Hostility to the European Court and the risks of contagion – Philip Leach and Alice Donald

21 November 2013 by

Contagion-007Updated | The relationship between the UK and the European Court remains turbulent and fractious. The Court has been the subject of significant criticism, notably from some politicians and commentators in the UK, relating to its supposed interference in domestic, sovereign questions and the quality of its judges.

Some commentators say that the UK may have to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the court. Michael Pinto-Duschinsky argues that if (as is highly likely) the Council of Europe refuses to institute a “democratic override” for states of European Court of Human Rights decisions, withdrawal should be seriously considered. MP Nick Herbert argues that the UK should withdraw immediately.

Others have proposed withdrawing from the European Convention altogether. For example, in April, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, said that temporary withdrawal from the Convention was one option being considered by the UK government in its efforts to deport the Islamic cleric Omar Mohammed Othman (also known as Abu Qatada). Two members of the Commission tasked with investigating the creation of a UK Bill of Rights advocated withdrawal from the Convention unless the Court ceased its ‘judicially activist approach’ (p. 182).

The continuing prevarication, and even defiance, over the implementation of the Strasbourg pilot judgment on prisoner voting rights is also stoking the flames (see previous posts here). A year ago, Prime Minister David Cameron told MPs that:

No one should be under any doubt – prisoners are not getting the vote under this government.

One of the three ‘options’ proposed in the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill is that there should be no change to the current blanket ban on convicted prisoners voting while they remain in prison.

In a recent letter to Nick Gibb MP, Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, underlined the unacceptability of the current situation:

Non-compliance of a member state with a judgment of the Strasbourg Court is irreconcilable with its obligation, as a state party to the Convention, to execute the Court’s judgments fully and effectively.

In September, the President of the Court, Dean Spielmann, expressed his ‘deepest dismay’ at the lack of any significant progress in executing the judgment. Meanwhile, at the Court, the 2,281 pending UK prisoner voting cases have recently been ‘unfrozen’ and will now be adjudicated upon.

What impact is all of this having upon other member states of the Council of Europe, and indeed on the UK’s international standing? When interviewed for a report we co-authored on the UK’s relationship with Strasbourg, the former President of the European Court, Sir Nicolas Bratza, expressed his concern about the risks of contagion:

There is a risk of this attitude in the UK to judgments of the Court negatively impacting on other states and complaints being made of double standards … [which] could result in a wider refusal to implement ECtHR judgments across the Council of Europe (p. 176).

These concerns were recently echoed by Nils Muižnieks who suggested that,

continued non-compliance would have far-reaching deleterious consequences; it would send a strong signal to other member states, some of which would probably follow the UK’s lead and also claim that compliance with certain judgments is not possible, necessary or expedient. That would probably be the beginning of the end of the ECHR system, which is at the core of the Council of Europe.

These fears may have been borne out by the response of the Ukrainian government to a recent high profile judgment of the European Court, concerning the dismissal of a Supreme Court judge. In the case of Oleksandr Volkov v Ukraine the Court found four separate violations of Article 6 of the Convention because of the unfairness of Mr Volkov’s dismissal, highlighting the lack of independence and impartiality of the High Council of Justice (the body responsible for the appointment and dismissal of judges in Ukraine) and the fact that when his case was considered by the plenary parliament in Ukraine, the MPs present deliberately and unlawfully cast multiple votes belonging to their absent peers.

The effective implementation of this judgment is significant, not only because of the systemic issues identified in the case (the Venice Commission has also highlighted the flawed composition of the High Council of Justice) but also because, for the first time, the Court ordered the Ukrainian government to ensure the judge’s reinstatement. It is a judgment which Dean Spielmann has suggested marks the beginnings of a pattern of the Court issuing ‘injunctions’ against states.

The Volkov judgment became final in May 2013, but in spite of the court’s legally binding stipulation that the judge should be reinstated ‘at the earliest possible date’, that has not yet happened. Although the Committee of Ministers has established that there are currently vacancies on the Supreme Court, the Ukrainian government has not been able to explain why Mr Volkov has not been reinstated.

However, Aleksandr Lavrinovich, the former Minister of Justice (and the current chair of the High Council of Justice in Ukraine) has spoken out against the decision. He is quoted in the Ukrainian online newspaper Glavkom as arguing that European Court judgments need to be ‘realistic’ in terms of their implementation:

I know of no country that can support a mechanism restoring people to their position.

Mr Lavrinovich was clearly emboldened in his stance by the hostility to the Convention emanating from the UK, noting that Ukraine is not the only country having difficulty in implementing European Court judgments:

Great Britain would very much like to leave the European Convention on Human Rights.

Critics of the Strasbourg Court have sometimes dismissed warnings of contagion.  For Michael Pinto-Duschinsky:

Even if these concerns are valid, it is a matter of debate how much weight they need to be given. When the issue at stake is the welfare and integrity of the UK’s system of justice and democracy, it may be argued that this must be the predominant consideration (p. 65).

Volkov is one of hundreds of judgments against Ukraine which await implementation (910 at the time of the most recent Committee of Ministers’ annual report; p. 47).  Others concern the disappearance and murder of a campaigning journalist, the unlawful detention of the former prime minister and the ill-treatment of detainees in police custody.

What is clear from the Ukrainian government’s stance in Volkov is that contagion from the UK to newer Council of Europe states in refusing to implement unwelcome human rights judgments may no longer be merely a risk, but reality.

Philip Leach is Director of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre at Middlesex University, which represented Oleksandr Volkov at the European Court of Human Rights.

Alice Donald is Senior Research Fellow in the School of Law at Middlesex University.

Clarification: This article originally referred to Michael Pinto-Duschinsky as “advocating” withdrawal from the Court. This has now been amended as Mr Pinto-Duschinsky’s view is more nuanced: he believes that should the Council of Europe refuse to institute a “democratic override” then the UK should withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Court.

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

Related posts

2 comments


  1. As a matter of curiosity, are ECtHR judgments slavishly obeyed by every member of the Council of Europe? If not, which countries disregard them? Is France among those who regard the sovereignty of its Parliament as supreme? These are genuine questions, as the present article gives the appearance that the UK rebellion will have devastating consequences for the ECHR, and I wonder if this is in fact the case.

    Neither does the author discuss the concerns of voiced by some of our most senior judges about the level of interference from Strasbourg. Surely these considerations should be factored into the debate.

  2. rose white says:

    regardless of Cameron’s silly childsih attitude rhere is the simple fact that for woman there is the protection of CEDAW which Her Majesty signed into effect and made law well before she signed and made law the Human Rights Act.

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 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 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 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 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: