Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Within the Council of Europe, the relationship between the ECtHR and the member states is crucial for the survival and effective functioning of the Court. The ECtHR is currently overwhelmed by applications, the bulk of which emanate from a relatively small number of states, notably Russia, Rumania, Turkey, and the Ukraine. The backlog of cases will soon be toppling the vertiginous mark of 160,000, the adjudication of which alone would take the Court more than six years. The sheer number of cases exemplifies the system's urgent need for reform. Lately, discussions have been heavily influenced by considerations of subsidiarity, which the earlier Interlaken Declaration-as well as the recent Brighton Conference-emphasized as the key for the future relationship between the ECtHR and member states. Discussions about the principle's proper role in the relationship between member states and the ECHR, however, are far from over. This is due to questions regarding the principle itself, as well as to the factual realities dominating in the ECtHR-national court relationship. The principle often focuses on a strict separation of competences at two different levels, the national and the international, and many understandings of that principle require that the two levels stand in a more or less hierarchical relationship. This is difficult to assume in the Council of Europe context, where, compared to the EU, neither the doctrine of direct effect nor the principle of primacy in application reigns. Moreover, Strasbourg's emphasis on subsidiarity appears to focus on the responsibility of the member states to remedy human rights violations. In line with that argument, scholars have opined that the ECHR system should focus on an approach in which the ECtHR would be involved only if there are good reasons to depart from interpretation at the national level. Nonetheless, others recently doubted the overall usefulness of such an understanding of subsidiarity, since those member states responsible for the lion's share of new applications to the ECHR often neither possess a functioning judiciary nor functioning judicial or executive institutions, in general.
1 Jean-Paul Costa, President, Eur. Ct. of H.R., Speech on the Occasion of the Opening of the Judicial Year, (Jan. 25, 2008), in Eur. Ct. H.R., Annual report 33, 38 (2008), available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5B2847D-640D-4A09-A70A-7A1BE66563 BB/0/ANNUAL_REPORT_2008.pdf (last visited Apr. 29, 2012).Google Scholar
2 Eur. Ct. H.R., Statistics (2011), available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/7B68F865-2B15-4DFC-85E5-DEDD8C160AC1/0/Statistics_2011.pdf.Google Scholar
3 The Court can adjudicate around 1700 cases on the merits per year. In 2010, it decided a total of 29,102 petitions, of which a total of 27,345 were either inadmissibility decisions or cases struck out of the list. See id. Google Scholar
4 See Interlaken Declaration of the High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights ¶ 4, Feb. 19, 2010, available at http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/brighton-conference/Documents/Interlaken-declaration_en.pdf (last visited Apr. 29, 2012); Brighton Declaration of the High leval Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights ¶¶ 3, 11, 12 (inviting Committee Ministers to amend the Preamble of the Convention to make reference to the prinicple of subsidiarity), Apr. 20, 2012, available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1934031&Site=CM (last visited Apr. 29, 2012); see also Paolo G. Carozza, Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law, 97 Am. J. Int'l L. 38, 49–56 (2003); Laurence Helfer, Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime, 19 Eur. J. Int'l L. 125, 133–34 (2008); Dinah Shelton, Subsidiarity and Human Rights Law, 27 Hum. Rts. L.J. 4 (2006).Google Scholar
5 See Schapiro, Robert A., Polyphonic Federalism: Toward the Protection of Fundamental Rights 93 (2009).Google Scholar
6 Compare Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Grundgesetz] [GG] [Basic Law], May 23, 1949, BGBl. I, art. 72(2), with Treaty on European Union art. 5(3), Feb. 7, 1992, 2010 O.J. (C83) 13.Google Scholar
7 See Declaration, Brighton, supra note 4, ¶ 12.Google Scholar
8 Geir Ulfstein, International Constitutionalization: A Research Agenda, Eur. Soc'y Int'l L. Newsl. (Eur. Soc'y Int'l L., Florence, It.), May 2010, available at http://www.esil-sedi.eu/english/ESIL-SEDI%20NEWSLETTER_May_mai%202010.pdf (last visited Apr. 29, 2012); Geir Ulfstein, The International Judiciary, in The Constitutionalization of International Law 126, 144 (Jan Klabbers et al. eds., 2009).Google Scholar
9 Helen Keller et al., Debating the Future of the European Court of Human Rights after the Interlaken Conference: Two Innovative Proposals, 21 Eur. J. Int'l L. 1025, 1034 (2010).Google Scholar
10 See Lester, Anthony, The European Court of Human Rights After 50 Years, in The European Court of Human Rights Between Law and Politics 98, 115 (Jonas Christoffersen & Mikael Rask Madsen eds., 2011); The Conscience of Europe - 50 Years of the European Court of Human Rights, 209 (J. Egbert Myjer et. al. eds., 2010); Joge Rodruíguez-Zapata Pérez, The Dynamic Effect of the Case-l aw of the European Court of Human Rights and the Role of the Constitutional Courts, in Eur. Ct. H.R., Dialogue Between Judges 36, 42 (2007). But see Mr. Jean-Paul Costa, President, Eur. Ct. of H.R., Speech Given on the Occasion of the Opening of the Judicial Year (Jan. 19, 2007), in Eur. Ct. H.R., Dialogue Between Judges 80, 87 (2007). Some answers are provided in the recent book by Patricia Popelier et al., Human Rights Protection in the European Legal Order: The Interaction Between the European and the National Courts (2011), however, the May judgment of the Bundesverfassungsgericht has not been discussed by Rainer Arnold, who provided the contribution on Germany. Rainer Arnold, The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany in the Context of the European Integration, in Human Rights Protection in the European Legal Order: The Interaction Between the European and the National Courts 237 (Patricia Popelier et al. eds., 2011).Google Scholar
11 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1570/03, Mar. 1, 2004, 3 BVerfGK 4 (Ger.). For an assessment of the relationship between the Federal Constitutional Court and the ECHR, see Tomuschat, Christian, The Effects of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights According to the German Constitutional Court, 11 German L.J. 513 (2010).Google Scholar
12 See Andenas, Mads & Bjorge, Eirik, National Implementation of ECHR Rights: Kant's Categorical Imperative and the Convention (Apr. 22, 2011) (unpublished manuscript), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1818845&. See also Tomuschat, supra note 11.Google Scholar
13 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1481/04, Oct. 14, 2004, 111 BVerfGE 307 (Ger.).Google Scholar
14 Görgülü v. Germany, 2004 Eur. Ct. H.R. 89, ¶ 71.Google Scholar
15 Oberlandesgericht Naumburg [OLG - Naumburg Higher Regional Court], Case No. 14 WF 64/04, Apr. 20, 2004, 2004 OLGZ 64 (Ger.) (“Doch bindet dieser Urteilsspruch unmittelbar nur die Bundesrepublik Deutschland als Völkerrechtssubjekt, nicht aber deren Organe oder Behörden und namentlich nicht die Gerichte als nach Art. 97 Abs. 1 GG unabhängige Organe der Rechtsprechung” (citations omitted)).Google Scholar
16 For more on this openness of the Basic Law towards international law, see Tomuschat, Christian, Die staatsrechtliche Entscheidung für die internationale Offenheit, in Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 483 (Josef Isensee & Pail Kirchhoff eds., 1992); Andreas Zimmermann, Rezeption völkerrechtlicher Begriffe durch das Grundgesetz, 67 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 297, 298 (2007).Google Scholar
17 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1481/04, Oct. 14, 2004, 111 BVerfGE 307, ¶ 50 (Ger.).Google Scholar
18 Id. ¶ 49.Google Scholar
19 Sauer, Haiko, Die neue Schlagkraft der gemeineuropäischen Grundrechtsjudikatur, 65 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 35, 45 (2005).Google Scholar
20 Findings of the Eur. Court H.R. may provide a reason for an appeal. Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure], Apr. 7, 1987, Bundesgesetzblatt, Teil I [BGBl. I] 1074, as amended, § 359(6) (Ger.). See also Sauer, supra note 19, at 58 (suggesting that the Code of Criminal Procedure should be applied analogously by the courts of other jurisdictions).Google Scholar
21 Sauer, supra note 19, at 35–68, 58. Contra Alexander Proelß, Der Grundsatz der völkerrechtsfreundlichen Auslegung im Lichte der Rechtsprechung des BVerfG, in Hartmut Rensen, Trends in the Case Law of the German Federal Constitutional Court 565, 565–67 (Stefan Brink ed., 2009).Google Scholar
22 Generally, the parties to the case “undertake to abide” by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms art. 46(1), Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221. This creates an obligation to implement the judgment at the national level. See Ovey, Clare & White, Robin, The European Convention on Human Rights (4th ed. 2006). Even though the redress for certain Convention violations, such as of Art. 6 ECHR, can imply a duty to reopen of proceedings. See Sejdovic v. Italy, 2006 Eur. Ct. H.R. 181, ¶ 126; Council of Eur., Recommendation No. R (2000) 2 of the Committee of Ministers to members states on actions on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights judgments are not automatically legally enforceable in the member states. But see Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union arts. 280, 290, Mar. 25, 1950, 2010 O.J. (C83) 47. Despite this, a European Court of Human Rights judgment may have a legal effect equivalent to res judicata, such that the member state cannot deny the violation of convention right with regard to the particular circumstances of the case. See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1481/04, Oct. 14, 2004, 111 BVerfGE 307, ¶ 41 (Ger.).Google Scholar
23 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. No. 2 BvR 1570/03, Mar. 1, 2004, 3 BVerfGK 4 (Ger.).Google Scholar
24 It discussed the duty to consider the European Court of Human Right's judgments by national organs in a separate paragraph. BVerfG, supra note 13, at ¶ 47.Google Scholar
25 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 1602/07, Feb. 26, 2008, 120 BVerfGE 180 (Ger.).Google Scholar
26 Nonetheless also this case was preceded by a judgment of the Eu. Ct. HR., which in 2004 had decided the case in favor of the princess: 2004 Eu. Ct. HR. IV, ¶ 79, 80.Google Scholar
27 See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. VI ZR 67/08 (July 1, 2008), http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&sid=f723efac26719146f67e1769ffef58fe&nr=45013&pos=0&anz=1 (last visited Apr. 29, 2012). But see BGH, Case Nos. VI ZR 256/06, VI ZR 260/06, VI ZR 271/06, VI ZR 272/06 (Oct. 14, 2008).Google Scholar
28 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 1602/07, Feb. 26, 2008, 120 BVerfGE 180 (Ger.). ¶ 52 (Ger.).Google Scholar
29 Id. Google Scholar
30 Payandeh, Mehrdad, Die EMRK als grundrechtsbeschränkendes Gesetz?, 49 Juristische Schulung 212 (2009).Google Scholar
31 Id. at 214.Google Scholar
32 Id. Google Scholar
33 Id. Google Scholar
34 This latter concept is also known as the core rights theory. Id. at 216.Google Scholar
35 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2307/06, Feb. 4, 2010, not reported, available at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rk20100204_2bvr230706.html (last visited Apr. 29, 2012).Google Scholar
36 Id. at ¶ 21. See also Tomuschat, supra note 11.Google Scholar
37 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case Nos. 2 BvR 2134 & 2159/92, July 2, 1993, 89 BVerfGE 155, 175, 188 (Ger.).Google Scholar
38 For the most recent refinement, see Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2661/06, July 6, 2010, __ BVerfGE __, at ¶ 61, available at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20100706_2bvr266106.html (last visited Apr. 29, 2012). There, the Federal Constitutional Court utilized the same terminology as ECJ, making reference to the Fresh Marine case.Google Scholar
39 For an assessment of the Solange II jurisprudence, see Meyer, Franz C., Multi level Constitutional Jurisdiction, in Principles of European Constitutional Law (Jürgen Bast & Armin von Bogdandy eds., 2010).Google Scholar
40 Catherine Van de Heyning, No Place Like Home: Discretionary Space for the Domestic Protection of Fundamental Rights, in Human Rights Protection in the European Legal Order: The Interaction Between the European and the National Courts 71 (Patricia Popelier et al. eds., 2011).Google Scholar
41 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2365/09, May 4, 2011, 2011 NJW 1931 (Ger.).Google Scholar
42 Id. at ¶¶ 36, 44, 52, 64.Google Scholar
43 See Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure], Apr. 7, 1987, Bundesgesetzblatt, Teil I [BGBl. I] 1074, prior to Dec. 22, 2010 amendment, § 66(1).Google Scholar
44 M. v. Germany, 2009 Eur. Ct. H.R. 2071, ¶¶ 103–05, 133–37.Google Scholar
45 Kallweit v. Germany, 2011 Eur. Ct. H.R. 26; Mautes v. Germany, 2011 Eur. Ct. H.R. 27; Schummer v. Germany, App. Nos. 27360/2004 & 42225/2007 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 13, 2011).Google Scholar
46 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2365/09, May 4, 2011, 2011 NJW 1931 (Ger.).Google Scholar
47 Id. Google Scholar
48 Gesetz zur Neuordnung des Rechts der Sicherungsverwahrung und zu Begleiten Regelungen [Regulations of the Law for Assurance and Custodial Services], Dec. 22, 2010, BGBl. I at 2300 [hereinafter Regulations].Google Scholar
49 Id. at art. 1.Google Scholar
50 Id. at art. 4.Google Scholar
51 Id.Google Scholar
52 See Merkel, Grischa, Incompatible Contrasts? – Preventive Detention in Germany and the European Convention on Human Rights, 11 German L.J 1046 (2010); Grischa Merkel, Case Note - Retrospective Preventive Detention in Germany: A Comment on the ECHR Decision Haidn v. Germany of 13 January 2011, 12 German L.J. 968 (2011).Google Scholar
53 See Mads Andenas and Eirik Bjorge, “Preventive Detention.” No. 2 BvR 2365/09, 105 Am. J. Int'l L. 768, 772–73 (2011).Google Scholar
54 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2365/09, May 4, 2011, 2011 NJW 1931, at ¶ 88 (Ger.).Google Scholar
55 Id. at ¶ 89.Google Scholar
56 Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v. Dem. Rep. Congo), 50 I.L.M. 37, ¶ 66 (Nov. 30, 2010).Google Scholar
57 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2365/09, May 4, 2011, 2011 NJW 1931, at ¶ 89 (Ger.).Google Scholar
58 Id.Google Scholar
59 Id.Google Scholar
60 Id.Google Scholar
61 Id.Google Scholar
62 Id.Google Scholar
63 Id.Google Scholar
64 Id. ¶ 90.Google Scholar
65 Id. ¶ 91.Google Scholar
66 Id. The imposition of a preventive detention could be imposed after a previous finding of guilt and imposition of a regular penalty, since it was not regarded as “penalty,” but as “correction measure,” according to sections 66 et seq. of the German Criminal Code, valid until 1 January 2011. By contrast, ECHR art. 5(1) allows for the deprivation of liberty only after a “conviction,” which entails a finding of guilt and the imposition of a penalty thereupon. See M. v. Germany, 2009 Eur. Ct. H.R. 2071, ¶¶ 89–95.Google Scholar
67 The member states’ leeway on how to implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the exercise of the Court's margin of appreciation in interpreting the convention are at the heart of current discussions about the proper exercise of the Court's authority. See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2365/09, May 4, 2011, 2011 NJW 1931, ¶ 91 (Ger.) (citing the European Court of Human Rights's findings in Scozzari v. Italy, 2008-XIII Eur. Ct. H.R. 529); see also Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms art. 46, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221.Google Scholar
68 That is, it turned to arguments which compared the actual protection provided by the Basic Law and the ECHR, and to arguments which compared the methods of constitutional interpretation with the methods of interpretation utilized in the ECHR system.Google Scholar
69 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2365/09, May 4, 2011, 2011 NJW 1931, ¶ 93 (Ger.).Google Scholar
70 Id.Google Scholar
71 Id. ¶ 93.Google Scholar
72 Id. ¶ 93.Google Scholar
73 Id. ¶¶ 20–21.Google Scholar
74 Id. ¶ 93.Google Scholar
75 Id. See also Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, supra note 67, at art. 53.Google Scholar
76 Compare this with the laws enacted after the so called headscarf decision, Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1436/02, June 3, 2003, 2003 NJW 3111 (Ger.), which balanced the constitutional interests of the keeping of peace in public schools with the religious interests of teachers. See Schulgesetz für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [Education Act of North Rhine-Westphalia], Feb. 15, 2005, GV. NRW. 102, as amended § 57(4) (Ger.).Google Scholar
77 On the balancing of rights, see Alexy, Robert, A Theory of Constitutional Rights 397 (2002).Google Scholar
78 But see Tomuschat, supra note 11, at 524 (warning that the Strasbourg court will also have regard for all the rights concerned before delivering its final judgment).Google Scholar
79 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2365/09, May 4, 2011, 2011 NJW 1931, ¶ 93 (Ger.).Google Scholar
80 See, e.g., Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvF 1/92, May 24, 1995, 1996 NVwZ 574, 578 (Ger.). For more regarding interpretations taking into account history, object, and purpose, see Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvL 11/59, May 17, 1960, 11 BverfGE 126, 132 (Ger.). For more on those methods, including references to the systematic, historical, and literal methods and on the ultimate limitation of an interpretation in conformity with the rights of the Basic Law see Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 952/75, May 9, 1978, 1978 NJW 2499 (Ger.). See also Herdegen, Matthias, Verfassungsinterpretation als methodische Disziplin, 59 JuristenZeiteng 873, 875 (2004).Google Scholar
81 The European Court of Human Rights frequently refers to Art. 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties for the nterpretation of the ECHR. See, e.g., Demir & Baykara v Turkey, 2008 Eur. Ct. H.R. 1345, ¶ 68.Google Scholar
82 Tyrer v. United Kingdom, 1978 Eur. Ct. H.R. 2, ¶ 31. For the dynamic interpretation of the BVerfG, see Alexy, Robert, Theorie der Grundrechte 504 (1994).Google Scholar
83 See Benevisti, Eyal, Margin of Appreciation, Consensus and Universal Standards, 31 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 843, 843–46 (1999); Jeffrey A. Brauch, The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the Rule of Law, 11 Colum. J. Eur. L. 113, 115–16 (2004).Google Scholar
84 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2365/09, May 4, 2011, 2011 NJW 1931, ¶ 94 (Ger.).Google Scholar
85 Id.Google Scholar
86 Id.Google Scholar
87 For a source that is instructive on the proportionality principle, see Alec S. Sweet & Jud Mathews, Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism, 47 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 72, 104 (2008).Google Scholar
88 See Keller et al., supra note 9.Google Scholar
89 For the establishment of those doctrines by the Court of Justice of the European Union, see Case C-26/26, NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratis der Belastingen, 1963 E.C.R. 1, 12; Case C-6/64, Flaminio Costa v. E.N.E.L., 1964 E.C.R. 585, 593–94.Google Scholar
90 The European Court of Human Rights uses a similar argument. See, e.g., Chapman v. United Kingdom [GC], 2001-I Eur. Ct. H. R. 43, ¶ 70.Google Scholar
91 Brighton Declaration, supra note 4, at ¶ 3.Google Scholar
92 Tor-Inge Harbo, The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law, 16 Eur. L.J. 158, 166 (2010).Google Scholar
93 Schapiro, supra note 5; Kirsten H. Engel, Harnessing the Benefits of Dynamic Federalism in Environmental Law, 56 Emory L.J. 159, 187–88 (2006); Margaret E. McGuiness, Federalism and Horizontality in International Human Rights, 73 Mo. L. Rev. 1265, 1277 (2008); Catherine Powell, Dialogic Federalism: Constitutional Possibilities for Incoporation of Human Rights Law in the United States, 150 U. Pa. L. Rev. 245, 290–96 (2001); Robert A. Schapiro, Towards a Theory of Interactive Federalism, 91 Iowa L. Rev. 243, 301–14 (2005).Google Scholar
94 See Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Grundgesetz] [GG] [Basic Law], May 23, 1949, BGBl. I, art. 72.Google Scholar
95 Schapiro, supra note 5, at 137.Google Scholar
96 Id. at 136; Powell, supra note 93, at 288–96.Google Scholar
97 The Brighton Declaration expressly recognizes and encourages dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights and the States’ highest courts, including a reference to the optional recognition of an advisory opinion procedure “on the interpretation of the Convention in the context of a specific case at the national level.” See Declaration, Brighton, supra note 4, ¶ 12(c)–(d).Google Scholar
98 See Schmitz v. Germany, 2011 Eur. Ct. H.R. 916, ¶ 28; Schönbrod v. Germany, 2011 Eur. Ct. H.R. 1974, ¶ 57; O.H. v. Germany, 2011 Eur. Ct. H.R. 1975, ¶ 51.Google Scholar
You have
Access
