SURVEY INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: A SURVEY OF ITS PROCEDURAL AND SOME OF ITS SUBSTANTIVE HOLDINGS Sigmund A. Cohn* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 315 I1. THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN IGHTS AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION ............................................... 319 III. THE DECISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ......... 327 A . Law less Case ............................................ 327 B . De B ecker Case .......................................... 335 C . Languages Case ......................................... 341 D . W ernhoff Case ........................................... 347 E . N eum eister Case ......................................... 351 F. Stigm iller Case ......................................... 356 G . Matznetter Case ......................................... 362 H . D elcourt Case ........................................... 368 I. Vagrancy Case ........................................... 377 J. Vagrancy Reparation Case ................................ 398 K . Ringeisen Case .......................................... 408 L. Ringeisen Reparation Case ................................ 425 M . Ringeisen InterpretationCase ............................. 431 N. Neumeister Reparation Case .............................. 435 0 . Golder Case ............................................. 439 P. National Union of Belgian Police Case .................... 456 IV . C ONCLUSION ................................................... 464 I. INTRODUCTION In the aftermath of World War II, vigorous attempts were made to protect human rights. In those endeavors the development of a trend can be seen, proceeding from the mere formulation of general principles to international, genuinely judicial adjudication of viola- * Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Georgia, School of Law; J.U.D. University of Breslau, 1921; J.D. University of Genoa, 1934. GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L. [Vol. 7:315 tions of individual human rights and even to the condemnation of states to provide material indeminification to the victims of such violations. The Charter of the United Nations provided the initial principles for protecting human rights. First, its Preamble declares that one of its aims is "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights." In addition, the Charter states that one of its purposes is "[t]o achieve international cooperation . ..in promoting and en- couraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms .. "I Moreover, members of the United Nations pledge to coop- erate for the achievement of "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms .... "2 Finally, the Economic and Social Council is commanded to establish a commis- sion "for the promotion of human rights."'3 As a result of this command the Commission on Human Rights was created. This Commission brought forth the Universal Declara- tion of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly on Decem- ber 10, 1948, with no negative votes and only eight abstentions.4 The Universal Declaration lists the basic human rights. Yet, like the above mentioned principles in the Charter, this list does not become the internal law of the Member States; instead, it only in- dicates the aims to be followed by them. This result is evident from the language in the preamble to the Universal Declaration: The General Assembly [piroclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peo- ples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms ... This initial stage of defining human rights in terms of general guiding principles was followed by the development of international covenants on human rights, which would become binding on those States that ratified or acceded to them. On December 16, 1966, the General Assembly adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights5 and the International Cove- 'U.N. CHARTE art. 1, para. 3. Id., art. 55, para c, art. 56. Id. art. 68. G.A. Res. 217, U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948). G.A. Res. 2200, 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966) [hereinafter cited as Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant]. 1977] EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS nant on Civil and Political Rights.' Both covenants provide for im- plementation in varying degrees that would become binding upon the States Parties. The extent of this implementation in the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant is quite modest. The States Parties are to submit reports to the Secretary General of the United Nations for transmittal to the Economic and Social Council "on the measures which they have adopted and the progress made in achieving the observance of the rights recognized . ." in the Covenant.' These reports are to be furnished in stages under a program established by the Economic and Social Council.' Then, based upon a system of consultation among the Council, the States Parties, the Specialized Agencies and the Commission on Human Rights,9 the Economic and Social Council "may submit from time to time to the General As- sembly reports with recommendations of a general nature ... 10 These implementation procedures, of course, do not amount to judi- cial enforcement or even to administrative supervision of specific violations.I The degree of implementation is somewhat stronger in the Civil and Political Rights Covenant. Like the Economic, Social and Cul- tural Rights Convenant, the Civil and Political Rights Covenant requires the States Parties to "submit reports on the measures they have adopted which give effect to the rights recognized herein and on the progress made in the enjoyment of those rights ... ."" But unlike the reports under the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant, which are transmitted to the Economic and Social Coun- cil, the reports under the Civil and Political Rights Covenant are transmitted to the Human Rights Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee). 3 The Committee, in turn, is to study the I G.A. Res. 2200, 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966) [hereinafter cited as Civil and Political Rights Covenant]. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant, supra note 5, art. 16, para. 1. Id. art. 17, para. 1. Id. arts. 18-22. 10 Id. art. 21 (emphasis added). 1 This Covenant came into force on January 3, 1976. Schwelb, Entry into Force of the InternationalCovenants on Human Rights and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 70 AM. J. INT'L L. 511, 512 (1976) [hereinafter cited as Schwelb]. " Civil and Political Rights Covenant, art. 40, para. 1. '= Id. arts. 28-39. The Committee is a body consisting of eighteen members, established and defined in the above cited articles. GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L. [Vol. 7:315 reports and transmit them with any appropriate comments to the States Parties. It may also transmit both comments and reports to the Economic and Social Council.'4 In addition, the Committee has the role of a fact finding body to "consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the present Covenant."'" This role, however, is restricted to only those findings between States Parties which have recognized the competence of the Committee to deal with such claims.'6 Moreover, States Parties may also sign the Op- tional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of December 16, 1966,1 in which [a] State Party that has become a Party to the Protocol ... recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and con- sider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party that also is a Party to the Protocol of any of the rights set forth in the Cove- nant.'" Finally, if its fact finding does not lead to a resolution satisfactory to the concerned States Parties, the Committee may, with the prior consent of the States Parties, appoint an ad hoc Conciliation Com- mission, whose good offices "shall be made available to the States Parties concerned .. .9 Like the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant, the Civil and Political Rights Covenant came into force three months after thirty-five State Parties ratified or acceded to it.10 In addition at least ten State Parties must have declared that they recognize the competence of the Committee as a fact finding body,2' and at least ten must have ratified the Protocol before any 22 Committee procedure can be implemented. Even when both Covenants and the Protocol are in force there will " Id. art. 40, para. 4. "1 Id. art. 41, para. 1. IId. , G.A. Res. 2200, 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) 59, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966) [hereinafter cited as Protocol]. " Id. art. 1. civil and Political Rights Covenant, supra note 6, art. 42, para. 1. Id. art. 49. This occurred on March 23, 1976. 2 Id. art. 41, para. 2; Schwelb, supra note 11, at 512. 2 Protocol, supra note 17, art. 9; the optional Protocol to the Convention came into force at the same time the Convention did, since by then 12 countries had ratified it [ten were needed]. Schwelb, supra note 11, at 512. 1977] EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 319 still be no actual international, judicial procedure under them. In order to understand this lack of adjudicatory