EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
- + Add to Faves
- + Translate
- + Share
العربية
ä¸å›½
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिनà¥à¤¦à¥€
Italiano
日本語
Português
РуÑÑкий
Español
:''This article refers to the European Court of Human Rights, a Council of Europe institution; it should not be confused with the separate European Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) in Luxembourg.''
The 'European Court of Human Rights' ('ECtHR') in Strasbourg was set up under the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 in order to monitor compliance by Signatory Parties. The European Convention on Human Rights or formally named Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is one of the most important conventions adopted by the Council of Europe. All 47 member states of the Council of Europe are signatories of the Convention. Applications against Signatory Parties for human rights violations can be brought before the Court either by other States Parties or by individuals.
The Court was instituted as a permanent court 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 1950.
The new format of the Court was the result of the ratification of Protocol 11, an amendment to the Convention, which was ratified in November 1998. The new full-time Judges were subsequently elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
All member states of the Council of Europe have to sign and ratify the Convention. The court consists of a number of judges equal to the number of Signatory Parties, which currently stand at forty-seven. Each judge is elected in respect of a Signatory 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 is elected in respect of Liechtenstein). Judges are assumed to be impartial arbiters, rather than representatives of any country.
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 of the court. 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.
Complaints of violations by member states are filed in Strasbourg, and are assigned to a Section. Each complaint is first heard by a committee of three judges, which may unanimously vote to strike any complaint without further examination. Once past committee, the complaint is heard and decided by a full Chamber. Decisions of great importance may be appealed to the Grand Chamber. Any decision of the court has the character of a recommendation and is therefore executed on the sole discretion of the affected member states [1].
It is the role of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to supervise the execution of court judgments, though it has no formal means of using force against member countries in order to comply. However, the ultimate sanction of non-compliance is expulsion from the Council of Europe and thus becoming a 'pariah' state within Europe. Furthermore, the European Union takes a keen interest in the Convention and Court (and its jurisprudence) so would not look kindly upon any EU member state that did not fulfill its Convention obligations.
As of 19 January 2007 (in order of precedence):[2]
#Mr Jean-Paul Costa, President (French)
#Mr Christos Rozakis, Vice-President (Greek)
#Sir Nicolas Bratza, Vice-President (British)
#Mr BoÅ¡tjan ZupanÄiÄ, Section President (Slovenian)
#Mr Peer Lorenzen, Section President (Danish)
#Mrs Françoise Tulkens Section President (Belgian)
#Mr Giovanni Bonello (Maltese)
#Mr Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot)
#Mr Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese)
#Mr Riza Türmen (Turkish)
#Mr Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian)
#Mr Karel Jungwiert (Czech)
#Mr Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian)
#Mr Josep Casadevall (Andorran)
#Mrs Nina Vajić (Croatian)
#Mr John Hedigan (Irish)
#Mrs Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (Macedonian)
#Mr András Baka (Hungarian)
#Mr Rait Maruste (Estonian)
#Mr Kristaq Traja (Albanian)
#Mrs Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian)
#Mr Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian)
#Mr Anatoly Kovler (Russian)
#Mr Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian)
#Mrs Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese)
#Mrs Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian)
#Mr Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan)
#Mr Lech Garlicki (Polish)
#Mr Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish)
#Mrs Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish)
#Mrs Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian)
#Mr Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani)
#Mrs Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
#Mr Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger)
#Mrs Renate Jaeger (German)
#Mr Egbert Myjer (Dutch)
#Mr Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian)
#Mr Davið Þór Björgvinsson (Icelandic)
#Mrs DanutÄ— JoÄienÄ— (Lithuanian)
#Mr Ján Šikuta (Slovakian)
#Mr Dragoljub Popović (Serbia and Montenegro)
#Mrs Ineta Ziemele (Latvian)
#Mr Mark Villiger (Swiss; elected as the judge in respect of Liechtenstein)
#Mrs Isabelle Berro-Lefevre (Monegasque)
#Mrs Päivi Hirvelä (Finnish)
#Mr Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss)
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 on behalf of the Court. The Registrar and Deputy Registrar as of 4 January 2007 are:
★ Mr Erik Fribergh, Registrar (Swedish)
★ Mr Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar (Irish)
Due to the increase in awareness of European citizens of their rights under the Convention, the Court was becoming a victim of its own success. Some cases were taking up to five years before being heard 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 7315 cases, of which 6255 were declared inadmissible.
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. Before, three judges decided.
★ Where cases are broadly similar to ones brought previously before the Court, and are essentially due to a member state failing to change their domestic law to correct a failing highlighted by that previous judgement, 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 against it.
★ 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 with it.
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'[4]
For the first time since the Russian military invaded Chechnya in 1999, the court has agreed to hear cases of human rights abuse brought forward by Chechen civilians against Russia.
On June 21, 2007, the Court ruled that Russia responsible for the killings of four Chechens. Russia was found guilty on the basis of eyewitness descriptions, the vehicles the perpetrators drove and their ability to travel during restricted hours.[5]
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".
In December 1977, the court ruled that the government of the United Kingdom was guilty of "inhuman and degrading treatment", of men interned without trial, by the court, following a case brought by the Republic of Ireland (Case No. 5310/71). The court found that while their internment was a violation 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. Legally, ''Ireland v. United Kingdom'' is notable since the British government had already publicly admitted and promised to refrain from all the violations the court found it guilty of. The UK tried to argue that having done so, the Irish litigation was pointless, relying on principles of international law accepted by the ICJ; however, the ECHR held that even though the UK had already made these admissions and undertakings, the case could still be considered, since ruling on it would serve the purposes of the development of Convention law.[6]
In 2003 and 2004, the court ruled that "that sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy" (13/02/2003) .[7], because the sharia rules on inheritance, women's rights and religious freedom violate human rights as established in the European Convention on Human Rights.
In 2006 the court denied admissibility of the applications of former USSR secret serices operatives convicted in Estonia for Stalinist crimes against humanity after Estonia became independent in 1991.
★ Dudgeon v. United Kingdom: sodomy and the right to privacy
★ Steel v. United Kingdom, the 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
★ List of LGBT-related cases
★ Alexei Mikheyev v. Russia [8]: €250,000 compensation for police brutality
★ ASLEF v. United Kingdom: right of unions to expel members
★ Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia[9]
The building, which houses the court chambers and Registry (administration), 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 then was). Wide scale use of glass emphasises the 'openness' of the court to European citizens.
★
★ Human rights in Europe
★ Capital punishment in Europe
★ European Convention on Human Rights
★ International Institute of Human Rights
★ Inter-American Court of Human Rights - regional court established in 1979
★ African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights - regional court established in 2006
★ European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States
1. ECHR · How the execution of judgments works
2. ECHR website - Composition of the Plenary.
3. ECHR website - Composition of the Sections.
4. European Court on Human Rights: Imminent reforms must not obstruct individuals' redress for human rights violations by Amnesty International News Service No: 120 11 May 2004
5. "Russia Ruled Responsible For Killings Of Four Chechens" 21 June 2007
6. Search ECHR data base "In the case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom" (No. 5310/71)
7. [1] Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and Others v Turkey
8. Alexei Mikheyev v. Russia
9. Court press release of 5 April 2007, Court judgment
★ Official website
★ 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
★ How Russia hijacks the European Court of Human Rights (with refferences at IlaÅŸcu case)
The 'European Court of Human Rights' ('ECtHR') in Strasbourg was set up under the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 in order to monitor compliance by Signatory Parties. The European Convention on Human Rights or formally named Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is one of the most important conventions adopted by the Council of Europe. All 47 member states of the Council of Europe are signatories of the Convention. Applications against Signatory Parties for human rights violations can be brought before the Court either by other States Parties or by individuals.
| Contents |
| History and structure |
| Procedure |
| Judges |
| Sections |
| Reform |
| Notable cases |
| Other cases |
| Architecture |
| See also |
| Notes |
| External links |
History and structure
The Court was instituted as a permanent court 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 1950.
The new format of the Court was the result of the ratification of Protocol 11, an amendment to the Convention, which was ratified in November 1998. The new full-time Judges were subsequently elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
All member states of the Council of Europe have to sign and ratify the Convention. The court consists of a number of judges equal to the number of Signatory Parties, which currently stand at forty-seven. Each judge is elected in respect of a Signatory 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 is elected in respect of Liechtenstein). Judges are assumed to be impartial arbiters, rather than representatives of any country.
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 of the court. 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.
Procedure
Complaints of violations by member states are filed in Strasbourg, and are assigned to a Section. Each complaint is first heard by a committee of three judges, which may unanimously vote to strike any complaint without further examination. Once past committee, the complaint is heard and decided by a full Chamber. Decisions of great importance may be appealed to the Grand Chamber. Any decision of the court has the character of a recommendation and is therefore executed on the sole discretion of the affected member states [1].
It is the role of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to supervise the execution of court judgments, though it has no formal means of using force against member countries in order to comply. However, the ultimate sanction of non-compliance is expulsion from the Council of Europe and thus becoming a 'pariah' state within Europe. Furthermore, the European Union takes a keen interest in the Convention and Court (and its jurisprudence) so would not look kindly upon any EU member state that did not fulfill its Convention obligations.
Judges
As of 19 January 2007 (in order of precedence):[2]
#Mr Jean-Paul Costa, President (French)
#Mr Christos Rozakis, Vice-President (Greek)
#Sir Nicolas Bratza, Vice-President (British)
#Mr BoÅ¡tjan ZupanÄiÄ, Section President (Slovenian)
#Mr Peer Lorenzen, Section President (Danish)
#Mrs Françoise Tulkens Section President (Belgian)
#Mr Giovanni Bonello (Maltese)
#Mr Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot)
#Mr Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese)
#Mr Riza Türmen (Turkish)
#Mr Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian)
#Mr Karel Jungwiert (Czech)
#Mr Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian)
#Mr Josep Casadevall (Andorran)
#Mrs Nina Vajić (Croatian)
#Mr John Hedigan (Irish)
#Mrs Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (Macedonian)
#Mr András Baka (Hungarian)
#Mr Rait Maruste (Estonian)
#Mr Kristaq Traja (Albanian)
#Mrs Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian)
#Mr Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian)
#Mr Anatoly Kovler (Russian)
#Mr Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian)
#Mrs Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese)
#Mrs Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian)
#Mr Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan)
#Mr Lech Garlicki (Polish)
#Mr Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish)
#Mrs Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish)
#Mrs Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian)
#Mr Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani)
#Mrs Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
#Mr Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger)
#Mrs Renate Jaeger (German)
#Mr Egbert Myjer (Dutch)
#Mr Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian)
#Mr Davið Þór Björgvinsson (Icelandic)
#Mrs DanutÄ— JoÄienÄ— (Lithuanian)
#Mr Ján Šikuta (Slovakian)
#Mr Dragoljub Popović (Serbia and Montenegro)
#Mrs Ineta Ziemele (Latvian)
#Mr Mark Villiger (Swiss; elected as the judge in respect of Liechtenstein)
#Mrs Isabelle Berro-Lefevre (Monegasque)
#Mrs Päivi Hirvelä (Finnish)
#Mr Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss)
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 on behalf of the Court. The Registrar and Deputy Registrar as of 4 January 2007 are:
★ Mr Erik Fribergh, Registrar (Swedish)
★ Mr Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar (Irish)
Sections
| Position | Section I | Section II | Section III | Section IV | Section V |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section President | Mr C.L. Rozakis | Mrs F. Tulkens | Mr B.M. ZupanÄiÄ | 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. JoÄienÄ— | Mrs I. Ziemele | Mr J. Å ikuta | 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 |
Reform
Due to the increase in awareness of European citizens of their rights under the Convention, the Court was becoming a victim of its own success. Some cases were taking up to five years before being heard 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 7315 cases, of which 6255 were declared inadmissible.
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. Before, three judges decided.
★ Where cases are broadly similar to ones brought previously before the Court, and are essentially due to a member state failing to change their domestic law to correct a failing highlighted by that previous judgement, 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 against it.
★ 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 with it.
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'[4]
Notable cases
For the first time since the Russian military invaded Chechnya in 1999, the court has agreed to hear cases of human rights abuse brought forward by Chechen civilians against Russia.
On June 21, 2007, the Court ruled that Russia responsible for the killings of four Chechens. Russia was found guilty on the basis of eyewitness descriptions, the vehicles the perpetrators drove and their ability to travel during restricted hours.[5]
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".
In December 1977, the court ruled that the government of the United Kingdom was guilty of "inhuman and degrading treatment", of men interned without trial, by the court, following a case brought by the Republic of Ireland (Case No. 5310/71). The court found that while their internment was a violation 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. Legally, ''Ireland v. United Kingdom'' is notable since the British government had already publicly admitted and promised to refrain from all the violations the court found it guilty of. The UK tried to argue that having done so, the Irish litigation was pointless, relying on principles of international law accepted by the ICJ; however, the ECHR held that even though the UK had already made these admissions and undertakings, the case could still be considered, since ruling on it would serve the purposes of the development of Convention law.[6]
In 2003 and 2004, the court ruled that "that sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy" (13/02/2003) .[7], because the sharia rules on inheritance, women's rights and religious freedom violate human rights as established in the European Convention on Human Rights.
In 2006 the court denied admissibility of the applications of former USSR secret serices operatives convicted in Estonia for Stalinist crimes against humanity after Estonia became independent in 1991.
Other cases
★ Dudgeon v. United Kingdom: sodomy and the right to privacy
★ Steel v. United Kingdom, the 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
★ List of LGBT-related cases
★ Alexei Mikheyev v. Russia [8]: €250,000 compensation for police brutality
★ ASLEF v. United Kingdom: right of unions to expel members
★ Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia[9]
Architecture
The building, which houses the court chambers and Registry (administration), 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 then was). Wide scale use of glass emphasises the 'openness' of the court to European citizens.
See also
★
★ Human rights in Europe
★ Capital punishment in Europe
★ European Convention on Human Rights
★ International Institute of Human Rights
★ Inter-American Court of Human Rights - regional court established in 1979
★ African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights - regional court established in 2006
★ European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States
Notes
1. ECHR · How the execution of judgments works
2. ECHR website - Composition of the Plenary.
3. ECHR website - Composition of the Sections.
4. European Court on Human Rights: Imminent reforms must not obstruct individuals' redress for human rights violations by Amnesty International News Service No: 120 11 May 2004
5. "Russia Ruled Responsible For Killings Of Four Chechens" 21 June 2007
6. Search ECHR data base "In the case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom" (No. 5310/71)
7. [1] Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and Others v Turkey
8. Alexei Mikheyev v. Russia
9. Court press release of 5 April 2007, Court judgment
External links
★ Official website
★ 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
★ How Russia hijacks the European Court of Human Rights (with refferences at IlaÅŸcu case)
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
Featured Companies
| Dancing Moon Travel | |
| Selloffvacations.com Oakville |
Newest Companies
European Court of Human Rights Travel Deals
