Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-v2srd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T08:12:19.632Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Comparative Reasoning in Human Rights Adjudication: The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights Compared

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Christopher McCrudden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This chapter examines the relationship between the methods that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) use to decide disputes that involve ‘human’ or ‘fundamental’ rights claims, and the substantive outcomes that result from the use of these particular methods. It has a limited aim: in attempting to understand the interrelationship between human rights methodology and human rights outcomes, it considers primarily the use of ‘comparative reasoning’ in ‘human’ and ‘fundamental’ rights claims by these courts. It is not primarily concerned with examining the extent to which the use of comparative reasoning is based on an appropriate methodology or whether there is a persuasive normative theory underpinning the use of comparative reasoning. The issues considered in this chapter do some of the groundwork, however, that is necessary in order to address these methodological and normative questions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 15 , 2013 , pp. 383 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 McCrudden, C, ‘A Common Law of Human Rights?: Transnational Judicial Conversations on Constitutional Rights’ (2000) 20(4) OJLS 499 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See generally Waldron, J, ‘Partly Laws Common to All Mankind’: Foreign Law in American Courts (New Haven, Yale University Press, 2012)Google Scholar for an account of the practice and discussion of the controversy in the US.

3 See, eg, Groppi, T and Ponthoreau, M-C, The Use of Foreign Precedents by Constitutional Court Judges (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013)Google Scholar.

4 See, eg, Mahoney, P, ‘The Comparative Method in Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: Reference Back to National Law’ in Canivet, G, Andenas, M and Fairgrieve, D (eds), Comparative Law before the Courts (London, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2004) 135 Google Scholar; Bernhardt, R, ‘Comparative Law in the Interpretation and Application of the European Convention on Human Rights’ in Busuttil, S (ed), Mainly Human Rights: Studies in Honour of JJ Cremona (Valetta, Fondation Internationale Malte, 1999) 33 Google Scholar; Dzehtsiarou, K and Lukashevich, V, ‘Informed Decision-Making: The Comparative Endeavours of the Strasbourg Court’ (2012) 30(3) Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ambrus, M, ‘Comparative Law Method in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the Light of the Rule of Law’ (2009) 2(3) Erasmus Law Review 353 Google Scholar; Carozza, PG, ‘Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law in International Human Rights: Some Reflections on the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights’ (1997–98) 73 Notre Dame Law Review 1217 Google Scholar.

5 See, eg, Baudenbacher, C, ‘Judicial Globalization: New Development or Old Wine in New Bottles?’ (2003) 38 Texas International Law Journal 505 Google Scholar; Herzog, P, ‘United States Supreme Court Cases in the Court of Justice of the European Communities’ (1997–98) 21 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 903 Google Scholar; Lenaerts, K, ‘Interlocking Legal Orders in the European Union and Comparative Law’ (2003) 52 ICLQ 873 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maduro, MP, ‘Interpreting European Law: Judicial Adjudication in a Context of Constitutional Pluralism’ (2007) 1(2) European Journal of Legal Studies Google Scholar; Kakouris, CN, ‘Use of the Comparative Method by the Court of Justice of the European Communities’ (1994) 6 Pace International Law Review 267 Google Scholar; Hilf, M, ‘The Role of Comparative Law in the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Communities’ in de Mestral, A et al (eds), La Limitation des Droits de L’Homme en Droit Constitutionnel Compare (Quebec, Les Editions Yvon Blais Inc, 1986)Google Scholar; Wasenstriner, BB, ‘Common Tradition of All Member States: The Courts Method of Defining the EU Human Rights Standards’ in Gries, T and Alleweldt, R (eds), Human Rights within the European Union (Berlin, BWV, 2004) 27 Google Scholar; Colneric, N, ‘Die Rolle der Rechtsvergleichung in der Praxis des EuGH’ in Gries, T and Alleweldt, R (eds), Human Rights within the European Union (Berlin, BWV, 2004) 316 Google Scholar. When this article was in proof, de Búrca, Gráinne drew my attention to the article, ‘After the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: The Court of Justice as a Human Rights Adjudicator’ (2013) 20(2) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Peoples, LF, ‘The Use of Foreign Law by the Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European Communities’ (2007–08) 35 Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 219 Google Scholar; Peoples, LF, ‘The Influence of Foreign Law Cited in the Opinions of Advocates General on Community Law’ (2009) 28 Yearbook of European Law 458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Senden, H, Interpretation of Fundamental Rights in a Multilevel Legal System: An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union (Cambridge, Intersentia, 2011), ch 6 Google Scholar, ‘Comparative Interpretation’; Douglas-Scott, S, ‘A Tale of Two Courts: Luxembourg, Strasbourg and the Growing European Human Rights Acquis ’ (2006) 43 CML Rev 629 Google Scholar; Jacobs, FG, ‘Between Luxembourg and Strasbourg: Dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice’ in Epiney, A, Haag, M and Heinemann, A (eds), Challenging Boundaries: Essays in Honour of Roland Bieber (Baden-Baden, Nomos und Dike, 2007) 205 Google Scholar.

8 See, eg, Robin-Olivier, S, ‘European Legal Method from a French Perspective. The Magic of Combinations: Uses and Abuses of the Globalisation of Sources by European Courts’ in Neergaard, U, Nielsen, R and Roseberry, L (eds), European Legal Method: Paradoxes and Revitalisation (Copenhagen, DJØF Publishing, 2011)Google Scholar; K Dzehtsiarou, ‘Does Consensus Matter? Legitimacy of European Consensus in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights’ [2011] Public Law 534.

9 See, eg, Maduro (n 4), who distinguishes between ‘external’ and ‘internal’ pluralism. See also Senden (n 7) 115.

10 Dzehtsiarou (n 8) 549.

11 Case 4/73 Nold, Kohlen- nund Baustoffgroßhandlung v Commission of the European Communities [1974] ECR 491 [13].

12 A few examples must suffice: in Vinter and others v UK App Nos 66069/09 and 130/10 and 3896/10 (ECtHR, 9 July 2013) [73]–[75], the Court referred to cases from the Canadian Supreme Court, the South African Constitutional Court, the United States Supreme Court, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Supreme Court of Mauritius, the Namibian Supreme Court and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. In Hirst v UK (No 2) App No 74025/01 (ECtHR, 6 October 2005) (2006) 42 EHRR 41 [35]–[39], the Grand Chamber referred to cases from Canada and South Africa, while in Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK App No 8139/09 (ECtHR, 17 January 2012) (2012) 55 EHRR 1, the Court referred to Canadian cases at [152]–[154].

13 Case C-415/05 P Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities [2008] ECR I-6351, Opinion of AG Maduro [34] (US) and [45] (Israel).

14 In Cyprus v Turkey App No 25781/94 (ECtHR, 10 May 2001) (2002) 35 EHRR 30, the ECtHR relied on the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Namibia (1971) ICJ Reports 16.

15 In Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey App Nos 46827/99 and 46951/99 (ECtHR, 4 February 2005) (2005) 41 EHRR 25 [46]–[53], the Grand Chamber referred to the case law of the ICJ and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. See also Research Division, European Court of Human Rights, Research Report: References to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (Council of Europe, 2012), which describes a survey of references in any part of the Court’s judgments (facts and law), including separate opinions of judges, identifying a total of 25 cases.

16 Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and others v Russia App Nos 55066/00 and 55638/00 (ECtHR, 11 January 2007) (2008) 46 EHRR 39 [70]–[73]; Parti Nationaliste Basque—Organisation Regionale d’Iparralde v France App No 71251/01 (ECtHR, 7 June 2007) (2008) 47 EHRR 47 [45]–[52]; Çilog˘lu and Others v Turkey App No 73333/01 (ECtHR, 6 March 2007) [17].

17 Kurt v Turkey App No 24276/94 (ECtHR, 25 May 1998) (1999) 27 EHRR 373 [65]; Frette v France App No 36515/97 (ECtHR, 26 February 2002) (2004) 38 EHRR 21 (joint partly dissenting Opinion of Judges Bratza, Fuhrmann and Tulkens, note 54); Py v France App No 66289/01 (ECtHR, 6 June 2005) (2006) 42 EHRR 26 [63]; Issa v Turkey App No 31821/96 (ECtHR, 16 November 2004) (2005) 41 EHRR 27 [71]; Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey App Nos 46827/99 and 46951/99 (ECtHR, 4 February 2005) (2005) 41 EHRR 25 [40]; Öcalan v Turkey App No 46221/99 (ECtHR, 12 May 2005) (2005) 41 EHRR 45 [60]; Riener v Bulgaria App No 46343/99 (ECtHR, 23 May 2006) (2007) 45 EHRR 32 [84]–[85]; Saadi v UK App No 13229/03 (ECtHR, 29 January 2008) (2008) 47 EHRR 17 [31]. See generally Andenas, M and Fairgrieve, D, ‘“There is a World Elsewhere”—Lord Bingham and Comparative Law’ in Andenas, M and Fairgrieve, D (eds), Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law: A Liber Amicorum (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011)Google Scholar.

18 See also European Court of Human Rights, Press Unit, ‘Factsheet: Use of International Conventions by the European Court of Human Rights’, November 2012.

19 Case C-396/11 Ministerul Public—Parchetul de pe lânga˘ Curtea de Apel Constant¸ a v Ciprian Vasile Radu [2013] All ER (EC) 410, Opinion of AG Sharpston, 18 October 2012, at note 55; Demir and Baykara v Turkey App No 34503/97 (ECtHR, 12 November 2008) (2009) 48 EHRR 54 [73].

20 Vinter and others v UK (n 12) [69]–[71] (BVerfGE), [73] (Supreme Court of Canada) and [72] (Italian Constitutional Court).

21 The external/international and the external/domestic are closely related to the distinction between semi-horizontal and vertical developed in Rosas, A, ‘With a Little Help from My Friends: International Case-Law as a Source of Reference for the EU Courts’ (2005) 5(1) The Global Community: Yearbook of International Law & Jurisprudence 203, 205 Google Scholar.

22 Article 6(2) of the Treaty Establishing the European Union (the Maastricht Treaty).

23 Under EU law, the Lisbon Treaty (art 6(2) TEU) provides that the EU shall accede to the ECHR. Under ECHR law, Protocol No 14 ECHR provides the legal basis for the possibility of EU accession to the Convention. A draft accession agreement was concluded on 5 April 2013 and is available at: www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/hrpolicy/accession/Meeting_reports/47_1(2013)008rev2_EN.pdf.

24 Douglas-Scott (n 7).

25 Douglas-Scott, S, ‘The European Union and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon’ (2011) 11(4) Human Rights Law Review 645 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 657 (on the ECtHR’s citation of the CJEU); Douglas-Scott (n 7) 644 (on the CJEU’s citation of the ECtHR).

26 DH v Czech Republic App No 57325/00 (ECtHR, 13 November 2007) (2008) 47 EHRR 3.

27 The Court discussed the following cases: Case 152/73 Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost [1974] ECR 153; Case 170/84 Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz [1986] ECR 1607; Case C-167/97 R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Seymour-Smith [1999] ECR I-623; Case C-256/01 Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College [2004] ECR I-873; Case C-147/03 Commission of the European Communities v Austria [2005] ECR I-5969.

28 DH v Czech Republic (n 26) [187].

29 Case C-109/10 P Solvay SA v European Commission [2012] 4 CMLR 1. The CJEU did not adopt the conclusions of the Advocate General.

30 Ibid, AG’s Opinion [255].

31 Ibid [257].

32 Eg, a delegation from the CJEU, headed by its President, Vassilios Skouris, paid a working visit to the ECtHR on 3 October 2011.

33 Douglas-Scott (n 7) 657 is hesitant to term it ‘harmonization’, preferring ‘parallel development’.

34 In Case C-94/00 Roquette Frères [2002] ECR I-9011 [29], the ECJ reversed its position, following ECtHR decisions that had rejected the approach adopted in Cases 46/87 and 222/98 Hoechst [1989] ECR 2859 [18].

35 Joint Communication from Presidents Costa and Skouris [2007] OJ C303/17.

36 Although the Explanations to the Charter, and its Preamble, do refer to the case law of the ECtHR.

37 Case C-400/10 PPU McB v E [2011] 3 WLR 699 [53].

38 For a striking example, see Radu (n 19) Opinion of AG Sharpston [82], in which the Advocate General recommended that EU protections should exceed those established by the ECtHR regarding extradition. There are also, for example, significant substantive differences between the courts in the areas of sex discrimination (see Burri, SD, ‘Towards More Synergy in the Interpretation of the Prohibition of Sex Discrimination in European Law? A Comparison of Legal Contexts and Some Case Law of the EU and the ECHR’ (2013) 9(1) Utrecht Law Review 80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar) and the right to strike (see Veldman, A, ‘The Protection of the Fundamental Right to Strike within the Context of the European Internal Market: Implications of the Forthcoming Accession of the EU to the ECHR’ (2013) 9(1) Utrecht Law Review 104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

39 For the use of the comparative method in determining the ‘margin of appreciation’ in the ECtHR, see A Stone Sweet and TL Brunell, ‘Trustee Courts and the Judicialization of International Regimes: The Politics of Majoritarian Activism in the ECHR, the EU, and the WTO’, draft of 6 August 2012, at 27, available on SSRN. The ‘margin of appreciation’ has no exact equivalent in the CJEU, which accords a less prominent role to any such ‘margin’; see Costa, J-P, ‘On the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judgments’ (2011) 7 European Constitutional Law Review 173, 180CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Cf Case C-84/95 Bosphorus v Minister of Transport, Ireland [1996] ECR I-3953, Opinion of AG Jacobs [53]: ‘for practical purposes the Convention can be regarded as part of Community law’.

41 For a relatively rare example of judicial criticism, see the dissenting opinion of Judge Borrego Borrego in DH v Czech Republic (n 26) [5], in which he notes, impliedly in a critical way, the extensive nature of the materials the Court drew on, including ‘“other sources” (three pages, which, curiously, with the exception of the reference to the European Monitoring Centre, are taken exclusively from the Anglo-American system, that is, the House of Lords and the United States Supreme Court)’. See Dzehtsiarou (n 8) on academic criticism that the method of determining whether a European consensus exists was ad hoc, inconsistent and unsystematic; see also Ambrus (n 4) 354: ‘The comparative law method applied by the ECtHR has invited severe criticism. It has been argued, inter alia, that in the case law of the Court the comparison is carried out randomly, that it is superficial and that it is interpreted arbitrarily.’

42 Above, nn 4 and 5.

43 As recently as 2004, Paul Mahoney, the then Deputy Registrar of the ECtHR, observed that: ‘On the most basic level, the Registry of the Court simply does not have—or, does rather, not yet have—the resources to staff a proper research unit or to provide adequate library facilities with comparative materials’: Mahoney (n 4) 148.

44 European Court of Human Rights, Annual Report 2012 (Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, 2013) para 3.2: ‘The Research Division is attached to the Jurisconsult’s Office and its principal task is to provide research reports to assist the Grand Chamber and Sections in the examination of pending cases.’ On the ECtHR, see further Dzehtsiarou and Lukashevich (n 4) 295. On the CJEU, see Lenaerts (n 4) 875; and Singer, P and Engel, J-C, ‘L’importance de la recherché comparative pour la justice communautaire’ (2007) 134(2) Journal du Droit International 497 Google Scholar.

45 Hirst v UK (No 2) (n 12).

46 Ibid [35].

47 Sauvé v Canada (No 1) [1993] 2 SCR 438.

48 Sauvé v Attorney General of Canada (No 2) [2002] 3 SCR 519.

49 August and another v Electoral Commission and others (CCT8/99) 1999 (3) SA 1.

50 Hirst v UK (No 2) (n 12) [81].

51 Joint dissenting Opinion of Judges Wildhaber, Costa, Lorenzen, Kovler and Jebens.

52 Hirst v UK (No 2) (n 12) [6].

53 Ibid, emphasis added.

54 Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK (n 12).

55 India v Singh (1996) 108 CCC (3d) 274.

56 Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK (n 12) [273].

57 Ibid [275].

58 Ibid [291].

59 Pretty v UK App No 2346/02 (ECtHR, 29 April 2002) (2002) 35 EHRR 1.

60 Rodriguez v Attorney General of Canada [1994] 2 LRC 136.

61 Pretty v UK (n 59) [66].

62 Ibid [67].

63 Ibid [74].

64 Appleby v UK App No 44306/98 (ECtHR, 6 May 2003) (2003) 37 EHRR 38.

65 The US cases referred to comprised both federal cases and state courts. The main federal cases were: Hague v Committee for Industrial Organisation 307 US 496 (1939); Marsh v Alabama 326 US 501 (1946); Hudgens v NLRB 424 US 507 (1976); Lloyd Corp v Tanner 47 US 551 (1972); Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robbins 447 US 74 (1980).

66 Harrison v Carswell 62 DLR 3d 68 (1975); R v Layton 38 CCC 3d 550 (1986) (Provincial Court, Judicial District of York, Ontario); Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v Canada [1991] 1 SCR 139.

67 Appleby v UK (n 64) [38].

68 Ibid [46]. It is noteworthy that when an equivalent approach to foreign case law is not adopted by the Court, some dissenting opinions consider it important to fill the vacuum; see Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v Switzerland App No 16354/06 (ECtHR, 13 July 2012) (2013) 56 EHRR 14, joint dissenting Opinion of Judges Sajó, Lazarova Trajkovska and Vucinic, Appendix.

69 Goodwin v UK App No 28957/95 (ECtHR, 11 July 2002) (2002) 35 EHRR 18.

70 Ibid [56].

71 Attorney General v Otahuhu Family Court [1995] 1 NZLR 60.

72 Re Kevin [2001] FamCA 1074.

73 Goodwin v UK (n 69) [56].

74 Ibid [64].

75 Ibid [84].

76 Ibid.

77 Ibid [85].

78 Ibid. In Schalk and Kopf v Austria App No 30141/04 (ECtHR, 24 June 2010) (2011) 53 EHRR 20, on the other hand, the Court did not consider that judgments from the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the Courts of Appeal of Ontario and British Columbia in Canada, and the Supreme Courts of California, Connecticut, Iowa and Massachusetts in the US, which had found that denying same-sex couples access to civil marriage was discriminatory, outweighed the fact that (at [58]): ‘there is no European consensus regarding same-sex marriage. At present no more than six out of forty-seven Convention States allow same-sex marriage’.

79 Vinter and others v UK (n 12).

80 Ibid [99].

81 Judgment of 27 June 1974 (204/1974); Judgment of 7 November 1974 (264/1974); Judgment of 21 September 1983 (274/1983); Judgment of 24 June 1997 (161/1997).

82 Life Imprisonment case of 21 June 1977, 45 BVerfGE 187; War Criminal case 72 BVerfGE 105 (1986); Decision of 16 January 2010, BVerfG, 2 BvR 2299/09.

83 Vinter and others v UK (n 12) [99].

84 Ibid [92].

85 R v Smith (Edward Dewey) [1987] 1 SCR 1045; R v Luxton [1990] 2 SCR 711; R v Latimer [2001] 1 SCR 3.

86 Dodo v The State (CCT 1/01) [2001] ZACC 16; Niemand v The State (CCT 28/00) [2001] ZACC 11.

87 Graham v Florida 130 S Ct 2011 (2010).

88 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: De Boucherville v The State of Mauritius [2008] UKPC 70; Supreme Court of Mauritius: State v Philibert [2007] SCJ 274; Namibian Supreme Court: State v Tcoeib [1997] 1 LRC 90; High Court of Namibia: State v Vries 1997 4 LRC 1 and State v Likuwa [2000] 1 LRC 600; Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal: Lau Cheong v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [2002] HKCFA 18.

89 Vinter and others v UK (n 12) [120].

90 Ibid [121].

91 Dzehtsiarou (n 8) 549.

92 In other respects, the cases illustrate a degree of ‘parallelism’. See Jacobs (n 7) 212–13, who notes that in both cases the CJEU ‘speaks, it may be thought, like a human rights court’.

93 Case C-112/00 Schmidberger v Austria [2003] ECR I-5659.

94 R v Chief Constable of Sussex ex parte International Traders Ferry Ltd [1999] 2 AC 418.

95 Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs GmbH v Bundesstadt Bonn [2004] ECR I-9609.

96 Ibid, AG’s Opinion [74].

97 Pretty v UK (n 59).

98 Communication No 854/1999: France 26/7/2002 CCPR/C/75/D/854/1999 (the famous dwarf-throwing case).

99 Instead, there is extensive reference to (mostly French and German) legal commentary.

100 Radu (n 19).

101 Ibid [77].

102 Ibid [82].

103 Ibid.

104 Ibid [83].

105 Ibid [84].

106 Ibid [85].

107 See, eg, the Opinion of AG Maduro in Case C-438/05 Viking Line [2007] ECR I-10779 [39], note 38, giving examples of domestic case law in which national courts construed horizontal effect in this manner ‘of which I shall name only a random few’. The ‘random few’ are all courts of EU Member States, except for ‘two classic examples from the United States’: Shelley v Kraemer 334 US 1 (1948) and New York Times Co v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964).

107a Cp, de Búrca, note 5, 176.

108 Baudenbacher (n 5) 513; Herzog (n 5) 918–19.

109 LF Peoples, ‘The Influence of Foreign Law Cited in the Opinions of Advocates General on Community Law’ (n 6) 495: the most influential foreign law subject was intellectual property law; the second most influential foreign law subject was the antitrust law of the US; the next most influential areas were US criminal law, US federal-state relations including the commerce clause, and anti-discrimination law.

110 In Case C-13/94 P v S and Cornwall County Council [1996] ECR I-2143, the Advocate General referred to case law in US courts that both rejected and approved claims that dismissal of transsexuals constituted a discrimination on grounds of sex. In C-450/93 Kalanke [1995] ECR I-3051, AG Tesauro referred to the judgments of the US Supreme Court in Regents of the University of California v Bakke 483 US 265 (1978), United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v Webster 443 US 193 (1979) and City of Richmond v Croson 488 US 469 (1989). In Case C-109/91 Ten Oever and Coloroll [1993] ECR I-4879, AG Van Gervan relied heavily on City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v Manhart and Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred Compensation Plans v Norris 435 US 702 (1978), as did AG Sharpston in C-227/04 P Lindorfer v Council [2007] ECR I-6767, AG Jacobs in Case C-227/04P Lindorfer v Council [2007] ECR I-06767 [57] and AG Kokott in Case C-236/09 Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL and others [2011] 2 CMLR 38 [70]. See LF Peoples, ‘The Influence of Foreign Law Cited in the Opinions of Advocates General on Community Law’ (n 6), in which he notes that the AGs’ use of US discrimination case law may have declined, except in scrutinising the use of gender-related actuarial calculations.

111 For example, particularly Lord Lester QC, counsel in Case 96/80 Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd [1981] ECR 911, which first used US case law (Griggs v Duke Power Co 401 US 424 (1971)) to develop the concept of indirect discrimination in the interpretation of art 119 of the EEC Treaty and of art 1 of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975.

112 See the discussion of the early development in Docksey, C, ‘The Principle of Equality Between Women and Men as a Fundamental Right Under Community Law’ (1991) 20(4) Industrial Law Journal 258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 See, in particular: AG Maduro’s Opinion in Al Barakaat International Foundation (n 13) [34] (citing Justice Murphy’s dissent in Korematsu v United States 323 US 214 (1944)) and at [45] (citing Justice Aharon Barak of the Supreme Court of Israel in HCJ 769/02 [2006] The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel et al v The Government of Israel et al); AG Sharpston’s Opinion in Case C-427/06 Bartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfü rsorge GmbH, [2008] ECR I-7245 [45] (citing Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 349 US 294 (1954) and Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v Ferguson 163 US 537 (1896)); Opinion of AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Case C-228/07 Petersen v Arbeitsmarktservice Niederösterreich [2008] ECR I-6989 [30] (citing Dred Scott v Sandford (60 US (19 How) 393 (1856) and Justice Cardozo in Baldwin v GAF Seelig 294 US 511 (1935)).

114 Senden (n 7) 363.

115 For a discussion of ‘epistemic communities’, see Haas, PM, ‘Introduction, Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination’, (1992) 46 International Organization 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

116 Beitz, C, The Idea of Human Rights (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009) 44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

117 The caveat is important. There are clear trends in other directions, for example, the ECtHR jurisprudence where the outcome does not appear to be based on a ‘middle-line’ or compromise, such as in Goodwin v UK (n 69) and the early seminal decision in Marckx v Belgium (1979–80) 2 EHRR 330.

118 Lenaerts (n 4) 906 (emphasis added). See also Wasenstriner (n 5) 37: ‘the Court chooses the national solution which best fits into the structure in purposes of the Community’.

119 Walker, N, ‘The Migration of Constitutional Ideas and the Migration of the Constitutional Idea’ in Choudhry, S (ed), The Migration of Constitutional Ideas (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007) 316, 324CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

120 I realise, of course, that there is considerable scholarly debate on the issue. Contrast A Stone Sweet, ‘On the Constitutionalisation of the Convention: The European Court of Human Rights as a Constitutional Court’ (October 2009), available on SSRN, who argues that the ECtHR is a constitutional court, with Greer, S, The European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Wildhaber, L, ‘A Constitutional Future for the European Court of Human Rights?’ (2002) 23 Human Rights Law Journal 161 Google Scholar. G Letsas, ‘The ECHR as a Living Instrument: Its Meaning and Legitimacy’ 1, available on SSRN, captures the limited point I want to make: ‘human rights treaties, unlike a constitution, are not meant to contain all the fundamental principles of a political community; they are not meant to constitute a system of political organization for a particular people’ (emphasis added).

121 Douglas-Scott (n 7) 649.

122 Weiler, JHH, ‘Eurocracy and Distrust’ (1986) 61 Washington Law Review 1103 Google Scholar, 1108 and 1118.

123 Zucca, L, ‘Monism and Fundamental Rights’ in Dickson, J and Eleftheriadis, P (eds), Philosophical Foundations of European Union Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012) 337 Google Scholar: ‘The Court of Justice is in the business of dealing with issues of social economic and political governance. This has a major consequence in terms of fundamental rights: the Court of Justice has to constantly struggle to find the best balance between the preservation of economic freedoms and the protection of other values.’

124 Compare AG Maduro in Case C-415/05 P Al Barakaat International Foundation (n 13) [37]: ‘The duty of the Court of Justice is to act as the constitutional court of the municipal legal order that is the Community.’

124a De Búrca, note 5, 182, of sources that the CJEU ‘may have no conception of itself as an International court, or as a court with Responsibilities Flowing from the International influences expected by its Rulings.’

125 Compare F Tulkens, ‘Introduction: Fifty Years of the European Court of Human Rights viewed by its Fellow International Courts’, Strasbourg, 30 January 2009: ‘we believe that it is necessary for the international bodies concerned to engage in a continuing and permanent dialogue on fundamental rights—a dialogue that should contribute to the development of a true “common law” of human rights. This can be achieved by a process of interaction, as the different international courts learn from and assimilate each other’s case law’. See also Mahoney (n 4) 136–37: ‘The short point is that the ECHR is above all about “law in society”; and, for the Strasbourg Court when seeking to give meaning to inconclusively worded concepts in particular circumstances, “society” is to be understood as comprising not just the ECHR contracting States taken individually or collectively for the purposes of each case but also, more broadly, the international community in its various components.’ See further Ambrus (n 4) 365.

126 Nada v Switzerland App No 10593/08 (ECtHR, 12 September 2012) (2013) 56 EHRR 18 [170].

127 Tulkens (n 125) 3, quoting para 408 of the Report of the International Law Commission, 58th session 2006, UNGA, Official Records, 61st session, Supplement No 10 (A/61/10) 405. See also HE Judge R Higgins, ‘The International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights: Partners for the Protection of Human Rights’, Strasbourg, 30 January 2009, 8.

128 Demir and Baykara v Turkey (n 19) [85] and [86], emphasis added.

129 de Búrca, G, ‘The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi’ (2010) 51(1) Harvard International Law Journal 1 Google Scholar. Although Wilkinson, MA, ‘Political Constitutionalism and the European Union’ (2013) 76(2) MLR 191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar adopts somewhat different terminology, there are similarities in his distinction between ‘freestanding constitutionalism’ and ‘political constitutionalism’.

130 See Rosas, A, ‘The Status in EU Law of International Agreements Concluded by EU Member States’ (2010–11) 34 Fordham International Law Journal 1304 Google Scholar.

131 Merry, SE, Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2006) 228–29Google Scholar, quoted in Beitz (n 116) 38.

132 Beitz (n 116) 8.

133 Ibid, emphasis added.

134 Ibid, emphasis added.

135 See Forowicz, M, The Reception of International Law in the European Court of Human Rights (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010) 377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who notes the selectivity of the Court in using or not using international law in interpreting the ECHR. She argues that the Commission and the Court both adopted a ‘functional approach’ in which their ‘underlying motivation … in referring to international law was the need to reinforce the ECHR system and the protection of human rights at the European level’.

135a See de Búrca, note 5, 174–176.

135b De Búrca, note 5, 180.

136 Douglas-Scott, ‘The EU and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon’ (n 25) 681.

137 Draft accession agreement (n 23).

138 Above, text at nn 43 and 44.

139 For an account of this development, see Shelton, D, ‘The Participation of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings’ (1994) 88 American Journal of International Law 611, 630–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

140 Article 44 of the Rules of Court provide for third parties to apply to the President of a Chamber to intervene in a case before the Court and permission is frequently granted in appropriate cases; see further L van den Eynde, ‘Short Overview of the Litigation Practices of Non-Governmental Organizations before the European Court of Human Rights’ (2011) European Yearbook of Human Rights 539.

141 Dzehtsiarou (n 8) 548–49.

142 Chahal v UK App No 22414/93 (15 November 1996) (1997) 23 EHRR 413.

143 Jenkins, D, ‘There and Back Again: The Strange Journey of Special Advocates and Comparative Law Methodology’ (2011) 42 Columbia Human Rights Law Review 279 Google Scholar.

144 In its Intervention Submission in A v UK App No 3455/05 (ECtHR, 19 February 2009) (2009) 49 EHRR 29, JUSTICE noted, at [13], that ‘it appears that our fellow NGO interveners in Chahal may have inadvertently misapprehended the position in Canada in 1996’.

145 JUSTICE, To Assist the Court: Third Party Interventions in the UK: A JUSTICE Report (London, JUSTICE, 2009) para 47 Google Scholar.

146 Carrera, S and Petkova, B, ‘The Role and Potential of Civil Society and Human Rights Organizations through Third Party Interventions before the European Courts: The Case of the EU Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ in de Witte, B et al (eds), Judicial Activism at the European Court of Justice: Causes, Responses and Solutions (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012)Google Scholar. See also de Búrca, note 5, 177–8.

147 Article 40(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

148 See, eg, Case C-648/11 The Queen (on the Application of MA, BT, and DA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ECJ, 6 June 2013), in which the AIRE Centre intervened; and Case C-411/10 NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 2 CMLR 9, in which Amnesty International, the AIRE Centre, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened. Such interventions may be increasing. For example, the AIRE Centre has significantly increased the number of its interventions in recent years. See: www.airecentre.org/pages/human-rights-litigation.html.

149 Article 3(6) of the draft accession agreement (n 23).

150 See, eg, Amnesty International, International Commission of Jurists and the AIRE Centre, ‘NGO Submissions on EU Accession to ECHR’, November 2012, para 20. Available at: www. airecentre.org/data/files/NGO_Submissions_on_EU_Accession_to_ECHR_16_Nov_2012.pdf.