No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The European Convention on Human Rights: Merger Proposal for Commission and Court
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 July 2009
Extract
Most European courts face overloading. Therefore the Single European Act has incorporated Article 168A into the lifiC Treaty. According to this article the Court of Justice of the European Communities may request the Council to create a Court of First Instance with a limited jurisdiction. This request has been made by the Court on September 29, 1987; by its decision of October 24,1988 the Council has approved of this request. The reason behind this proposed change in the procedure before the Court of Justice is the enormous pile of cases on the desks of the Judges in Luxembourg. Apart from this, already institutionalised remedy, other ideas are also circulating in Luxembourg with a view to improve the existing practice of the Court of Justice. One of these ideas concerns the possibility of abandoning the institution of Advocates-General by merging them with the corps of judges. Only in cases of exceptional interest one of the judges could act as a Advocate-General. I do not intend, however, to give a full account of the possibilities which have already been put forward in order to improve the working of the Court of Justice. This note will look at the other ‘European Court’, that is, the European Court of Human Rights (European Court), which is one of the organs created by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention). This Court is ill so overloaded with cases, just as its counterpart in Luxembourg. Kill unlike the constitutional changes in the European Communities, none of the proposal measures to improve and accelerate the work of the European Court has been incorporated in an amendment of, or an additional protocol to the European Convention.
- Type
- Current Legal Developments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1989
References
1. See Schcrmcrs, H.G., The European Court of First Instance, 25 Common Market Law Review 541 (1988) andT.R. Ottcrvangcr, EEC Ami-Dumping Law: Assembly Operations; The Court of First Instance, 1 LJIL203–209(1988) Leiden Jnurmil of International Law. and 319 OJ. Eur.Comm.(25Nov. 1988).Google Scholar
2. Jacobsl, F.G., NeucMlcl Colhtuy, 8 liiimin Rights I uw Journal 134 (1987).Google Scholar
3. The number of applications registered by the European Commission rose from 586 in 1984 to 596 in 1985 and 706 in 1986. In the summer of 1988,1,5(X) cases were still pending and 1,100 of those have not yet been looked at. The number of discs referred to the European Court also increased from 12 in 1985 to 25 in 1986 and 21 in 1987. At ihc end of 1987 no less then 33 cases were still waiting for judgment.
4. The most important provision of the Eighth Protocol to the European Convention contains the possibility for the European Commission to compose chambers to examine petitions or committees to decide on the admissability of petitions, in this way the European Commission no longer has to exercise her functions plenarily.
5. Functioning of the organs of the European Convention on Human Rights (Assessment, improvement and reinforcement of the international control machinery set up by the Convention). Report submitted by the Swiss Delegation lo the Eurooan Ministerial Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 19–20 March 198S, published by the Council or Europe as Document MDH (85) 1.
6. Merger of the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights, 8 Human Rights Law Journal Parti (1987).
7. At present all slates parties huvc imidc the declaration or An. 25 in which they recognize the power of the European Commission to rcicivc mid consider individual pclitions. Since 1987, Turkey, Malta and Cyprus have made this declaration. This undoubtedly menus ituii the burden of cases for both European Commission and European Court will increase in ihc nciir lulurc.
8. Report on the improvement of the procedures of the European Convention on Human Rights, prepared by Linstcr, Mr., Doc. 5946. See also I I.O. Schcnncrs, Factual merger of the European Court and Commission of Human Kinhix, CuroK'iui l.iiw Review 350 (I'H6), where a merger is advocated without the prerequisite of an ixlililionul protocol In the European Convention.Google Scholar
9. Franz, MuLschcr and Hcnbrt, prtzold (eds.), Prolcclhig Iliiinun Rights: The European Dimension. Studies in honour of Cérurd j. Wiimlii (I'IKK). See for a review of this book: 1 LJIL 249 (1988).Google Scholar