Rehashing old ideas? A response to the Bill of Rights Commission’s proposals

20 September 2011 by

As we recently posted, the UK Commission on a Bill of Rights has published its interim advice to Government on reform of the European Court of Human Rights. The Commission made recommendations to achieve the “effective functioning of the Court over the long term”, following which Joshua Rozenberg stated that “everybody now agrees on the need for fundamental reform. It has to happen. And it will.

But if there is such agreement, can the Commission’s recommendations produce any meaningful reform? Or do the proposals simply rehash old ideas?

by Graeme Hall

Recommendation 1: Reducing the Court’s caseload by reinforcing the principle of subsidiarity

The principle of subsidiarity means that Member States must bear the primary responsibility for securing the protection of the rights contained within the Convention to their citizens. The Commission cites with approbation the 2001 Report of the Evaluation Group to the Committee of Ministers on the European Court of Human Rights that the European Court is not a “court of appeal from national courts”. And, indeed, the Report does not state that the Court allows itself to be used as such.

However, the 2001 Report does state that “there are circumstances in which the Court may be called upon to make its own assessment of the facts” because, as the final arbiter of the Convention, the Court must decide whether national systems have failed to secure Convention rights. This, however, is not an infringement of the principle of subsidiarity (i.e. that allegations of human rights abuses must first and foremost be dealt with at national levels).

It may well be that when the Commission refers to subsidiarity, it actually wants to review the ‘margin of appreciation’ which the Court affords to Member States. Its earlier quotation from Buckley v UK would seem to intimate so. It would also chime better with Bringing Rights Back Home, a previous report by one of the Commissioners.

The margin of appreciation is the wiggle-room which the Court may afford Member States over the implementation of the Convention, to take into account each States particularities (culture, history, etc.). Often Member States and the Court disagree as to whether an issue should fall outside of the Court’s jurisdiction and into the Member States’ margin of appreciation. Prisoner voting is one example.

If the margin of appreciation is the real issue, (and a much thornier issue it would be, too) the Commission, comprised of many highly respected lawyers, should make the distinction clear and not conflate two legal principles. However, given that the term ‘margin of appreciation’, a well-known doctrine of the Court, does not appear in the Advice, the recommendation to reinforce subsidiarity is more appropriately directed at Member States rather than the Court; for Member States are best placed to ensure that appropriate domestic mechanisms exist to protect Convention rights. The Court can only review those mechanisms, not change or implement them.

Recommendation 2: Reducing the Court’s caseload by introducing screening mechanisms to reject applications of minor or secondary importance

Does this sound familiar? Protocol 14, brought into force in June 2010, introduced Article 35(3)(b) of the Convention, which states:

The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that:

(b) the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage…

The two sound pretty similar. Admittedly, the Commission later rewords its recommendation so that the Court can decline cases which do not raise “a serious violation of the Convention.” However, this still falls within the Court’s interpretation of Art. 35(3)(b). In Korolev v Russia the Court stated that:

… the new criterion [of no significant disadvantage] hinges on the idea that a violation of a right, however real from a purely legal point of view, should attain a minimum level of severity to warrant consideration by an international court… The severity of a violation should be assessed, taking account of both the applicant’s subjective perceptions and what is objectively at stake in a particular case. (my emphasis).

It is difficult to see what the Commission’s recommendation adds, given that the thrust of it appears to have been implemented by previous reforms.

Recommendation 3: Reviewing how the Court awards ‘just satisfaction’ (damages)

The Commission questions “whether it is properly the function of an international court of last resort to be entrusted with the task of calculating and awarding just satisfaction”. The Commission highlights a recommendation contained within the 2006 Report of the Group of Wise Persons to the Committee of Ministers that the award of just satisfaction should pass to Member States.

The Wise Persons’ Report was considered in 2007 at the San Marino Colloquy, held to consider reform of the Court. In relation to this specific recommendation, the President of the Court, Jean-Paul Costa, stated that it:

…is far from gaining the Court’s approval… Just satisfaction would risk leading to unjustness and dissatisfaction

I agree. While it is not clear how changing the award of just satisfaction will improve the Court’s efficiency and, moreover, why the Court cannot be “entrusted” with this task, surely requiring Member States to award damages will need supervision, appeal mechanisms and add further layers of bureaucracy; in turn causing more delay. The proposal seems self-defeating.

Interestingly, a similar recommendation was made in 2005 by Lord Woolf to the Council of Europe (Review of the Working Methods of the European Court of Human Rights). Here, the introduction of a specialist unit within the Court’s Registry to assess just satisfaction was recommended. It may well be that there is something in Lord Woolf’s recommendation although, again, it is not clear how this would improve efficiency.

Recommendation 4: Enhancing judicial selection

The Commission is worried about the imminent loss of a considerable number of experienced judges. In 2011, 4 judges will retire, including the current President. In 2012, 8 judges will retire, including the upcoming President and UK national, Sir Nicolas Bratza (more details here). Accordingly, it welcomes the implementation of an Advisory Panel of Experts to consider judicial nominations of Member States. So much so that it wants its role to be “enhanced and upgraded”; indicating that further funding may be required.

This is a sensible proposal. It is vital that judges have the requisite qualifications and, as the Commission notes, “sufficient standing and authority to command the full respect of national judges”.  This is even more imperative given that the reasoning of the Court, even in seminal Grand Chamber cases, can be confusing.

However, in reality this recommendation is directed at Member States and the Council of Europe to ensure that there are appropriate procedures for the selection of judicial candidates. Thus, the recommendation is not aimed at reform of the Court per se.


Sending a separate letter to Ministers containing ideas for reform, distinct from the formal interim recommendations, is unusual. While some of the ideas therein are incredible (e.g. allowing Member States to legislate their way out of decisions which they don’t like flies in the face of the rule of law – see Obiter J’s comments,), the fact that its content could not be incorporated into the interim advice, possibly as an appendix of ‘further ideas for consideration’, does not bode well for the Commission’s credibility. It is a stark reminder of the fundamental philosophical deadlock between the Commissioners, and increases the sense that the final recommendations will be a whitewash.

Nevertheless, regarding the Commission’s formal interim recommendations for reform, the Commission clearly views the “considerable programme of reform” already undertaken by the Council of Europe and the Court as insufficient to deal with the “serious problems” of the Court’s ever-increasing caseload. However, before attempting to push through an agenda of reform, the Commission and the UK Government should reflect on the words of the Secretary General to the Council of Europe, Terry Davis, at the 2007 San Marino Colloquy. Regarding further reform proposals he said:

Many of the … proposals are not new. Many of them were examined during the negotiations for Protocol No. 14. This does not mean that we should not re-examine them, but it does mean that we should begin by checking whether the reasons for not including them in Protocol No. 14 are still valid today.” (my emphasis).

I have outlined some of these previous reforms before, and I have also listed some of the major recent reforms and, reports on reform, below. My general view is that current calls for reform are motivated by the belief that the Court’s rulings are too interventionist; that its decisions are intruding into areas which should remain within the exclusive competence of Member States; that it is not affording the appropriate margin of appreciation.

Whilst this may be a legitimate concern, calls for reform based on the Court’s backlog as symptomatic of its dysfunction are a smokescreen. A reality-check is needed. Better to pinpoint the real issue of whether the Court’s competence should remain, and tackle that head-on.

If there is agreement on the need for reform, the interim recommendations won’t produce it; they are either rehashed ideas or would be better directed at Member States. Moreover, the recommendations won’t address whether the Court is overreaching its jurisdiction.

Addendum: Recent examples of reforms and Reports on reform

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

Related posts

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 coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid 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: