The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in the Implementation of Its Own Judgments

Abstract

At the beginning, the European Court of Human Rights “ECtHR” or “the Court” delivered declaratory judgments restricted only to find out whether any provision of the European Convention on Human Rights “ECHR” or “the Convention” and its Additional Protocols were violated in a given application or not. Lately however, ECtHR started to deliver imperative judgments requiring respondent state to stop or remedy the violation, and additionally to take some general or individual measures in domestic law. The judgments qualified as pilot, semi-pilot and quasipilot or judgments delivered under Article 46 of the ECHR require respondent state to take appropriate measures in domestic legal system with a view to remedying violations of the Convention. This paper examines the role of the ECtHR in the implementation of its own judgments and includes three parts. The first part examines the jurisdiction of the ECtHR under Article 46 of the Convention; the second part explores the pilot-judgment procedure and its application; and the last part analyses the judgments of the ECtHR relying on Article 46 of the ECHR.

Keywords

• European Convention on Human Rights,European Court of Human Rights,implementation of the Court’s judgments,pilot-judgment procedure

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Kendi Kararlarının Yerine Getirilmesindeki Rolü

Abstract

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi AİHM veya Mahkeme ilk dönemlerinde yalnızca Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi AİHS veya Sözleşme ve Ek Protokol hükümlerinin somut başvuruda ihlal edilip edilmediğinin belirlenmesiyle sınırlı olarak tespit kararları vermiştir. Ancak AİHM son zamanlarda, davalı devletin ihlali sonlandırması veya telâfi etmesi, ayrıca iç hukukta genel veya özel nitelikte birtakım tedbirler almasını gerektiren emredici nitelikte kararlar vermeye başlamıştır. Pilot, yarı pilot veya pilot benzeri olarak nitelendirilen kararlar ile AİHS’nin 46. maddesine dayanarak verilen diğer kararlar, AİHM’nin tespit ettiği Sözleşme’ye aykırılıkların davalı devlet tarafından iç hukukta giderilmesini gerektirmektedir. AİHM’nin, kendi kararlarının yerine getirilmesindeki rolünü ele alan bu çalışma üç bölümden oluşmaktadır. Birinci bölümde, AİHS’nin 46. maddesi kapsamında AİHM’nin yetkileri, ikinci bölümde, pilot karar usulü ve uygulaması incelenmekte, son bölümde ise AİHM’nin, AİHS’nin 46. maddesine dayanarak verdiği kararlar değerlendirilmektedir.

Keywords

• Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Mahkeme kararlarının yerine getirilmesi, pilot karar usulü

References

1. Cançado Trindade, Antônio Augusto “Compliance with judgments and decisions – The experience of the Inter- American court of Human Rights: a reassessment”, Dialogue between judges – Proceedings of the Seminar 31 January 2014: “Implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: a shared judicial responsibility?”, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, 2014.
2. • Colandrea, Valerio, “On the Power of the European Court of Human Rights to Order Specific Non-Monetary Measures: Some Remarks in Light of the Assanidze, Broniowski and Sejdovic Cases” Human Rights Law Review, 7, 2, 2007.
3. • Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, “Resolution Res(2004)3 of the Committee of Ministers on judgments revealing an underlying systemic problem”, 12 Mayıs 2004, https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/ result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805dd190 (25 Eylül 2018).
4. • Council of Europe, “Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention”, Strasbourg, 13 Mayıs 2004, https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId= 09000016800d380f (25 Eylül 2018).
5. • Cremer, Hans-Joachim, “Prescriptive Orders in the Operative Provisions of Judgments by the European Court of Human Rights: Beyond res judicanda?”, Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – Effects and Implementation, Anja SeibertFohr ve Mark E. Villiger (Ed.), Ashgate-Nomos, Baden Baden, 2014.
6. • European Court of Human Rights, “Preparatory Work on Articles 53 and 54 of the European Court of Human Rights – Information document prepared by the Registry”, Strasbourg, 28 Kasım 1972, https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Travaux/ ECHRTravaux-ART53+54-CDH(72)27-BIL2888506.pdf (25 Eylül 2018).
7. • European Court of Human Rights, Press release issued by the Registrar, ““Bug River” cases adjourned”, 31 Ağustos 2004, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22item id%22:[%22003-1062015-1099568%22]} (25 Eylül 2018).
8. • European Court of Human Rights, Press release issued by the Registrar, “First “pilot judgment” procedure brought to a successful conclusion Bug River cases closed”, 6 Ekim 2008, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22item id%22:[%22003-2510971-2712345%22]} (25 Eylül 2018).

9. • European Court of Human Rights, Press release issued by the Registrar, “European Court closes pilot judgment procedure in Polish “rent-control” cases, following introduction of compensation scheme”, 31 Mart 2011, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-pres s#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-1062015-1099568%22]} (25 Eylül 2018).
10. • European Court of Human Rights, Press release issued by the Registrar, “Pilot judgment: Italy must pay adjusted supplementary allowances in accidental contamination of blood cases”, 3 Eylül 2013, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22item id%22:[%22003-4476922-5394188%22]} (25 Eylül 2018).
11. • European Court of Human Rights, “Factsheet – Pilot judgments”, https://www.echr. coe.int/Documents/ FS_Pilot_judgments_ENG.pdf (25 Eylül 2018).
12. • Fabri, Marco, “The Italian Maze Towards Trials Within Reasonable Time” The right to trial within a reasonable time and short-term reform of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2009.
13. • Fyrnys, Markus, “Expanding Competences by Judicial Lawmaking: The Pilot Judgment Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights”, German Law Journal, 12, 5, 2011.
14. • Gerards, Janneke H. ve Lize R. Glas, “Access to Justice in the European Convention on Human Rights System”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 35, 1, 2017.
15. • Greer, Steven, The Margin of Appreciation: Interpretation and Discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, 2000.
16. • Greer, Steven, “Constitutionalizing Adjudication under the European Convention on Human Rights”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 23, 3, 2003.
17. • Greer, Steven ve LuziusWildhaber, “Revisiting the Debate about ‘constitutionalising’ the European Court of Human Rights” Human Rights Law Review, 12, 4, 2012.
18. • Haider, Dominik, The Pilot Judgment Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2013.
19. • High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, “Brighton Declaration”, 19-20 Nisan 2012, https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/ 2012_ Brighton_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf (25 Eylül 2018).
20. • High Level Conference Meeting in Copenhagen, “Copenhagen Declaration”, 12-13 Nisan 2018, https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Copenhagen_Declaration_ENG.pdf (25 Eylül 2018).
21. • Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu (Ombudsmanlık), 2017 Yıllık Raporu, Ankara, 2018, https:// www.ombudsman.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2017-y%C4%B1ll%C4%B1krapor-SON-PDF.pdf (25 Eylül 2018)
22. • Karakul, Selman, “How Effective are National Remedies in Securing International Justice?”, Rethinking International Law and Justice, Ed: Charles Sampford, Spencer Zifcak ve Derya Aydın Okur, Ashgate Publishing, Farnham, 2015.
23. • Keller, Hellen ve Cedric Marti, “Reconceptualizing Implementation: The Judicialization of the Execution of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judgments”, The European Journal of International Law, 26, 4, 2015.
24. • Kratochvíl, Jan, “The Inflation of the Margin of Appreciation by the European Court of Human Rights”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 29, 3, 2011.
25. • Leach, Philip vd., Responding to Systemic Human Rights Violations: An Analysis of ‘Pilot Judgments’ of the European Court of Human Rights and Their Impact at National Level, Intersentia, Antwerp-Oxford-Portland, 2010.
26. • Mowbray, Alastair, “Subsidiarity and the European Convention on Human Rights” Human Rights Law Review, 15, 2, 2015.
27. • Nifosi-Sutton, Ingrid, “The Power of the European Court of Human Rights to Order Specific Non-Monetary Relief: a Critical Appraisal from a Right to Health Perspective”, Harvard Human Rights Journal, 23, 2010.
28. • Popovic, Dragoljub, “Prevailing of Judicial Activism over Self-Restraint in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights” Creighton Law Review, 42, 2009.
29. • Report of the Group of Wise Persons to the Committee of Ministers, 15 Kasım 2006, https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_ details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805d7893 (25 Eylül 2018).
30. • Sadurski, Wojciech, “Partnering with Strasbourg: Constitutionalisation of the European Court of Human Rights, the Accession of Central and East European States to the Council of Europe, and the Idea of Pilot Judgments”, Human Rights Law Review, 9, 3, 2009.
31. • Sadurski, Wojciech, Constitutionalism and the Enlargement of Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012.
32. • Sainati, Tatiana, “Human Rights Class Actions: Rethinking the Pilot-Judgment Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights”, Harvard International Law Journal, 56, 1, 2015.
33. • Schabas, William A., The European Convention on Human Rights – A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015.
34. • Sicilianos, Linos-Alexander, “The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in the Execution of its own Judgments: Reflections on Article 46 ECHR”, Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – Effects and Implementation, Anja Seibert-Fohr ve Mark E. Villiger (Ed.), Ashgate-Nomos, Baden Baden, 2014.
35. • Spano, Robert, “The Future of the European Court of Human Rights—Subsidiarity, Process-Based Review and the Rule of Law”, Human Rights Law Review, 18, 3, 2018.
36. • The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment of 19 January 2017 No. 1-П/2017, http://www.ksrf.ru/en/Decision/Judgments/Documents/2017_January_19_1 -P.pdf (25 Eylül 2018).
37. • The Right Honourable The Lord Woolf vd., “Review of the Working Methods of the European Court of Human Rights”, Aralık 2005, https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/ 2005_Lord_Woolf_working_methods_ENG.pdf (25 Eylül 2018).
38. • Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, Rule of Law Checklist, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2016.
39. • file:///C:/Users/w7/Downloads/ECHR%20to%20use%20new%20infringement%20 procedure%20in%20case%20concerning%20Azerbaijan%20opposition%20politician%20for%20first%20time.pdf (25 Eylül 2018).
40. • https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“documentcollectionid2”:[“GRANDCHAMBER”,”C HAMBER”]} (25 Eylül 2018).
41. • https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/search-on-treaties/-/conventions/treaty/ results/subject/3 (25 Eylül 2018).
42. • https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_TUR.pdf (25 Eylül 2018).
43. • https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Interim_measures_TUR.pdf (25 Eylül 2018).
44. • https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Pilot_judgments_TUR.pdf (25 Eylül 2018).
45. • https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pilot_judgment_procedure_ENG.pdf (25 Eylül 2018).
46. • https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_Court_TUR.pdf (25 Eylül 2018).
47. • https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_Court_ENG.pdf (25 Eylül 2018).
48. • https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_Court_FRA.pdf (25 Eylül 2018).
49. • https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts/reform&c= (25 Eylül 2018).
50. • https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=# n151871263244221215407 15_pointer (25 Eylül 2018).