DOCSLIB.ORG

Academy of European Law Twenty-Seventh Session

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Academy of European Law Twenty-Seventh Session Academy of European Law Twenty-seventh Session Human Rights Law 20 June – 1 July 2016 Reading Materials The European Court of Human Rights as a Source of Human Rights Law Ineta Ziemele Professor, Riga Graduate School of Law; Judge of the Constitutional Court of Latvia; former judge and Section President at the European Court of Human Rights TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Course Outline 1 2 Reading List 3 3 Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on 5 Human Rights, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 2014 4 Luzius Wildhaber, Arnaldur Hjartarson, Stephen Donnelly, “No 24 Consensus on Consensus? The Practice of the European Court of Human Rights”, Human Rights Law Journal, Vol. 33, No. 7-12 (2013). 5 Steven Greer, The European Convention on Human Rights. 40 Achievements, Problems and Prospects, Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 316 – 321. 6 Ineta Ziemele, “International Courts and Ultra Vires Acts”, in 46 Caflisch et al (eds.), Liber Amicorum Luzius Wildhaber. Human Rights – Strasbourg Views.Droits de l’Homme – Regards de Strasbourg. N.P.Engel, Publisher, 2007, pp. 537 – 556 7 James Crawford, Chance, Order, Change: The Course of 66 International Law, Hague Academy of International Law, 2016, Chapter IX. The European Court of Human Rights as a Source of Human Rights Law Professor Ineta Ziemele Ph.D. (Cantab.) Judge of the Constitutional Court of Latvia, former judge and Section President at the European Court of Human Rights Outline of the lectures: 1. Introduction – setting the stage - Article 38. 1 (d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: “judicial decisions as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law” - Article 32 of the ECHR: “1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention and the Protocols thereto which are referred to it as provided in Articles 33, 34, 46 and 47. 2. In the event of dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide.” - Article 46 of the ECHR: “1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties”. - lex interpretata - erga omnes character of the Convention - the Convention and its Protocols – primary source of European human rights law 2. Methods of interpretation of the ECHR and its Protocols - International treaty v quasi Constitution debate - Articles 31 – 33 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties - “ordinary meaning of the terms in their context and in the light of its object and purpose” - Reservations and declarations - “subsequent agreement” - “subsequent practice” - “relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties” - Special character as a human rights treaty - European public order 3. European consensus - General principles? - Customary law? - Something else? 1 4. Margin of appreciation - Protocol 15: “Affirming that the High Contracting Parties, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, have the primary responsibility to secure the rights and freedoms defined in this Convention and the Protocols thereto, and that in doing so they enjoy a margin of appreciation, subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights established by this Convention,” (13 signatures, 28 ratifications on 6.6.2016.) 5. Ultra vires decisions - Mamatkulov v. Turkey (no. 46827/99 46951/99) [GC] judgment of 4 February 2005, Dissenting opinion of Judges Caflisch, Turmen and Kovler: “Our basic conclusion is, therefore, that the matter examined here is one of legislation rather than of judicial action. As neither the constitutive instrument of this Court nor general international law allows for holding that interim measures must be complied with by States, the Court cannot decide the contrary and, thereby, impose a new obligation on States Parties. To conclude that this Court is empowered, de lege lata, to issue binding provisional measures is ultra vires. Such a power may appear desirable; but it is up to the Contracting Parties to supply it.” - Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (no. 35014/97 ) [GC] judgment of 28 April 2008, Concurrign opinion of Judge Ziemele: “The real question is not one of power, but whether the exercise of power in a given case is consonant with due administration of justice.” 6. Fragmentation 7. Conclusions - is the consent of States Parties to the Convention the only source of European Human Rights law? - is the European Court of Human Rights through its judicial decisions a source of European Human Rights law? 6.6.2016. 2 The European Court of Human Rights as a Source of Human Rights Law Professor Ineta Ziemele Ph.D. (Cantab.) Judge of the Constitutional Court of Latvia, former judge and Section President at the European Court of Human Rights Reading material: - On interpretation of the ECHR by the ECtHR Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 2014 (relevant chapters attached as pdf) Demir and Baykara v Turkey (no. 34503/97) [GC] judgment of 12 November 2008, paras. 65 – 86. To be read but not in reading list Jones and Others v United Kingdom (nos. 34356/06 40528/06) judgment of 14 Janaury 2014. To be read but not in reading list - On margin of appreciation and European consensus Luzius Wildhaber, Arnaldur Hjartarson, Stephen Donnelly, “No Consensus on Consensus? The Practice of the European Court of Human Rights”, Human Rights Law Journal, Vol. 33, No. 7-12 (2013). A, B and C. v. Ireland (no. 25579/05) [GC] judgment of 16 December 2010. To be read but not in reading list Animal Defenders International v the United Kingdom (no. 48876/08) [GC] judgment of 22 April 2013. To be read but not in reading list - On effects of the Court’s judgments and decisions Steven Greer, The European Convention on Human Rights. Achievements, Problems and Prospects, Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 316 – 321 (attached in pdf). Ineta Ziemele, “International Courts and Ultra Vires Acts”, in Caflisch et al (eds.), Liber Amicorum Luzius Wildhaber. Human Rights – Strasbourg Views.Droits de l’Homme – Regards de Strasbourg. N.P.Engel, Publisher, 2007, pp. 537 – 556 (attached in pdf). 3 - On fragmentation James Crawford, Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law, Hague Academy of International Law, 2016, Chapter IX. Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (no. 27765/09) [GC] judgment of 23 February 2012. To be read but not in reading list 1.4.2016. 4 xii TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ORGANIZATION, PRACTICE, AND PROCEDURE 103 1 The Organization of the Court , 103 2 Procedure before the Court (I): From the Initial Application to Judgment 113 3 Procedure before the Court (II): Additional Procedūrai Matters 136 4 Article 41: Just Satisfaction 155 5 Article 46 162 6 Protocol 14 165 7 Reform of the Court 166 Ķ TheFuture: 176 4 THE EXECUTION OF THE COURT’S JUDGMENTS .. 180 1 The Role of the Committee ofMinisters 181 2 Procedure 181 3 The Court and Execution of its Judgments 191 4 The Parliamentary Assembly and Execution of Judgments ... 194 5 Protocol 14 196 6 Conclusion 198 PART III THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED 5 A R T IC L E 2: THE RIGHT TO LIFE 203 1 The Obligation to Protect the Right to Life by Law 203 2 Preventive Action 207 3 Health Care and Other Social Services 212 4 The Procedūrai Obligation to Investigate 214 5 Application of the Obligation to Protect Life to Non-fatal Cases 218 6 Protection of the Unborn Child 219 7 The Prohibition of the Taking of Life by the Use of Force 221 8 Conclusion 233 6 A R T IC L E 3: FREEDOM FROM TORTURE OR INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT 235 1 Introduction 235 2 Torture 238 3 Inhuman Treatment 241 4 Inhuman Punishment 259 5 Degrading Treatment 261 6 Degrading Punishment 271 7 The Obligation to Protect Individuāls from Proscribed Ill-Treatment 2 74 8 Conclusion 5 217 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONVENTION is monitoredbythe Committee ofMinisters ofthe Council ofEurope, which is composed of govemmentrepresentatives of ali of the member states.. 4* THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONVENTION L THE GENERAL APPROACH As a treaty> the Convention must be interpreted according to the internātiem! law rules on the interpretation of treaties.38 Ihese are to be found in the Vienna Convention on the Law ofTreaties 1969.39 The basie rule is that a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accord- ance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose’.40 A good example ofthe use of this rule is the case of Luedicke, Belkacem and Код v Germany,41 There the Court adopted the ordinary meaning1 ofthe words (gratuitementy and ‘free5 in the two authentic language texts42 of Article 6(3) (e), which it found not contradicted by the context of the sub-paragraph5 and confirmed by the object and purpose of Article 6’. The terms in the Convention have their ordinary meaning. Accordingly, words such as ‘degrading5 (Article 3) have been understood in their dictionary sense.43 II. EMPHASIS UPON THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE CONVENTION In accordance with the Vienna Convention, considerable emphasis has been placed on the interpretation of the Convention through a teleological approach, ie one that seeks to realize its object and purpose’. This has been identified in general terms as ‘the protection of individ- ual human rights’44 and the maintenance and promotion of cthe ideāls and values of a demo- cratic society 45 As to the latter, it has been recognized that cdemocracy supposes ‘pluralism, 38 See eg,GoldervUK А 18 (1978); 1 EHRR 524 para 29 PC, and John tonvIrelandA 112 (1986); 9 EHRR 203 para 51 PC.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sarajevo, 2015
    Sarajevo, 2015. Korice_nove 23. decembar 2015 12:08:43 USTAVNI SUD BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE УСТАВНИ СУД БОСНЕ И ХЕРЦЕГОВИНЕ CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Izdavač/Publisher: USTAVNI SUD BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Sarajevo, Reisa Džemaludina Čauševića 6/III Za idavača/For publisher: MIRSAD ĆEMAN Urednik/Editor: MATO TADIĆ Uređivački odbor/Editorial Board: MATO TADIĆ MIODRAG SIMOVIĆ ARIJANA DŽANOVIĆ ERMINA DUMANJIĆ AMELA HARBA-BAŠOVIĆ AZEM KRAJINIĆ Prijevod, lektura i korektura/ Translation, Editing and Proofreading: JEZIČKI ODJEL USTAVNOG SUDA BiH LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF BiH Prijelom i dizajn/Layout and Design: AMELA HARBA-BAŠOVIĆ Štampa/Printed by: ŠTAMPARIJA FOJNICA d.d., Fojnica Tiraž/Print run: 200 Ustavni sud će podržavati ovaj Ustav. Odluke Ustavnog suda su konačne i obavezujuće. (Član VI/3. i 4. Ustava Bosne i Hercegovine) Уставни суд ће штитити овај Устав. Одлуке Уставног суда су коначне и обавезујуће. (Члан VI/3 i 4 Устава Босне и Херцеговине) The Constitutional Court shall uphold this Constitution. Decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be final and binding. (Article VI(3) and (4) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina) 3 Ustavni sud Bosne i Hercegovine smješten je u zgradi Predsjedništva BiH u Ulici reisa Džemaludina Čauševića 6/III, Sarajevo Уставни суд Босне и Херцеговине смјештен је у згради Предсједништва БиХ, у Улици реиса Џемалудина Чаушевића 6/III, Сарајево The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina is seated in the building of the Presidency of BiH, Reisa Džemaludina Čauševića No. 6/III, Sarajevo Tel: +387 33 251 226 Fax: +387 33 561 134 e-mail: [email protected] www.ustavnisud.ba www.ccbh.ba 4 UVOD INTRODUCTION Mirsad Ćeman Mirsad Ćeman Predsjednik President Ustavnog suda Constitutional Court of Bosne i Hercegovine Bosnia and Herzegovina Godine 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Conseil De L'europe Council of Europe Cour Européenne Des Droits De L
    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Applications nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 29 June 2007 2 O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT In the case of O’Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Luzius Wildhaber, Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Rıza Türmen, Volodymyr Butkevych, Josep Casadevall, Matti Pellonpää, Snejana Botoucharova, Stanislav Pavlovschi, Lech Garlicki, Javier Borrego Borrego, Alvina Gyulumyan, Ljiljana Mijović, Egbert Myjer, Ján Šikuta, judges, and Vincent Berger, Jurisconsult, Having deliberated in private on 27 September 2006 and on 23 May 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two British nationals, Mr Gerard O’Halloran and Mr Idris Richard Francis (“the applicants”), on 3 April 2002 and 15 November 2001 respectively. 2. The applicants, one of whom had been granted legal aid, were represented by Mr J. Welch of Liberty, London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 3. Mr O’Halloran alleged that he had been convicted solely or mainly on account of the statement he had been compelled to provide under threat of a penalty similar to the offence itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Rolv Ryssdal* President, and the Former Vice-President, Hermann Mosler Council of Europe
    section Some Notable People3 in the Court’s History CHAPTER 7 Presidents of the Court Lord (Arnold Duncan) McNair (1885–1975) British • Barrister, law professor and international judge • Judge (1946–52) and President of the International Court of Justice (1952–5) • President (1959–65) and thereafter judge at the Court (1965–6) Lord McNair served as the first President of the Court. He was educated at Aldenham School and Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, where he read law. From 1907 to 1908 he was Secretary of the Cambridge University Liberal Club, and in 1909 he was President of the Cambridge Union. After practising as a solicitor in London, he returned to Cambridge in 1912 to become a fellow of his old college, later becoming senior tutor. In 1917 he was called to the Bar, Gray’s Inn. He had taken an interest in international law from an early age, and in 1935 he was appointed Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge. However, he left this chair in 1937 to become Vice-Chancellor of Above: Lord (Arnold Duncan) McNair. Liverpool University. He remained at Liverpool until 1945, Opposite: Poster with some of the when he returned to Cambridge to take up the position of Convention’s keywords (2009). Professor of Comparative Law. The following year he was 106 The Conscience of Europe: 50 Years of the European Court of Human Rights Chapter 7: Presidents of the Court elected a judge of the International Court of Justice in The rights. He wanted above all to place human rights at the heart 1974 that France ratified the Convention, only two years Hague, a post he held until 1955, and he was also President of the European construction project then just beginning.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Court of Justice at Work: Comparative Law on Stage and Behind the Scenes
    Journal of Civil Law Studies Volume 13 Number 1 2020 Article 2 9-28-2020 The European Court of Justice at Work: Comparative Law on Stage and Behind the Scenes Michele Graziadei Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jcls Part of the Civil Law Commons Repository Citation Michele Graziadei, The European Court of Justice at Work: Comparative Law on Stage and Behind the Scenes, 13 J. Civ. L. Stud. (2020) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jcls/vol13/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Law Studies by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT WORK: COMPARATIVE LAW ON STAGE AND BEHIND THE SCENES Michele Graziadei∗ I. Introduction ................................................................................. 2 II. Multilingualism, Translation, and Interpretation at the ECJ ...... 6 III. Comparative Law and the Search for Shared Meaning in European Law ............................................................................ 8 IV. The Keywords, the Concepts, the General Principles ............ 11 V. The Extraterritorial Reach of EU Law and the Comparison of Different Laws ......................................................................... 16 VI. The Transatlantic Dimensions of the Comparative Exercise . 19 VII. EU Law and the Extracontractual Liability of the European Institutions ................................................................................ 26 VIII. The “Constitutional Traditions Common to the Member States” as an Invitation to Comparative Law ........................... 28 ABSTRACT The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has often been hailed as an engine of European integration. Entrusted with the task of secur- ing the uniform interpretation of the law of the European Union— among other functions—the ECJ makes use of comparative law for a variety of purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Bauböck-Perchinig WT.Indd
    IMISCOE sievers The European Union’s enlargements of 2004 and 2007 have greatly increased the research diversity of historic experiences within the eU as well as its contemporary conceptions of statehood, nation-building and citizenship. How did newly formed states determine ( e who would become their citizens? How do countries relate to their large emigrant / per communities, to ethnic kin minorities in neighbouring countries and to minorities s . ) pa a c in their own territory? And to which extent have national citizenship policies beenг жд н тво affected by new immigration and by integration into thee U? The expanded and updated hinig edition of Citizenship Policies in the New Europe describes the citizenship laws and their Citizenship Policies in the historical backgrounds in the eU’s twelve new countries and the accession states Croatia / and Turkey. This work complements Acquisition and Loss of Nationality, a two-volume Citizenship Policies in Citizenship the Policies New Europe analysis of the eU’s fifteen old Member States also published in the IMISCOe-aUP Series. Citizenship Policies in Citizenship the Policies New Europe New Europe Authors: Andrea Baršová, Eugene Buttigieg, Agata Górny, Constantin Iordachi, Priit Järve, Elena Jileva, Zeynep Kadirbeyoglu, Mária Kovács, Kristīne Krūma, Expanded and Updated Edition Dagmar Kusá, Andre Liebich, Felicita Medved, Dorota Pudzianowska, Francesco Ragazzi, Wiebke Sievers, Daniel Smilov, Igor Štiks, Judit Tóth and Nicos Trimikliniotis , ( .) “A unique analysis of citizenship
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed Course Description
    CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY Department of Legal Studies and Summer University & TOTAL LAW™ Central European University Diploma in Advanced European Union Legal Practice The European Union and the Individual July 2011 Budapest 1 Course Directors: Marie Pierre Granger, CEU, Legal Studies, Hungary Imola Streho, Sciences Po, Paris, France Joseph Weiler, New York University, Jean Monnet Center, USA General presentation The 2011 Advanced Course in European Union Legal Practice is offered jointly by the Department of Legal Studies and Summer University of Central European University (CEU), in cooperation with the Total Law™ Team. For the seventh consecutive year, the program brings together for 2 weeks around 50 participants from all over the world and from diverse backgrounds, i.e. law students near completion of their law degree, law graduates and legal professionals, advanced students or practitioners in other connected disciplines with special interest and expertise in EU law, who are seeking further credentials and experience in the field. The 2011 edition will implement for the very first time the completely new and revamped Total Law program and we are very excited to take on this new adventure with the Summer School participants. Course Description This advanced course focuses on the practice of European Union Law. Participants receive hands-on insider analysis about the functioning of the European Union. The program is designed to combine seminars on different subjects as well as workshops supporting the topics addressed in these seminars or some aspects thereof. The Total Law™ Method constitutes the backbone of the program and gives it its exceptional flavor. The Total Law™ teaching team is a unique blend of well-known academics and senior officials working in European Union institutions, who have also written widely in the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume.1, Issue.1 AVE MARIA INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL
    AVE MARIA INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL SYMPOSIUM: THE HOLY SEE: INTERNATIONAL PERSON AND SOVEREIGN ARTICLES The Holy See: International Person and Sovereign Robert John Araujo Foreign Sovereign Immunity and the Holy See Robert John Araujo The New Delicta Graviora Laws Davide Cito Le nuove norme sui delicta graviora Davide Cito The Holy See in Dialogue With the Jane Adolphe Committee on the Rights of the Child STUDENT NOTE The Truth Unraveled: Lowering Maternal Mortality Elise Kenny Inaugural Issue Volume 1 Fall 2011 Dedicated to Robert John Araujo, S.J. AVE MARIA INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 2011 - 2012 EDITORIAL BOARD ISSN 2375-2173 JESSICA HOYT Editor-in-Chief CHANILLE L. GRIGSBY ELISE KENNY Managing Editor Publication Manager MAJEL BRADEN MATEUSZ SZYMANSKI Executive Articles Editor Executive Articles Editor SENIOR EDITORS MELINDA ALICO AMY PENFOLD GENEVIEVE TURNER ASSOCIATE EDITORS MICHAEL ACQUILANO ASHLEY HARVEY MUKENI NADINE NTUMBA ASTHA ADHIKARY MARKUS HORNER ALISON ROGERS DOUGLAS CHRISTIANSEN BRENDAN MURPHY MARISSA ROZAS CATHERINE DREYER STEPHANIE MUSKUS COREY SMITH BRIAN GRAVUNDER RENEE VEZINA FACULTY ADVISORS JUDGE DANIEL RYAN PROFESSOR JANE ADOLPHE PROFESSOR KEVIN GOVERN AVE MARIA INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 2010 - 2011 EDITORIAL BOARD CHERYL LEDOUX Editor-in-Chief STEPHANIE GREWE JENNA ROWAN Managing Editor Publication Manager KATHERINE BUDZ SARA SCHMELING Executive Articles Editor Executive Articles Editor SENIOR EDITORS DOUG LAING LISA UTTER ASSOCIATE EDITORS MELINDA ALICO CHANILLE GRIGSBY AMY PENFOLD MAJEL BRADEN JESSICA HOYT MATEUSZ SZYMANSKI EVA-MARIE CHITTY ELISE KENNY GENEVIEVE TURNER FACULTY ADVISORS JUDGE DANIEL RYAN PROFESSOR JANE ADOLPHE ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS The Ave Maria International Law Journal is constantly seeking timely and thought- provoking articles that engage the international legal community on a wide range of topics.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2012 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”
    European Court of Human Rights Annual Report 2012 Provisional Version Registry of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg, 2013 All or part of this document may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment of the source “Annual Report 2012 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”. Photographs: Council of Europe Cover: the Human Rights Building (Architects: Richard Rogers Partnership and Atelier Claude Bucher) – Photograph: Michel Christen, Council of Europe – Graphic design: Publications Unit of the Registry of the Court CONTENTS Foreword 5 I. The Court in 2012 9 II. Composition of the Court 17 III. Composition of the Sections 21 IV. Speech given by Sir Nicolas Bratza, President of the European Court of Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 27 January 2012 29 V. Speech given by Mr Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 27 January 2012 39 VI. Visits 51 VII. Activities of the Grand Chamber, Sections and single- judge formations 57 VIII. Publication of information on the Court and its case-law 61 IX. Short survey of the main judgments and decisions delivered by the Court in 2012 71 X. Cases reported in the Court’s Case-law Information Notes in 2012 103 XI. Statistical information 147 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2012 (respondent States) 149 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2012 (main respondent States) 150 Court’s workload by state of proceedings and application type at 31 December 2012 151 Violations by Article and by respondent State (2012) 152 Violations by Article and by respondent State (2012) (continued) 153 Applications allocated to a judicial formation (1999-2012) 154 Judgments (1999-2012) 155 European Court of Human Rights – Annual Report 2012 Allocated applications by State and by population (2009-2012) 156 4 FOREWORD The year 2012 almost exactly corresponded to the term of office of my predecessor Sir Nicolas Bratza.
    [Show full text]
  • From Wolfgang Heusel, Director of the Academy of European Law
    Welcome from Wolfgang Heusel, Director of the Academy of European Law Dear Members and Friends of the ELI, Inside this issue: As Director of the Academy of European Law (ERA), and as a member of the ELI who had the chance to contribute to the debate on its creation, it is a pleasure to German Hub Event in 2 Berlin address you in this newsletter. ERA, like the ELI, is in fact a genuine European law institute. We share an aim already focused by the European Parliament when it Diana Wallis speaks in 3 Münster and Hamburg called for the creation of the Academy of European Law in 1991: to strive for a common legal culture and to deepen the European community of law. This aim is Collective Redress 4 just as pertinent today as it was when ERA was founded more than 20 years ago. Project continues to make Progress Today, many European lawyers still resent European law as an unfamiliar body which is imposed on them from outside. ELI and Global 5 Developments: In this setting, the ELI’s role is to evaluate and to stimulate the development of EU working together with law with the aim of improving its quality and consistency. ERA’s mission, on the the World Bank other hand, is to spread the knowledge of European law among legal practitioners MCC established for 6 in all Member States of the European Union. While the ELI is concerned with Insolvency Project conceiving EU law of the highest standards, ERA organises conferences and What is a Membership 6 trainings on EU law which in 2013 were attended by some eight thousand legal Consultative Committee? practitioners from all over Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law
    Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law Publication TheCambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law (CJICL) is an open-access publication available online at <http://cilj.co.uk>. Each volume consists of two or more general issues and occasional symposiums on a particular area of law. Editorial policy All submissions are subject to a double-blind peer-review editorial process by our Academic Review Board and/or our Editorial Board. Submissions The Journal accepts the following types of manuscript: (i) Long Articles between 6,000 and 12,000 words but not exceeding 12,000 words including footnotes; (ii) Short Articles not exceeding 5,000 words including footnotes; (iii) Case Notes not exceeding 3,000 words including footnotes; and (iv) Book Reviews not exceeding 2,500 words including footnotes. Please visit our website for submission details. Copyright and open-access policy The CJICL is an open-access publication governed by our publishing and licensing agreement. Any commercial use and any form of republication of material not covered by the applicable license is subject to the express permission of the Editors-in-Chief. Contact information Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law Faculty of Law, 10 West Road Cambridge, CB3 9DZ United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://cilj.co.uk Typeset in InDesign. ISSN 2050–1706 (Print) ISSN 2050–1714 (Online) © 2016 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law and Contributors This issue should be cited as (2016) 5(3) CJICL. http://cilj.co.uk
    [Show full text]
  • The International Court of Justice and the 'Principle Of
    CHAPTER 25 THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE ‘PRINCIPLE OF NON-USE OF FORCE’ CLAUS KREß I. Introduction The international law on the use of force underwent signifcant developments in the inter-war period, most signifcantly through the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, as enshrined in Article I of the 1928 Kellogg–Briand Pact.1 Yet, the law preceding the United Nations Charter2 remained fraught with uncertainties due, perhaps most importantly, to the notoriously ambiguous concept of war and the possible scope for certain lawful forcible measures short of war.3 Te 1 General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy of 27 Aug 1928, LNTS XCIV (1929), 58. 2 Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945. 3 For one important exposition of the complexities of the pre-Charter law on the use of force, see Ian Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), 19–111, 214–50; Sir Humphrey Waldock, ‘Te Regulation of the Use of Force by Individual States in International Law’ (1952-II) 81 Receuil des cours de l’Académie de droit international 455. Weller180414OUK.indb 561 12/18/2014 7:26:34 PM 562 CLAUS KREß Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) had not developed a case law on those matters4 and only limited light was shed on them by the International Military Tribunals immediately afer the Second World War.5 Since 1945, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been called upon to interpret the UN Charter provisions on the use of force in international relations against this international law back- ground full of obscurities.
    [Show full text]
  • Stephen Weatherill Collected Papers 2Nd Edition
    ASSER International Sports Law Series European Sports Law Collected Papers 2nd Edition Stephen Weatherill ASSER International Sports Law Series For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/8858 Stephen Weatherill European Sports Law Collected Papers Second Edition 123 Stephen Weatherill Somerville College Oxford UK ISSN 1874-6926 ISSN 2215-003X (electronic) ISBN 978-90-6704-938-2 ISBN 978-90-6704-939-9 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-90-6704-939-9 Library of Congress Control Number: 2013955566 Ó T.M.C.ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors 2014 Published by T.M.C.ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands www.asserpress.nl Produced and distributed for T.M.C.ASSER PRESS by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) Series Information Books in the ASSER International Sports Law Series chart and comment upon the legal and policy developments in European and international sports law.
    [Show full text]