Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T11:05:10.085Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supervision of the Execution of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: The Committee of Ministers' role under Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Yvonne S. Klerk
Get access

Extract

On 1 November 1998 the long-awaited revision of the supervisory mechanism of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter: Convention or ECHR) will be put into effect. On that date Protocol No. 11 to the ECHR will enter into force.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , May 1998 , pp. 65 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1998

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.)

References

1. At present, this is embodied in Protocol No. 2. So far the Committee has never used this possibility.

Under the present Convention the Committee also has some specific administrative tasks. Thus, the Committee elects the members of the European Commission of Human Rights (Art. 21(1) ECHR); it may decide that the term(s) of office of one or more members of the Commission to be elected shall be for a period other than six years, in order to ensure that, as far as possible, one half of the membership shall be renewed every three years (Art. 22(3) ECHR); and it determines the compensation that the members of the European Court of Human Rights receive for each day of duty (Art. 42 ECHR).

2. At the moment this is explicitly laid down in the Convention. Art. 58 reads: ‘The expenses of the Commission and the Court shall be borne by the Council of Europe.’ However, under Protocol 11 this provision will be deleted.

3. Ravaud, C., ‘The Committee of Ministers’, in Macdonald, R.St.J., et al., eds., The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff 1993) p. 645 at p. 648.Google Scholar

4. ‘Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights’, to be found in Collection of resolutions adopted by the Committee of Ministers in application of Articles 32 and 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Supplement 1986–1987 (Strasbourg, Council of Europe 1989).

5. At present, two sets of Rules of Court exist: Rules of Court A, which apply to cases concerning states not bound by Protocol No. 9, and Rules of Court B, which apply to cases concerning states which are parties to this Protocol. Protocol No. 9 provides for the possibility that the individual applicant refers his case to the Court. In this contribution I refer to Rules of Court B.

6. Birou case, Cttee. of Min. Res. DH (92) 52, 19 September 1992.

7. Krüger, H.C. and Nørgaard, C.A., ‘Reflections concerning friendly settlement under the European Convention on Human Right’, in Matscher, F. and Petzold, H., eds., Protecting Human Rights: TheEuropeanDimension, Studies in Honour of Gérard Wiarda (Köln, Carl Heymanns 1988) p. 329 at p. 333.Google Scholar

8. See, e.g., Eur. Court H.R., Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A, No.31, p. 25, para. 58.

9. Leuprecht, P., ‘The Protection of Human Rights by Political Bodies – the Example of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe’, in Nowak, M., et al., eds., Forischritt im Bewuβtsein der Grund- und Menschenrechte: Festschrift für Felix Ermacora (Progress in the Spirit of Human Rights) (Kehl, Engel 1988)Google Scholar; Frowein, J. A. and Peukert, W., Europäische Menschenrechts-Konvention; EMRK-Kommentar (Kehl, Engel 1985) pp. 473–475Google Scholar; H.-J. Bartsch, ‘The supervisory functions of the Committee of Ministers under Article 54 – a postscript to Luedicke-Belkacem-Koç’, in Matscher and Petzold, eds., op. cit. n. 7, at pp. 52–53; Velu, J., ‘Report on “responsibilities for states parties to the European convention” ’, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Colloquy about the European Convention on Human Rights (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff 1988) p. 532Google Scholar at pp. 572–582; W. Okresk, ‘Intervention relating to the report on “responsibilities for states parties to the European convention” ’, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Colloquy about the European Convention on Human Rights, ibid., p. 808 at p. 812; P. Leuprecht, ‘The Execution of Judgments and Decisions’, in Macdonald, et al., eds., op. cit. n. 3, p. 791 at p. 794.

10. Quoted from: Eur. Court H.R., Belilos v. Switzerland judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A, No. 132, p. 33, para. 78.

11. Eur. Court H.K., Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany judgment of 28 November 1978, Series A, No. 29, p. 22, para. 56.

12. I. Maier, ‘Intervention relating to the report on “responsibilities for the organs of the European Convention, including the Committee of Ministers” ’, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Colloquy about the European Convention on Human Rights, op. cit. n. 9, p. 1040 at p. 1042.

13. Öztürk case, Cttee. of Min. Res. DH (89) 31, 10 November 1989.

14. Under Protocol No. 11 this provision will be simplified but not be amended in substance.

15. Eur. Court H.R., Gillow v. the United Kingdom judgment (Art. 50) of 14 September 1987, Series A, No. 124–C, p. 26, para. 9.

16. Eur. Court H.R., Caleffi v. Italy judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A, No. 206–B, p. 21, para. 21.

17. Eur. Court H.R., Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece judgment (Art. 50) of 31 October 1995.

18. Cf., Martens (former member of the European Court) who states that the Court has inherent powers to order the respondent states to take any necessary measures to remedy the situation (Martens, S.K., ‘Individual Complaints under Article 53 of the European Convention on Human Rights’, in Lawson, R. and Blois, M. de, eds., The Dynamics of the Protection of Human Rights in Europe; Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. III (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff 1994) p. 253 at pp. 271–273).Google Scholar

19. Marckx case, Cttee. of Min. Res. DH (88) 3, 4 March 1988. Other examples are to be found in, inter alia, case of Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali, Res. DH (86) 2, 11 April 1986: ‘The new provision in the Immigration Rules are compatible with the European convention. No complaint of violation can be made by reason of the relationship between the rules and the Convention’; Ekbatani case, Res. DH (88) 21,9 December 1988: ‘The Government of Sweden is confident that as a result of the above-mentioned amendment of the Code of Judicial Procedure, breaches of the convention of the kind found in the Ekbatani case will not occur again.’

20. Silver and Others case, Cttee. of Min. Res. DH (85) 15, 28 June 1985. Another example is the case of Campbell and Fell, Res. DH (86) 7, 27 June 1986: ‘In paragraph 104 of its judgment, when dealing with the violations of Articles 6, 8 and 13, the European Court of Human Rights held that it could not examine the compatibility of the modified law and practice with the convention, but noted that, …, substantial changes had been made in this area by the United Kingdom with a view to ensuring the observance of the engagements undertaken by it in the convention. In paragraph 141, …, the Court again noted that substantial changes had been introduced in the correspondence control regime … which did appear in principle to have led to a significant improvement.’

21. G. Melander, ‘Report on “responsibilities for the organs of the European convention, including the committee of ministers” ’, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Colloquy about the European Convention on Human Rights, op. cit. n. 9, at pp. 842–918.

22. P. Leuprecht, ‘The Protection of Human Rights by Political Bodies – the Example of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe’, op. cit. n. 9, at p. 106.

23. Winterwerp case, Cttee. of Min. Res. DH (82) 2, 24 June 1982.

24. Eur. Court H.R., Van der Leer v. the Netherlands judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A, No. 170, respectively Wassink v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A, No. 185–A.

25. See, e.g., H. v. the Netherlands, Comm. Report 4 July 1991.

26. Öztürk case, Cttee. of Min. Interim Res. DH (89) 8, 2 March 1989.

27. Öztürkcase, Cttee. of Min. Res. DH (89) 31, 10 November 1989.

28. Case of F. v. Switzerland, Cttee. of Min. Interim Res. DH (89) 9, 2 March 1989.

29. Case of F. v. Switzerland, Cttee. of Min. Final Res. DH (94) 77, 19 October 1994.

30. A. Tomkins, ‘The Committee of Ministers: Its Roles under the European Convention on Human Rights’, in 1 European Human Rights Law Review (1995) p. 49 at p. 61.

31. Ben Yaacoub case, Cttee. of Min. Interim Res. DH (88) 13, 29 September 1988.

32. Ben Yaacoub case, Cttee. of Min. Res. DH (92) 58, 10 November 1992.

33. Koster case, Cttee. of Min. Res. DH (92) 20, 15 May 1992.

34. Berrehab case, Cttee. of Min. Res. DH (89) 13, 27 April 1989.

35. Marckx case, Cttee. of Min. Res. DH (88) 3, 4 March 1988.

36. Eur. Court H.R., Vermeire v. Belgium judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A, No. 214–C, p. 79, paras. 14–15; p. 82, para. 24.

37. See also R. Higgins, ‘The execution of the decisions of organs under the European Convention on human rights’, in 31 Revue Hellénique de Droit International (1978) p. 1 at pp. 37–38; P. Leuprecht, ‘The Execution of Judgments and Decisions’, op. cit. n. 9, at p. 799.

38. Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A, No. 145–B.

39. Included in Information sheet No. 24, H/INF (89) 2 (Strasbourg, Council of Europe 1989) pp. 73–74.

40. Brogan and Others case, Cttee. of Min. Res. DH (90) 23, 24 September 1990.

41. Eur. Court H.R., Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 May 1993, Series A, No. 258–B.

42. Frau case, Cttee. of Min. Res. DH (92) 54, 17 September 1992.

43. Eur. Court H.R., Pierazzini v. Italy judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A, No. 231–C, p. 31, para. 24.

44. Eur. Court H.R., Pauwels v. Belgium judgment of 26 May 1988, Series A, No. 135, p. 21, para. 50.

45. Eur. Court H.R., John Murray v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions (1996–I) p. 30.

46. Eur. Court H.R., De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium judgment (Art. 50) of 10 March 1972, Series A, No. 14, pp. 9–10, para. 20.

47. F.G.E. Sundberg, ‘The European Experience of Human Rights Proceedings: the Precedent Value of the European Court's Decisions’, in 20 Akron Law Review (1987) p. 65 at p. 76.

48. Eur. Court H.R., Neumeister v. Austria judgment (Art. 50) of 7 May 1974, Series A, No. 17, p. 18, para. 40.

49. For other examples see, inter alia, Eur. Court H.R., Bönisch v. Austria judgment (Art. 50) of 2 June 1986, Series A, No. 103, p. 8, paras. 12–13; Letellier v. France judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A, No. 207, p. 23, para. 62.

50. Eur. Court H.R., Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom judgment (Art. 50) of 6 November 1980, Series A, No. 38, p. 10, para. 16.

51. Eur. Court H.R., Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom judgment (Art. 50) of 24 February 1983, Series A, No. 59, pp. 7–8, para. 14.

52. European Court of Human Rights, Survey of Activities 1959–1990 (Strasbourg, Council of Europe 1991) p. 60, nt. 1.

53. See more extensively Martens, op. cit. n. 18.

54. Eur. Court H.R., Olsson v. Sweden judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A, No. 130.

55. Olsson case, Cttee. of Min. Res. DH (88) 18, 26 October 1988.

56. Eur. Court H.R., Olsson v. Sweden (No. 2) judgment of 27 November 1992, Series A, No. 250, p. 37, para. 94.

57. Ibid.

58. Eur. Court H.R., Aydin v. Turkey judgment of 25 September 1997, para. 120, to be reproduced in Reports of Judgments and Decisions (1997).

59. Lester, A., ‘Merger of the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights from the Perspective of the Applicants and their Legal Representatives’ (Neuchatel Colloquy), in 8 Human Rights Law Journal (1987) pp. 34–41, paras. 132–134. Also Martens seems to share this opinion: Martens, op. cit. n. 18, at p. 292, nt. 111.Google Scholar