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: 24 April 2015
This article argues that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) uses external references as a tool to enhance ‘constitutional justice’. This technique is illustrated by the Court's contribution to an important shift in migration law beginning in the late 1980s and resulting in an enhanced scheme for protection against expulsion in Europe. This shift reflects the changing role of the ECtHR from a court primarily concerned with providing ‘individual justice’ to a court aiming at enabling ‘constitutional justice’. The aim of the article is to contextualize the aforementioned shift with a historical view and to understand it in methodological terms. It argues that the Court supports its dynamic interpretation of the right to privacy in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights in crucial judgments by reference to often non-binding instruments issued by the Council of Europe and to other human rights treaties. In this regard, the case of protection against expulsion illustrates a particular feature of the Court's turn to ‘constitutional justice’, namely the increased application of the principle of systemic integration. This allowed the Court to develop a meaningful and comprehensive protection scheme in the first place. However, the article reveals that once the substantial standard developed by the ECtHR has been formally implemented in domestic law, domestic decisions are reviewed with significantly less scrutiny. This limitation may again be explained by the ‘constitutional turn’ which results in a pragmatic tendency to proceduralization in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR.
1 See on this: R. Cholewinski, Migrant Workers in International Human Rights Law (1997), 40–7 (with a particular view to migrant workers); R. Plender, International Migration Law (1988), 1 et seq. (with regard to non-refugee migrants in general). The traditional view regarding non-refugee migrants has been expressed by: C. Hyde, International Law (1945), Vol. II, 871–1012; P. Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations (1964), 78–84; H. Kelsen, Principles of International Law (1966), 366; H. Lauterpacht (ed.), Oppenheim's International Law 1, (1955), para. 321 (acknowledging certain international restrictions due to equal protection before courts though). The traditional view can still be traced in modern analysis of international law regarding the protection of non-refugee migrants: J. Gogolin, K. Hailbronner, ‘Aliens’, § 14, § 21, in R. Wolfrum (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopaedia on Public International Law (2008–), online edition <www.mpepil.com> (accessed on 15 April 2014).
3 On the debate about ‘constitutional justice’: Greer, S. and Wildhaber, L., ‘Revisting the Debate about “constitutionalising” the European Court of Human Rights’, (2013) 12 Human Rights Law Review 655, 663–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hennette-Vauchez, S., ‘Constitutional v. International? When Unified Reformatory Rationales Mismatch the Plural Paths of Legitimacy of the ECHR Law’, in Christoffersen, J. and Madsen, M. R. (eds.), The European Court of Human Rights Between Law and Politics (2011), 144–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; J. Christoffersen, ‘Individual and Constitutional Justice: Can the Power Balance of Adjudication be Reversed?, in ibid., 181–203; S. Greer, The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and Prospects (2006), 165–74.
4 External references include references to all instruments other than the Convention itself.
5 W. Kälin, ‘Aliens, Expulsion and Deportation’, § 2, in Wolfrum (ed.), supra note 1. For the development of the modern nation-state and the relevance of migration and nationality law, see D. Gosewinkel, Einbürgern und Ausschließen (2001); J. Torpey, The Invention of the Passport (2000); A. Fahrmeir, Citizens and Aliens – Foreigners and the Law in Britain and the German States, 1789–1870 (2000); A. Fahrmeir, Citizenship – The Rise and Fall of a Modern Concept (2008), 46 et seqq. Ibid., at 96. Ibid., at 217 et seqq.
6 Buergenthal, T., ‘The Normative and Institutional Evolution of International Human Rights’, (1997) 19 HRQ 702CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 UNTS 137.
8 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 989 UNTS 175.
9 1965 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, 660 UNTS 195.
10 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR); 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 993 UNTS 3 (ICESCR).
11 Article 25 of the ICCPR concerning the right to political participation is the exception in this regard.
12 On the enforcement of human rights within the UN system and in regional systems, see R. Bernhardt and J. A. Jolowicz (eds.), International Enforcement of Human Rights (1987); P. Alston, The United Nations and Human Rights (1992).
13 Traditionally international treaties almost exclusively entitled and obliged nation-states instead of individuals. See: S. Gorski, ‘Individuals in International Law’, §§ 1, 10–12, in Wolfrum (ed.), supra note 1; R. B. Lillich, The Human Rights of Aliens in Contemporary International Law (1984), 8 et seqq.; Korowicz, M. St., ‘The Problem of International Personality of Individuals’, (1956) 50 AJIL 533CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 534 et seqq. On a more general trend of individualization in international law: A. Peters, Jenseits der Menschenrechte (2013) arguing for the existence subjective rights in international law (at 469–79).
15 On human rights law in general: S. Moyn, The Last Utopia (2010), 120 et seqq. Ibid., at 155 (arguing that human rights did not effectively overcome the conception of human rights as rights of citizens in the first two decades after the Second World War), at 44 et seqq.
16 Madsen, M. R., ‘The Protracted Institutionalization of the Strasbourg Court: From Legal Diplomacy to Integrationist Jurisprudence’, in Christoffersen, J. and Madsen, M. R. (eds.), The European Court between Law and Politics (2011), 43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 54 et seqq.
17 Ibid., at 58.
19 1977 Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers, CETS No. 93. The Convention has been only ratified by 11 member states. The Convention does not contain any provisions on the protection against expulsion, but requires ‘appropriate measures to assist migrant workers and their families on the occasion of their final return to their State of origin’ (Art. 30).
20 Committee of Ministers, Rec. (84)9 on second-generation migrants (1984). All recommendations are available at: <www.coe.int>.
21 Committee of Ministers, Rec. (2000)15 concerning the security of long-term migrants (2000).
22 Committee of Ministers, Rec. (2002)4 on the legal status of persons admitted for family reunification (2002). See also: Parliamentary Assembly, Rec. 1504 (2001), at para. 7.
23 Rec. (84)9, supra note 20, at no. I.b.
24 Rec. (2000)15, supra note 21, no. 1.a.
25 Ibid., at no. 4.a.
26 Ibid., at no. 4.b.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid., at no. 4.c.
29 Migration for Employment Convention, ILO Convention No. C097.
30 1990 Convention on the Rights of all Migrant Workers and their Family Members, 2220 UNTS 93. Given the reluctance of many countries the UN migrant worker convention did not enter into force until 1 July 2003.
31 Until today most countries of the global north which are the typical receiving people from countries of labour migration have not ratified the UN convention and only 15 member states of the Council of Europe have ratified the ILO Convention of 1949. For a list of signatory and ratifying states see: <http://treaties.un.org/andwww.ilo.org/normlex> (accessed 3 February 2015).
32 Üner v. The Netherlands, Judgment of 18 October 2006, [2006] ECHR (Reports-XII), at para. 59; Maslov v. Austria, Judgment of 23 June 2008, [2008] ECHR (Reports), at para. 63.
33 Berrehab et al. v. The Netherlands, Judgment of 21 June 1988, [1988] ECHR (Ser. A).
34 X. v. Germany, Decision of 8 October 1974, [1974] ECommHR (D.R. 1), at 77; X., Y., and Z. v. United Kingdom, Decision of 6 July 1982, [1982] ECommHR (D.R. 29), at 205; Berrehab, supra note 33, at para. 23; Beldjoudi v. France, Judgment of 26 March 1992, [1992] ECHR (Ser. A), at para. 67.
35 Berrehab, supra note 33, at para. 29.
36 Beldjoudi, supra note 34, at para. 77.
37 Greer, supra note 3, at 166.
38 Ibid., at 171, Wildhaber, L., ‘Constitutional Future for the European Court of Human Rights’, (2002) 23 Human Rights Law Journal 161, at 163Google Scholar.
39 Abdulaziz et al v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 May 1985, [1985] ECHR (Ser. A), at para. 67; Moustaquim v. Belgium, Judgment of 18 February 1991, [1991] ECHR (Ser. A), at para. 43; Boujlifa v. France, Judgment of 21 October 1997, [1997] ECHR (Reports-VI), at para. 42; Kaya v. Germany, Judgment of 28 June 2007, No. 31753/02, [2007] ECHR, at para. 51; Darren Omoregie et al v. Norway, Judgment of 31 July 2008, No. 265/07, [2008] ECHR, at para. 54.
40 Timocin v. Switzerland, Decision of 28 June 1995, No. 27275/95, ECommHR, at 4; Abdulaziz, supra note 39, at para. 67; Lamrabti v. The Netherlands, Decision of 18 May 1995, No. 24968/94, ECommHR,.
41 Berrehab, supra note 33, at para. 28; Beldjoudi, supra note 34, at para. 74; Lamrabti, supra note 40; Mehemi v. France, Judgment of 26 September 1997, [1997] ECHR (Reports-VI), at para. 34; Baghli v. France, Judgment of 30 November 1999, [1999] ECHR (Reports-VIII), at para. 45; Boultif v. Switzerland, Judgment of 2 August 2001, [2001] ECHR (Reports-IX), at para. 46; Üner, supra note 32, at para. 54; Kaya, supra note 39, at para. 51.
46 See for a recent example, Maslov, supra note 32, at para. 75.
47 McHarg, A., ‘Reconciling Human Rights and the Public Interest’, (1999) 62 Modern Law Review 671, at 686CrossRefGoogle Scholar et seq.; Scottiaux, S. and van der Schyff, G., ‘Methods of International Human Rights Adjudication’, (2008) 31 Hastings International & Comparative Law Review 115Google Scholar, at 135.
48 Scottiaux and van der Schyff, ibid., at 131 et seq.; Greer, S., ‘Constitutionalizing Adjudication Under the European Convention on Human Rights’, (2003) 23 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 405, at 426CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
51 The interest and well-being of children and social and cultural ties have been mentioned for the first time in Üner, supra note 32, at para. 58, and are part of the Court's jurisprudence on the protection against expulsion ever since.
52 See supra note 34.
53 For a critique of the role of the margin of appreciation doctrine in the justification of interferences with Art. 8 ECHR see Farahat, A., ‘The Exclusiveness of Inclusion: On the Boundaries of Human Rights in Protecting Transnational and Second Generation Migrants’, (2009) 11 EJML 253–69Google Scholar, at 262 et seqq.
54 A. Nußberger, ‘Menschenrechtsschutz im Ausländerrecht’, (2013) Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 1305, at 1310; See also Timocin, supra note 40; Abdulaziz, supra note 39, at § 67; Lamrabti, supra note 40 (all using the particularity of immigration law as an argument for a generally wide discretion of nation-states regarding the decisions on the entry and stay within their territory).
55 Greer, supra note 3, at 170.
56 Ibid., at 166.
57 Farahat, supra note 53, at 260 et seqq.
58 Spijkerboer, T., ‘Structural Instability: Strasbourg Case Law on Children's Family Reunion’, (2009) 11 EJML 271Google Scholar, 276 et seqq.
59 de Hart, B., ‘Love Thy Neighbor: Family Reunification and the Rights of Insiders’, (2009) 11 EJML 235Google Scholar, at 251; de Hart, B., ‘The Right to Domicile of Women with a Migrant Partner in European Immigration Law’, in van Walsum, S. and Spijkerboer, T. (eds.), Women and Immigration Law. New Variations on Classical Feminist Themes (2007), 148–50Google Scholar; Staiano, F., ‘Good Mothers, Bad Mothers: Transnational Mothering in the European Court of Human Rights’ Case Law’, (2013) 15 EJML 155Google Scholar, 161 et seqq., 167 et seqq.
60 Elsewhere, I have argued that the particular scheme of balancing and using the concept of margin of appreciation in this context reverses the burden of proof in a problematic way, Farahat, supra note 53, at 262 et seqq.
61 Berrehab, supra note 33.
62 Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia, Judgment of 16 June 2006, No. 60654/00, ECHR, at para. 53 (the case was later struck out of the list by the Grand Chamber); Aristimuno Mendizabal v. France, Judgment of 17 January 2006, No. 51431/99, ECHR; Mayeka and Mitunga v. Belgium, Judgment of 12 October 2006, No. 13178/03, ECHR, at paras. 39–40; Üner, supra note 32, at paras. 35–8; Maslov, supra note 32, at paras. 33–44; Mutlag v. Allemagne, Judgment of 25 March 2010, No. 40601/05, ECHR; Tabrelsi v. Germany, Judgment of 13 October 2011, No. 41548/06, ECHR; Kurić and Others v. Slovenia, Judgment of 26 June 2012, No. 26828/06, ECHR, at paras. 216–28.
63 Sisojeva, supra note 62, at 105.
64 Kurić, supra note 62, at 359.
65 Ibid., at 216–17.
66 Ibid., at 218.
67 Ibid., at 219.
68 Ibid., at 220–1.
69 Ibid., at 222–3.
70 Ibid., at 224.
71 Ibid., at 226.
72 Ibid., at 227.
73 Ibid., at 228.
74 See Aristimuno Mendizabal, supra note 62, at para. 79.
75 Ibid., at 29–35.
76 Ibid., at 75 et seqq.
77 See Mayeka and Mitunga, supra note 62, at paras. 80–7.
79 See Üner, supra note 32, at paras. 35–8.
83 See Maslov, supra note 32, at paras. 36–8.
84 Ibid., at paras. 39–43.
85 Ibid., at para. 44. Art. 4 of this directive (EC/2003/109, OJ L 16, 23 January 2004, at 44–53) defines as a long-term migrant every person who has lawfully resided in a member state for at least five years. Art. 12 of the directive provides enhanced protection against expulsion for long-term migrants and entails criteria similar to the criteria developed by the ECtHR.
86 Ibid., at para. 100.
87 Ibid., at para. 68.
88 See supra, note 62.
91 Not only does the Court only rarely cite case law produced by other international or domestic courts, but the Court also avoids basing its judgment on the instruments listed and acknowledged as ‘relevant law’. On the Court's practice of citation, see Voeten, E., ‘Borrowing and Non borrowing among International Courts’, (2010) 39 The Journal of Legal Studies 547CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 557 et seqq.
92 Dissenting Opinion of judges Costa, Zupancic, and Türmen in Üner, supra note 32, at para. 7.
93 Ibid., at para. 9.
94 Ibid., at paras. 17 and 18.
95 Concurring Opinion of judge Rozakis on Kaya, supra note 39, at para. 1.
96 Ibid., at para. 3.
97 Bernhardt, R., ‘Evolutive Treaty Interpretation’, (2000) 41 German Yearbook of International Law 11, at 17Google Scholar et seq.; Brems, E., ‘The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights’, (1996) 56 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 240, at 306 et seqGoogle Scholar.
98 Marckx v. Belgium, Judgment of 13 June 1979, [1979] ECHR (Ser. A), at para. 41.
99 Dupuy, P.-M., ‘Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties: Between Memory and Prophecy’, in Cannizzaro, E. (ed.), The Law of Treaties beyond the Vienna Convention (2011), 123, at 135Google Scholar.
100 O’Donnell, T. A., ‘The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Standards in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights’, (1982) 4 HRQ 474CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 480.
102 See Yourow, supra note 101, at 124; O’Donnell, supra, note 100; Hutchinson, M. R., ‘The Margin of Appreciations Doctrine in the European Court of Human Rights’, (1999) 48 ICLQ 638CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 640.
103 See Hutchinson, supra, note 102, at 640; see also Handyside v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 December 1976, [1976] ECHR (Ser. A), at para. 48.
104 Council Directive 2003/109/EC on the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, OJ L 16, 2004, at 44–53.
105 Ibid., at Recital Nr. 3.
106 See Dupuy, supra note 99, at 125 et seq.
107 See Yourow, supra note 101, at 159. On the practice of autonomous interpretation in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR more generally, see Letsas, G., ‘The Truth in Autonomous Concepts’, (2004) 15 EJIL 279CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 281 et seqq.
108 ‘Object and purpose’ serve as a general rule of interpretation according to Art. 31(1) of the VCLT, 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331.
109 Helfer, L. R., ‘Consensus, Coherence and the European Convention on Human Rights’, (1993) 26 Cornell Int’l L.J. 133, at 154Google Scholar; G. Letsas, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (2007), 123 et seqq.; Benvinisti, E., ‘Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, and Universal Standards’, (1998–1999) 31 N.Y.U. Journal of Int’l L. & Pol. 843, at 851 et seq.Google Scholar;
110 I. Venzke, How Interpretation Makes International Law – On Semantic Change and Normative Twists (2012), 197.
111 On this aspect, see Helfer, L. R. and Slaughter, A.-M., ‘Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication’, (1997) 107 Yale LJ 273CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 314, 316 et seqq. (stressing the need for incrementalism in order to ensure effectiveness).
112 See Voeten, supra, note 91, at 564.
113 Jacobs, F. G., ‘Judicial Dialogue and Cross-Fertilization of Legal Systems: The European Court of Justice’, (2003) 38 TexIntlLJ 547, at 553Google Scholar.
114 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 364, 18 December 2000, at 8.
115 Slaughter, A.-M., ‘A Typology of Transjudicial Communication’, (1994) 29 URichLRev 99, at 100Google Scholar et seq.
116 See Helfer and Slaughter, supra note 111, at 323 et seqq.
117 Strategic consideration as a motivation for citing external authorities is also identified by Voeten, supra note 91, at 556.
118 See notes 29 and 30; for the ratification of ILO conventions see: <www.ilo.org/ilolex/>.
119 Sir I. Sinclair, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1984), 139.
120 On this principle, see McLachlan, C., ‘The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention’, (2005) 54 ICLQ 279CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 294.
121 Demir and Baykara v. Turkey, Judgment of 12 November 2008, No. 34503/97, ECHR, at paras. 37–52, 147–54; Enerji Yapi-Yol Sen v. Turkey, Judgment of 31 April 2009, No. 68959/01, ECHR, at para. 16.
122 Demir and Baykara, supra note 121, at 65–8, 85–6.
123 F. C. Ebert and M. Oelz, ‘Bridging the Gap between Labour Rights and Human Rights: The Role of the ILO in Regional Human Rights Courts’, (2012) International Institute for Labour Studies <www.ilo.org>, at 10; Norheide, R., ‘Demir and Baykara v. Turkey’ (case note), (2009) 103 AJIL 567Google Scholar, at 571 et seq. The last decision denying a right to strike was UNISON v. United Kingdom, Decision of 10 January 2002, No. 53574/99, ECHR.
124 On the use of legal developments outside the Council of Europe in order to justify overruling by the Court, see Mowbray, A., ‘An Examination of the European Court of Human Rights’ Approach to Overruling its Previous Case Law’, (2009) 9 Hum. Rts. L. Rev 179Google Scholar, at 194 et seqq. On the role of precedent for justification an legitimation in international adjudication, see Von Bogdandy, A. and Venzke, I., ‘The Spell of Precedents’, in Romano, C., Alter, K., and Shany, Y. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (2014), 503Google Scholar.
125 See Demir and Baykara, supra note 121, at 85.
126 See Norheide, supra note 123, at 573.
127 See Wildhaber, supra note 38, at 163.
128 Besson, S., ‘European Human Rights, Supranational Judicial Review and Democracy’, in Popelier, P., Van De Heyning, C., and Van Nuffel, P., Human Rights Protection in The European Legal Order: The Interaction Between the European and the National Courts (2011), 97, at 108Google Scholar et seqq.
129 von Bogdandy, A. and Venzke, I., ‘In Whose Name? In Investigation of International Courts’ Public Authority and its Democratic Justification’, (2012) 23 EJIL 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 36 et seq. (arguing that systemic integration enhances democratic justification). For external references in the jurisprudence of the IACHR, see G. L. Neuman, ‘Import, Export, and Regional Consent in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’, (2008) 19 EJIL, 101, at 111 et seqq.
130 On the debate in US constitutional law see only J. Waldron, ‘Foreign Law and the Modern Ius Gentium’, (2005) 119 Havard Law Review 129 and the other comments on the Supreme Court Term 2004 in the same issue; on the use of foreign law by domestic courts see in general Benvinisti, E., ‘Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses of Foreign and International Law by National Courts’, (2008) 102 AJIL 241CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
131 See Greer, supra note 3, at 169 et seqq.
132 See Besson, supra note 128.
133 BVerfG, 2 BvR 304/07, decision of 10 May 2007, at paras. 41 et seqq. German expulsion law links certain facts (such as particular criminal offences) to either an automatic mandatory expulsion.
134 Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift zum Aufenthaltsgesetz (General Administrative Regulation on the Residence Act), available at: <http://www.verwaltungsvorschriften-im-internet.de/pdf/BMI-MI3–20091026-SF-A001.pdf> (last visited 8 January 2014).
136 Savasci v. Germany, Decision of 19 March 2013, No. 45971/08, ECHR.
137 See Tabrelsi, supra note 62, para. 62 et seq.
138 Ibid., para. 64.
139 Ibid., para. 63.
140 For a critique of the incoherence particularly resulting from the margin of appreciation doctrine, see St. MacDonald, R., ‘The Margin of Appreciation’, in Macdonald, R. St. J., Matscher, F., and Petzold, H. (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (1993), at 85Google Scholar.
141 On this principle, see Helfer, L. R., ‘Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime’, (2008) 19 EJIL 125CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
142 Ibid., at 141 et seqq.
