European Court of Human Rights ANNUAL REPORT 2008 Registry of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg, 2009 All or part of this document may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment of the source “Annual Report 2008 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”. CONTENTS Page Foreword ............................................................................................................................... 5 I. History and development of the Convention system................................................... 7 II. Composition of the Court ............................................................................................ 19 III. Composition of the Sections........................................................................................ 23 IV. Speech given by Mr Jean-Paul Costa, President of the European Court of Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2008........................................................................................................... 31 V. Speech given by Mrs Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2008........................................................................................................... 41 VI. Visits ............................................................................................................................ 49 VII. Activities of the Grand Chamber and Sections............................................................ 53 VIII. Publication of the Court’s case-law............................................................................. 59 IX. Short survey of the main judgments and decisions delivered by the Court in 2008.... 65 X. Selection of judgments and decisions delivered by the Court in 2008........................ 83 Judgments .................................................................................................................... 85 Decisions...................................................................................................................... 110 XI. Cases accepted for referral to the Grand Chamber and cases in which jurisdiction was relinquished by a Chamber in favour of the Grand Chamber ........... 121 XII. Statistical information.................................................................................................. 125 Events in total (2007-2008) ......................................................................................... 127 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2008, by respondent State........................................................................................................... 128 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2008 (main respondent States)........................................................................................................ 129 Events in total, by respondent State (2008) ................................................................. 130 Violations by Article and by respondent State (2008)................................................. 132 Applications processed in 2008 ................................................................................... 134 Applications allocated to a judicial formation (1955-2008)........................................ 135 Events in total, by respondent State (1 November 1998-31 December 2008) ............ 136 Violations by Article and by respondent State (1 November 1998-31 De- cember 2008) ............................................................................................................... 138 Applications declared inadmissible or struck out (1955-2008)................................... 140 Judgments (1959-2008)............................................................................................... 141 Allocated applications by population (2005-2008) ..................................................... 142 FOREWORD The year 2008 was marked by the first of a series of celebrations at the Court which will continue throughout 2009 and 2010: tenth anniversary of the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 this year, fiftieth anniversary of the Court in 2009, and sixtieth anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights in 2010. The Court also hosted a colloquy on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the seminal text: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The events thus organised must not only look back to the past but also be used to look to the future. The first event was a seminar held at the Court on 13 October 2008, a few days ahead of the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention. It was legitimate to celebrate Protocol No. 11, which made the Court a single, full-time institution, whilst bringing to a close the remarkable contribution of the European Commission of Human Rights and adapting the role of the Committee of Ministers. Protocol No. 11 simplified the supervision system and even radically transformed it. The system, being now purely judicial, undoubtedly represents an improvement on the previous mechanism. The right of individual petition and the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction no longer depend on decisions by States: they have been automatic since the entry into force of the Eleventh Protocol or, for those States that have subsequently ratified the Convention, since the date of their respective ratification. An individual right to apply directly to the Court is a major feature of the European system; though slow to win acceptance and still unique in the world, it has become an incontestable acquired right welcomed by all. This right nevertheless has to be reconciled with the need for speedy and effective processing of applications – a challenge of considerable importance that presents equally considerable difficulties. However, in 2008 the Court’s caseload continued to increase. 2007 saw 41,650 new applications allocated to a judicial formation with a view to a decision and in 2008 the figure was in excess of 49,850. The Court gave 1,543 judgments in 2008. In addition, 2008 saw a very large increase in requests for interim measures: some 3,200 requests were received, of which almost 750 were granted, mostly in sensitive cases concerning immigration law and the right of asylum. The causes of this saturation are well known: the Council of Europe, which had twenty- three members in 1990, on the accession of the first central European State (Hungary), now has forty-seven. In addition, some of the new member States have a high case-count with three of them (Russian Federation, Romania and Ukraine) accounting for nearly half of the total number, rising to 56% if Turkey is included. Two further phenomena, however, explain the overloading of the Court, which is the cause of regrettable delays. First, certain applicants, usually because of ignorance about the Convention and the role of the Court, lodge applications which have no prospect of success but which still need to be examined. Secondly, the Court has to deal with a large number of repetitive cases, admittedly well-founded, but which should be disposed of at national level once the relevant principles have become well-established in Strasbourg case-law. The States must bear responsibility for this second problem if they have failed to implement the necessary internal reforms or if reforms have been delayed. Two examples of problems that should be dealt with nationally are the excessive length of proceedings and the failure to enforce domestic judgments. Some commentators have argued that the Convention case-law should be binding erga omnes, and that this would improve matters because all States would have to amend their legislation, and domestic courts would have to develop their own case- law, in line with a judgment of the Court against another State. Increasingly – and fortunately – domestic authorities and courts have been learning from case-law that does not concern them directly, thus creating an erga omnes effect de facto. The Court’s intense activity in 2008, in terms of volume, did not impair the quality of its judgments, a quality that is reflected in particular in the rulings of the Grand Chamber. Examples from last year illustrate the diversity and scope of the Court’s case-law. A number of rulings have been widely reported in legal literature and have had a profound impact. The report contains extensive references to the main judgments and decisions delivered in 2008. In addition, it should be noted that in 2008 the Court gave its first advisory opinion. On the basis of Article 47 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court had been asked by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to give its opinion on certain legal questions concerning the gender balance in the lists of candidates submitted with a view to the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court found that, in not allowing any exceptions to the rule that the under-represented sex must be represented, the current practice of the Parliamentary Assembly was not compatible with the Convention: where a Contracting Party had taken all the necessary and appropriate steps with a view to ensuring that the list contained a candidate of the under-represented sex, but without success, and especially where it had followed the Assembly’s recommendations advocating an open and transparent procedure involving a call for candidatures, the Assembly could not reject the