Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘Principled Resistance’ to ECtHR Judgments: An Appraisal

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Principled Resistance to ECtHR Judgments - A New Paradigm?

Part of the book series: Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht ((BEITRÄGE,volume 285))

Abstract

The chapter analyses the national practice apparent from previous chapters, claiming that not each and every disagreement by a national actor amounts to ‘principled resistance’. It is submitted that the difference between res judicata and res interpretata is pivotal in this regard. In most cases, the way in which disagreement with the ECtHR is expressed is far more important than the disagreement as such (hence the claim for ‘respectful disobedience’). Finally, the chapter aims to identify the root causes of ‘principled resistance’. It argues that neither the hierarchical position of the Convention under national law nor the purported ‘national identity’ are sufficient to explain the phenomenon. Rather, ‘principled resistance’ cases should be viewed as a struggle about the proper allocation of power in the relationship between Strasbourg and the national level.

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

Access this chapter

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 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    M Breuer, Chap. 1, text subsequent to fn 109; see also G Martinico, Chap. 5, text accompanying fn 118.

  2. 2.

    GIEM Srl and Others v Italy [GC] Appl Nos 1828/06 et al (ECtHR, 28 June 2018), partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, paras 58, 60.

  3. 3.

    M Breuer, Chap. 1, text subsequent to fn 92.

  4. 4.

    M Breuer, Chap. 1, text subsequent to fn 83.

  5. 5.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgment N 21-П of 14 July 2015, para 3; translation according to CDL-REF(2016)019.

  6. 6.

    See M Kuijer, Chap. 9, text accompanying fn 8.

  7. 7.

    Russian Constitutional Court (fn 5), para 2.2 in fine.

  8. 8.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgement N 12-П of 19 April 2016.

  9. 9.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 14 October 2004, No 2 BvR 1481/04, BVerfGE 111, 307–332, at 324–325; critical of such a re-balancing of rights (though not mentioning the German court) GIEM Srl and Others v Italy [GC] Appl Nos 1828/06 et al (ECtHR, 28 June 2018), partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, para 86.

  10. 10.

    See G Martinico, Chap. 5, text accompanying fn 33.

  11. 11.

    D Davis, ‘Britain must defy the European Court of Human Rights on prisoner voting as Strasbourg is exceeding its authority’ in S Flogaitis/T Zwaart/J Fraser (eds), The European Court of Human Rights and its Discontents. Turning Criticism into Strength (2013), pp 65–70, at 67–68.

  12. 12.

    E Bates, Chap. 7, text preceding fn 59.

  13. 13.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 14 October 2004, No 2 BvR 1481/04, BVerfGE 111, 307–332, at 319.

  14. 14.

    Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, para 48 (Lord Neuberger). See E Bates, Chap. 7, text accompanying fn 58.

  15. 15.

    Austrian Constitutional Court, Case B267/86, VfSlg 11500/1987. See AK Struth, Chap. 4, text accompanying fn 58.

  16. 16.

    See G Martinico, Chap. 5, text following fn 15 and 24. In this sense also GIEM Srl and Others v Italy [GC] Appl Nos 1828/06 et al (ECtHR, 28 June 2018), partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, para 10.

  17. 17.

    See M Breuer, Chap. 1, text accompanying fn 62.

  18. 18.

    Scozzari and Giunta v Italy [GC] Appl Nos 39221/98, 41963/98 (ECtHR, 13 July 2000), para 249.

  19. 19.

    Lyons and Others v UK Appl No 15227/03 (ECtHR, 8 July 2003); Öcalan v Turkey Appl No 5980/07 (ECtHR, 6 July 2010); Kudeshkina v Russia (No 2) Appl No 28727/11 (ECtHR, 17 February 2015), para 57. Slightly nuanced formulation in Storck v Germany Appl No 486/14 (ECtHR, 26 June 2018), para 100: ‘the Convention and its case-law do, in principle, not require the reopening of civil proceedings following a judgment of the Court finding a violation of the Convention in each and every case’.

  20. 20.

    For references, see Bochan v Ukraine (No 2) [GC] Appl No 22251/08 (ECtHR, 5 February 2015), paras 26–27; Moreira Ferreira v Portugal (No 2) [GC] Appl No 19867/12 (ECtHR, 11 July 2017), paras 34 et seq. Valuable information can also be found on the following website: <https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-intergovernmental-cooperation/echr-system/implementation-and-execution-judgments/reopening-cases>.

  21. 21.

    Recommendation 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, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 January 2000.

  22. 22.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Decision No 113/2011 on the one hand, and Italian Constitutional Court, Decision No 123/2017 on the other hand. See G Marinico, Chap. 5, text accompanying fn 50.

  23. 23.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Decision N 4-П/2010 of 26 February 2010. See V Starzhenetskiy, Chap. 8, text preceding fn 37.

  24. 24.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 11 October 1985, 2 BvR 336/85, (1985) Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 654 (Pakelli case); Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 18 August 2013, No 2 BvR 1380/08, (2013) 66 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3714–3716, paras 31 et seq (Storck case); Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 20 April 2016, No 2 BvR 1488/14, (2016) 33 Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 1163–1166, paras 18 et seq (Schüth case). See H Sauer, Chap. 3, text accompanying fn 90.

  25. 25.

    Austrian Supreme Administrative Court, Case 2004/10/0032, VwSlg 16502 A/2004; Austrian Supreme Administrative Court, Case 2009/09/0172, VwSlg 18324 A/2012. See AK Struth, Chap. 4, text accompanying fn 50.

  26. 26.

    See, to this effect, Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, para 48 (Lord Neuberger): ‘[…] section 2 of the HRA requires our courts to “take into account” EurCtHR decisions, not necessarily to follow them.’

  27. 27.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 14 October 2004, No 2 BvR 1481/04, BVerfGE 111, 307–332, at 324: ‘If, in concrete application proceedings in which the Federal Republic of Germany in involved, the [ECtHR] establishes that there has been a violation of the Convention, and if this is a continuing violation, the decision of the [ECtHR] must be taken into account in the domestic sphere, that is, the responsible authorities or courts must discernibly consider the decision and, if necessary, justify understandably why they nevertheless do not follow the international-law interpretation of the law’ (translation available at <www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de>).

  28. 28.

    See Venice Commission, Opinion No 835/2015, CDL-AD(2016)016, para 31.

  29. 29.

    Assanidze v Georgia [GC] Appl No 71503/01 (ECtHR, 8 April 2004).

  30. 30.

    Ilgar Mammadov v Azerbaijan Appl No 15172/13 (ECtHR, 22 May 2014).

  31. 31.

    See M Breuer, Chap. 1, text accompanying fn 152.

  32. 32.

    Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v Switzerland No 2 [GC] Appl No 32772/02 (ECtHR, 30 June 2009).

  33. 33.

    Judgment No 2F_6/2009 of 4 November 2009 (ATF 136 I 158, extracts), consid 3.2. See H Keller/R Walter, Chap. 6, text accompanying fn 89.

  34. 34.

    R (on the application of Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63, para 138 (Lord Sumption).

  35. 35.

    Ministry of Justice, Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Draft Bill, November 2012, Introduction, para 3: ‘That is why the Government is putting forward three options to a Committee of both Houses for full Parliamentary scrutiny. These three options are:

    • A ban for prisoners sentenced to 4 years or more.

    • A ban for prisoners sentenced to more than 6 months.

    • A ban for all convicted prisoners – a restatement of the existing ban.’

  36. 36.

    CM/ResDH(2009)160, para 6: ‘the third option aimed at retaining the blanket restriction criticised by the European Court cannot be considered compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights’. See also B Calı, The Authority of International Law (2015), pp 124–126 (relating to the UK Parliament’s initial reaction to Hirst).

  37. 37.

    See Action Report, DH-DD(2018)843, and CM/ResDH(2018)467 of 6 December 2018.

  38. 38.

    E Bates, Chap. 7, text accompanying fn 120.

  39. 39.

    See, in this direction, E Adams, ‘Prisoners’ Voting Rights: Case Closed?’, available at <https://ukconstitutionallaw.org>; A von Staden, ‘Pushing the Envelope: Minimalist Compliance in the UK Prisoner Voting Rights Cases’, available at <http://echrblog.blogspot.com>; see also critical comment by E Bates, Chap. 7, text accompanying fn 119.

  40. 40.

    Scozzari and Giunta v Italy [GC] Appl Nos 39221/98, 41963/98 (ECtHR, 13 July 2000), para 249.

  41. 41.

    For a critical assessment see most recently Ilnseher v Germany [GC] Appl Nos 10211/12, 27505/14 (ECtHR, 4 December 2018), dissenting opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, paras 74 and 70: ‘Hutchinson backtracked from Vinter and Others, GIEM and Others backtracked recently from Varvara, and now Ilnseher backtracks from M’, with the effect that in ‘States are narrowing down the scope of the principle of legality, and the Court is playing along’.

  42. 42.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgement N 12-П of 19 April 2016 (translation available at <http://www.ksrf.ru/en/>).

  43. 43.

    In this sense, J Haak, ‘Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Decision from 19 April 2016, No. 12-P/16. An Assessment from a German Point of View’ (2017 10) 6 Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 845–850, at 847; J Haak, Die Wirkung und Umsetzung von Urteilen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (2018), pp 359–360.

  44. 44.

    See K Dzehtsiarou/F Fontanelli, ‘Unprincipled disobedience to international decisions: A primer from the Russian Constitutional Court’ (2018) European Yearbook on Human Rights 319–341, at 330; J Khan, ‘The Relationship between the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: Conflicting Conceptions of Sovereignty in Strasbourg and St. Petersburg’ (forthcoming); L Mälksoo, ‘Russia’s Constitutional Court Defies the European Court of Human Rights’ (2016) 12 European Constitutional Law Review 377–395, at 378–379.

  45. 45.

    DH-DD(2015)640.

  46. 46.

    Konstantin Markin v Russia Appl No 30078/06 (ECtHR, 7 October 2010). See V Starzhenetskiy, Chap. 8, text accompanying fn 41.

  47. 47.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgment N 21-П of 14 July 2015, para 2.2. in fine; translation according to CDL-REF(2016)019.

  48. 48.

    See Dzehtsiarou/Fontanelli (fn 44), pp 333 et seq; M Hartwig, ‘Vom Dialog zum Disput? Verfassungsrecht vs. Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention – Der Fall der Russländischen Föderation’ (2018) Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 1–23, at 22.

  49. 49.

    Although it was considerably lower than the amount ordered by the Tribunal set up under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, amounting to roughly USD 50 billion; for a comparison, see E de Brabandere, ‘Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v The Russian Federation. Complementarity or Conflict? Contrasting the Yukos Case before the European Court of Human Rights and Investment Tribunals’ (2015) 30 ICSID Review 345–355; H-G Dederer, ‘The Yukos Cases. A Comparative Case Note on the ECtHR’s Decisions and the PCA Tribunal’s Awards’ (2015) 8 Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 2062–2091.

  50. 50.

    Press Release ECHR 377 (2014) of 16 December 2014.

  51. 51.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Decision N 1-П of 19 January 2017, para 7 (translation available at <http://www.ksrf.ru/en/>).

  52. 52.

    DH-DD(2018)974; to the same effect, see DH-DD(2019)124.

  53. 53.

    See H Keller/R Walther, Chap. 6, text accompanying fn 228.

  54. 54.

    A von Staden, Strategies of Compliance with the European Court of Human Rights (2018), p 77.

  55. 55.

    See von Staden (fn 54), pp 142 et seq.

  56. 56.

    See S Schmahl, Chap. 10, text accompanying fn 43.

  57. 57.

    S Besson, ‘The Erga Omnes Effect of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – What’s in a Name?’ in S Besson (ed), La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme après le Protocole 14 – Premier bilan et perspectives (2011), pp 127–150, at 129; A Bodnar, ‘Res Interpreta: Legal Effect of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judgments for other States Than Those Which Were Party to the Proceedings’ in Y Haeck/E Brems (eds), Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the 21st Century (2014), pp 223–262, at 224, 226.

  58. 58.

    GIEM Srl and Others v Italy [GC] Appl Nos 1828/06 et al (ECtHR, 28 June 2018), para 252 on the one hand, partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, para 76, on the other hand.

  59. 59.

    See text accompanying fn 117.

  60. 60.

    Besson (fn 57), p 131; Bodnar (fn 57), p 226.

  61. 61.

    E Klein, ‘Should the binding effect of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights be extended?’ in P Mahoney et al (eds), Protecting Human Rights: the European Perspective. Studies in Memory of Rolv Ryssdal (2000), pp 705–713, at 707.

  62. 62.

    Ireland v UK Appl No 5310/71 (ECtHR, 18 January 1978), para 154.

  63. 63.

    Karner v Austria Appl No 40016/98 (ECtHR, 24 July 2003), para 26.

  64. 64.

    See, most recently, Aviakompaniya ATI, ZAT v Ukraine Appl No 1006/07 (ECtHR, 5 October 2017), para 24.

  65. 65.

    For further examples, see Bodnar (fn 57), pp 233 et seq; 252 et seq; A Drzemczewski, ‘Quelque réflexions sur l’autorité de la chose interprétée par la Cour de Strasbourg’ (2011) Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFMG 85–90, at 89; see also the valuable information presented by C Pourgourides, ‘Strengthening Subsidiarity: Integrating the Strasbourg Court’s Case law into National Law and Judicial Practice’, AS/Jur/Inf (2010) 04, pp 17 et seq.

  66. 66.

    Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of 4 May 2011, Nos 2 BvR 2365/09 et al, BVerfGE 128, 326–409, at 368 (translation available at <www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de>). See H Sauer, Chap. 3, text accompanying fn 37.

  67. 67.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Decision No 170/2013, para 4.4 (translation available at <www.cortecostituzionale.it>).

  68. 68.

    V Starzhenetskiy, Chap. 8, text accompanying fn 27.

  69. 69.

    Besson (fn 57), pp 141 et seq.

  70. 70.

    See OM Arnardóttir, ‘Res Interpretata, Erga Omnes Effect and the Role of the Margin of Appreciation in Giving Domestic Effect to the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2017) 28 European Journal of International Law 819–843, at 824; Bodnar (fn 57), pp 224, 226 et seq; Drzemczewski (fn 65), p 87.

  71. 71.

    Besson (fn 57), p 129.

  72. 72.

    J Polakiewicz, Die Verpflichtungen der Staaten aus den Urteilen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (1993), p 354.

  73. 73.

    In this sense, H Sauer, ‘Die neue Schlagkraft der gemeineuropäischen Grundrechtsjudikatur’ (2005) 65 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 35–69, at 41.

  74. 74.

    Besson (fn 57), p 129; Polakiewicz (fn 72), p 354.

  75. 75.

    Bodnar (fn 57), pp 236 et seq (with nuances); Drzemczewski (fn 65), p 87; J Gerards, ‘The European Court of Human Rights and the national courts: giving shape to the notion of “shared responsibility”’ in J Gerards/J Fleuren (eds), Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the judgments of the ECtHR in national case-law. A comparative analysis (2014), pp 13–93, at 22; Klein (fn 61), p 706.

  76. 76.

    Klein (fn 61), pp 711 et seq. See also the intervention by former ECtHR President Jean-Paul Costa during the Interlaken process, reported by Bodnar (fn 57), p 231 and Drzemczewski (fn 65), p 90.

  77. 77.

    See Arnardóttir (fn 70), pp 826–827; similarly R Kunz, Richter über internationale Gerichte? Die Rolle innerstaatlicher Gerichte bei der Umsetzung der Entscheidungen von EGMR und IAGMR (forthcoming), Chap. 2, section 2.2.

  78. 78.

    Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) v AF (Appellant) [2009] UKHL 28, per Lord Rodger at para 98; see also B Hale, ‘Argentoratum Locutum: Is Strasbourg or the Supreme Court Supreme?’ (2012) 12 Human Rights Law Review 65–78; Hutchinson v UK [GC] Appl No 57592/08 (ECtHR, 17 January 2017), dissenting opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, paras 41 et seq.

  79. 79.

    See especially the Brussels Declaration of 27 March 2015: ‘Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, our shared responsibility’; and most recently the Copenhagen Declaration of 13 April 2018, paras 6 et seq (‘Shared responsibility – ensuring a proper balance and enhanced protection’).

  80. 80.

    Gerards (fn 75), pp 32 et seq; Kunz (fn 77), Chap. 2, section 2.3; see also E Bjorge, ‘National supreme courts and the development of ECHR rights’ (2011) 9 International Journal of Constitutional Law 5–31.

  81. 81.

    M O’Boyle, ‘The Role of Dialogue in the Relationship Between the European Court of Human Rights and National Courts’ in Y Haeck et al (eds), The Realisation of Human Rights: When Theory Meets Practice. Studies in Honour of Leo Zwaack (2013), pp 91–105, at 96.

  82. 82.

    N Bratza, ‘The relationship between the UK courts and Strasbourg’ (2011) 5 European Human Rights Law Review 505–512, at 512.

  83. 83.

    See Arnardóttir (fn 70), pp 831 et seq.

  84. 84.

    See OM Arnardóttir, ‘The “procedural turn” under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2017) 15 International Journal of Constitutional Law 9–35; R Spano, ‘The Future of the European Court of Human Rights – Subsidiarity, Process-Based Review and the Rule of Law’ (2018) 18 Human Rights Law Review 473–494.

  85. 85.

    Against such risk, however, Klein (fn 61), p 713.

  86. 86.

    It must be noted that this is true (only) for cases where the bilateral relationship between the individual and the respondent State is at stake. Where divergent rights and interests of various individuals are concerned, the party who lost the case at the national level could lodge an application with the ECtHR, which then could re-adjust its jurisprudence.

  87. 87.

    If, e.g., the German Federal Constitutional Court would have been bound by the functional approach developed by the ECtHR in Turkish cases concerning the right to strike for civil servants, the ECtHR would have no chance to comment on the compatibility of the German system with the Convention standards.

  88. 88.

    Christine Goodwin v UK [GC] Appl No 28957/95 (ECtHR, 11 July 2002), para 74; Scoppola v Italy (No 3) [GC] Appl No 126/05 (ECtHR, 22 May 2012), para 94.

  89. 89.

    Vilho Eskelinen v Finland [GC] Appl No 63235/00 (ECtHR, 19 April 2007), para 56; Bayatyan v Armenia [GC] Appl No 23459/03 (ECtHR, 7 July 2011), para 98.

  90. 90.

    Besson (fn 57), pp 134–136 develops a contrary argument but on the assumption that the Court is bound by its previous case law. See also Herrmann v Germany [GC] Appl No 9300/07 (ECtHR, 26 June 2012), partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque who advocates for a ‘horizontal stare decisis effect of Chamber judgments’, in the sense that ‘the Chamber is bound by its own previous case-law or that of other Chambers, except when it relinquishes the case and one of the parties objects to relinquishment’.

  91. 91.

    See also Arnardóttir (fn 70), p 824, pointing to the CDDH Report on ‘The longer-term future of the system of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2016), para 37 where the erga omnes effect of ECtHR judgments was equally rejected.

  92. 92.

    Interlaken Declaration of 19 February 2010, Action Plan, para 4(c).

  93. 93.

    Brighton Declaration of 20 April 2012, para 9(c)(iv).

  94. 94.

    Protocol No 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 2 October 2013, CETS No 214.

  95. 95.

    Explanatory Report to Protocol No 16, para 25.

  96. 96.

    Explanatory Report to Protocol No 16, para 27.

  97. 97.

    Kunz (fn 77), Chap. 2, section 2.3 (‘bis zu einem gewissen Grad ein Recht zu widersprechen’).

  98. 98.

    In this sense, Judge Pinto de Albuquerque’s warning that ‘“rare occasions” tend to proliferate and become an example for others to follow suit’ has its merits, see Hutchinson v UK [GC] Appl No 57592/08 (ECtHR, 17 January 2017), dissenting opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, para 36.

  99. 99.

    R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14, para 11 (Lord Phillips). This proposition has been supported by Bratza (fn 82), p 512. See also the call for respectful criticism expressed by E Bates, Chap. 7, text accompanying fn 169.

  100. 100.

    See A Peters, ‘Rechtsordnungen und Konstitutionalisierung: Zur Neubestimmung der Verhältnisse’ (2010) Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 3–63, at 60–61; see also E Bjorge, Domestic Application of the ECHR (2015), pp 241–242; S Lambrecht, ‘Assessing the existence of criticism of the European Court of Human Rights’ in Gerards/Fleuren (fn 75), pp 505–553, at 547 et seq.

  101. 101.

    See H Sauer, Chap. 3, text accompanying fn 95; on cases of ‘implicit divergence’, see Lambrecht (fn 100), pp 539 et seq.

  102. 102.

    See AK Struth, Chap. 4, text accompanying fn 161.

  103. 103.

    See E Bates, Chap. 7, text accompanying fn 170.

  104. 104.

    See G Martinico, Chap. 5, text accompanying fn 33.

  105. 105.

    See H Keller/R Walther, Chap. 6, text preceding fn 118.

  106. 106.

    See H Keller/R Walther, Chap. 6, text accompanying fn 207; E Bates, Chap. 7, text following fn 80.

  107. 107.

    See MR Madsen, Chap. 2, text accompanying fn 9; for the conceptual differences, see M Breuer, Chap. 1, text accompanying fn 101.

  108. 108.

    V Starzhenetskiy, Chap. 8, text accompanying fn 65.

  109. 109.

    H-J Cremer, ‘Regeln der Konventionsinterpretation’ in O Dörr/R Grote/T Marauhn (eds), EMRK/GG. Konkordanzkommentar (2 edn 2013), vol I, Kapitel 4, MN 58: ‘Dabei akzeptieren sie [scil die Konventionsstaaten] offenbar zugleich, dass der EGMR mit einer neuartigen Auslegung der EMRK vorprescht und sie selbst die Option haben, durch Befolgung der innovative gedeuteten Vertragsnorm der Fortbildung des Konventionsrechts zuzustimmen oder aber sie durch Widerspruch in Frage zu stellen’.

  110. 110.

    In this sense also H-J Cremer, ‘Entscheidung und Entscheidungswirkung’ in O Dörr/R Grote/T Marauhn (eds), EMRK/GG. Konkordanzkommentar (2 edn 2013), vol II, Kapitel 32 para 118.

  111. 111.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Decision No 49/2015, para 6.2.

  112. 112.

    Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, para 48 (Lord Neuberger).

  113. 113.

    R (on the application of Nealon/Hallam) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Justice (Respondent) [2019] UKSC 2 and commentary by E Bates, Chap. 7, text following fn 201.

  114. 114.

    Bodnar (fn 57), p 237.

  115. 115.

    Bodnar (fn 57), p 238.

  116. 116.

    J Polakiewicz/I Souminen-Picht, ‘Aktuelle Herausforderungen für Europarat und EMRK’ (2018) Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 383–390, at 385.

  117. 117.

    GIEM Srl and Others v Italy [GC] Appl Nos 1828/06 et al (ECtHR, 28 June 2018), para 252.

  118. 118.

    See GIEM Srl and Others v Italy [GC] Appl Nos 1828/06 et al (ECtHR, 28 June 2018), partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, paras 43 et seq: ‘The troubling criteria of “non-consolidation” of law’.

  119. 119.

    GIEM Srl and Others v Italy [GC] Appl Nos 1828/06 et al (ECtHR, 28 June 2018), partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, para 46.

  120. 120.

    GIEM Srl and Others v Italy [GC] Appl Nos 1828/06 et al (ECtHR, 28 June 2018), para 252.

  121. 121.

    As a recent example, one may point to the German Federal Constitutional Court’s decision on the right to strike for civil servants, Judgment of 12 June 2018, Nos 2 BvR 1738/12 et al, (2018) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2695, paras 163 et seq.

  122. 122.

    ŽB v Croatia Appl No 47666/13 (ECtHR, 11 July 2017), para 53, with further references.

  123. 123.

    See the Interlaken Declaration of 19 February 2010, para 4; the Brighton Declaration of 20 April 2012, para 23; and, most recently, the Copenhagen Declaration of 13 April 2018, para 27.

  124. 124.

    GIEM Srl and Others v Italy [GC] Appl Nos 1828/06 et al (ECtHR, 28 June 2018), partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, para 51.

  125. 125.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgment N 21-П of 14 July 2015, para 2.2; translation according to CDL-REF(2016)019.

  126. 126.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 26 March 1987, Nos 2 BvR 589/79 et al, BVerfGE 74, 358–380, at 370.

  127. 127.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 14 October 2004—No 2 BvR 1481/04, BVerfGE 111, 307–332, at 319 (‘die in dem letzten Wort der deutschen Verfassung liegende Souveränität’).

  128. 128.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Decision Nos 348/2007 and 349/2007.

  129. 129.

    GIEM Srl and Others v Italy [GC] Appl Nos 1828/06 et al (ECtHR, 28 June 2018), partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, para 4.

  130. 130.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 14 October 2004, No 2 BvR 1481/04, BVerfGE 111, 307–332, at 329.

  131. 131.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 4 May 2011, Nos 2 BvR 2365/09 et al, BVerfGE 128, 326–409, at 367–368 (translation available at <www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de>).

  132. 132.

    Austrian Constitutional Court, Case B267/86, VfSlg 11500/1987. See AK Struth, Chap. 4, text accompanying fn 58.

  133. 133.

    See above text accompanying fn 3.

  134. 134.

    There are examples from Convention history where a Strasbourg judgment was actually echoed by a reform of the constitution. See Demicoli v Malta Appl No 13057/87 (ECtHR, 27 August 1991), and Committee of Ministers Resolution DH (95) 211 of 11 September 1995; Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland Appl Nos 14234/88, 14235/88 (ECtHR, 29 October 1992), and Committee of Ministers Resolution DH (96) 368 of 26 June 1996; Alajos Kiss v Hungary Appl No 38832/06 (ECtHR, 20 May 2010), and DH-DD(2012)1156, DH-DD(2019)50.

  135. 135.

    GIEM Srl and Others v Italy [GC] Appl Nos 1828/06 et al (ECtHR, 28 June 2018), partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, para 87. For a positive approach to the concept of ‘constitutional identity’, see M Polzin, ‘Constitutional Identity as a Constructed Reality and a Restless Soul’ (2017) 18 German Law Journal 1595–1615.

  136. 136.

    AK Struth, Chap. 4, text accompanying fn 58.

  137. 137.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 12 June 2018, 2 BvR 1738/12 et al, (2018) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2695, para 172.

  138. 138.

    See M Breuer, ‘Karlsruhe und das Beamtenstreikverbot – Dialogangebot mit Dolch im Gewande?’, available at <www.verfassungsblog.de>. Similar (and equally critical) assessment by M Jacobs/M Payandeh, ‘Das beamtenrechtliche Streikverbot: Konventionsrechtliche Immunisierung durch verfassungsgerichtliche Petrifizierung’ (2019) 74 Juristenzeitung 19–26, at 21, 25 (arguing that the Federal Constitutional Court did not intend to invoke Article 79(3) of the Basic Law but at the same time signalled its unwillingness to follow a divergent ECtHR judgment). See also H Sauer, Chap. 3, text accompanying fn 44.

  139. 139.

    R (on the application of Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63, para 137 (Lord Sumption).

  140. 140.

    Case C-42/17, MAS and MB, ECLI:EU:C:2017:936.

  141. 141.

    GIEM Srl and Others v Italy [GC] Appl Nos 1828/06 et al (ECtHR, 28 June 2018), partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, para 87.

  142. 142.

    I am most grateful to Yuval Shany for drawing my attention to the ICCPR cases discussed below.

  143. 143.

    OJ 2012 C 326/321. For details, see D Phinnemore, The Treaty of Lisbon: Origins and Negotiation (2013), pp 178 et seq.

  144. 144.

    A, B and C v Ireland [GC] Appl No 25579/05 (ECtHR, 16 December 2010), para 226; for a critical assessment, see F de Londras/K Dzethsiarou, ‘Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, A, B and C v Ireland’ (2013) 62 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 250–262.

  145. 145.

    It should be noted that the Human Rights Committee has never adopted the ECtHR’s margin of appreciation doctrine for the ICCPR context, see Y Shany, ‘Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?’ (2005) 16 European Journal of International Law 907–940.

  146. 146.

    Mellet v Ireland Communication No 2324/2013 (HRC, 31 March 2016); for a commentary, see F de Londras, ‘Fatal Foetal Abnormality, Irish Constitutional Law, and Mellet v Ireland’ (2016) 24 Medical Law Review 591–607.

  147. 147.

    See Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Act 2018, entry into force on 18 September 2018.

  148. 148.

    SAS v France [GC] Appl No 43835/11 (ECtHR, 1 July 2014); for a critical assessment, see SSM Edwards, ‘No Burqas We’re French! The Wide Margin of Appreciation and the ECtHR Burqa Ruling’ (2014) 26 Denning Law Journal 246–260.

  149. 149.

    Yaker v France Communication No 2747/2016 (HRC, 17 July 2018); Hebbadj v France Communication No 2807/2016 (HRC, 17 July 2018). For comment, see S Berry, ‘The UN Human Rights Committee Disagrees with the European Court of Human Rights Again: The Right to Manifest Religion by Wearing a Burqa’, 3 January 2019, available at <https://www.ejiltalk.org>.

  150. 150.

    See M Hunter-Henin, ‘Why the French don’t like the burqa: laïcité, national identity and religious freedom’ (2012) 61 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 613–639; see also E Erlings, ‘“The Government Did Not Refer to It”: SAS v France and Ordre Public at the European Court of Human Rights’ (2015) 16 Melbourne Journal of International Law 1–22.

  151. 151.

    Anchugov and Gladkov v Russia Appl Nos 11157/04, 15162/05 (ECtHR, 4 July 2013), para 111.

  152. 152.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgement N 12-П of 19 April 2016, para 4.1.

  153. 153.

    See Polzin (fn 135), p 1602 (dealing with constitutional, rather than national, identity).

  154. 154.

    See generally J Mendes/I Venzke, Allocating Authority. Who Should Do What in European and International Law (2018).

  155. 155.

    See Lord Neuberger, ‘The British and Europe’, 12 February 2014, para 28: ‘[…] the idea of courts overruling decisions of the UK parliament, as is substantially the effect of what the Strasbourg court and the Luxembourg court can do, is little short of offensive to our notions of constitutional propriety’ (available at <http://supremecourt.uk>).

  156. 156.

    See M Avbelj, ‘Slovenia’s Supreme Court rejects the European Court of Human Rights’, available at <www.verfassungsblog.de>.

  157. 157.

    See ‘Supreme Court retracts ECHR challenge amid public outcry’ available at <https://english.sta.si/2568745/supreme-court-retracts-echr-challenge-amid-public-outcry>.

  158. 158.

    GIEM Srl and Others v Italy [GC] Appl Nos 1828/06 et al (ECtHR, 28 June 2018), partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, para 92.

  159. 159.

    See S Schmahl, Chap. 10, text accompanying fn 85.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany

    Marten Breuer

Authors
  1. Marten Breuer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marten Breuer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Marten Breuer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V., to be exercised by Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Heidelberg 2019

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Breuer, M. (2019). ‘Principled Resistance’ to ECtHR Judgments: An Appraisal. In: Breuer, M. (eds) Principled Resistance to ECtHR Judgments - A New Paradigm?. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 285. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58986-1_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58986-1_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-58985-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-58986-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation