Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Law & Social Bounds

Articles

No. 34 (2020)

The European Court of Human Rights as a Constitutional Court for Europe?

DOI
https://doi.org/10.36128/priw.vi34.207
Submitted
September 10, 2020
Published
2021-01-18

Abstract

The European Court of Human Rights describes itself as the most effective international human rights tribunal in the world. However, on the threshold of the third decade of the 21st century, the ECtHR has been facing serious challenges. Regardless of the crisis caused by the failure of the mechanism of Convention implementation, in the face of the growing number of complaints and Eurosceptics, the populist tendencies have been emerging, especially in some European countries. The Court itself has become the subject of criticism, especially from some state parties to the European Convention of Human Rights. In this context arises a question about the
topicality of the debate on the constitutional nature of the ECtHR. In particular, is it still possible to speak about the constitutional nature of the ECtHR?
The author tries to answer this question through the perspective of the debate on the constitutional nature of the ECtHR as well as the constitutional nature of its judgements. Then he analyzes the issue of the constitutional nature of the Tribunal in the context of its legitimacy. The author concludes that the phenomenon of constitutionalization of the ECtHR is rather a longterm process than the existing state of affairs. The course of this process and its result depend on various factors. It depends on the Tribunal itself, its courage, the quality of issued judgments, as well as the readiness of states to recognize the constitutional role of the ECtHR. In the long term, the ECtHR should not stop carrying out its mission to implement the spirit of the Convention and defend human rights in Europe, but it should implement it in a constitutional manner, as the European constitutional tribunal in the field of human rights.

 

References

  1. Arnardóttir Oddný Mjöll, „Interpretata, Erga Omnes Effect and the Role of the Margin of Appreciation in Giving Domestic Effect to the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights” The European Journal of International Law, nr 3 (2017): 819- 843.
  2. Baehr Peter, „Controversies In the Current International Human Rights Debate” Human Rights Working Papers, nr 3 (2000): 3-15.
  3. Balcerzak Michał, „Precedens w prawie międzynarodowym praw człowieka a zagadnienia wybrane”, [w:] Prawa człowieka w XXI wieku. Wyzwania dla ochrony prawnej, red. Cezary Mik. 77–91. Toruń: Towarzystwo Naukowe Organizacji i Kierownictwa, 2005.
  4. Beernaert Marie-Aude, „Protocol 14 and New Strasbourg Procedures: Towards Greater Efficiency? And at What Price?” European Human Rights Law Review, nr 5 (2004): 544-557.
  5. Breuer Marten, „»Principles Resistance« to ECtHR Judgments: Dogmatic Framework and Centeptual Meaning”, [w:] Principled Resistance to ECtHR Judgements – A New Paradigm?, red. Marten Breuer. 3-34. Heidelberg: Springer, 2019.
  6. Çalı Basak, Anne Koch, Nicola Bruch, „The Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights: The View from the Ground Strasbourg”, 2011, http://ecthrproject.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/ecthrlegitimacyreport.pdf.
  7. Cameron David, „What’s wrong with the European court of human rights?”. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/25/european-court-of-human-rights.
  8. Christoffersen Jonas, Mikael Rask Madsen, „Introduction: The European Court of Human Rights between Law and Polics”, [w:] The European Court of Human Rights between Law and Politics, red. Jonas Christoffersen, Mikael Rask. 1-13. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
  9. Costa Jean-Paul, „Current Challenges for the European Court of Human Rights, A Raymond and Beverly Sackler Distinguished Lecture in Human Rights, Leiden Law School”, 10 December 2011.
  10. http://media. leidenuniv.nl/legacy/current-challenges-for-theeuropean-court-of-human-rights--sackler-lecture-by-costa-doc.pdf.
  11. de Blois Matthijs, „The Fundamental Freedom of the European Court of Human Rights”, [w:] The Dynamics of the Protection of Human Rights in Europe. Esseys in Honour of G. Schermers, red. Matthijs de Blois, Henry Shermers. vol. III. 31-49. Dordrecht-Boston-London: Martinus Njhoff Publishers, 1994.
  12. Drzewicki Krzysztof, „Reforma Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka – filozofia zmian czy zmiana filozofii?” Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, nr 6 (2006): 4-13.
  13. Dzehtsiarou Kanstantsin, Vassilis Tzevelekos, „The Conscience of Europe that Landed in Strasbourg: A Circle of Life of the European Court of Human Rights” European Convention on Human Rights Law Review”, nr 1 (2020): 1-6.
  14. „EU accession to the ECHR”. https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-intergovernmental-cooperation/accession-of-the-european-union-to-theeuropean-convention-on-human-rights.
  15. The European Court of Human Rights and its Discontents, red. Spyridon Flogati, Tom Zwart, Julie Fraser. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2013.
  16. Garlicki Lech, Luzius Wildhaber, „Torując drogę dalekosiężnej wizji europejskiej ochrony praw człowieka w XXI w. II Szczyt Rady Europy i Europejskiej konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności”, [w:] Polska i Rada Europy 1990–2005, red. H. Machińska. 105-124. Warszawa: Biuletyn Biura Informacji Rady Europy, 2006.
  17. Greer Stephen, „Constitutionalizing Adjudication under the European Convention on Human Rights”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, nr 3 (2003): 405-433.
  18. Gronowska Bożena, Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka. W poszukiwaniu efektywnej ochrony praw jednostki. Toruń: Towarzystwo Naukowe Organizacji i Kierownictwa, 2011.
  19. Flauss Jean-François, „La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme est-elle une Court constitutionnelle?” Revue française de Droit constitutionnelle, nr 36 (1999): 711-728.
  20. Greer Steven, Luzius Wildhaber, „Revisiting the Debate about »constitutionalising« the European Court of Human Rights” Human Rights Law Review, nr 12 (2013): 655-687.
  21. Harmsen Robert, „The European Court of Human Rights as a »Constitutional Court«”, [w:] Judges, Transition, and Human Rights, red. Morison John, Mc Evoy Kieran, Gordon Anthony. 33-53. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007.
  22. Helfer Lawrence, „Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime” The European Journal of International Law, nr 1 (2008): 125-159.
  23. Helfer Lawrence, Karen Alter, „Legitimacy and Lawmaking: A Tale of Three International Courts” Theoretical Inquiries in Law, vol. 14 (2013): 479-503.
  24. Husa Jaakko, „Nordic Constitutionalism and European Human Rights Law – Mixing Oil with Water?” Scandinavian Studies in Law, vol. 55 (2011): 102-124.
  25. Kowalska Renata, „Reforma Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka” Biuletyn Biura Informacji Rady Europy, nr 1 (2004): 3-16.
  26. Letsas George, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
  27. Łętowska Ewa, Dialog głuchych: ETPCz-organy krajowe, wystąpienie na webinarium: Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka a kryzys praworządności w Polsce.
  28. https://www.rpo.gov.pl/pl/content/europejski-trybunal-praw--czlowieka-kryzys-praworzadnosci-w-polsce.
  29. Mäger Kerttu, „Enforcing the Judgments of the ECtHR in Russia in Light of the Amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Court” Juridica International, vol. 24 (2016): 14-22.
  30. Macdonald Ronald, John Steven, „The Margin of Appreciation”, [w:] The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, red. Ronald, Steven, John Macdonald, Franz Matscher, Herbert Petzold. 83-124. Dordrecht-Boston-Londyn: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993.
  31. Mahoney Paul, „An Insider’s View of the Reform Debat (How to Maintaiin the Effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights” Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Mensenrechte – Bulletin, nr 29 (2004): 170-175.
  32. Mik Cezary, „Ochrona praw człowieka w świetle źródeł współczesnego prawa międzynarodowego”, [w:] Prawa człowieka w XXI wieku. Wyzwania dla ochrony prawnej, red. Cezary Mik. 11-35. Toruń, Towarzystwo Naukowe Organizacji i Kierownictwa, 2005.
  33. Merrills John Graham, The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995.
  34. Mowbray Alister, „The Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights” Human Rights Law Journal, nr 1 (2005): 57-79.
  35. O’Boyle Michael, „The Future of the European Court of Human Rights” German Law Journal, nr 10 (2011): 1862-1878.
  36. Pogorzelska Matylda, „Całkowity zakaz tortur i narażania na tortury – orzeczenie Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka w sprawie Saadi v. Italy” Problemy Współczesnego Prawa Międzynarodowego, Europejskiego i Porównawczego, nr 2,(2009): 163-178.
  37. Report of the Group of Wise Persons to the Committee of Ministers CM Documents, 979bis Meeting, 15 November 2006, CM (2006) 203, pkt 24. https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805d7893.
  38. Report of the Evaluation Group to the Committee of Ministers on the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 27.09.2001 r., pkt 98.
  39. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016804f3d0b.
  40. Stanowisko Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich w tej sprawie: RPO: sprawa islandzka przed ETPCZ może być pomocna dla naprawy polskiego sądownictwa. https://www.rpo.gov.pl/pl/content/rpo-sprawa-islandzka--w-ETPCz-moze-pomoc-naprawic-polskie-sadownictwo.
  41. State of Democracy, „Human rights and the Rule of Law, Populism – How strong are Europe’s checks and balances? Report by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe 2017”, Council of Europe, April 2017.
  42. https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/news-2017/-/asset_publisher/StEVosr24HJ2/content/populism-how-strong-are-europe-s-checks-andbalances-?inheritRedirect=false.
  43. Smirnova Maria, „Russian Constitutional Court affirms Russian Constitution’s supremacy over ECtHR decisions”. EJIL:Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. http://www.ejiltalk.org/russian-constitutional-court-affirms-russian-constitutions-supremacy-over-ecthr-decisions/.
  44. Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH). Guaranteeing the Longterm Effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights. Final Report Containing Proposals of the CDDH. Adopted by the CDDH on 4 April 2003, Strasbourg,CDDH(2003)006 Final.
  45. Tulkens Françoise, Marc Fischbach, Josep Casadevall, Wilhelmina Thomassen, „Pur le droit de recours individuel”, [w:] La réforme de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, Bruylant, red. Christophe Pettiti. 170-175. Bruksela: Bruylant 2003.
  46. Widłak Tomasz, „O konstytucjonalizacji prawa międzynarodowego – ku konstytucji społeczności międzynarodowej?” Problemy Współczesnego Prawa Międzynarodowego, Europejskiego i Porównawczego, vol. VIII (2010): 49-79.
  47. Wildahber Luzius, „A Constitutional Future for the European Court of Human Rights” Human Rights Law Journal, nr 507 (2002): 161-165.
  48. Wiśniewski Adam, Koncepcja marginesu oceny w orzecznictwie Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, 2008.
  49. Wiśniewski Adam, „O legitymizacji Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka” Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze, tom XXXVIII (2017): 535-546.
  50. Zajadło Jerzy, „Konstytucjonalizacja”, [w:] Leksykon prawa międzynarodowego. 100 podstawowych pojęć, red. Anna Przyborowska-Klimczak, Dorota Pyć. 131-138. Warszawa: C.H. Beck, 2012.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.