Quicker way to justice in court of human rights
By Terence Shaw, Legal Correspondent
A REMODELLED European Court of Human Rights designed to end five or six-year delays in resolving alleged violations of the Convention on Human Rights comes into operation in Strasbourg today.
The part-time Commission and Court of Human Rights are being replaced by a permanent court, with judges from the 40 states of the Council of Europe. The need for reform has been brought about by the increase from 13 to 40 member states since the early Fifties. In the past eight years, 17 states have joined the Council of Europe, all but one from the former Iron Curtain bloc.
The number of cases registered at Strasbourg has been mounting steadily. Between 1988 and last year cases increased from 1,000 a year to 4,750. This year has already exceeded 4,475.
As all states joining the Council of Europe have to ratify the Convention on Human Rights and allow individuals to bring cases of alleged violations, there are fears that the number of cases will increase greatly.
The commission is being merged with the court and the 40 judges will normally hear cases in chambers of seven. Instead of the commission deciding whether cases should be declared admissible, and giving an opinion on whether there has been a breach of the convention when there is no settlement, this screening will now be done by the court.
Once an application alleging a violation of the convention is lodged, a judge rapporteur will either refer it to the court or, if there are doubts about whether it should be admitted, to a three-judge committee. If the committee unanimously declares an application inadmissible, there is no appeal. If a case is not unanimously rejected, it will be sent to a seven-judge chamber for a decision.
If a case is given the go-ahead, the parties will be asked for their written submissions and observations. A public hearing may be held before judgment is given.
Where a seven-judge chamber intends not to follow previous law laid down by the court, or when an issue of principle is involved, it may refer the case to a grand chamber of 17 judges. A grand chamber can also hear appeals against seven-judge decisions in exceptional cases only, such as interpretation of the convention. Leave of a five-judge panel will be needed for such a rehearing.
As in the past, judgments of the court will be binding in international law. States against which a successful case is brought will, if necessary, be expected to alter their domestic law to comply with convention obligations.
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe will no longer have jurisdiction to decide the merits of certain cases but it retains its important role of supervising enforcement of judgments.
Nicolas Bratza, QC, 53, Britain’s member on the Strasbourg commission since 1983, has been elected as Britain’s first judge in the new court. He believes that the reformed system for adjudicating on alleged violations of human rights will be more accessible and lead to faster decisions. Mr Bratza said: “Under the old system, a person could wait five or six years to achieve a result. That was clearly not acceptable.”
Chris Krüger, deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, has predicted that a main difficulty will be ensuring compliance with the court’s judgments.
12 October 1998: Rights law runs risk of failure
| 
