The reform of the European Court of Human Rights: Protocol No. 14 and beyond

Human Rights Law Review

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 403-415

  Caflisch, Lucius ^a,b  

^a European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg ^*  (France)

^b GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750152668     PISSN: 14617781     EISSN: 17441021     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngl007     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. 1994, ETS No. 155.
2. 1950, ETS No. 5.
3. These numbers are correct as of 1 May 2006.
4. See Lukenda v Slovenia, judgment of 6 October 2005, Application No. 23032/02.
5. The length of proceedings has been a particular problem in Italy. As a means of tackling it, the so-called Pinto Law (Law No. 89 of 24 March 2001) invites complainants in Italy to lodge applications in 'length-of-proceedings' matters with the competent court of appeal. This Law was to apply even to those who, when the Law had come into force, had already complained to the Strasbourg Court of violations of the 'reasonable-time' requirement in Article 6(1) of the ECHR. The decision of the Court of Appeal could be reviewed by the Italian Court of Cassation. Several cases were thereafter brought before the Strasbourg Court because the indemnity granted was allegedly insufficient and not paid on time. See, among other cases, Cocchiarella v Italy, judgment of 29 March 2006, Application No. 64866/01 GC.
6. 1952, ETS No. 9.
7. ETS No. 177. The States in question are: Albania, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Georgia, Netherlands, San Marino, and Serbia and Montenegro.
8. 2004, ETS No. 194.
9. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, On judgments Revealing an Underlying Systemic Problem, 12 May 2004, Res(2004)3.
10. For descriptions of the preparation of Protocol No. 14, see the relevant Explanatory Report of 24 May 2004, at paras 20-33;
11. Caflisch, 'L'efficacité du système européen de protection des droits de l'homme', in El derecho internacional: Normas, hechos y valores. Liber Amicorum José Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 2005) 43 at 49-50.
12. According to the Explanatory Report, ibid. at para. 68, this expression: normally means case-law which has been consistently applied by a Chambe r. Exceptionally, however, it is conceivable that a single judgment on a question of principle may constitute 'well-established case-law, particularly when the Grand Chamber has rendered it. This applies, in particular, to repetitive cases, which account for a significant proportion of the Court's judgments (...).
13. See Article 46, American Convention on Human Rights 1969, 1144 UNTS 123;
14. Article 56, African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights 1981, (1982) 21 ILM 58;
15. Articles 1-3 and 5, First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, 999 UNTS 171.
16. Explanatory Report, ibid. at paras 79 and 84.
17. On this issue generally see, for example, Caffisch, 'New Practice Regarding the Implementation of the Judgments of the Strasbourg Court', (2006) 16 Italian Yearbook of International Law [forthcoming].
18. That paragraph reads: 'The European Union may accede to this Convention'.
19. Pursuant to Article 1, Resolution Res(99)50 of the Committee of Ministers, 7 May 1999, the Commissioner shall be a non-judicial institution to promote education in, awareness of and respect for human rights. He shall respect the competence of, and perform functions other than those fulfilled by the supervisory bodies set up by the Council of Europe under its human rights instruments. Under Article 13 of the Resolution, he shall contribute to the effective observance and full enjoyment of human rights in the Member States.
20. 2004-V 1
21. (2005) 40 EHRR 21.
22. On the whole issue, see, for example, Caflisch, supra n. 14.
23. That Group was established at the Third Summit Meeting of the Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe (Warsaw, 16-17 May 2005), and, for the time being, its work remains confidential. Its mandate is 'to consider the issue of the long-term effectiveness of the ECHR control mechanism, including the initial effects of Protocol No. 14 and the other decisions taken in May 2004' and to 'submit, as soon as possible, proposals which go beyond those measures, while preserving the basic philosophy underlying the ECHR'. The Group is made up of 11 members, namely: Rona Abray (Turkey); Fernanda Contri (Italy); Marc Fischbach (Luxembourg); Jutta Limbach (Germany); Gil Carlos Rodriguez Iglesias (Spain); Emmanuel Roucounas (Greece); Jacob Södermann (Finland); Hanna Suchocka (Poland); Pierre Truche (France); Lord Woolf (United Kingdom); Veniamin Fedorovich Yakovlev (Russia).
24. Article 39(4), Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court 1998, 2187 UNTS 90;
25. 6 IHRR 232 (1999);
26. Article 12, Statute of the International and Criminal Tribunal for Ex-Yugoslavia, 3 May 1993, S/25704;
27. Article 11 of the Statute of the international Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, SC Res. 955, 8 November 1994, S/RES/955 (1994).
28. There is, it is true, Article 2, Additional Protocol No. 7 which provides for a right of appeal, but only on the domestic level and in criminal matters.