Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
I would like to address the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) from the perspective of its past, its present and its future. Where did this institution come from and why? It was the first Court to provide the opportunity to an individual to sue his government before an international tribunal although the initial expectation was that it would be State parties that policed each other under the system established. Why such a radical innovation and to what purpose? Why should State parties create a stick with which they themselves might be beaten?
1 For a more detailed account of the drafting history of the Convention, see Ed Bates, The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights Chapter 4 (2011).Google Scholar
2 Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 11 May 1994, restructuring the control machinery established there by Strasbourg, (ETS No. 5) available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/155.htm (last accessed: 27 September 2011).Google Scholar
3 E.g. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 26 June 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3; American Convention on Human Rights, 22 November 2009, 1969 OAS Official Records OEA/ser. K/XVI/1.1, doc.65 rev.1corr.1.Google Scholar
4 The gradual growth in the number of cases heard before the Court under its original structure (1959-1998) can be seen by analyzing the table of cases contained in Survey, Forty Years of Activity 1958-1998, 26-87, available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/66F2CD35-047E-44F4-A95D-890966820E81/0/Surveyapercus_19591998.pdf (last accessed: 27 September 2011).Google Scholar
5 Protocol No. 11, supra note 2.Google Scholar
6 European Court of Human Rights, 50 Years of Activity, The European Court of Human Rights: Some Facts and Figures, available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/ACD46A0F-615A-48B9-89D6-8480AFCC29FD/0/FactsAndFigures_EN.pdf, 5 (last accessed: 27 September 2011).Google Scholar
7 Id. at 13.Google Scholar
8 The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art. 35(3)(b), Sept 3, 1953, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 [hereinafter “ECHR”].Google Scholar
9 See for example, lonescu v. Romania, 51 E.H.R.R. SE7 (2010); Russia, Korolev v., 51 E.H.R.R. SE15 (2010); Zátkové v. Czech Republic, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2011), available in French at: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentld=879748&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 (last accessed: 27 September 2011); Holub v. Czech Republic, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2010), available at: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentld=879748&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 (last accessed: 27 September 2011; Bulgaria, Finger v., Eur. Ct. H. R. (2011), available at: http://www.astrid-online.it/I-tempi-de/Giurisprud/CASE-OF-FINGER-v.-BULGARIA.pdf (last accessed_ 27 September 2011); Germany, Dudek v., Eur. Ct. H. R. (2011), available at: http://vlex.com/vid/case-of-dudek-v-germany-250819710 (last accessed: 27 September 2011); Moldova, Fedotov v., Eur. Ct. H. R. (2011), available at: http://vlex.com/vid/fedotov-v-moldova-284270999 (last accessed: 27 September 2011); Moldova, Burov v., Eur. Ct. H. R. (2011); Romania, Gaftoniuc v., Eur. Ct. H. R. (2011), available at: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?sessionId=67707948&skin=hudocen&action=html&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649&key=88843&highlight= (last accessed: 27 September 2011).Google Scholar
10 Interlaken Declaration from the High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights 19 February 2010, available at http://www.eda.admin.ch/etc/medialib/downloads/edazen/topics/europa/euroc.Par.0133.File.tmp/final_en.pdf, 2.Google Scholar
11 Id. at 3.Google Scholar
12 Id. Google Scholar
13 Id. Google Scholar
14 Id. at 4.Google Scholar
15 Id. at 6.Google Scholar
16 Id. at 1.Google Scholar
17 Id. Google Scholar
18 See ECHR art. 26.2, Sept 3 1953, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, as amended by Protocol No. 14.Google Scholar
19 See supra, note 10.Google Scholar
20 Ireland v. United Kingdom, 25 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A, 1978).Google Scholar
21 Due to Ireland's dualist approach to international law, ratification of a treaty alone is not sufficient for its obligations to become incorporated into national law. Rather, domestic legislation was required to incorporate the ECHR into the Irish national legal system. This was achieved by The European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. See generally, Fiona de Londras & Cliona Kelly, European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 5-9 (2010).Google Scholar
22 The German Federal Constitutional Court's judgment was mentioned, for example, in Lautsi and Others v. Italy, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2011), available at: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=lautsi&sessionid=79286733&skin=hudoc-en (last accessed: 27 September 2011). The judgment of the English Court of Appeal was quoted in Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, 51 E.H.R.R. 9 (2010).Google Scholar
23 E.g. Jalloh v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H. R., 44 E.H.R.R. 32 (2007); France, Vo v., Eur. Ct. H. R., 40 E.H.R.R. 12 (2005).Google Scholar
24 E.g. Pretty v. United Kingdom, 427 Eur. Ct. H. R. 2002.Google Scholar
You have
Access
