European Court of Human Rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

European Court of Human Rights
European Court of Human Rights building in Strasbourg
Established	1959 (initially) 1998 (permanent)
Jurisdiction	47 member states of the Council of Europe
Location	Strasbourg, France
Authorized by	European Convention on Human Rights
Decisions are appealed to	Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights
Number of positions	47 judges in respect of 47 member states of the Council of Europe
Website	http://echr.coe.int
President
Currently	Jean-Paul Costa
Since	1998
Jurist term ends	2010

The European Court of Human Rights (French: Cour européenne des droits de l’homme) in Strasbourg is an international judicial body, established under the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 to monitor respect of human rights by states. The European Convention on Human Rights, or formally named Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, is a convention adopted by the Council of Europe. All 47 member states of the Council of Europe are parties to the Convention. Applications against Contracting Parties for human rights violations can be brought before the Court by other states, other parties or individuals.

Contents 1 History and structure 2 Procedure 3 Judges 4 Sections 5 Reform 6 Relationship to the ECJ 7 Some notable cases 7.1 Ireland v UK 7.2 Paton case 7.3 Batasuna and Herri Batasuna v Spain 7.4 Refah Partisi v Turkey 7.5 Chechnya cases 7.6 Appleby v. UK 7.7 A and others v UK 7.8 Decisions on religious symbols and clothing 7.9 Other cases 8 Architecture 9 See also 10 Notes 11 External links

[edit] History and structure

The Court was instituted as a permanent entity with full-time judges on 1 November 1998, replacing the then existing enforcement mechanisms, which included the European Commission of Human Rights (created in 1954) and the European Court of Human Rights, which had been created in 1959.

The new format of the Court was the result of the ratification of Protocol 11, an amendment to the Convention that was ratified in November 1998. The new full-time judges were subsequently elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

By the time Protocol No. 11 entered into force on 1 November 1998 establishing a full-time Court and opening up direct access for 800 million Europeans, the Court had delivered 837 judgments. By the end of 2005 it had delivered 5,968 judgments.

All member states of the Council of Europe are required to sign and ratify the Convention. The Court consists of a number of judges equal to the number of Contracting Parties, which currently stand at 47. Each judge is elected in respect of a Contracting Party by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Despite this correspondence, however, there are no nationality requirements for judges (e.g. a Swiss national may be elected in respect of Liechtenstein). Judges are assumed to be impartial arbiters, rather than representatives of any country. Judges are elected to six-year terms and may be re-elected.

The Court is divided into five "Sections", each of which consists of a geographic and gender-balanced selection of justices. The entire Court elects a President and five Section Presidents, two of whom also serve as Vice-Presidents; all terms last for three years. Each section selects a Chamber, which consists of the Section President and a rotating selection of six other justices. The Court also maintains a 17-member Grand Chamber, which consists of the President, Vice-Presidents, and Section Presidents, in addition to a rotating selection of justices from one of two balanced groups. The selection of judges alternates between the groups every nine months.

[edit] Procedure

Complaints of violations by member states are filed in Strasbourg, and assigned to a Section. Unmeritorious complaints are dismissed by a committee of three judges by a unanimous vote. Meritorious complaints are examined by a Chamber. Decisions of great importance may be appealed to the Grand Chamber. Any decision of the Court is binding on the member states and must be complied with^[1], except if it consists of an advisory opinion^[2]

It is the role of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to supervise the execution of Court judgments. This body cannot force states to comply, and the ultimate sanction for non-compliance is expulsion from the Council of Europe.

In 1999 the court had a backlog of 60,000 cases, growing to about 100,000 cases in 2007.^[3][4] In early 2010 the court had a backlog of over 120,000 cases and a multi-year waiting list.^{[5] [6] [7]} About 1 out of every 20 cases submitted to the court is considered admissible.^[8] In 2007 the court issued 1,503 verdicts. At the current rate of proceedings, it would take 46 years for the backlog to clear.^[9]

[edit] Judges

As of 23 June 2009 (in order of precedence):^[10]

Name	Country	Position	Elected	Term Ends
Jean-Paul Costa	France	President	1998	2010
Christos Rozakis	Greece	Vice-President	1998	2010
Sir Nicolas Bratza	United Kingdom	Vice-President	1998	2010
Peer Lorenzen	Denmark	Section President	1998	2010
Françoise Tulkens	Belgium	Section President	1998	2010
Josep Casadevall	Andorra	Section President	1998	2010
Giovanni Bonello	Malta	Judge	1998	2010
Ireneu Cabral Barreto	Portugal	Judge	1998	2010
Corneliu Bîrsan	Romania	Judge	1998	2010
Karel Jungwiert	Czech Republic	Judge	1998	2010
Boštjan Zupančič	Slovenia	Judge	1998	2010
Nina Vajić	Croatia	Judge	1998	2010
Rait Maruste	Estonia	Judge	1998	2010
Kristaq Traja	Albania	Judge	1998	2010
Snejana Botoucharova	Bulgaria	Judge	1998	2010
Anatoly Kovler	Russia	Judge	1999	2011
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky	Italy	Judge	2001	2013
Elisabeth Steiner	Austria	Judge	2001	2013
Lech Garlicki	Poland	Judge	2002	2014
Elisabet Fura-Sandström	Sweden	Judge	2003	2015
Alvina Gyulumyan	Armenia	Judge	2003	2015
Khanlar Hajiyev	Azerbaijan	Judge	2004	2010
Ljiljana Mijović	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Judge	2004	2010
Renate Jaeger	Germany	Judge	2004	2010
Egbert Myjer	Netherlands	Judge	2004	2010
Sverre Erik Jebens	Norway	Judge	2004	2010
Davið Þór Björgvinsson	Iceland	Judge	2004	2010
Danutė Jočienė	Lithuania	Judge	2004	2010
Ján Šikuta	Slovakia	Judge	2004	2010
Dragoljub Popović	Serbia	Judge	2005	2011
Ineta Ziemele	Latvia	Judge	2005	2011
Mark Villiger	Liechtenstein	Judge	2006	2012
Isabelle Berro-Lefevre	Monaco	Judge	2006	2012
Päivi Hirvelä	Finland	Judge	2007	2013
Giorgio Malinverni	Switzerland	Judge	2007	2013
George Nicolaou	Cyprus	Judge	2008	2014
Luis López Guerra	Spain	Judge	2008	2014
András Sajó	Hungary	Judge	2008	2014
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska	Macedonia	Judge	2008	2014
Ledi Bianku	Albania	Judge	2008	2014
Nona Tsotsoria	Georgia	Judge	2008	2014
Ann Power	Ireland	Judge	2008	2014
Zdravka Kalaydjieva	Bulgaria	Judge	2008	2014
Mihai Poalelungi	Moldova	Judge	2008	2014
Nebojša Vučinić	Montenegro	Judge	2008	2014
Kristina Pardalos	San Marino	Judge	2009	2015

The Plenary Court elects the Registrar and one or more Deputy Registrars. The Registrar is the head of the Registry, which performs legal and administrative tasks and drafts decisions and judgments on behalf of the Court. The Registrar and Deputy Registrar as of 4 January 2007^[10] are:

• Erik Fribergh, Registrar ( Sweden)
• Michael O'Boyle, Deputy Registrar ( Ireland)

[edit] Sections

Composition of the Sections (2007)^[11]

Position	Section I	Section II	Section III	Section IV	Section V
Section President	Mr C.L. Rozakis	Mrs F. Tulkens	Mr B.M. Zupančič	Sir Nicolas Bratza	Mr P. Lorenzen
Section Vice-President	Mr L. Loucaides	Mr A.B. Baka	Mr C. Birsan	Mr J. Casadevall	Mrs S. Botoucharova
Judge	Mrs N. Vajić	Mr I. Cabral Barreto	Mr J.-P. Costa	Mr G. Bonello	Mr K. Jungwiert
Judge	Mr A. Kovler	Mr R. Türmen	Mrs E. Fura-Sandstrom	Mr K. Traja	Mr V. Butkevych
Judge	Mrs E. Steiner	Mr M. Ugrekhelidze	Mrs A. Gyulumyan	Mr S. Pavlovschi	Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska
Judge	Mr K. Hajiyev	Mr V. Zagrebelsky	Mr E. Myjer	Mr L. Garlicki	Mr R. Maruste
Judge	Mr D. Spielmann	Mrs A. Mularoni	Mr D. Björgvinsson	Mrs L. Mijović	Mr J. Borrego Borrego
Judge	Mr S. E. Jebens	Mrs D. Jočienė	Mrs I. Ziemele	Mr J. Šikuta	Mrs R. Jaeger
Judge	Mr G. Malinverni	Mr D. Popović	Mrs I. Berro-Lefèvre	Mrs P. Hirvelä	Mr M. Villiger
Section Registrar	S. Nielsen	S. Dollé	S. Quesada	L. Early	C. Westerdiek
Deputy Section Registrar	A. Wampach	F. Elens-Passos	S. Naismith	F. Araçi	S. Phillips

[edit] Reform

Due to the increase in awareness of European citizens of their rights under the Convention, the Court became a victim of its own success. Some cases were taking up to five years before being decided and there was a significant backlog. For example, according to the Human Rights Information Bulletin(issued by the Council of Europe), between 1 November 2003 and 29 February 2004 the Court dealt with 7,315 cases, of which 6,255 were declared inadmissible to help reduce the backlog.

For 2008 the Court reported that it had made 1543 judgments and that over 32,000 cases were declared inadmissible. With over 94% of cases analysed being declared inadmissible the Court has de facto moved away from its mission of protecting individual human rights and moved towards concentrating on only issues of wider legal importance, per its 2008 annual report.

Working on the principle that 'justice delayed is justice denied', the Council of Europe set up a working party to consider ways of improving the efficiency of the Court. This resulted in an amendment to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Protocol 14. This new protocol, which requires universal ratification by all Council of Europe member states to come into force, makes a number of changes:

• A single judge can decide on a case's admissibility; currently, three judges decide.
• Where cases are broadly similar to ones brought previously before the Court, and are essentially due to a member state failing to change its domestic law to correct a failing highlighted by that previous judgment, the case can be decided by three judges rather than the seven-judge Chamber.
• A case may not be admissible if it is considered that the applicant has not suffered 'significant disadvantage'; however, this is not a 'hard and fast' rule.
• A member state can be brought before the Court by the Committee of Ministers if that state refuses to enforce a judgment.
• The Committee of Ministers can ask the Court for an 'interpretation' of a judgement to help determine the best way for a member state to comply.

Amnesty International has expressed concern that these changes to the admissibility criteria will mean individuals may lose the ability to 'gain redress for human rights violations'.^[12]

[edit] Relationship to the ECJ

The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) is not related to the European Court of Human Rights. However, since all EU states are members of the Council of Europe and have signed the Convention on Human Rights, there are concerns about consistency in case law between the two courts. Therefore, the ECJ refers to the case-law of the Court of Human Rights and treats the Convention on Human Rights as though it was part of the EU's legal system. Even though its members have joined, the European Union itself has not, as it did not have competence to do so under previous treaties. However, EU institutions are bound under article 6 of the EU treaty of Nice to respect human rights under the Convention. Furthermore, since the Treaty of Lisbon has taken effect on 1 December 2009, the EU is expected to sign the Convention. This would make the Court of Justice bound by the judicial precedents of the Court of Human Rights and thus be subject to its human rights law, resolving this way the issue of conflicting case law.

[edit] Some notable cases

This article contains embedded lists that may be poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate. Please help to clean it up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (January 2010)

[edit] Ireland v UK

In December 1977, in the case of Ireland v United Kingdom (5310/71), the Court ruled that the government of the United Kingdom was guilty of "inhuman and degrading treatment", of men interned without trial, following a case brought by the Republic of Ireland (Case No. 5310/71). The Court found that while their internment was a interference of the convention rights, it was justifiable in the circumstances; it however ruled that the practice of the five techniques and the practice of beating prisoners constituted inhumane and degrading punishment in violation of the convention, although not torture.^[13]

[edit] Paton case

In 1980, the Court ruled out the foetal right to sue the mother carrying the foetus. In Paton v. United Kingdom, it was discovered that the life of foetus is "intimately connected with, and cannot be regarded in isolation from, the life of the pregnant woman".{Paton v United Kingdom (1981) 3 EHHR 408 at para 22}

[edit] Batasuna and Herri Batasuna v Spain

In June 2009, the Court supported the illegalization of the Basque party Batasuna (formerly Herri Batasuna) on the basis that its activity was part of the strategy of the terrorist group ETA, stating that its illegalization by Spain could be justified as necessary in a democratic society in the pursuit of the legitimate aim of preventing terrorism.^[14]

[edit] Refah Partisi v Turkey

In upholding the Turkish Constitutional Court's dissolution of The Welfare Party (Refah Partisi) for violating Turkey's principle of secularism (by calling for the re-introduction of religious law) the court held "that sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy."^[15] The Court justified the breach of the appellants' rights by reasoning that a legal regime based on sharia would diverge from the Convention's values, "particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts."^[16]

[edit] Chechnya cases

Since the Russian military invaded Chechnya for the second time in 1999, the Court agreed to hear cases of human rights abuse brought forward by Chechen civilians against Russia in the course of the Second Chechen War, with 31 rulings to date as of June 2008 (including regarding the cases of torture and extrajudicial executions).^[17] In 2007, the Court ruled that Russia was responsible for the killings of a human rights activist Zura Bitiyeva and her family.^[18] Bitiyeva herself had filed a complaint against Moscow with the Court in 2000 for abuse while in detention, in then-second case from Chechnya, but she was murdered in 2003 before the ruling was issued.^[19] Other cases ruled against Russia included the deaths (or presumed deaths after years of forced disappearance) of Ruslan Alikhadzhyev, Shakhid Baysayev, Nura Luluyeva and Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev, the case of the indiscriminate bombing of Katyr-Yurt, and some of the deaths during the Novye Aldi massacre. As of 2008, the Court has been flooded by complaints from Chechnya, what the Human Rights Watch called "the last hope for the victims".^[17]

[edit] Appleby v. UK

This 2003 case involved balancing the right of freedom of speech against the rights of private property owners. The issue was whether shopping centers in new towns, by assuming the functions of traditional high streets, must also assume the responsibility of serving as a public forum. The Court considered but declined to follow the decision of the Supreme Court of California in the landmark case of Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980)).^[20]

[edit] A and others v UK

On 19 February 2009, in the case of A. and Others v. the United Kingdom, the Grand Chamber of the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of right to liberty and security, a violation of right to have lawfulness of detention decided by a court, and violation of right to be compensated for such violations. The case concerned the applicants’ complaints that they were detained in high security conditions under a statutory scheme which permitted the indefinite detention of non-nationals certified by the Secretary of State as suspected of involvement in terrorism. The applicants were 11 individuals, six of Algerian nationality; four, respectively, of French, Jordanian, Moroccan and Tunisian nationality; and, one, born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan, and thus stateless. The Court made awards under Article 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights (just satisfaction) which were substantially lower than those which it had made in past cases of unlawful detention, in view of the fact that the detention scheme was devised in the face of a public emergency and as an attempt to reconcile the need to protect the United Kingdom public against terrorism with the obligation not to send the applicants back to countries where they faced a real risk of ill-treatment. The Court therefore awarded, to the six Algerian applicants EUR 3,400, EUR 3,900, EUR 3,800, EUR 3,400, EUR 2,500 and EUR 1,700, respectively; to the stateless and Tunisian applicants EUR 3,900, each; and to the Jordanian applicant, EUR 2,800. The applicants were jointly awarded EUR 60,000 for legal costs.^[21]

[edit] Decisions on religious symbols and clothing

In several cases, the Court has ruled in favour of restricting the obstentation of symbols and clothing as religious signs. In the case of Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, where adult Turkish women were refused entrance into lectures and examination rooms if they chose to wear a headscarf, the Court ruled in favour of the ban, arguing that it was based on the principles of secularism and equality. In the 2001 case of Dahlab v. Switzerland, the court upheld the government's right to require a teacher, who had recently converted to Islam, to remove her headscarf given that it was a "powerful external symbol" that could "influence" young children. In November and December 2008, the European Court dealt with Dogru v. France, and Kevanci v. France, both cases of 12-year-old Muslim girls expelled in 1999 from their schools for covering their head during phys-ed class. The European Court found no violation of the right to religion saying the girls had made an "ostentatious" display. In Mann Singh v. France, where a Sikh who had held driving licenses for 20 years with his picture showing him wearing a turban now had to remove his turban to continue to do so, the European Court rejected the case without a hearing. In Lautsi v. Italy the Court ruled unanimously in 2009 that crucifixes in Italian public school classes are contrary to parents' right to educate their children in line with their convictions and to children’s right to freedom of religion (art. 2 of the 1st Protocol, and art. 9 of the Convention). According to the Court ruling: “the presence of the crucifix - which it was impossible not to notice in the classrooms - could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion.”^[22][23]

[edit] Other cases

• A. B. and C. v. Ireland: abortion rights
• Smith and Grady v UK: discharge from british army for homosexuality was a breach of a right to the private life.
• Dudgeon v. United Kingdom: male homosexuality and the right to privacy
• McLibel case: legal aid in libel cases
• Murray v. United Kingdom: anti-terrorism laws
• John Murray v. United Kingdom: right to silence
• Funke v. France: right to a fair trial
• Saunders v. the United Kingdom: right to silence
• Lautsi v. Italy: freedom of religion
• List of ECHR cases concerning existence of political parties
• List of ECtHR cases concerning legal ethics
• List of LGBT-related cases
• ASLEF v. United Kingdom: right of unions to expel members
• Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia^[24]
• Soering v. United Kingdom: extradition, right against inhuman and degrading treatment

[edit] Architecture

The building, which houses the court chambers and Registry (administration and référendaires), was designed by the Richard Rogers Partnership and completed in 1995. The design is meant to reflect, amongst other things, the two distinct components of the Commission and Court (as it was then). Wide scale use of glass emphasises the 'openness' of the court to European citizens.

[edit] See also

• African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights – regional court established in 2006
• European Court of Human Rights cases
• Human rights in Europe
• Inter-American Court of Human Rights – regional court established in 1979
• Margin of appreciation – Legal doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights
• Relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights

[edit] Notes

[edit] External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: European Court of Human Rights

• Official website of the European Court of Human Rights
• Strasbourg Consortium - A Forum on Freedom of Religion in the European Court of Human Rights
• information for applicants
• Court judgements, decisions and case law website
• Rules of the Court (PDF)
• Case-processing flowchart (PDF)(before Protocol 14)
• Text of Protocol 14
• "Chechens taking Russia to court" - BBC News
• European Court of Human Rights condemns Russia in media case – IFEX

Coordinates: 48°35′47″N 7°46′27″E / 48.596389°N 7.774167°E / 48.596389; 7.774167

v • d • e Council of Europe Institutions Secretary General · Committee of Ministers · Parliamentary Assembly · Congress · Court of Human Rights · Commissioner for Human Rights · Commission for the Efficiency of Justice Members Full Albania · Andorra · Armenia · Austria · Azerbaijan · Belgium · Bosnia and Herzegovina · Bulgaria · Croatia · Cyprus · Czech Republic · Denmark · Estonia · Finland · France · Georgia · Germany · Greece · Hungary · Iceland · Ireland · Italy · Latvia · Liechtenstein · Lithuania · Luxembourg · Macedonia1 · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Montenegro · Netherlands · Norway · Poland · Portugal · Romania · Russia · San Marino · Serbia · Slovakia · Slovenia · Spain · Sweden · Switzerland · Turkey · Ukraine · United Kingdom Observer Canada · Israel · Japan · Mexico · United States · Vatican City Former Czechoslovakia (1991–1992) · Saar (assoc. 1950–1956) 1 Provisionally referred to by the Council of Europe as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"; see Macedonia naming dispute.

v • d • e World government History Holy Roman Empire · League of Nations · Permanent Court of International Justice · Nuremberg Trials · Tokyo trials · Permanent Court of Arbitration · Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere Concept (proposal) United Nations Parliamentary Assembly · Central Asian Union · Commonwealth Union · Pacific Union · North American Union · East African Federation · Arab Union · Federal Europe · East Asian Community · United States of Africa · United States of Europe · List of political ideologies Theory (practice) Alter-globalization  · Commonwealth  · Confederation · Cosmopolitanism · Federalism · Global governance · Globalization · Intergovernmentalism · Mundialization · Supranationalism · Pax · New World Order Global body United Nations · Interpol · International Monetary Fund · World Bank Group · World Trade Organization · Commonwealth of Nations Regional body Economic Cooperation Organization · European Union · Latin Union · Council of Europe · Caribbean Community · Arab League · African Union · Union of South American Nations · Shanghai Cooperation Organisation · Association of Southeast Asian Nations · Association of Caribbean States · Central American Integration System · Commonwealth of Independent States · Organization of American States · South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation · Pacific Islands Forum · North Atlantic Treaty Organization · Mercosur International parliament United Nations General Assembly · European Parliament · Arab Parliament  · Pan-African Parliament · Latin American Parliament · South American Parliament · Mercosur Parliament · Inter-Parliamentary Union International court International Criminal Court · International Court of Justice · International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia · International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda · African Court of Justice · Caribbean Court of Justice · Inter-American Court of Human Rights  · European Court of Justice · European Court of Human Rights Law and treaty International law (Public · Private · Supranational) · International legal theory · United Nations Charter · Universal Declaration of Human Rights · Geneva Conventions · Rome Statute of the ICC · Kyoto Protocol · European Union treaties · European Union law · Treaty of Chaguaramas Movements Federal Union · World Federalist Movement · Global citizens movement Category · Portal

v • d • e International human rights organisations and institutions Standard organizations Human rights commission · Truth and reconciliation commission International institutions Committee on the Rights of the Child · International Criminal Court · Human Rights Committee · Human Rights Council · UN Security Council Regional bodies African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · African Court of Justice · European Court of Human Rights · European Committee for the Prevention of Torture · Inter-American Commission on Human Rights · Inter-American Court of Human Rights Multi-lateral bodies European Union · Council of Europe · Organisation of American States (OAS) · UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) · UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) · International Labour Organization (ILO) · World Health Oragnization (WHO) · UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) · Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) · UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) · Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) · UN Population Fund (UNFPA) · UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) · UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) · UN Development Programme (UNDP) · Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) · UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) Major NGOs Amnesty International · Human Rights First · Human Rights Watch · International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)