Restructuring the European Court of Human Rights: Preserving the Right of Individual Petition and Promoting Constitutionalism

Dzehtsiarou, K and Greene, A (2013) Restructuring the European Court of Human Rights: Preserving the Right of Individual Petition and Promoting Constitutionalism Public Law: the constitutional and administrative law of the commonwealth. pp. 710-719.

Preview	Text (licence) SRI_deposit_agreement.pdf Available under License : See the attached licence file. Download (33kB) | Preview
	Text Dzehtsiarou_Greene_PL.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Available under License : See the attached licence file. Download (45kB)
Preview	Text restructuring.pdf Available under License : See the attached licence file. Download (102kB) | Preview

Abstract

To state that the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR” or “the Court”) has become a victim of its own success is an oft-repeated mantra. Yet to ring the death knell for what is undoubtedly the most successful international human rights project is premature. While the Court is facing an unsustainable caseload under its current formation, the solution is not to abandon the Court altogether, but to find a structure that facilitates the accommodation of this burdensome caseload. While Protocol 14 - permitting a single judge to rule on admissibility - has eased the Court backlog somewhat, this impact has only been on cases which are ‘clearly inadmissible’. Reform of the Court is still needed if it is to adequately deal with the huge numbers of cases that meet the requirement of admissibility, and the backlog of such cases that have yet to be adjudicated upon. In this article, we argue that although the large backlog of cases currently stifling the ECtHR is a direct result of the individual complaints procedure, nevertheless, the importance of this procedure as the “crown jewel” in the ECHR system cannot be foregone. Our proposed model for restructuring the ECtHR preserves such right of individual petition while facilitating the expedition of constitutionalist complaints. We argue that Chambers of the ECtHR should focus on adjudicatory cases and their procedure should be simplified, whereas the Grand Chamber should be reserved for pronouncing upon constitutionalist issues only. While Draft Protocols 15 and 16 contain provisions that can emphasise the separation between the adjudicatory function of the Chambers and constitutionalist function of the Grand Chamber, we argue that further reforms may be needed and these reforms should be based on the idea of functional separation between the Grand Chamber and other Court’s formations.

Item Type:	Article
Divisions :	Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences > School of Law
Authors :	Authors Email ORCID Dzehtsiarou, K UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Greene, A UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED
Date :	20 September 2013
Additional Information :	© 2013 Sweet & Maxwell and its Contributors. This paper appears here by permission of the editor.
Depositing User :	Symplectic Elements
Date Deposited :	25 Oct 2013 09:41
Last Modified :	09 Jun 2014 13:39
URI:	http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/id/eprint/803943

Actions (login required)

View Item

Downloads