Did the UK misuse European court process on prisoner votes? – Dr Ed Bates

15 April 2011 by

The recent rejection, by a panel of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, of the British government’s attempt to overturn the ruling in Greens and MT v United Kingdom (prisoner voting) case, brings into focus the role of the Strasbourg Grand Chamber.

In this post I attempt to highlight how the idea of a Grand Chamber came about, and its role under the ECHR. Building on Adam Wagner’s earlier posts, I also offer a possible explanation as to why the panel of the Grand Chamber refused a rehearing of the Greens case.

Since Protocol 11 to the ECHR entered into force in 1998, when hearing judgments on the merits the Strasbourg Court sits in Chambers and Grand Chambers. The great majority of judgments are delivered by Chambers of seven judges. The Grand Chamber consists of seventeen Judges; it delivered eighteen judgments in 2010.

The ECHR text (Article 30) provides that a Chamber may relinquish jurisdiction over a case to a Grand Chamber when it:

raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court.

Clearly this allows the more important issues of Convention law to be referred up to the more authoritative, and larger, Grand Chamber. Twelve cases were relinquished in 2010.

The Grand Chamber may also rehear a case on which a Chamber has already delivered a ruling. Within three months of the Chamber ruling either party to the case may:

in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber’ (Article 43(1)).

A panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber will:

accept the request if the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, or a serious issue of general importance (Article 43(2)).

The panel is composed of the President of the Court, two Presidents of Sections designated by rotation, and two other judges designated by rotation (Court’s Rules: Rules 24(5)). The Rules of the Court state it is not obliged to give reasons for its refusal to accept a referral (Rule 73(2)). The Court’s monthly Information Notes reveal that many cases are referred to the panel but that only a small percentage are accepted (only twelve were in 2010). The Court’s website lists of all cases currently pending before the Grand Chamber (relinquishments and successful referrals).

A recent, and highly publicised, example of a ‘reversal’ of a Chamber judgment by the Grand Chamber was ‘the Italian crucifix case’ (Lautsi v Italy – see this post), in which no violation of the Convention was found. This case might be an example of why, when Protocol 11 was negotiated, a number of States, including the United Kingdom, regarded the possibility of a rehearing as important. It could act as a check against extravagancies on the part of a Chamber and would allow a State to argue why it regarded the earlier judgment as unsatisfactory and inappropriate.

What then of the recent refusal of the panel of the Grand Chamber to accept the referral of the Greens and MT case (a Chamber judgment from November last year)? Reading the United Kingdom’s referral documentation it makes a persuasive case that what was in issue was ‘a serious issue of general importance’ under Article 43(2). Why then was the case not accepted for re-examination? As has been pointed out, the panel does not have to give reasons for refusal, and it did not here, so we are left to speculate as to what its thinking was. A possible explanation follows.

Hirst v United Kingdom (No2), the ‘original’ prisoner voting case from 2005, was ruled upon first by a Chamber, and then successfully referred to the Grand Chamber, by the United Kingdom, using the procedures described above. Both judgments went against the United Kingdom. Article 44(1) ECHR states that the ‘judgment of the Grand Chamber shall be final’

As Adam Wagner pointed out in his earlier post, it is clear from the United Kingdom government’s request for a rehearing of Greens that it was really seeking to have the Hirst judgment of 2005 overturned on the basis that it was wrong and went too far (it being noted the Chamber in Greens was bound by the Grand Chamber ruling in Hirst). He correctly predicted that the Court would not accept this.

Was the United Kingdom using the Article 43(1) referral procedure for a purpose that it was not intended to serve? The purpose of Article 43(1), to adopt the language of the Explanatory Report to Protocol 11  (the non-binding, yet official document explaining how Protocol 11 was formulated, and expected to operate), ‘is to ensure the quality and consistency of the Court’s case-law by allowing for a re-examination of the most important cases’ (para 47), if the aforementioned ‘serious question/ issue’ (Article 43(2)) conditions are met.

Yet it would seem that the possibility of re-examination only applies to Chamber cases in which the law has not already been settled by the Grand Chamber. We may never know, but the refusal to accept the referral of Greens may well have been because the United Kingdom was using Article 43 inappropriately, i.e. as a vehicle to challenge an earlier Grand Chamber ruling?

But if this is so, and to be clear we do not know if it is, does it not prompt further questions? Can Article 43 never be used to request a reconsideration of an earlier Grand Chamber ruling? If so, how, if at all, may an earlier Grand Chamber ruling be reviewed at Strasbourg if a State or States insist that it goes too far, or subsequent developments throw the original ruling into doubt?

Dr Ed Bates, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Southampton. Author of ‘The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights’, Oxford University Press, 2010.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts


  1. ObiterJ says:

    “Yet it would seem that the possibility of re-examination only applies to Chamber cases in which the law has not already been settled by the Grand Chamber. ”

    That would be a pity if the Convention is to remain a “living instrument.”

    1. Ed Bates says:

      I guess for ‘living instrument’ type cases, when the Law of the ECHR may move forward, the Chamber can relinquish a judgment to a GC, which could then progress the law on the basis that the old GC ruling was out of date (see, perhaps, the Al-Saadoon judgment). Or, an applicant in a Chamber case already in the system, can request a rehearing before the GC on the basis that human rights considerations merit it for the same reason.
      If so, can a State use Art 43 to argue that the law as it currently stands in wrong? Does Strasbourg law only have a forward gear?
      (I am not entirely sure myself of the answers to these questions!).
      best wishes

  2. John Hirst says:

    It is worth being reminded of what Lord Woolf said in his report on the Court’s reforms.

    “If the Court’s long-term viability is to be ensured, it is essential that Member States take appropriate measures to implement the Court’s judgments and prevent repeat violations. The increased use of pilot judgments, which I recommend in this Review, adds to the importance of Member States taking action to avoid repetitive cases from arising after a pilot judgment has been delivered.

    Both the Court and Member States are adversely affected by the non-implementation of the Court’s judgments. The Court suffers from an (unnecessary) increase in its workload, whilst Member States are faced with the expense and inconvenience that arises domestically from repetitive cases. It is my hope that, as the use of the pilot judgment procedure increases, so too will the focus on the rapid and effective implementation of judgments”.

    Greens and MT v UK is a pilot judgment.

    Geoffrey Robertson, QC, in the Mail on Sunday writes:

    “The stage is set for an almighty clash between Europe and the British Parliament in October. That is the date, set by the European Court of Human Rights, by which the Government must devise a law to allow prisoners the vote”.

    In my view, it is a shame that the Court and Committee of Ministers were not more robust 5 years ago in laying down the law to the UK. To date we have not had any explanation why the UK has failed to honour its obligations under the Convention. It would appear that prejudice is the real reason.

    All we have had from the UK since Greens and MT v UK was made final is that the Cabinet Office is considering its options. In my view, the obvious option must be Kenneth Clarke making a remedial order under s.10 of the HRA 1998 to amend s.3 of ROPA 1983 and laying it before Parliament. Such a move may well upset Tory backbenchers but that is a small price to pay to resolve the issue.

  3. Tim says:

    The UK are trying to weasel their way out of a zugzwang.

  4. John Hirst says:

    The answer to your question in the headline is yes of course they did!

    You are being either too biased or too generous to claim that the UK’s submissions make a persuasive case. On the contrary they were so weak that they deserved to be laughed out of court.

    The Rules of the Committee of Ministers are clear there will be no rehearing of arguments already lost in the Court. The UK submissions, save for reference to the sham debate in the Commons, had already been heard and dismissed by the Grand Chamber in Hirst No2.

    The UK was in the dock and was found guilty. In response the UK decided to accuse the Grand Chamber of being guilty. If the guilty losing party can appeal against an unappealable decision until it gets a verdict it can live with it would be like the Neverending Story.

    I am glad that the Court did not allow the political and judical pressure from the UK to influence it to change its mind, like what happened in the Lautsi case. Luckily Hirst No2 is a leading case and a reversal would have altered Frodl v Austria and Scopola v Italy as well as Greens and MT v UK.

    It remains for the UK to fully comply with Hirst No2. There will need to be some backpedaling from the government, media and the UK courts. There will be some red faces with the likes of Dominic Raab and David Davis who claimed special knowledge of my case and how to overturn it. The sooner the UK accepts that the ECtHR is now in a position to enforce its judgments the less painful it will be. Even Lord Neuberger is wrong to claim that domestic law does not assist enforcement of a remedy. At least Lord Hope of Craigshead recognises that ultimately the UKSC has a role in ensuring the Executive and Parliament are held to account in relation to the UK’s obligations under international law.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: