Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the 21st Century pp 223–262Cite as

Res Interpretata: Legal Effect of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judgments for other States Than Those Which Were Party to the Proceedings

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 30))

Abstract

States that were not a party to proceedings in a case before the European Court of Human Rights should take into account judgments and decisions issued with respect to third states. Indeed, judgments and decisions establishing a new legal principle or standard should have a persuasive authority for other states. They should be an incentive for state parties to change their law or practices in order to avoid similar issues being brought against them. Such judgments should have a res interpretata effect, a notion to be distinguished from the typical res judicata effect of judgments. As such, res interpretata may become one of the most important tools reinforcing the principle of subsidiarity underlying the entire European Convention and thereby also limit the number of applications brought to the European Court. The res interpretata effect may therefore be a good instrument of constant fine-tuning of third states’ legal system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The ECtHR issues judgments and decisions. New legal principles are formulated both in judgments and decisions. Decisions thus do not have a purely procedural character. Some of them, especially in precedent cases, include comprehensive reasoning that constitutes an interpretation of the Convention. A good example is the inadmissibility decision in Köpke v. Germany (5 October 2010, No. 420/07), in which the Court interpreted the scope of applicability of Article 8 ECHR to include video surveillance of employees suspected of theft. Material reasoning having impact on interpretation of the Convention may be included, both in admissibility and non-admissibility decisions. Even if the ECtHR does not declare a certain application admissible, the reasoning about the scope of the protected rights under the Convention is important for building the case-law. Also, the ECtHR in its jurisprudence refers both to judgments and decisions, and approaches them as a unified case-law informing on the Convention interpretation.

  2. 2.

    ECtHR 13 June 1979, No. 6833/74, Marckx v. Belgium.

  3. 3.

    ECtHR 1 February 2000, No. 34406/97, Mazurek v. France.

  4. 4.

    ECtHR 22 October 1981, No. 7525/76, Dudgeon v. United Kingdom.

  5. 5.

    ECtHR 22 April 1993, No. 15070/89, Modinos v. Cyprus.

  6. 6.

    Compare: “Article 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice states: The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case”; Article 68(1) American Convention on Human Rights states: “The States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties”; Article 30 Protocol on the establishment of the African Court of Human Rights states: “The States parties to the present Protocol undertake to comply with the judgment in any case to which they are parties within the time stipulated by the Court and to guarantee its execution”.

  7. 7.

    Article 1 ECHR states: “The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention”.

  8. 8.

    Article 46(3) ECHR states: “If the Committee of Ministers considers that the supervision of the execution of a final judgment is hindered by a problem of interpretation of the judgment, it may refer the matter to the Court for a ruling on the question of interpretation”.

  9. 9.

    Article 26 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states: “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith”.

  10. 10.

    Article 27 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states: “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. […]”.

  11. 11.

    Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 13 July 1954 in case “Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal”, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&code=unac&case=21&k=d2

  12. 12.

    International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, November 2001, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), chapter IV.E.1. See also commentary to Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Wrongful Acts (points 11 and 12 – Article 12), available at: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf

  13. 13.

    ECtHR 18 January 1978, No. 5310/71, Ireland v. United Kingdom.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., para 154.

  15. 15.

    ECtHR 6 November 1980, No. 7367/76, Guzzardi v. Italy, para. 86.

  16. 16.

    ECtHR 29 April 2002, No. 2346/02, Pretty v. United Kingdom.

  17. 17.

    Ibid., para. 75.

  18. 18.

    ECtHR 9 June 2009, No. 33401/02, Opuz v. Turkey.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., para. 163.

  20. 20.

    ECtHR 24 July 2003, No. 40016/98, Karner v. Austria.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., para. 26.

  22. 22.

    ECtHR 24 November 2005, No. 49429/99, Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, paras. 78–79.

  23. 23.

    ECtHR 7 January 2010, No. 25965/04, Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, para. 175.

  24. 24.

    E.g. Recommendation Rec(2000)2 on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; Recommendation Rec(2004)6 on the improvement of domestic remedies; Recommendation Rec(2004)4 on the European Convention on Human Rights in university education and professional training; Recommendation Rec(2004)6 on the improvement of domestic remedies.

  25. 25.

    Recommendation Rec(2004)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the verification of the compatibility of draft laws, existing laws and administrative practice with the standards laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights, available at: https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?id=743297

  26. 26.

    Recommendation Rec(2002)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the publication and dissemination in the member states of the text of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights., available at: https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec(2002)13&Language=lanEnglish&Site=COE&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864

  27. 27.

    Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Resolution 1516 (2006), available at: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta06/ERES1516.htm

  28. 28.

    Ibid., para. 22.1.

  29. 29.

    Progress report by Rapporteur Christos Pourgourides of 31 August 2009 on Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, PACE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, AS/Jur (2009) 36, available at: http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2009/ejdoc36_2009.pdf

  30. 30.

    Ibid., para. 29.

  31. 31.

    Conclusions of the Chairperson, Mrs Herta Däubler-Gmelin, of the hearing of the PACE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, held in Paris on 16 December 2009 on the future of the Strasbourg Court and enforcement of ECHR standards: reflections on the Interlaken process, AS/Jur (2010) 06, available at: http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2010/20100121_ajdoc06%202010.pdf

  32. 32.

    Ibid., at 15.

  33. 33.

    Opinion of the Steering Committee for Human Rights: Issues to be covered at the high-level conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights, in Preparatory Contributions to the High-level conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights organised in Interlaken, Switzerland on 18 and 19 February 2010, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Issues, Council of Europe, 2010, 15–24. One of the issues to cover during the Interlaken conference should be the interpretative value of the ECtHR judgments. In general, the knowledge of the ECHR case-law should be increased at a domestic level, as well as interaction between the European and the national level.

  34. 34.

    Contribution of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to the preparation of the Interlaken conference, in Preparatory Contributions to the High-level conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights organised in Interlaken, Switzerland on 18 and 19 February 2010, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Issues, Council of Europe, 2010, 36–48. According to the CoE Secretary General, states should take into account principles stemming from the ECtHR judgments concerning other states. They should also build an institutional system or mechanism allowing for analysis of potential effects of such judgments on the domestic legal system or practices.

  35. 35.

    Memorandum of the Commissioner for Human Rights for the Interlaken Conference, in Preparatory Contributions to the High-level conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights organised in Interlaken, Switzerland on 18 and 19 February 2010, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Issues, Council of Europe, 2010, 26–27. See also the Commissioner’s Recommendation on systematic work for implementing human rights at a national level, CommDH (2009) 3, 18/02/2009. The Commissioner for Human Rights proposed to identify leading judgments of the ECtHR, irrespectively of the state that they concern, to form a basis for a general study on compliance with international human rights commitments. Such a study should be made in every member state of the Council of Europe.

  36. 36.

    NGOs in the joint appeal suggested that the lower number of cases may be a result of the implementation by state parties of also those judgments that were issued with respect to other states. Joint NGO appeal: Human rights in Europe: decision time on the European Court of Human Rights, 7 December 2009, in Preparatory Contributions to the High-level conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights organised in Interlaken, Switzerland on 18 and 19 February 2010, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Issues, Council of Europe, 2010, 32–35, at 33.

  37. 37.

    J.P. Costa, Memorandum of the President of the European Court of Human Rights to the states with a view to preparing the Interlaken conference, in Preparatory Contributions to the High-level conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights organised in Interlaken, Switzerland on 18 and 19 February 2010, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Issues, Council of Europe, 2010, 5–14.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., at 13.

  39. 39.

    Ibid.

  40. 40.

    The Interlaken Declaration is available at: http://www.eda.admin.ch/etc/medialib/downloads/edazen/topics/europa/euroc.Par.0133.File.tmp/final_en.pdf

  41. 41.

    Point B (c) – Interlaken Declaration. Action Plan.

  42. 42.

    Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Resolution 1726 (2010): Effective implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights: the Interlaken process, resolution available at: http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta10/ERES1726.htm

  43. 43.

    Decision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of 11 May 2010: Follow-up to the High-level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, CM(2010)PV Addendum 1.

  44. 44.

    Brighton Declaration, point 9 (c) (iv).

  45. 45.

    German Federal Constitutional Court 14 October 2004, No. 2 BvR 1481/04, Görgülü.

  46. 46.

    The German Federal Constitutional Court referred to a publication by G. Ress, “Wirkung und Beachtung der Urteile und Entscheidungen der Straßburger Konventionsorgane”, Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 1996, 350, German Federal Constitutional Court 14 October 2004, No. 2 BvR 1481/04, para. 39. See also G. Ress “The Effects of Judgments and Decisions in Domestic Law”, in R. St. J. Macdonald, F. Matscher, H. Petzold (eds.) The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993), 801–851, at 810–812.

  47. 47.

    Article 31 Sect. 1 of the German Constitutional Court states: “The decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court shall be binding upon Federal and Land constitutional organs as well as on all courts and authorities.”

  48. 48.

    Görgülü, supra, note 45, para. 39.

  49. 49.

    J. Meyer-Ladewig, EMRK Europäische Menschenrechtenkonvention. Handkommentar 2nd ed., (Baden-Baden: Nomos verlag, 2006), Note No. 14 to Article 46 of the Convention. See also H.-J. Papier, “Execution and Effects of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights from the Perspective of German National Courts”, 27 Human Rights Law Journal (2006), 1–5.

  50. 50.

    Article 32(1) ECHR states: “The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention and the Protocols thereto […].”

  51. 51.

    Papier, supra, note 49, at 1.

  52. 52.

    K. Xrysogonos, “H (mi) efarmogi tis ESDA apo ta ellinika dikastiria”, 5 To Syntagma (2002), available at: http://tosyntagma.ant-sakkoulas.gr/afieromata/item.php?id=726. Article referred to in the report by Evangelia Psychogiopoulou, Strasbourg Court Jurisprudence and Human Rights in Greece: An Overview of Litigation, Implementation and Domestic Reform, prepared within JURISTRAS project, available at: http://www.juristras.eliamep.gr/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/greece.pdf, footnote 138, at 26–27.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., at 27.

  54. 54.

    Translation as included in F. Biondi Dal Monte and F. Fontanelli “The Decisions No. 348 and 349/2007 of the Italian Constitutional Court: The Efficacy of the European Convention in the Italian Legal System”, 9 German Law Journal (2008), 889–932, at 921.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., at 922.

  56. 56.

    R.P. Alford, “Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals” American Society of International Law Proceedings, (2000) 160–165, at 163–164.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    In this article, we deal with the legal effects of ECHR judgments for states that were not a party to proceedings. Please note, however, that also the level of authority of res judicata judgments may be questionable. There have been many a number of instances in the practice of the ECtHR where the state did not want to comply with the judgment, claiming that the ECtHR insufficiently assessed the situation in question. See the discussion on compliance with the judgment in ECtHR 26 February 2002, No. 38784/97, Morris v. United Kingdom. The case concerned rules that govern the role of junior officers as members of martial courts. Following the criticism of the judgment, the Grand Chamber issued a judgment in ECtHR 16 December 2003, No. 48843/99, Cooper v. United Kingdom. In this judgment, the position of the ECtHR has changed. See L. Garlicki, “Cooperation of courts: The role of supranational jurisdictions in Europe”, 6 International Journal of Constitutional Law (2008) 509–530, at 517.

  59. 59.

    ECtHR 23 April 1997, Nos. 21363/93; 21364/93; 21427/93; 22056/93, Van Mechelen and Others v. Netherlands.

  60. 60.

    For example, leading Polish cases of last years, having significant impact on the system of the Convention, were inter alia the following Chamber judgments: ECtHR 20 March 2007, No. 5410/03, Tysiąc v. Poland, (access to therapeutic abortion); ECtHR 3 May 2007, No. 1543/06, Bączkowski and Others v. Poland, (ban on gay prides); ECtHR 15 June 2010, No. 7710/02, Grzelak v. Poland, (lack of education on ethics in Polish schools).

  61. 61.

    It may be also a strategy of lawyers litigating cases before the ECtHR to observe what is the approach of judges belonging to a given section to certain issues, as it may have an impact on future judgments.

  62. 62.

    Compare the response by the ECtHR to the Report of the Wise Men: “Although its judgments do not, strictly speaking, have erga omnes effect (see Article 46 of the Convention), all States should take due notice of judgments against other States, especially judgments of principle, thereby preempting potential findings of violations against themselves.” Document available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/26457EAB-2840-4D71-9ED7-85F0F8AE0026/0/OpinionoftheCourtontheWisePersonsReport.pdf

  63. 63.

    A good example is the activity of the Office of Research and Analysis of the Supreme Court in Poland, which regularly publishes the Review of European Jurisprudence in Criminal Cases (prepared by Dr. Małgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderek). It is the only regular review prepared by public authorities in Poland that provides a comprehensive analysis of the ECtHR cases concerning other states than Poland and their potential importance for the Polish criminal justice system. The Review is available at the website of the Supreme Court: www.sn.pl.

  64. 64.

    H. Mosler, “Report on the Result of the Colloquy”, in I. Meier (ed.) Protection of Human Rights in Europe. Limits and Effects. Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquy about the European Convention on Human Rights, (Heidelberg: C.F. Müller Juristischer Verlag, 1982), 333–347, at 344–345.

  65. 65.

    ECtHR 26 October 2000, No. 30210/96, Kudła v. Poland.

  66. 66.

    ECtHR 8 August 2006, No. 43803/98, Eskelinen and Others v. Finland.

  67. 67.

    Statement by Mr. Fokion Georgakopoulos, Head of the Greek Delegation, Interlaken Conference Proceedings, p. 57.

  68. 68.

    Statement by Lady Patricia Scotland, Head of the UK Delegation, Interlaken Conference Proceedings, at 106.

  69. 69.

    J. Christoffersen, Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights, (Series: International Studies in Human Rights, Vol. 99) (Leiden-Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009).

  70. 70.

    There is already a comprehensive literature on the dissenting and concurring opinions in the ECtHR: F. Bruinsma and M. de Blots, “Rules of Law from Westport to Wladiwostok. Separate Opinions in the European Court of Human Rights”, 15 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (1997), 175; F. Rivière, Les opinions séparées des juges à’ la Cour europenne des droits de l’homme, (Brussels: Bruylant, 2004); F. Bruinsma, “Judicial Identities in the European Court of Human Rights”, in A. van Hoek (ed), Multilevel Governance in Enforcement and Adjudication, (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2006); R.C.A. White and I. Boussiakou, “Separate opinions in the European Court of Human Rights”, 9 Human Rights Law Review (2009), 37–60.

  71. 71.

    Compare ECtHR 15 September 2009, No. 10373/05, Moskal v. Poland, adopted with a 4 to 3 majority. See the case note to Moskal case by Ewa Łętowska in the forthcoming book in honour of Maria Matey-Tyrowicz.

  72. 72.

    For example, the ECHR may find a violation of Article 8 ECHR by analysis of certain wrongful practices. At the same time, the concurring opinion may suggest that Article 8 ECHR was in fact violated, but because of the wrongful regulation of a certain invasion of privacy, and thus violation of a requirement “provided by law”. The effect is the same – violation of Article 8, but the majority judgment has a much more limited scope of application.

  73. 73.

    Statement by Lady Patricia Scotland, Head of the UK Delegation to Interlaken Conference, Interlaken Conference Proceedings, 6.

  74. 74.

    Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Resolution 1646 (2009) on the nomination of candidates and election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights, available at: http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta09/eres1646.htm

  75. 75.

    Brighton Declaration, points 21–22.

  76. 76.

    Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights do not indicate who was a judge rapporteur. On the one hand, this strengthens the authority of the Court (especially if judgments are issued unanimously). On the other hand, if the judgment has been written by a prominent expert, one cannot rely on this fact and search for some additional persuasive value. One should take into account that in many constitutional courts, the fact that a certain judgment was written by a specific judge increases its legitimacy (and vice versa if the judge is not highly regarded in the legal society).

  77. 77.

    E.g. in Spain, the Ombudsman in his annual reports reviews the compatibility of certain Spanish laws with the Strasbourg decisions. The Ombudsman’s activities proved to be a very useful tool to encourage legislative amendments or changes in the behaviour of the administrative authorities. See M. Candela Soriano, “The reception process in Spain and Italy” in H. Keller and A. Stone-Sweet (eds.), A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 431–432. A regular check of legislation is also made in The Netherlands and in the United Kingdom (the Parliament’s Joint Human Rights Committee). See D. Feldman, “The Impact of Human Rights on the UK Legislative Process”, 25 Statute Law Review (2004), 91–115.

  78. 78.

    Moskal v. Poland, supra, note 71. See comment to the judgment by A. Bodnar and B. Grabowska, “Glosa do wyroku ETPCZ w sprawie Moskal przeciwko Polsce” Praca i Zabezpieczenie Społeczne [‘Work and Social Security’ journal], (2010) 6.

  79. 79.

    ECtHR 23 April 1992, No. 11798/85, Castells v. Spain.

  80. 80.

    ECtHR 24 February 2009, No. 23806/03, Długołęcki v. Poland.

  81. 81.

    Available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/26457EAB-2840-4D71-9ED7-85F0F8AE0026/0/OpinionoftheCourtontheWisePersonsReport.pdf

  82. 82.

    ECtHR 29 July 2004, No. 36813/97, Scordino v. Italy.

  83. 83.

    Recommendation Rec(2002)13 is available at: https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec(2002)13&Language=lanEnglish&Site=COE&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864

  84. 84.

    Statement of the Polish National Council of Judiciary on the enforcement of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights of 16 December 2011, point 4.

  85. 85.

    ECtHR 17 February 2004, No. 39748/98, Maestri v. Italy.

  86. 86.

    Appendix to the Recommendation Rec(2004)5, point 25.

  87. 87.

    Appendix to the Recommendation Rec(2004)5, point 26.

  88. 88.

    Appendix to the Recommendation Rec(2004)5, point 26.

  89. 89.

    Appendix to the Recommendation Rec(2004)5, point 26.

  90. 90.

    BVerfGE, vol. 74, 358 (at 370).

  91. 91.

    According to Frowein, one cannot imagine a situation where the German federal legislator adopts willfully a law that is in contravention of the ECHR standards. The only problem may appear when the legislator is not aware of specific obligations stemming from the ECHR case-law. See J.A. Frowein, “Incorporation of the Convention into Domestic Law”, in J. P. Gardner (ed.), Aspects of Incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into Domestic Law, (London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law & British Institute of Human Rights, 1993) 3–11, at 6–7.

  92. 92.

    Law on the Enforcement of Judgments and the Application of the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights, Law No.3477-IV of 23 February 2006.

  93. 93.

    2006 Ukrainian Law was annexed to the Parliamentary Assembly Report on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, prepared by Mr. Erik Jurgens, 18 September 2006, Assembly Doc. 11020. It is available in English at: http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc06/edoc11020.htm#P1169_169391

  94. 94.

    The Human Rights Act 1998 is available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/data.pdf

  95. 95.

    R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (2004) 2 AC 323, per Lord Bingham, available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040617/ullah-2.htm

  96. 96.

    Ibid., para. 20.

  97. 97.

    R v Horncastle and others [2009] UKSC 14, available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0073_Judgment.pdf

  98. 98.

    Ibid., para. 11.

  99. 99.

    The European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 is available at: http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2003/a2003.pdf

  100. 100.

    Polish Constitutional Court (hereinafter) 3 June 2008, No. K 42/07, OTK ZU of 2008, No. 5A, item 77. An English summary of the judgment is available at: http://www.trybunal.gov.pl/eng/summaries/documents/K_42_07_GB.pdf

  101. 101.

    PCC 19 December 2002, No. K 33/02, OTK ZU of 2002, No. 7A, item 97; the PCC referred directly to Art. 1 Prot. 1 ECHR and Art. 64 of the Constitution. English summary available at: http://www.trybunal.gov.pl/eng/summaries/documents/K_33_02_GB.pdf

  102. 102.

    ECtHR 19 December 1989, Nos. 10522/83, 11011/84 and 11070/84, Mellacher and Others v. Austria.

  103. 103.

    PCC 12 January 2000, P 11/98, OTK ZU of 2000, No. 1, item 3. English summary available at: http://www.trybunal.gov.pl/eng/summaries/documents/P_11_98_GB.pdf

  104. 104.

    Judgment of the Polish Constitutional Court of 18.02.2009, No. Kp 3/08, OTK ZU of 2009, No. 2A, item 9. Full text of the judgment (in English) is available at: http://www.trybunal.gov.pl/eng/summaries/documents/Kp_03_08_GB.pdf

  105. 105.

    ECtHR 26 February 1998, No. 20323/92, Pafitis and Others v. Greece; ECtHR 30 September 2003, No. 40892/98, Koua Poirrez v. France.

  106. 106.

    Compare the amicus curiae brief submitted by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in the case concerning deprivation of special benefits of the former secret police members, case No. K 36/09; amicus curiae brief, available at: http://www.hfhr.org.pl/przeszlosc-rozliczenia/opinie-przyjaciela-sadu-amicus-curiae/opinia-amicus-curiae-dla-trybunalu-konstytucyjnego-w-sprawie-o-sygn-k-36-09-dezubekizacja.html

  107. 107.

    In the case ECtHR 20 April 2010, Nos. 12315/04 and 17605/04, Laska and Lika v. Albania, the ECtHR suggested that there should be a possibility to re-examine a case or re-open criminal proceedings, and it would be the best way to redress the applicants and to repair the situation of violation. The ECtHR indicated that such possibility does not exist in the domestic legal system, and indirectly pointed out the need to establish a new remedy for victims of the right to fair trial.

  108. 108.

    Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers No. R (2000) 2 on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, available at: https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?id=334147&Site=CM

  109. 109.

    See F. Czerner, “Inter partes – versus erga omnes – Wirkung der EMGR-Judikate in den Konventionsstaaten gemäß Art. 46 EMRK. Eine Problemanalyse auch aus strafverfahrensrechtlicher Perspektive”, 46 Archiv des Völkerrechts, (2008), 345–367, at 363–364; see also for a similar view: B. Nita, “Orzeczenie ETPCz jako podstawa wznowienia postępowania karnego [The ECtHR judgment as the basis for re-opening of criminal proceedings]”, Europejski Przegląd Sądowy [European Court Review] (2010)9, 4–10, at 7. In the opinion of Barbara Nita, re-opening criminal proceedings concerning another person than the one which had his case before the ECtHR, is possible when the violation of the Convention standard is identical. It is the limitation which should be equally applicable also to re-opening if a judgment was rendered with respect to other states than the state in which re-opening is claimed.

  110. 110.

    Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation R(2002)2 clearly specifies that it does not address the special problem of “mass cases”, i.e. cases in which a certain structural deficiency leads to a great number of violations of the Convention. In such cases, it is in principle best left to the state concerned to decide whether or not reopening or re-examination are realistic solutions or, whether other measures are appropriate.

  111. 111.

    Recommendation Rec(2002)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the publication and dissemination in the member states of the text of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

  112. 112.

    One of the recent documents in which one can find a review of relevant cases was the Background document to the intervention made by Mr. Christos Pourgourides, Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (AS/Jur) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe at the conference: “Strengthening Subsidiarity – Integrating the Court’s Case-Law into National Law and Judicial Practice” (Skopje, 1–2 October 2010), available at: http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2010/20101125_skopje.pdf

  113. 113.

    ECtHR 6 October 2005, No. 74025/01, Hirst v. United Kingdom (no. 2).

  114. 114.

    In Cyprus, amendments were passed before parliamentary elections in May 2006, see Council of Europe document DH-PR (2006)004 rev Bil., available at: http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/cddh/3._committees/02.%20improving%20of%20human%20rights%20protection%20%28dh%2Dpr%29/03.%20working%20documents/2006/2006_004rev_en.asp#TopOfPage

  115. 115.

    Electoral (Amendment) Act 2006, No. 33 of 2006, 11 December 2006, available at: http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2006/a3306.pdf

  116. 116.

    ECtHR 23 November 2010, Nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, Greens and M.T. v. United Kingdom. Please note that this judgment has not been implemented by the United Kingdom until now and was one of the reasons for the introduction of the discussion on the margin of appreciation doctrine in the agenda of the Brighton Conference.

  117. 117.

    Opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) and OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights – joint opinion on the Election Code of Georgia as amended in March 2010, Opinion No. 571 / 2010, CDL-AD(2010)013, available at: http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2010/CDL-AD(2010)013-e.pdf

  118. 118.

    ECtHR 27 November 2008, No. 36391/02, Salduz v. Turkey .

  119. 119.

    Speech of Mr. Geert Cortens, President of the Supreme Court of The Netherlands, “Dialogue between Judges”, seminar organised by the Strasbourg Court, 29 January 2010. Original French version: http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/B7BAA2F0-EAB2-4B27-9298-781BB0FB310E/0/20100129_Discours_President_Corstens_Seminaire.pdf

  120. 120.

    ECtHR 27 March 1996, No. 17488/90, Goodwin v. United Kingdom.

  121. 121.

    See ECtHR 14 September 2010, No. 38224/03, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. Netherlands, para. 36: “[…] The principle [that a journalist had to disclose his sources when asked as a witness]” was overturned by the Supreme Court in a landmark judgment of 10 May 1996 on the basis of the principles set out in the Court’s judgment of 27 March 1996 in the case of Goodwin v. United Kingdom. In this ruling, the Supreme Court accepted that, pursuant to Article 10 of the Convention, a journalist was in principle entitled to non-disclosure of an information source unless, on the basis of arguments to be presented by the party seeking disclosure of a source, the judge was satisfied that such disclosure was necessary in a democratic society for one or more of the legitimate aims set out in Article 10 para. 2 of the Convention, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie [Netherlands Law Reports] 1996, no. 578.

  122. 122.

    Decree No. 87-634 of 4 August 1987

  123. 123.

    ECtHR 28 November 1978, Nos. 6210/73; 6877/75; 7132/75, Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany.

  124. 124.

    ECtHR 1 October 1982, No. 8692/79, Piersack v. Belgium.

  125. 125.

    ECtHR 26 October 1984, No. 9186/80, De Cubber v. Belgium.

  126. 126.

    Source: Information provided by Roeland Böcker, Government Agent for The Netherlands on the questionnaire concerning effective implementation of the ECtHR judgments. 18 February 2009.

  127. 127.

    Piersack v. Belgium, supra, note 124.

  128. 128.

    De Cubber v. Belgium, supra, note 125.

  129. 129.

    Swiss Federal Supreme Court 4 June 1986, No. 112 IA 290.

  130. 130.

    Spanish Constitutional Court 12 July 1988, No. 145/1988, available at: http://www.boe.es/aeboe/consultas/bases_datos/doc.php?coleccion=tc&id=SENTENCIA-1988-0145

  131. 131.

    ECtHR 22 February 1994, No. 16213/90, Burghartz v. Switzerland.

  132. 132.

    E. Lambert Abdelgawad and A. Weber, “The reception process in France and Italy” in H. Keller and A. Stone-Sweet (eds.), A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 126.

  133. 133.

    ECtHR 29 November 1988, Nos. 11209/84; 11234/84; 11266/84; 11386/85, Brogan and Others v. United Kingdom.

  134. 134.

    R. Ryssdal, “The enforcement system set up under the European Convention on Human Rights” in M.K. Bulterman and M. Kuijer (eds.), Compliance with judgments of international courts. Proceedings of the symposium organized in honour of HG Schermers, (Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996) 50, at 62.

  135. 135.

    G. Corstens, President of the Supreme Court of The Netherlands, in Rights. Dialogue Between Judges. Seminar “The Convention is yours” Proceedings (2010), 11–16, at 14.

  136. 136.

    E. de Wet, “The reception process in The Netherlands and Belgium” in H. Keller and A. Stone-Sweet (eds.), A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, (Oxford University Press, 2008), 275.

  137. 137.

    T. Barkhuysen and M. van Emmerik, “A Comparative View on the Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”, in T. Christou and J.P. Raymond (eds.) European Court of Human Rights. Remedies and Execution of Judgments, (London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2005), at 11.

  138. 138.

    Court of Cassation of Luxembourg 17 January 1985, No. 2/85, as noted in Rolv Ryssdal, The enforcement system set up under the European Convention on Human Rights, at 62, footnote 10.

  139. 139.

    Kudła v. Poland, supra, note 65.

  140. 140.

    See e.g. The improvement of domestic remedies with particular emphasis on cases of unreasonable length of proceedings. Workshop held at the initiative of the Polish Chairmanship of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, Directorate General of Human Rights, Council of Europe 2006, available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/82597AB6-124F-48D5-8BBB-792899EB0C6A/0/AmeliorationsRecours_EN.pdf

  141. 141.

    ECtHR 6 October 2005, No. 23032/02, Lukenda v. Slovenia.

  142. 142.

    ECtHR 2 September 2010, No. 46344/06, Rumpf v. Germany.

  143. 143.

    ECtHR 3 April 2007, No. 62617/00, Copland v. United Kingdom.

  144. 144.

    Letter by the Ombudsman to the Minister of Labour of 20 December 2007, letter No. 561580-III-07/MRP.

  145. 145.

    Polish Supreme Administrative Court of 1 December 2009, I OSK 249/09.

  146. 146.

    ECtHR 20 May 2010, No. 38832/06, Alajos Kiss v. Hungary.

  147. 147.

    Statement by the Deputy Ombudsman Stanisław Trociuk to the Minister of Justice of 1 June 2010, No. RPO- 647849- I/10/AB.

  148. 148.

    A. Bodnar, “Zmiana Konstytucji jako konsekwencja wykonania wyroku Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka. Glosa do wyroku Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka w sprawie Alajos Kiss przeciwko Węgrom [Necessity to change the Constitution as a consequence of implementation of the judgment in the case of Kiss v. Hungary]”, Europejski Przegląd Sądowy [European Court Review], (2010)10; see also a commentary in the Polish press: E. Siedlecka, “Ubezwłasnowolniony też wyborca [Incapacitated person is also a voter]”, Gazeta Wyborcza, 20 May 2010, available at: http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,7912624,Ubezwlasnowolniony_tez_wyborca.html

  149. 149.

    Statement by Jarosław Duda, Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of Labour of 18 August 2010, directed to the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, available at: http://www.hfhrpol.waw.pl/precedens/images/stories/Odpowiedz_MPiPS_18_08_2010.pdf

  150. 150.

    ECtHR 2 September 2010, No. 35623/05, Uzun v. Germany.

  151. 151.

    See e.g. comment at leading blog of Mr. Piotr Waglowski devoted to issues at intersection of law and IT technologies, available: http://prawo.vagla.pl/node/9193. See also E. Siedlecka, “Całe nasze życie na podglądzie [Whole Our Life Under Surveillance]”, Gazeta Wyborcza of 7 October 2010, available at: http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,8475018,Cale_nasze_zycie_na_podgladzie.html

  152. 152.

    See the letter by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights to the Prime Minister of 14 October 2010, available at: http://www.hfhrpol.waw.pl/precedens/images/stories/file/pismo_2538_2010_DP.pdf

  153. 153.

    ECtHR 17 December 2009, No. 19359/04, M v. Germany.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Human Rights at Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland

    Adam Bodnar (Associate Professor)

Authors
  1. Adam Bodnar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Bodnar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Human Rights Centre, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Yves Haeck

  2. Human Rights Centre, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Eva Brems

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bodnar, A. (2014). Res Interpretata: Legal Effect of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judgments for other States Than Those Which Were Party to the Proceedings. In: Haeck, Y., Brems, E. (eds) Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the 21st Century. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 30. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7599-2_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation