DOCSLIB.ORG

University of Southampton Faculty of Business, Law and Art Southampton Law School Volume 1 of 1 the European Convention on Human

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
University of Southampton Faculty of Business, Law and Art Southampton Law School Volume 1 of 1 the European Convention on Human University of Southampton Faculty of Business, Law and Art Southampton Law School Volume 1 of 1 The European Convention on Human Rights and the Living Instrument Doctrine: An Investigation into the Convention’s Constitutional Nature and Evolutive Interpretation By Thomas Webber Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2016 1 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON ABSTRACT FACULTY OF BUSINESS, LAW AND ARTS Doctor of Philosophy The European Convention on Human Rights and the Living Instrument Doctrine: An Investigation into the Convention’s Constitutional Nature and Evolutive Interpretation By Thomas Webber Currently mired in controversy, the European Court of Human Rights and the Convention itself have come in for stern criticism from a diverse array of stakeholders. Of particular controversy is the Court’s utilisation of the Living instrument doctrine, which it first expressly recalled in its 1978 Tyrer v. UK decision. Confusion has continued to surround how this doctrine came about and its potential to allow the Strasbourg Judiciary to cross over the constitutional separation of judiciary and legislature. However, while the substantive idea of the Convention as a living instrument capable of evolving with European Society is legitimate, confusion still exists about how it operates and to what extent it might be used to alter existing Convention Standards. This study sets out that at the heart of this modern legitimacy crisis in the Convention system is a failed dialogical model of the Convention institutions. However, clearer explanations and a better understanding of appropriate roles of the various institutions and improved channels of dialogue may lead to a more accepted Convention system and act to calm some of the conflict surrounding the Convention today. After examination of various aspects of Convention law and practice the eventual argument is that the current crisis is largely one of failed dialogue between Convention stakeholders and is best address through an improved understanding of and discovery of European Consensus. 2 Contents Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview ................................................................................................... 9 1.1 The Development of the ECHR ................................................................................................... 10 1.2 UK Criticism of the Court ............................................................................................................ 12 1.3 What is the Living Instrument Doctrine? .................................................................................... 22 1.4 Diverging approaches to Convention Interpretation .................................................................. 27 1.5 Controversy Surrounding the Living Instrument Doctrine .......................................................... 29 1.6 Dialogue and the ECHR ............................................................................................................... 34 1.7 The Purpose and Themes of this Study ....................................................................................... 36 1.7.1 Theme One: Where did the doctrine come from? (Genesis of the Doctrine in Convention Case Law) ...................................................................................................................................... 38 1.7.2 Theme Two: How the Doctrine works in practice, its limitations and the possibility of ‘(d)evolution’ ................................................................................................................................. 38 1.7.3 Theme Three: The living instrument doctrine and Strasbourg accountability .................... 40 1.8 Chapter by Chapter Overview of this Study ................................................................................ 42 1.8.1 Part One (chapters 2 and 3) - The Living Instrument and its Foundations .......................... 42 1.8.2 Part Two- Principles of Legitimacy and the Scope of the Living Instrument Doctrine ............ 44 1.8.3 Part Three Checks and Balances: State Control of the Convention ..................................... 47 1.8.4 Chapter 7- Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 49 1.9 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 50 Chapter 2: The Nature of the Convention: An Ordinary Treaty or itself a Living Instrument? ............. 53 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 53 2.2 A Tale of Two Europes ................................................................................................................ 57 2.3 Similarities between the US Supreme Court and the ECtHR ...................................................... 65 2.4 The Founding of the Convention: Itself a Living and Evolving Instrument ................................. 74 2.5 The Evolving Mission of the Convention ..................................................................................... 77 2.6 Non Legislative Political Oversight and Influence of Convention Development ........................ 85 2.6.1 Judicial Selection .................................................................................................................. 86 2.6.2 Supervision of the Court’s Judgments ................................................................................. 87 2.6.3 Member State Withdrawal from the Convention ................................................................ 88 3 2.6.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 89 2.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 89 Chapter 3- The Genesis of the Living Instrument Doctrine .................................................................. 95 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 95 3.2 Pre-Tyrer Indications of the Living Instrument Nature of the Convention ................................. 98 3.3 Academic and Extra-Judicial Indications of the Living Instrument Doctrine ............................ 109 3.3.1 Dynamic Interpretation in Sir Francis Jacobs’ Leading Convention Textbook of 1975 ...... 109 3.3.2 Max Sorenson’s International Colloquy Speech in 1975 ................................................... 112 3.3.3 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 114 3.4 The Tyrer v. UK Litigation .......................................................................................................... 115 3.4.1 The Facts of the Tyrer case and Proceedings leading up to the Commission on Human Rights’ Report .............................................................................................................................. 116 3.4.2 Proceedings before the Commission on Human Rights..................................................... 116 3.4.3 The Pleadings before the Court of Human Rights in Tyrer: evolutive interpretation recognised ................................................................................................................................... 121 3.4.4 The Judgment of the Court ................................................................................................ 125 3.4.5 A Different View of the Convention?- Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice’s Dissent in Tyrer v. UK ..... 134 3.6 Marckx and Dudgeon: The classic Tyrer follow on cases .......................................................... 137 3.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 144 Chapter 4- Evolutive Interpretation and its Limits.............................................................................. 149 4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 149 4.2 Evolutive interpretation: The Court’s Use of Consensus and the Sources it considers ............ 151 4.2.1 Common Domestic Legislation and Common Practice amongst the Member States ....... 158 4.2.2 Mutual International Treaty Commitments and their Interpretation ................................... 168 4.2.3 Debates and Resolutions of Council of Europe Organs ......................................................... 174 4.2.4 Changing Social Norms and Perceptions in member States .............................................. 176 4.3 Criticisms of the Court’s Consensus Methodology ................................................................... 181 4.3.1 Lack of or unclear consensus reasoning by the Court ....................................................... 181 4.3.2 Unclear Quantum of Consensus Required for Evolution ................................................... 188 4.3.3 Inconsistent use of the living instrument terminology ...................................................... 192 4.3.4 Article 3 and the Failure of the Court’s Consensus Methodology ..................................... 199 4.4 Limitations on Evolutive Interpretation ...................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Treaty of Westphalia
    Background Information Treaty of Westphalia The Peace of Westphalia, also known as the Treaty of Münster and the Treaty of Osnabrück, refers to a pair of treaties that ended the Thirty Years' War and officially recognized the Dutch Republic and Swiss Confederation. • The Spanish treaty that ended the Thirty Years' War was signed on January 30, 1648. • A treaty between the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III, the other German princes and the representatives from the Dutch Republic, France and Sweden was signed on October 24, 1648. • The Treaty of the Pyrenees, signed in 1659, ending the war between France and Spain, is also often considered part of this treaty. The Peace of Westphalia is the first international agreement to acknowledge a country's sovereignty and is thus thought to mark the beginning of the modern system of nation- states (Westphalian states). The majority of the treaty's terms can be attributed to the work of Cardinal Mazarin, the de facto leader of France at the time (the King, Louis XIV, was still a child). France came out of the war in a far better position than any of the other powers and was able to dictate much of the treaty. The results of the treaty were wide ranging. Among other things, the Netherlands now officially gained independence from Spain, ending the Eighty Years' War, and Sweden gained Pomerania, Wismar, Bremen and Verden. The power of the Holy Roman Emperor was broken and the rulers of the German states were again able to determine the religion of their lands. The treaty also gave Calvinists legal recognition.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventing Westphalia
    Inventing Westphalia Nicholas Pingitore Senior Thesis Spring, 2020 Advisors: Ethan Shagan and Raphael Murillo Pingitore 1 Introduction The Westphalian Moment, if there ever was one, may quite well have occurred more than 100 years after the signing of the now famous Peace, and in Geneva no less. Writing around 1756, Jean-Jacques Rousseau declared in his treatise, A Lasting Peace Through the Federation of Europe that “the Treaty of Westphalia will perhaps forever remain the foundation of our international system.”1 Prevailing social science lore would find no fault with Rousseau’s logic. Examples abound from the last 70 years of various political theories, international histories, university conferences, even modern military alliances, referencing Westphalia.2 Invariably, there are some differences in how these thinkers frame the importance of Westphalia, but the general mold is familiar enough to any sophomore undergraduate enrolled in a course on international relations.3 It goes as follows: The Thirty Years’ War lasted from 1618-1648. This three-decade-long catastrophe was perhaps Europe’s first modern continental war. While the majority of the conflict took place in central Europe, it drew upon every “great power” resulting in an estimated five to eight million deaths. Modern estimates would suggest that such a toll resulted in a 15–20 percent decline in Europe’s population.4 By 1 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Translated by C.E. Vaughan, A Lasting Peace Through The Federation of Europe and The State of War, London: Constable and Company Limited, 1917, p. 55. 2 Javier, Solana. “Securing Peace in Europe.” Speech presented at the Symposium on the Political Relevance of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, Münster, Germany, November 12, 1998.
    [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 2013 Prov
    European Court of Human Rights Annual Report 2013 Provisional Version Registry of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg, 2014 All or part of this document may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment of the source “Annual Report 2013 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 CONTENTS Foreword 5 I. The Court in 2013 7 II. Composition of the Court 15 III. Composition of the Sections 19 IV. Speech given by Mr Dean Spielmann, President of the European Court of Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 23 V. Speech given by Ms Christiane Taubira, Garde des Sceaux, French Minister of Justice, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 31 VI. Speech given by Mr Theodor Meron, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, President of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 39 VII. President’s Diary 49 VIII. Activities of the Grand Chamber, Sections and single- judge formations 59 IX. Case-law information, training and outreach 63 X. Summary of the main judgments and decisions delivered by the Court in 2013 77 XI. Cases reported in the Court’s Case-law Information Notes in 2013 147 XII. Statistical information 191 Events in total (2012-2013) 193 Pending cases allocated
    [Show full text]
  • Case of Jussila V. Finland
    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Case of Jussila v. Finland (Application no. 73053/01) Judgment Strasbourg, 23 November 2006 CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT O F HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF JUSSILA v. FINLAND (Application no. 73053/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 November 2006 2 JUSSILA v. FINLAND JUDGMENT In the case of Jussila v. Finland, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Nicolas Bratza, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Peer Lorenzen, Lucius Caflisch, Loukis Loucaides, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Volodymyr Butkevych, Josep Casadevall, Matti Pellonpää, Kristaq Traja, Mindia Ugrekhelidze, Antonella Mularoni, Elisabet Fura-Sandström, Ljiljana Mijović, Dean Spielmann, Ján Šikuta, judges, and Erik Fribergh, Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 5 July and 25 October 2006, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 73053/01) against the Republic of Finland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Finnish national, Mr Esa Jussila (“the applicant”), on 21 June 2001. 2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr P. Lappalainen, a lawyer practising in Nokia. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr A. Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 3. The applicant alleged that he had not received a fair hearing in the proceedings in which a tax surcharge was imposed as he had not been given an oral hearing.
    [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]
  • European Court of Human Rights
    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA (Application no. 55707/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 February 2009 ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Andrejeva v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Peer Lorenzen, Françoise Tulkens, Josep Casadevall, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Corneliu Bîrsan, Nina Vajić, Alvina Gyulumyan, Dean Spielmann, Davíd Thór Björgvinsson, Ján Šikuta, Ineta Ziemele, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 25 June 2008 and on 14 January 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 55707/00) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a “permanently resident non-citizen” (nepilsone) of Latvia who was previously a national of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Ms Natālija Andrejeva (“the applicant”), on 27 February 2000. 2. The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr V. Buzajevs, Member of Parliament. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Reine. 3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that by refusing to grant her a State pension in respect of her employment in the former Soviet Union prior to 1991 on the ground that she did not have Latvian citizenship, the national authorities had discriminated against her in the exercise of her pecuniary rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Sacred German Music in the Thirty Years'
    Musical Offerings Volume 3 Number 1 Spring 2012 Article 1 2012 Sacred German Music in the Thirty Years’ War Brandi Hoffer Cedarville University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/musicalofferings Part of the History Commons, and the Musicology Commons DigitalCommons@Cedarville provides a publication platform for fully open access journals, which means that all articles are available on the Internet to all users immediately upon publication. However, the opinions and sentiments expressed by the authors of articles published in our journals do not necessarily indicate the endorsement or reflect the views of DigitalCommons@Cedarville, the Centennial Library, or Cedarville University and its employees. The authors are solely responsible for the content of their work. Please address questions to [email protected]. Recommended Citation Hoffer, Brandi (2012) "Sacred German Music in the Thirty Years’ War," Musical Offerings: Vol. 3 : No. 1 , Article 1. DOI: 10.15385/jmo.2012.3.1.1 Available at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/musicalofferings/vol3/iss1/1 Sacred German Music in the Thirty Years’ War Document Type Article Abstract The religious and political turmoil of the Thirty Years’ War significantly impacted the performance and preservation of sacred Baroque music in the German lands. Conflict between the Catholics and Protestants created an unstable social environment, which resulted in a myriad of responses from composers and performers. Leading composers including Heinrich Schütz, Michael Praetorius, Thomas Selle, and Heinrich Scheidemann, expressed their values either overtly or implicitly depending upon their occupational, geographical, political, and religious positions. Research indicates that the influences of the Thirty Years’ War created an ideal environment for the flourishing of the following German music in the late Baroque Era.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2014
    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME Annual Report 2014 Provisional version European Court of Human Rights Annual Report 2014 Provisional Version Registry of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg, 2015 All or part of this document may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment of the source “Annual Report 2014 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 CONTENTS Foreword 5 I. The Court in 2014 9 II. Composition of the Court 17 III. Composition of the Sections 21 IV. Speech given by Mr Dean Spielmann, President of the European Court of Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 31 January 2014 29 V. Speech given by Prof. Dr Andreas Voßkuhle, President of the German Federal Constitutional Court, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 31 January 2014 39 VI. President’s Diary 49 VII. Activities of the Grand Chamber, Sections and single- judge formations 61 VIII. Case-law information, training and outreach 67 IX. Overview of the Court’s case-law in 2014 79 X. Statistical information 163 Events in total (2013-14) 165 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2014 (respondent States) 166 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2014 (main respondent States) 167 Court’s workload by state of proceedings and application type at 31 December 2014 168 Violations by subject matter at 31 December 2014 169 Applications allocated to a judicial formation (2000-14) 170 Judgments (2000-14) 171 Allocated applications by State and by population (2011-14) 172 Violations by Article and by respondent State (2014) 174 Violations by Article and by respondent State (1959-2014) 176 FOREWORD Looking back over 2014, we can take pleasure in a number of successes achieved by the Court this year.
    [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]