The Committee of Ministers • Consider the admissibility of petitions • Establish the facts • Promote friendly settlements • Give opinions of violations Give final and binding judgments in cases referred to it A judicial body Give final and binding decisions in cases not referred to the Court A political body

  6. The revised control mechanisms • Protocol No. 11, restructuring the control machinery, adopted on 11 May 1994, entry into force on 1 November 1998 • A sidestep: • Additional protocols: Do not amend the original text, but introduces additional rights. Do not require consensus; become binding for States that ratify • Amending protocols: Amend the original text (“Since its entry into force on 1 November 1998, this Protocol forms an integral part of the Convention”). Require consensus, do not enter into force until all Contracting States have consented

  7. Protocol no. 11 A tripartite system The European Commission on Human Rights • Now established as a permanent body The European Court of Human Rights • New, reduced role: To supervise compliance with decisions by the Court The Committee of Ministers • Assumed (most of) the responsibilities of the Commission • The competence of the Court became compulsory

  8. A dramatic increase in cases A victim of its own success? 2010 2011 • Attempt at improvement: Protocol No. 14, entry into force 1 June 2010. Aims to guarantee the long-term efficiency of the Court by optimising the filtering and processing of applications • New judicial formations to deal with the simplest cases • A new admissibility criterion (“significant disadvantage”) • Judges’ terms of office to be extended to nine years without the possibility of re-election. Applications received 61,300 64,500 Applications disposed of 41,183 52,188 20,100 12,300 Annual deficit 151,600 Backlog 31 December 139,650 2010: 38,576 More than 90 % of cases are declared inadmissible 2011: 50,677

  9. 2010 2011 2012 Applications received 61,300 64,500 65,150 87,879 Applications disposed of 41,183 52,188 20,100 12,300 Annual deficit + 22,700 151,600 Backlog 31 December 139,650 128,100 2010: 38,576 More than 90 % of cases are declared inadmissible 2012: 86,201 2011: 50,677

  10. The life of an application Admissibility Grand Chamber Jurisdiction Relinquishment Procedural requirements Referral (appeal) Substantive requirements

  11. Fundamental principles of interpretation A strong principle of effectiveness A clear evolutive interpretation The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties The European Court of Human Rights National courts «No less, but certainly no more» For national law to decide A tendency to apply the same method as the ECtHR «No more, but certainly no less» Challenge: The evolutive interpretation

  12. Pilot-judgment procedure • Introduced in 2004 as a means of addressing systemic problems in Contracting States which result in multiple applications to the Court • One (or a few) case is given priority treatment, while other applications are adjourned until the pilot case is decided • Justification: • Speedier redress for victims • The systemic problem is redressed within the national legal order under guidance from the Court • A large number of repetitive cases may be removed from the Court’s docket • Legal basis: Now «rule 61»

  13. Examples of pilot-judgments • Broniowski v. Poland (2004): Failure to compensate loss of property • See paras. 189-194: The pilot-judgment procedure explained • Burdov v. Russia (2009): Failure to enforce domestic court decisions • Rumpf v. Germany (2010): Length of proceedings

  14. Enforcement Art. 46 Binding force «undertake to abide by the final judgment» Committee of Ministers Execution of judgments Referral to Court Interpretationprocedure Infringementprocedure

  15. Reform issues Interlaken Izmir Brighton Protocol no. 15 Protocol no. 16

  16. Let’s discuss… • …the margin of appreciation

More Related