Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

THE PROCEDURAL APPROACH OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: BETWEEN SUBSIDIARITY AND DYNAMIC EVOLUTION

  • Thomas Kleinlein (a1)

Abstract

This article explores how a procedural approach in the case law of the ECtHR combines subsidiarity and progressive development of international obligations. Rather than constituting a simple retreat from substantive commitments, it renders the obligations of Conventions States more flexible and has the potential to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the Court's rulings. This article first sets out various aspects of proceduralization in international human rights law. This is followed by a discussion of how procedural approaches are linked to subsidiarity. In the case law of the ECtHR, procedural approaches facilitate dynamic evolution, both in the practice of Convention States (analytic or bottom-up approach) or by the Court itself (constructive or top-down approach). This interaction of the procedural approach and arguments based on European Consensus allows the ECtHR and domestic institutions to fulfil their ‘shared responsibility’ for the effective protection of human rights in Europe.

Copyright

References

Hide All

1 Brems, E and Lavrysen, L, ‘Procedural Justice in Human Rights Adjudication: The European Court of Human Rights’ (2013) 35 HumRtsQ 176; Popelier, P, ‘The Court as Regulatory Watchdog: The Procedural Approach in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights’ in Popelier, P, Mazmanyan, A and Vandenbruwaene, W (eds), The Role of Constitutional Courts in Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2013) 249; Dubout, É, ‘La procéduralisation des droits’ in Sudre, F (ed), Le principe de subsidiarité au sens du droit de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme (Nemesis 2014) 265; Arnardóttir, OM, ‘The “Procedural Turn” under the European Convention on Human Rights and Presumptions of Convention Compliance’ (2017) 15 ICON 9; Gerards, JH and Brems, E, ‘Procedural Review in European Fundamental Rights Cases: Introduction’ in Gerards, JH and Brems, E (eds), Procedural Review in European Fundamental Rights Cases (Cambridge University Press 2017) 1; Huijbers, LM, ‘Procedural-Type Review: A More Neutral Approach to Human Rights Protection by the European Court of Human Rights?’ (2017) 9 European Society of International Law Conference Paper Series 1; Huijbers, LM, ‘The European Court of Human Rights’ Procedural Approach in the Age of Subsidiarity’ (2017) 6 CILJ 177.

2 Spano, R, ‘The Future of the European Court of Human Rights—Subsidiarity, Process-Based Review and the Rule of Law’ (2018) 18 HRLR 1.

3 High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights ‘Brighton Declaration’ (20 April 2012) <http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2012_Brighton_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf>; cf Popelier, P and van de Heyning, C, ‘Subsidiarity Post-Brighton: Procedural Rationality as Answer?’ (2017) 30 LJIL 5.

4 High Level Conference on ‘the European Human Rights System in the Future Europe’ (13 April 2018) ‘Copenhagen Declaration’ <https://rm.coe.int/copenhagen-declaration/16807b915c>.

5 See, in particular, High-Level Conference on the ‘Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Our Shared Responsibility’ (27 March 2015) ‘Brussels Declaration’ <https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Brussels_Declaration_ENG.pdf>.

6 Art 61 of the Rules of the Court (entry into force 16 April 2018).

7 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v Ireland, App No 45036/98, Judgment of 30 June 2005.

8 See Arnardóttir, OM, ‘Organised Retreat? The Move from “Substantive” to “Procedural” Review in the ECtHR's Case Law on the Margin of Appreciation’ (2015) 5 ESIL Conference Paper Series, 7ff; for safeguards against abuse as a procedural factor relevant for the State's margin of appreciation in considering whether a derogation (art 15 ECHR) was strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, see eg Brannigan and McBride v UK, App No 14553/89 and 14554/89, Judgment of 25 May 1993, paras 61–66.

9 Brems and Lavrysen (n 1) 196; Arnardóttir (n 1) 14, 33; JH Gerards, ‘Procedural Review by the ECtHR: A Typology’ in Gerards and Brems (n 1) 127, 129ff.

10 Brems, E, ‘Procedural Protection: An Examination of Procedural Safeguards Read into Substantive Convention Rights’ in Brems, E and Gerards, JH (eds), Shaping Rights in the ECHR: The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press 2013) 137.

11 See, eg, AGOSI v United Kingdom, App No 9118/80, Judgment of 24 October 1986, para 55; Jokela v Finland, App No 28856/95, Judgment of 21 May 2002, para 45; Bäck v Finland, App No 37598/97, Judgment of 20 July 2004, para 56; Zehentner v Austria, App No 20082/02, Judgment of 16 July 2009, para 73; Denisova and Moiseyeva v Russia, App No 16903/03, Judgment of 1 April 2010, para 59 (all on art 1 of Protocol No 1 to the ECHR, right to property); Podkolzina v Latvia, App No 46726/99, Judgment of 9 April 2002, para 35; Namat Aliyev v Azerbaijan, App No 18705/06, Judgment of 8 April 2010, para 59 (on art 3 of Protocol No 1 to the ECHR, right to take part in elections); Tysįac v Poland, App No 5410/03, Judgment of 20 March 2007, paras 115, 117; A, B and C v Ireland, App No 25579/05, Judgment of 16 December 2010, para 263 (on art 8 ECHR, abortion cases).

12 See, eg, Hatton and others v United Kingdom, App No 36022/97, Judgment of 8 July 2003, para 128; Z and Others v United Kingdom, App No 29392/95, Judgment of 10 May 2001.

13 Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom, App No 48876/08, Judgment of 22 April 2013; Shindler v United Kingdom, App No 19840/09, Judgment of 7 May 2013; SAS v France, App No 43835/11, Judgment of 1 July 2014; Correia de Matos v Portugal, App No 56402/12, Judgment of 4 April 2018.

14 cf Spano, R, ‘Universality or Diversity of Human Rights? Strasbourg in the Age of Subsidiarity’ (2014) 14 HRLR 487, 498.

15 Van de Heyning, CJ, ‘The Natural ‘Home’ of Fundamental Rights Adjudication: Constitutional Challenges to the European Court of Human Rights’ (2012) 31 YEL 128, 151ff; Popelier (n 1); Brems (n 10) 160; Brems and Lavrysen (n 1) 195ff; Arnardóttir (n 8).

16 Spano (n 14) 497. See Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2), App No 74025/01, Judgment of 6 October 2005, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Wildhaber, Costa, Lorenzen, Kovler and Jebens, para 7; Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom (n 13), Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Ziemele, Sajó, Kalaydjieva, Vučinić and De Gaetano, para 9; Correia de Matos v Portugal (n 13), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque Joined by Judge Sajó, para 41, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Pejchal and Wojtyczek, para 9.

17 A Nußberger, ‘Procedural Review by the ECHR: View from the Court’ in Gerards and Brems (n 1) 161, 172ff.

18 For softened procedural standards in voting rights cases, see Frodl v Austria, App No 20201/04, Judgment of 8 April 2010, paras 34ff; Scoppola v Italy (No 3), App No 126/05, Judgment of 22 May 2012, para 99; for a comparable development in child abduction cases, see Neulinger and Shuruk v Switzerland, App No 41615/07, Judgment of 6 July 2010, para 139; X v Latvia, App No 27853/09, Judgment of 26 November 2013, paras 103 and 106; cf Nußberger (n 17) 172ff.

19 Murphy v Ireland, App No 44179/98, Merits, Judgment of 10 July 2003, paras 67, 73, 81; Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (n 16) paras 78–80; Evans v United Kingdom, App No 6339/05, Merits, Judgment of 10 April 2007, paras 79, 85ff; Sukhovetskyy v Ukraine, App No 13716/02, Judgment of 28 March 2006, para 65; Friend, The Countryside Alliance and Others v UK, App Nos 16072/06 and 27809/08, Decision as to the Admissibility of 24 November 2009, para 50; Lindheim v Norway, App Nos 13221/08 and 2139/10, Judgment of 12 June 2012, para 128; Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom (n 13) para 108; Shindler v United Kingdom (n 13) paras 112, 115, 117; SAS v France (n 13) paras 154ff. For an overview, cf M Saul, ‘The ECtHR's Margin of Appreciation and the Processes of National Parliaments’ (2015) 15 HRLR 745.

20 Sukhovetskyy v Ukraine (n 19) paras 64, 68ff.

21 Lindheim v Norway (n 19) para 128; cf Saul, M, ‘Structuring Evaluations of Parliamentary Processes by the European Court of Human Rights’ (2016) 20 IJHR 1077, 1078.

22 Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom (n 13) para 108.

23 Parrillo v Italy, App No 46470/11, Judgment of 27 August 2015, paras 183ff.

24 Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (n 16) paras 21–24, 78ff; Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom (n 13) paras 42–55, 108, 110, 114; Shindler v United Kingdom (n 13) paras 22–28, 102, 117.

25 Gerards (n 9) 146–8.

26 Von Hannover v Germany (No 1), App No 59320/00, Judgment of 24 June 2004; Von Hannover v Germany (No 3), App No 8772/10, Judgment of 19 September 2013; Von Hannover v Germany (No 2), Apps Nos 40660/08 and 60641/08, Judgment of 7 February 2012.

27 Sindicatul ‘Păstorul Cel Bun’ v Romania, App No 2330/09, Judgment of 9 July 2013, paras 160, 165; cf Nußberger (n 17) 173ff.

28 Saul (n 21) 1079.

29 Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (n 16); Alajos Kiss v Hungary, App No 38832/06, Judgment of 20 May 2010; Shindler v United Kingdom (n 13); Anchugov and Gladkov v Russia, Apps Nos 11157/04 and 15162/05, Judgment of 4 July 2013.

30 Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom (n 13).

31 Murphy v Ireland (n 19).

32 Hatton and others v United Kingdom (n 12).

33 Evans v United Kingdom (n 19).

34 SAS v France (n 13); Belcacemi and Oussar v Belgium, App No 37798/13, Judgment of 11 July 2017; cf Saul (n 21) 1079.

35 Arnardóttir (n 1) 20. For a discussion of the difference between partial and full deference, see also OM Arnardóttir, ‘Rethinking the Two Margins of Appreciation’ (2016) 12 EuConst 27, 45ff.

36 Nußberger (n 17) 174.

37 Arnardóttir (n 1) 29. See SAS v France (n 13) para 129.

38 Nußberger (n 17) 174; Baade, B, ‘The ECtHR's Role as a Guardian of Discourse: Safeguarding a Decision-Making Process Based on Well-Established Standards, Practical Rationality, and Facts’ (2018) 7 LJIL, 1, 3.

39 Hutten-Czapska v Poland, App No 35014/97, Judgment of 19 June 2006, para 166; cf Arnardóttir (n 1) 29ff.

40 Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom (n 13) para 108; Arnardóttir (n 1) 32. The move was controversial amongst the judges of the Grand Chamber (see Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Ziemele, Sajó, Kalaydjieva, Vučinić and De Gaetano, paras 9ff). Later case law relied on it only very rarely; see, eg, National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v United Kingdom, App No 31045/10, Judgment of 8 April 2014, paras 101ff.

41 Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom (n 13) para 109.

42 Shindler v United Kingdom (n 13) para 116.

43 Arnardóttir (n 1) 32.

44 For an overview of the many different ways in which the ECtHR applies procedural-type review at different stages of its review and for drawing both positive and negative inferences and with different weight attached to procedural arguments, see Huijbers (n 1) 187–93.

45 Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom (n 13) para 114.

46 Sukhovetskyy v Ukraine (n 19), para 65. See also Murphy v Ireland (n 19) para 73; Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (n 16) para 79; Alajos Kiss v Hungary (n 29) para 41; Shindler v United Kingdom (n 13) para 102; Anchugov and Gladkov v Russia (n 29) para 109.

47 Parrillo v Italy (n 23) paras 184ff.

48 Lindheim v Norway (n 19) para 128.

49 Konstantin Markin v Russia, App No 30078/06, Judgment of 7 October 2010, para 57; Konstantin Markin v Russia, App No 30078/06, Judgment of 22 March 2012, para 144.

50 Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (n 16) para 79.

51 See, on the one hand, S.H. and others v Austria, App No 57813/00, Judgment of 3 November 2011, para 97; Parrillo v Italy (n 23) para 170; Garib v the Netherlands, App No 43494/09, Judgment of 6 November 2017, para 138; Correia de Matos v Portugal (n 13) para 117; on the other hand, Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom (n 13) para 108 (cited in Garib and Correia de Matos without making this distinction).

52 Lazarus, L and Simonsen, N, ‘Judicial Review and Parliamentary Debate: Enriching the Doctrine of Due Deference’ in Hunt, M, Hooper, HJ and Yowell, P (eds), Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the Democratic Deficit, Hart Studies in Comparative Public Law (Hart 2015) 385, 393ff.

53 ibid 393ff.

54 ibid 400ff.

55 Saul (n 19) 752.

56 Nußberger (n 17) 168.

57 Lazarus and Simonsen (n 52) 393; Saul (n 19) 752.

58 For the limited usefulness of the guidance offered by the way in which domestic courts have dealt with parliamentary process in their doctrines of deference, see A Kavanagh, ‘Proportionality and Parliamentary Debates: Exploring Some Forbidden Territory’ (2014) 34 OJLS 443, 472ff. For an assessment of the UK experience, see A Sathanapally, ‘The Modest Promise of “Procedural Review” in Fundamental Rights Cases’ in Gerards and Brems (n 1) 40.

59 Saul (n 19) 752, with further references.

60 Nußberger (n 17) 174.

61 Von Hannover v Germany (No 2) (n 26) paras 108ff.

62 Maslov v Austria, App No 1638/03, Judgment of 23 June 2008, paras 71–76.

63 Arnardóttir (n 8); see also Rui, JP, ‘The Interlaken, Izmir and Brighton Declarations: Towards a Paradigm Shift in the Strasbourg Court's Interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights?’ (2013) 31 NordicJHumRts 28, 48ff; Popelier and van de Heyning (n 3).

64 Krieger, H and Nolte, G, ‘The International Rule of Law – Rise or Decline? Points of Departure’ (2016) 1 KFG Working Paper Series, 8.

65 For summaries of the critique voiced regarding the ECtHR's understanding of its role, see Bellamy, R, ‘The Democratic Legitimacy of International Human Rights Conventions: Political Constitutionalism and the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2014) 25 EJIL 1019, 1020–2; Oomen, BM, ‘A serious case of Strasbourg-bashing? An evaluation of the debates on the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights in the Netherlands’ (2016) 20 IJHR 407; Baade (n 38) 1ff.

66 M Hunt, ‘Introduction’ in Hunt, Hooper and Yowell, Parliaments and Human Rights (n 52) 1, 2.

67 Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (n 16) para 79; Greens and MT v United Kingdom, App Nos 60041/08 and 60054/08, Judgment of 23 November 2010, paras 73–79; Shindler v United Kingdom (n 13) para 117.

68 Kavanagh (n 58) 473ff.

69 Goodwin v United Kingdom, App No 28957/95, Judgment of 11 July 2002, paras 92f; Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (n 16) para 79; Dickson v United Kingdom, App No 44362/04, Judgment of 4 December 2007, para 83; Konstantin Markin v Russia (n 49) para 114; Lindheim v Norway (n 19) paras 85, 128.

70 eg, Dudgeon v United Kingdom, App No 7525/76, Judgment of 22 October 1981, para 59; James v United Kingdom, App No 8793/79, Judgment of 21 February 1986, para 48; Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v Belgium, App No 9267/81, Merits, Judgment of 2 March 1987, para 57; Goodwin v United Kingdom (n 69) para 79; Hatton and others v United Kingdom (n 12) paras 128f; Murphy v Ireland (n 19) para 73; Maurice v France, App No 11810/03, Judgment of 6 October 2005, paras 121, 124; Ždanoka v Latvia, App No 58278/00, Judgment of 16 March 2006, para 134; Sukhovetskyy v Ukraine (n 19) para 65; Evans v United Kingdom (n 19) para 86; Friend, The Countryside Alliance and Others v UK (n 19) para 50; A, B and C v Ireland (n 11) paras 233, 239; Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom (n 13) paras 108, 116; Shindler v United Kingdom (n 13) para 117.

71 High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights ‘Brighton Declaration’ (20 April 2012) <http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2012_Brighton_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf>; Protocol No 15 amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 24 June 2013, CETS No 213. See Spano (n 14) 498; Saul (n 19) 747; Nußberger (n 17) 172; I Cram, ‘Protocol 15 and Articles 10 And 11 ECHR—The Partial Triumph of Political Incumbency Post-Brighton?’ (2018) 67 ICLQ 477. For an analysis of procedural review as a variant of judicial restraint see Sathanapally (n 58) 54–6. For a meticulous analysis of the complex relationship between the procedural approach and subsidiarity, see Huijbers (n 1) 193ff.

72 See joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Nußberger and Jäderblom; Yusuf, H, ‘S.A.S. v France: Supporting “Living Together” or Forced Assimilation?’ (2014) 3 IntlHumLRev 277; Adenitire, J, ‘SAS v France: Fidelity to Law and Conscience’ (2015) EHRLR 78; Steinbach, A, ‘Burqas and Bans: The Wearing of Religious Symbols under the European Convention of Human Rights’ (2015) 4 CJICL 29.

73 SAS v France (n 13) para 129.

74 Saul (n 19) 749ff.

75 Gerards, JH, ‘Pluralism, Deference and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine’ (2011) 17 ELJ 80, 87; Saul (n 19) 751ff.

76 Helfer, LR, ‘Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime’ (2008) 19 EJIL 125, 159.

77 Gerards, JH, ‘The European Court of Human Rights and the National Courts: Giving Shape to the Notion of ‘Shared Responsibility’’ in Gerards, JH (ed), Implementation of the ECHR and of the Judgments of the ECtHR in National Case Law: A Comparative Analysis (Intersentia 2014) 13 (on the ECtHR's relationship with the domestic courts).

78 High-Level Conference on the ‘Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Our Shared Responsibility’ ‘Brussels Declaration’ (27 March 2015) <https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Brussels_Declaration_ENG.pdf>; High Level Conference ‘The European Human Rights System in the Future Europe’ (13 April 2018) <https://rm.coe.int/copenhagen-declaration/16807b915c>.

79 Copenhagen Declaration 2018, para 16(b).

80 Anagnostou, D and Mungiu-Pippidi, A, ‘Domestic Implementation of Human Rights Judgments in Europe: Legal Infrastructure and Government Effectiveness Matter’ (2014) 25 EJIL 205.

81 McCall-Smith, KL, ‘Human Rights Treaty Bodies, Proceduralization and the Development of Human Rights Jus Commune’ (2015) 5 ESIL Conference Paper Series 1; Saul, M, ‘How and When Can the International Human Rights Judiciary Promote the Human Rights Role of National Parliaments?’ in Saul, M, Føllesdal, A and Ulfstein, G (eds), The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond, Studies on Human Rights Conventions (Cambridge University Press 2017) 135.

82 See, eg, Res 1823, PACE; H Yamamo, Tools for Parliamentary Oversight: A Comparative Study of 88 National Parliaments (Inter-Parliamentary Union 2007, published by Inter-Parliamentary Union); A Drzemczewski and J Lowis, ‘The Work of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’ in Hunt, Hooper and Yowell, Parliaments and Human Rights (n 52) 309; I Schwarz, ‘The Work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union’ in Hunt, Hooper and Yowell ibid 329.

83 On role of parliaments in the protection and realization of human rights, see B Chang and G Ramshaw, Strengthening Parliamentary Capacity for the Protection and Realisation of Human Rights: Synthesis Report (2016); Hunt, Hooper and Yowell, Parliaments and Human Rights (n 52).

84 See, eg, UN Doc CCPR/C/SR.2412 (2006) para 52, Ruth Wedgwood calling on the HRC to find ways to ‘speak to states and to parliaments directly’ and to seek ‘to increase the influence and didactic effectiveness of its jurisprudence’.

85 eg, UK, CRC/C/OPSC/GBR/CO/1 (8 July 2014) para 44.

86 See Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms, Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, UN Doc CAT/OP/12/5 (2010) para 29.

87 Arnardóttir (n 1) 14.

88 Brems (n 10) 159; A Donald and P Leach, ‘The Role of Parliaments Following Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights’ in Hunt, Hooper and Yowell, Parliaments and Human Rights (n 52) 59, 84; Saul (n 21) 1082.

89 ibid, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Wildhaber, Costa, Lorenzen, Kovler and Jebens, para 7: ‘it is not for the Court to prescribe the way in which national legislatures carry out their legislative functions’. For the reaction to the Hirst (No 2) judgment in the United Kingdom, see Bates, E, ‘Analysing the Prisoner Voting Saga and the British Challenge to Strasbourg’ (2014) 14 HRLR 504.

90 Christoffersen, J, Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff 2009) 455, 460; Brems (n 10) 159; Donald and Leach (n 88) 84. For a careful assessment of the risks of the proceduralization of human rights protection, see Nußberger (n 17) 165ff.

91 Gerards and Brems (n 1) 12–13.

92 Lazarus and Simonsen (n 52) 401.

93 Levinson, DJ, ‘Parchment and Politics: The Positive Puzzle of Constitutional Commitment’ (2011) 124 HarvLRev 657 (offering a comparative outlook).

94 Nußberger (n 17) 162ff; referring to Konstantin Markin v Russia (n 49); Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (n 16).

95 Letsas, G, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2007) 59.

96 Baade (n 38) 12.

97 Letsas, G, ‘Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation’ (2006) 26 OJLS 705, 721: margin of appreciation in a substantive and a structural sense. The use of the term in a substantive sense is a reference to the discretion that a State has as a general matter to determine the relationship between human rights and public interest.

98 Besson, S, ‘Subsidiarity in International Human Rights Law—What Is Subsidiary about Human Rights?’ (2016) 61 AmJJuris 69, 81.

99 For an analysis of the encounter of European consensus and a procedural approach to the margin of appreciation in the ECtHR's case law, see Kleinlein, T, ‘Consensus and Contestability: The ECtHR and the Combined Potential of European Consensus and Procedural Rationality Control’ (2017) 28 EJIL 871, 873ff.

100 In the exceptional case of Goodwin v United Kingdom (n 69) paras 84ff, the Court placed more emphasis on the ‘continuing international trend’ towards legal recognition of transsexuals. In the Court's reasoning, this continuing international actually substitutes European Consensus. For a discussion, see Dzehtsiarou, K, European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press 2015) 65ff.

101 For a typology, see ibid 38ff.

102 Dzehtsiarou, K, ‘Does Consensus Matter? Legitimacy of European Consensus in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2011) 56 PL 534, 545.

103 Parrillo v Italy (n 23) paras 174, 176.

104 Besson (n 98) 101: ‘erga omnes effect’; Müller, A, ‘Domestic Authorities’ Obligations to Co-develop the Rights of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2016) 20 IJHR 1058, 1059.

105 ibid 1068.

106 Besson (n 98) 100.

107 Müller (n 104) 1059ff.

108 ibid 1060.

109 Besson, S, ‘Human Rights and Constitutional Law: Patterns of Mutual Validation and Legitimations’ in Cruft, R (ed), Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, Philosophical Foundations of Law (OUP 2015) 279, 280.

110 Correia de Matos v Portugal (n 13).

111 ibid, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque joined by Judge Sajó, paras 18 and 72.

112 ibid, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Pejchal and Wojtyczek, para 9.

113 Dzehtsiarou (n 100) 144.

114 ibid, at 12ff.

115 Dzehtsiarou (n 102) 542.

116 Petkova, B, ‘The Notion of Consensus as a Route to Democratic Adjudication?’ (2013) 14 CYELS 663. See, eg, EB v France, App No 43546/02, Judgment of 22 January 2008 (pronouncing as discriminatory national policies preventing homosexuals from adopting children).

117 For a case analysis exploring the roles of legal and political factors, see Bamforth, N, ‘Social Sensitivity, Consensus and the Margin of Appreciation’ in Agha, P (ed), Human Rights between Law and Politics: The Margin of Appreciation in Post-National Contexts, Modern Studies in European Law (Hart 2017) 129; for a detailed analysis of inconsistencies in the use of the consensus argument, see Asche, J, Die Margin of Appreciation: Entwurf einer Dogmatik monokausaler richterlicher Zurückhaltung für den europäischen Menschenrechtsschutz (Springer 2018) 99–149.

118 For instance, in Goodwin v United Kingdom, the Court stated: ‘In the previous cases from the United Kingdom, this Court has since 1986 emphasised the importance of keeping the need for appropriate legal measures under review having regard to scientific and societal developments …’ (Goodwin v United Kingdom (n 69) para 92).

119 Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (n 16) para 81; EB v France (n 116); A, B and C v Ireland (n 11). See de Londras, F and Dzehtsiarou, K, ‘Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, A, B & C v Ireland, decision of 17 December 2010’ (2013) 62 ICLQ 250, 256.

120 Dzehtsiarou (n 100) 14ff.

121 Baade (n 38) 18.

122 Kleinlein (n 99) 892.

123 Lewis, T, ‘Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom. Sensible Dialogue or a Bad Case of Strasbourg Jitters?’ (2014) 77 The Modern Law Review (2014) 460, 469.

124 Petkova (n 116) 665.

125 cf, for related arguments with regard to the United States, Cover, RM, ‘The Uses of Jurisdictional Redundancy: Interest, Ideology, and Innovation’ (1981) 22 Wm&MaryLRev 639–82; Kahn, PW, ‘Interpretation and Authority in State Constitutionalism’ (1993) 106 HarvLRev 1147; Post, RC and Siegel, RB, ‘Roe Rage: Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash’ (2007) 42 HarvCR-CLLRev 373. For a more in-depth discussion of the argument for the ECHR, see Kleinlein (n 98) 887ff.

126 Nicol, D, ‘Legitimacy of the Commons Debate on Prisoner Voting’ (2011) PL 681; Bates (n 89); S Fredman, ‘From Dialogue to Deliberation: Human Rights Adjudication and Prisoners’ Rights to Vote’ in Hunt, Hooper and Yowell, Parliaments and Human Rights (n 52) 447.

127 Greens and MT v United Kingdom (n 67).

128 Hunt (n 66) 18.

129 von Staden, A, ‘The Democratic Legitimacy of Judicial Review beyond the State: Normative Subsidiarity and Judicial Standards of Review’ (2012) 10 ICON 1023.

130 Sathanapally (n 58) 56–60.

131 Spano (n 14) 499.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International & Comparative Law Quarterly
  • ISSN: 0020-5893
  • EISSN: 1471-6895
  • URL: /core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed