Is the European Court of Human Rights obsessively interventionist?

22 January 2012 by

Brought to you by Andrew Tickell

Marie-Bénédicte Dembour calls them ‘forgotten cases’.  As Adam Wagner demonstrated in a blog post of last week, Eurosceptic newspapers have a particular interest in overlooking the European Court of Human Right’s decisions of inadmissibility, seeking to buttress claims that the Court is wildly interventionist, imposing alien “European” logics on Britain with gleeful abandon. 

Both the Telegraph and Daily Mail covered the findings of a report commissioned by backbench Tory MPs critical of the Court’s jurisdiction, both simply replicating its astonishingly misleading content.  The papers contended that the UK was defeated in three in four cases brought against it, with violations of the Convention being found in 75% of human right petitions to Strasbourg.

Such a finding could be concerning and interesting in any number of ways – if it was true. However, on their own numbers, presented as scandalous and revelatory but in fact culled from the Court’s own freely, publicly available 2010 statistics, both papers report that 271 judgments against the UK produced at least one finding that the Convention had been violated, of just 443 British cases resolved by a judgment of the Court between 1959 and 2010. Despite their verbatim reporting of these figures, if either paper had resorted to a calculator, they would have discerned that 271/443 is only 61% of judgments, and it’s an untenable 14% stretch to expand that to the 75% noisily and irresponsibly claimed in their headlines.

However, even this 61% claim is inaccurate, as it conveniently ignores the 97% of complaints lodged against the UK which the Court decides are inadmissible. Rather than losing 75% of European cases, the UK has been defeated in less than 2%. Of course, that doesn’t establish that the Court’s decisions in that less than 2% were faultless, but incontrovertibly demonstrates that the construct of an obsessively interventionist Strasbourg is a fantasy.

In another respect, the papers’ reports suggest an interesting, more generally challenging point for those who have followed the domestic and European Court reform discussions.  According to Court figures, between 1959 and 2010, 11,438 judgments found that States Parties violated the Convention. Of all cases decided by a judgment of the Court during this period, including findings of no violation, friendly settlements and so on, 83.5% produce a judgment which condemned an infraction of the Convention.

In the fevered Daily Mail version, this fact suggests a nefarious and hyperactive Court, up to mischief and rejoicing in ‘overruling’ national authorities, better to promote the interests of sex offenders and the homicidal.  (You might well think it ironic in this context that the UK’s rate of defeat is some 22.5% lower than the average across all member states between 1959 and 2010).

Isn’t another reading possible? Professor Steven Greer has argued from the applicant’s point of view, the admissibility stage is crucial. These statistics strongly support that thesis, and pose serious questions about how admissibility decision-making has understood in legal scholarship, and Court reform debates.  Is this 83.5% finding simply incidental, accidental, inconsequential? Alternatively, might it not suggest that quite apart from banal, administrative, bureaucratic “filtering” – routine chucking out cases sent by applicants many years after a final domestic disposal, or without any domestic proceedings having been undertaken – the Court is already making extensive use of highly discretionary concepts such as “manifestly ill-founded” to pre-judge the interest of its caseload, and is already selecting cases which it regards as “serious” or “important”?

Hitherto, save for anecdote and uncollated professional impressions, the Court has never provided broken down statistics on the grounds for applications being declared inadmissible.  All that changed at the end of last year, when the Court appended this data to its new online admissibility checklist.

I read with interest some observations after Adam’s post, suggesting that the “manifestly ill founded” inadmissibility criterion is a low-hanging legal hurdle, connoting “bare arguability”. Having talked to practitioners, dismayed to discover decent cased “miffed” by the Court years after submission, this is not a convincing impression. The Court’s own Practical Guide to Admissibility confirms the expansive interpretation given to the criterion, not limited to elementarily eccentric or unarguable cases. Characterising it as a ground of “inadmissibility based on the merits”, the Guide stresses that

the use of the term “manifestly” may cause confusion: if taken literally, it might be understood to mean an application will only be declared inadmissible on this ground if it is immediately obvious to the average reader that it is far-fetched and lacks foundation.

Not so for the Court (and critically, its Registry), who have employed the ground much more expansively and creatively to shape and manage their caseload. The data presented in the Court’s chart is somewhat problematic, as it isn’t exclusively based on grounds of inadmissibility set out in the Convention, but “principal reasons for the rejection of applications”. We know, for instance, that Protocol 14 came into force in June 2010, including the new admissibility criterion of “significant disadvantage”. In the Court’s diagram, which purports to give a comprehensive account of primary reasons for inadmissibility, it isn’t clear how cases rejected on this basis would be classified.

Moreover, we should be wary of treating ‘primary reasons’ given for decisions of inadmissibility as a comprehensive account of the Court’s caseload. As I have argued elsewhere, application of the “six month rule” and exhaustion of domestic remedies is far from being a matter of counting your fingers and adding one, and registry officials may find it more expeditious and convenient to label a file “manifestly ill founded”, and forward the draft note to a judge, rather than engage in the sometimes knotty analysis of whether a given remedy resorted to was “effective”, or whether an applicant submitted their case in-time or out of it.

Both newspapers may have been way off-piste in their reports, but by emphasising the extent to which the merits appear to be pre-judged by admissibility decision-making, the papers pose a real challenge to friends of the Court, who are nevertheless keen to give ‘filtering’ authority to Registry bureaucrats, or who uncritically bandy about ideas of dumping ‘frivolous’ applications, as if we all knew and agreed what that meant.  The implications of how the Court and its bureaucracy approach admissibility decision-making are forgotten by more than just the Mail and Telegraph, and should not be.

This guest post is by Andrew Tickell, a doctoral Researcher at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford. You can find him on Twitter as @peatworrier

Related posts:

2 comments


  1. WHEN ARE PEOPLE GOING TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!!!!!!! WE DONT HAVE ANY RIGHTS.

  2. Hen Broon says:

    And yet the UK acolytes, mostly the ermine fondler’s, are quite comfortable trying to tell Scotland that their is such a thing as UK law and that it usurps Scottish Law . Jumped up hypocrites of the highest order.

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.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals 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 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 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 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 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 Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation 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 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 Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


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: