LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Gerards, J.H.; Glas, L.R. (2017)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
The numerous reforms to the Convention system of the past two decades have unquestionably had an effect on applicants’ means to access justice in the system. It is, however, open to question how these changes should be evaluated: with reference to the individual right to petition, or with reference to a more substantive and general conception of access to justice. This article explores these two approaches to the notion of access to justice both generally and for the Convention system specifically. The main argument of the article is to show the value of taking a substantive approach to access to justice in the Convention system. Thus, it challenges the centrality of the individual right to petition in discussions on reform of the system. Further, to show how taking a different perspective on access to justice may lead to different analyses, an evaluation in the light of both approaches is made of five sets of central changes to the Court’s procedure and its working method. This includes the revised Rule 47, single-judge formations and the priority policy.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Lize Glas, 'Changes in the Procedural Practice of the European Court of Human Rights: Consequences for the Convention System and Lessons to be Drawn' (2014) 14 HRL Rev 671; Nikos Vogiatzis, 'The Admissibility Criterion under Article 35(3)(b) ECHR: A 'Significant Disadvantage' to Human Rights Protection?' (2016) 65 ICLQ 185. For a review see CDDH Report on the Longer-term Future of the System of the [Convention], CDDH(2015)R84 Addendum I, 11 December 2015.
    • 2. eg Reflection Group on the Protection of the Reinforcement of the Human Rights Protection Mechanism, 'Activity Report', CDDH-GDR (2001)010, 15 June 2001; Position Paper of the Court on proposals for reform of the [Convention] and other measures as set out in the report of the [CDDH] of 4 April 2003, CDDH(2003)006 final and CDDHGDR(2003)024, 26 September 2003, para 31; NGO Response to Proposals to Ensure the Future Effectiveness of the [Court], 28 May 2003; Joint NGO statement, 'Protocol 15 to the [Convention] must not result in a weakening of human rights protection', 25 June 2013. See further eg Philip Leach, 'Access to the European Court of Human Rights - From a Legal Entitlement to a Lottery?' (2006) 27 HRLJ 11; Vogiatzis (n 1) 187.
    • 3. European Law Institute, 'Statement on Case-Overload at the European Court of Human Rights', 6 July 2012, 20-21. See also n 61.
    • 4. FRA, Access to Justice in Europe: An Overview of Challenges and Opportunities (Imprimerie Centrale 2010) 14.
    • 5. Eilionoir Flynn, Disabled Justice?: Access to Justice and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Routledge 2015) 21. The 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities changed the UN situation (see art 13).
    • 6. Mauro Cappelletti and Bryant Garth, 'Access to Justice: The Newest Wave in the Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective' (1987) 27(2) Buff L Rev 181.
    • 7. Jeremy McBride, 'Access to Justice for Migrants and Asylum-seekers in Europe', CDCJ (2009) 2, para 6. See also Patricia Hughes, 'Law Commissions and Access to Justice: What Justice Should We be Talking About?' (2009) 46 OHLJ 773, 778.
    • 8. This term, as well as 'substantive access to justice', is used in David A Larson, 'Access to Justice' in Encyclopaedia of Law and Economics (8 October 2015) 1-2.
    • 9. McBride (n 7) para 6.
    • 10. ibid.
    • 11. Francesco Francioni, 'The Rights of Access to Justice under Customary International Law' in Francesco Francioni (ed), Access to Justice as a Human Right (OUP 2007) 1. See also Tom Cornford, 'The Meaning of Access to Justice' in Ellie Palmer and others (eds), Access to Justice. Beyond the Policies and Politics of Austerity (Hart Publishing 2016), 39; Alan Uzelac and C H (Remco) van Rhee, 'Introduction' in Alan Uzelac and C H (Remco) van Rhee (eds), Access to Justice and the Judiciary. Towards New European Standards of Affordability, Quality and Efficiency of Civil Adjudication (Intersentia 2009) 1-2.
    • 12. Reem Bahdi, 'Background Paper on Women's Access to Justice in the MENA Region' (University of Windsor, 31 October 2007) 3.
    • 13. McBride (n 7) para 9.
    • 14. Antoˆnio A C Trindade, 'Some Reflections on Access to Justice in Its Wide Dimension' in Ru¨diger Wolfrum, Maja Sersˇic´ and Trpimir M Sˇ osˇic´ (eds), Contemporary Developments in International Law; Essays in Honour of Budislav Vukas (Brill Nijhoff 2015) 464. See also Cappelletti and Garth (n 6) 181; McBride (n 7) para 9.
    • 15. FRA, Handbook on European Law Relating to Access to Justice (Publications Office of the EU 2016) 16.
    • 16. FRA (n 15) 48; Julinda Beqiraj and Lawrence McNamara, 'International Access to Justice: Barriers and Solutions' (Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, February 2014), 5.
    • 17. Larson (n 8) 2; Wojciech Sadurski, Giving Desert Its Due: Social Justice and Legal Theory (Springer 1985), 52; Antoˆnio A C Trindade, The Access of Individuals to International Justice (OUP 2011) 75; Francioni (n 11) 12-13.
    • 18. FRA (n 4) 16. See also Lord Woolf, 'Access to Justice - Final Report' (1995), section 1, para 1; UNDP, 'Access to Justice: Practice Note' 9 March 2004, 6; Dinah L Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law (OUP 2006), 9; Francioni (n 11) 1, 3-4; XIV Ibero-American Judicial Summit, Brasilia Regulations regarding Access to Justice for Vulnerable People, 4-6 March 2008; Trindade (n 14) 464; FRA (n 15) 16.
    • 19. Preamble ECHR.
    • 20. Allen v UK ECHR 2013-IV, para 92.
    • 21. Art 19 ECHR.
    • 22. (1975) Series A no 18, paras 28-36.
    • 23. Markovic and Others v Italy ECHR 2006-XIV, para 92.
    • 24. Leander v Sweden (1987) Series A no 116, para 77.
    • 25. ibid.
    • 26. Ramirez Sanchez v France ECHR 2006-IX, para 160.
    • 27. Rotaru v Romania ECHR 2000-V, para 67.
    • 28. Article 34 ECHR; cf Article 33 ECHR 'Any High Contracting Party may refer'.
    • 29. Article 35(1) ECHR.
    • 30. M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece ECHR 2011-I, para 287.
    • 31. El-Masri v the FYRM ECHR 2012-VI, para 134.
    • 32. Khan v UK ECHR 2000-V, para 47.
    • 33. Souza Ribeiro v France ECHR 2012-VI, para 79.
    • 34. I_lhan v Turkey ECHR 2000-VII, para 51.
    • 35. Scoppola v Italy (no 2) App no 10249/03 (ECtHR, 17 September 2009) para 104. See also Sergey Zolotukhin v Russia ECHR 2009-I, paras 80-81.
    • 36. Nada v Switzerland ECHR 2012-V, para 182.
    • 37. Broniowski v Poland ECHR 2004-V, para 151. See also Depalle v France ECHR 2010-III, para 78. eg Hermi v Italy ECHR 2006-XII, para 70.
    • 38. Maskhadova and Others v Russia App no 18071/05 (ECtHR, 6 June 2013) para 245.
    • 39. Zalov and Khakulova v Russia App no 7988/09 (ECtHR, 16 January 2014) para 103.
    • 40. Chahal v UK ECHR 1996-V, para 154.
    • 41. Sabanchiyeva and Others v Russia ECHR 2013-III, para 154.
    • 42. eg the right to property. See Rysovskyy v Ukraine App no 29979/04 (ECtHR, 20 October 2011) para 70.
    • 43. Garcia Ruiz v Spain ECHR1999-I, para 26; Suominen v Finland App no 37801/97 (ECtHR, 1 July 2003) para 34.
    • 44. eg Cumhuriyet Vakfi and Others v Turkey App no 28255/07 (ECtHR, 8 October 2013) para 68.
    • 45. eg X v Latvia ECHR 2013-VI, para 107.
    • 46. David Harris and others, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (3rd edn, OUP 2014) 771.
    • 47. O¨neryıldız v Turkey ECHR 2004-XII, para 152. See also C¸ elik and I_mret v Turkey App no 44093/98 (ECtHR, 26 October 2004) para 55.
    • 48. Paul Mahoney, 'New Challenges for the European Court of Human Rights Resulting from the Expanding Case Load and Membership' (2002) 21 Penn State Intl L Rev 101, 104.
    • 49. Laurence R Helfer, 'Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime' (2008) 19 EJIL 125, 129.
    • 50. Arthur H Robertson, Collected Edition of the ''Travaux Pre´paratoires'' (vol 1, Martinus Nijhoff 1975) 30 (citation Lord Layton); Mikael R Madsen, 'From Cold War Instrument to Supreme European Court: The European Court of Human Rights at the Crossroads of International and National Law and Politics' (2007) 32 L & Soc Inquiry 137, 140; Ed Bates, The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights - From its Inception to the Creation of a Permanent Court of Human Rights (OUP 2010) 5, 7.
    • 51. Bates (n 51) 9.
    • 52. ibid 404.
    • 53. In 1955, the right to individual petition became effective after it had been accepted by six (small) states. The major states waited longer, see Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen, 'The Evolution of the Right of Individuals to Seize the European Court of Human Rights' (2010) 12 Journal of the History of International Law 267, 282.
    • 54. Bates (n 50) 19.
    • 55. Wildhaber, 'Rethinking the European Court of Human Rights' in Jonas Christoffersen and Mikael R Madsen (eds), The European Court of Human Rights between Law and Politics (OUP 2011) 208.
    • 56. Bates (n 50) 149.
    • 57. eg Mahoney (n 48) 101; Luzius Wildhaber, 'A Constitutional Future for the European Court on Human Rights?' (2002) 23 HRLJ 161.
    • 58. Glas, The Theory, Potential and Practice of Procedural Dialogue in the European Convention on Human Rights System (Intersentia 2016) 57.
    • 59. CDDH (n 1) paras 11, 15 and proposal B.4.
    • 60. Izmir Declaration (27 April 2011), Follow-up Plan para A(1). See also Interlaken Declaration (19 February 2010), para 1; Brighton Declaration (21 April 2012), para 13; Brussels Declaration (27 March 2015), para 1.
    • 61. Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey ECHR 2005-I, para 122.
    • 62. Djokaba Lambi Longa v the Netherlands ECHR 2012-IV, para 58.
    • 63. Glas, 'The Functioning of the Pilot-Judgment Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights in Practice' (2016) 1 NQHR 41, 42.
    • 64. Wolkenberg and Others v Poland App no 50003/99 (ECtHR, 4 December 2007) para 76.
    • 65. See n 1.
    • 66. See sources mentioned in n 2. See further eg Leach (n 2); Vogiatzis (n 1) 187.
    • 67. Section 2.2.1.
    • 68. See eg Leach (n 2) 11ff; Antoine Buyse, 'Significantly Insignificant? The Life in the Margins of the Admissibility Criterion in Article 35(3)(b) ECHR' in Brianne McGonigle Leyh and others (eds), Liber Amicorum for Leo Zwaak (Antwerp, Intersentia 2013) 107-124; Alexander Morawa, 'The European Court of Human Rights' Rejection of Petitions Where the Applicant Has Not Suffered a Significant Disadvantage: A Discussion of Desirable and Undesirable Efforts to Safeguard the Operability of the Court' (2013) 1 Journal of Transnational Legal Issues 1ff.
    • 69. On the criterion's specificities, see eg Simona Granata, 'Manifest Ill-Foundedness and Absence of a Significant Disadvantage as Criteria of Inadmissibility for the Individual Application to the Court' (2010) 20 The Italian Yearbook of International Law Online 111, 111.
    • 70. cf Explanatory Report to Protocol 14, CETS no 194, paras 39, 77-9. The Court has embraced this rationale in its caselaw. See eg Korolev v Russia, ECHR 2010-V (dec); Shefer v Russia App no 45175/04 (ECtHR, 13 March 2012) para 18. See further Fiona de Londras and Kanstantin Dzehtsariou, 'Managing Judicial Innovation in the European Court of Human Rights' (2015) 15 HRLR 523, 532; Morawa (n 69) 8.
    • 71. Vogiatzis (n 1) 187. The proposal was also criticised for other reasons, see eg Leach (n 2) 32-3.
    • 72. Helen Keller, Andreas Fischer and Daniela Ku¨hne, 'Debating the Future of the European Court of Human Rights after the Interlaken Conference: Two Innovative Proposals' (2010) 21 EJIL 1025, 1038; Vogiatzis (n 1) 187, 190 -1; Dinah Shelton, 'Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights' (2016) 16 HRLR 303, 309. For an analysis of this perspective, see also Xavier-Baptiste Ruedin, 'De Minimis non Curat the European Court of Human Rights: The Introduction of a New Admissibility Criterion (Article 12 of Protocol No.14)' [2008] EHRLR 80, 97-8.
    • 73. cf Tazeen Said and John Wadham, 'What Price the Right of Individual Petition: Report of the Evaluation Group to the Committee of Ministers on the European Court of Human Rights' [2002] EHRLR 169, 173; Marie-Aude Beernaert, 'Protocol 14 and New Strasbourg Procedures: Towards Greater Efficiency? And at what Price?' [2004] EHRLR 544- 57; Vogiatzis (n 1) 191; Ruedin (n 72) 92.
    • 74. eg Sylka v Poland App no 19219/07 (ECtHR, 3 June 2014) para 26, echoing the Explanatory Report to Protocol 14, CETS no 194, paras 39, 77-9.
    • 75. Explanatory Report to Protocol 14, CETS no 194, paras 81-82. See also Buyse (n 68) 111. Additionally, the Court sometimes mixes the presence of a significant disadvantage and the first safeguard clause, eg El Kaada v Germany App no 2130/10 (ECtHR, 12 November 2015) para 42.
    • 76. Turturica and Casian v Moldova and Russia App nos 28648/06 and 18832/07 (ECtHR, 30 August 2016) para 43.
    • 77. Berladir and Others v Russia App no 34202/06 (ECtHR, 10 July 2012) para 34; Karelin v Russia App no 926/08 (ECtHR 20 September 2016) para 41.
    • 78. eg Mikhaylova v Russia App no 46998/08 (ECtHR, 19 November 2015) para 49.
    • 79. eg Ros¸iianu v Romania App no 27329/06 (ECtHR, 24 June 2014) para 56; Hebat Aslan and Firas Aslan v Turkey, no 15048/09 (ECtHR, 28 October 2014) paras 74-82. See further Buyse (n 68); Morawa (n 68) 14ff; Shelton (n 72).
    • 80. Explanatory Report to Protocol 14 (CETS no 194, 13 May 2004), para 77, as also accepted by the Court. See eg Korolev v Russia (n 70); Finger v Bulgaria App no 37346/05 (ECtHR, 10 May 2011) para 72; Avoti¸nsˇv Latvia App no 17502/07 (ECtHR, 25 February 2014) para 37.
    • 81. cf Morawa (n 68) 8.
    • 82. cf Korolev v Russia (n 70).
    • 83. cf Ruedin (n 72) 98.
    • 84. cf Buyse (n 68) 116.
    • 85. cf Fomin v Moldova App no 36755/06 (ECtHR, 11 October 2011) para 20. See further Morawa (n 68) 16.
    • 86. eg Vincent Cecchetti v San Marino App no 40174/08 (ECtHR, 9 April 2013); Van der Putten v the Netherlands App no 15909/13 (ECtHR, 27 August 2013). In other cases, the Court simply does not apply the clause, eg Shtefan and Others v Ukraine App no 36762/06 and others (ECtHR, 31 July 2014) paras 30-2. See also Buyse (n 68) 116; Shelton (n 72) 318.
    • 87. Article 5 of Protocol 15 (CETS no 213) (not yet entered into force at time of writing).
    • 88. cf CDDH, 'Final Report on Measures Requiring Amendment of the European Convention of Human Rights', Strasbourg, 15 February 2012, CDDH(2012)R74 Addendum I, para 26 and Appendix III.4, para 4d.
    • 89. ibid.
    • 90. Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. For the application form, see www.echr.coe.int > applicants > how to make a valid application.
    • 91. Even then, the deadline was not always strictly applied. See eg Smertin v Russia App no 19027/07 (ECtHR, 2 October 2014); Manerov v Russia App no 49848/10 (ECtHR, 5 January 2016) para 30.
    • 92. eg Itzmtdin Isayev v Russia App no 54427/08 (ECtHR, 29 October 2015); Bilen and C¸oruk v Turkey App no 14895/05 (ECtHR, 8 March 2016). See further Andrew Tickell, 'Dismantling the Iron-Cage: the Discursive Persistence and
    • 104. Rule 47(5.1)(c) Rules of Court.
    • 105. ECtHR (n 99) 2.
    • 106. ibid.
    • 107. They declared inadmissible or struck out 36,300 cases in 2015, see ECtHR, Annual Report 2015 (Strasbourg, 2016), 65 < www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2015_ENG.pdf> accessed 11 October 2016.
    • 108. As can be the case in Russia. See Grigory Dikov, 'The Ones that Lost: Russian Cases Rejected at the European Court' (Open Democracy, 7 December 2009) 5 accessed 11 October 2016.
    • 109. cf Stefan Kirchner, 'Recent and Forthcoming Changes to the Procedure before the European Court of Human Rights: An Attorney's View from the Perspective of the Right to Access to Justice' [2016] ECLJ 37, 41-2; Lubom´ır Majercˇ´ık, 'The Invisible Majority: The Unsuccessful Applications against the Czech Republic before the European Court Of Human Rights' [2010] CYIL 217, 221; Dikov (n 108).
    • 110. See, however, Granata (n 69) 119.
    • 111. Trying to lodge an application without assistance by a (qualified) lawyer may reduce the chances of success (see eg Dikov (n 108) 2, 5; Granata (n 69) 115), although this may vary between the states, see Franc¸oise Tulkens, 'The Link between Manifest Ill-Foundedness and Absence of a Significant Disadvantage as Inadmissibility Criteria for Individual Applications' (2010) 20 Italian Yearbook of International Law Online 169, 172.
    • 112. eg providing detailed admissibility guidelines (Ian Cameron, 'The Court and the Member States: Procedural Aspects' in Andreas Follesdal and others (eds), Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context (CUP 2013) 29), training of lawyers or provision of information through NGOs (Tulkens (n 112) 172).
    • 113. See eg Marie-Be´ne´dicte Dembour, '''Finishing off'' Cases: The Radical Solution to the Problem of the Expanding ECHR Caseload' [2002] EHRLR 604, 606 ff.
    • 114. Measures introduced by Protocol 14.
    • 115. accessed 11 October 2016. See also Glas (n 1) 678; Shelton (n 72).
    • 116. eg ECtHR, The Interlaken Process and the Court (2015 Report) (Strasbourg, 12 October 2015) 3 accessed 11 October 2016.
    • 117. Cameron (n 112) 33; Shelton (n 72) 307-8.
    • 118. Shelton (n 72) 308.
    • 119. Ben Jones, 'European Court of Human Rights: Is the Admission System Transparent Enough?' (UK Human Rights Blog, 27 January 2012) accessed 11 October 2016; Cameron (n 112) 33-4; Shelton (n 72) 308.
    • 120. In 2015, 45,576 applications were disposed of judicially and the single-judge formation decided 36,314 cases, see 4, accessed 11 October 2016.
    • 121. cf Cameron (n 112) 33-4; Jones (n 119).
    • 122. Granata (n 69) 114; Cameron (n 112) 55; Gerards, 'Inadmissibility Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A Critique of the Lack of Reasoning' (2014) 14 HRLR 148. This was a problem already for the Committee decisions taken of before Protocol 14. See critically Dembour (n 113) 612.
    • 123. Dembour (n 113) 613; Keller, Fischer and Ku¨hne (n 72) 1046; Gerards (n 121).
    • 124. Keller, Fischer and Ku¨hne (n 72) 1046; Andrew Tickell, 'Is the European Court of Human Rights Obsessively Interventionist?' (UK Human Rights Blog, 22 January 2012) accessed 11 October 2016; Paul Harvey, 'Is Strasbourg obsessively interventionist? A view from the Court' (UK Human Rights Blog, 24 January 2012) accessed 11 October 2016.
    • 125. This is the case already for simple and relatively technical requirements (eg six-month and anonymity rule) (Tickell (n 92) 1799ff), but also for the 'manifestly ill-founded' criterion (Tickell (n 124)). Shelton's analysis shows similar inconsistencies in the application of the significant disadvantage requirement (Shelton (n 72) 319). On inconsistencies in the application of the victim requirement, see Tamar Feldman, 'Indirect Victims, Direct Injury: Recognising Relatives as Victims under the European Human Rights System' [2009] EHRLR 50, 61.
    • 126. Morawa (n 68) 8; Buyse (n 68) 113.
    • 127. See 2, accessed 26 September 2016.
    • 128. cf De Londras and Dzehtsariou (n 70) 529.
    • 129. Antoine Buyse, 'The Court's New Priority Policy' (ECHR Blog, 17 November 2010) accessed 11 October 2016; Glas (n 1) 678.
    • 130. cf Cameron (n 112) 43.
    • 131. cf Glas (n 1) 695.
    • 132. Helen Keller, Magdalena Forowicz and Lorenz Engi, Friendly Settlements before the European Court of Human Rights: Theory and Practice (OUP 2010) 67; Glas (n 1) 677.
    • 133. Rule 62A Rules of Court.
    • 134. Rule 62A(1)(b) Rules of Court. See further Glas (n 58) 179.
    • 135. Keller, Forowicz and Engi (n 132) 67; Glas (n 58) 287-8.
    • 136. cf eg Dembour (n 113) 618; P. Sardaro, 'Jus non dicere for allegations of serious violations of human rights: questionable trends in the recent case-law of the Strasbourg Court' [2003] EHRLR 601-630, 623.
    • 137. See, however, Glas (n 1) 695; Sardaro (n 136) 623.
    • 138. Leach (n 2) 28; Glas (n 58) 289.
    • 139. In particular in Tahsin Acar v Turkey ECHR 2004-III.
    • 140. ibid para 13. See further Glas (n 58) 289-95.
    • 141. See eg Zherebin v Russia App no 51445/09 (ECtHR, 24 March 2016); Jeronovics v Latvia App no 44898/10 (ECtHR, 5 July 2016).
    • 142. eg Sardaro (n 136) 623 ff.
    • 143. In Jeronovics v Latvia (n 141), an earlier oversight in indicating to the State that certain violations still needed to be repaired resulted in the Court's having to reassess the case after the individual applicant had tried a national remedy in vain.
    • 144. See further, with references, Glas (n 1) 695.
    • 145. Cf Sardaro (n 136) 623-4.
    • 146. Wojciech Sadurski, 'Partnering with Strasbourg: Constitutionalisation of the European Court of Human Rights, the Accession of Central and East European States to the Council of Europe, and the Idea of Pilot Judgments' (2009) 9 HRLR 397, 412ff; Buyse (n 129); Glas (n 1).
    • 147. Glas (n 1) 676. See also Dilek Kurban, 'Forsaking Individual Justice: The Implications of the European Court of Human Rights' Pilot Judgment Procedure for Victims of Gross and Systematic Violations' (2016) 4 HRLR 731.
    • 148. See Rule 61 of the Rules of Court. In more detail, see eg Lech Garlicki, 'Broniowski and After: On the Dual Nature of ''Pilot Judgments''' in Lucius Caflish and others (eds), Human Rights - Strasbourg Views. Liber Amicorum Luzius Wildhaber (N.P. Engel 2007) 177-192; Philip Leach, Helen Hardman and Svetlana Stephenson, 'Can the European Court's Pilot Judgment Help Resolve Systematic Human Rights Violations? Burdov and the Failure to Implement Domestic Court Decisions in Russia' (2010) 10 HRLR 346; Janneke Gerards, 'The Pilot Judgment Procedure before the European Court of Human Rights as an Instrument for Dialogue' in Monica Claes and others (eds), Constitutional Conversations in Europe (Intersentia 2012) 371; Glas (n 58) 475ff; Glas (n 63).
    • 149. Glas (n 1) 675 and 679, referring to ECtHR Registrar, 'Press Release: European Court Registrar Calls for Special Measures to Deal With Influx of Hungarian Pension Cases' (11 January 2012) ECHR 009 (2011).
    • 150. Glas (n 1) 675 and 680, referring to S¸enyu¨rek and Others v Turkey App no 34986/05 and others (ECtHR, 21 September 2010) para 31 and Kharuk and Others v Ukraine App no 703/05 and others (ECtHR, 26 July 2012) paras 23-5.
    • 151. cf Broniowski v Poland (n 37) para 193. See further eg Sadurski (n 146) 422; Keller, Fischer and Ku¨hne (n 72) 1042; Glas (n 1) 684.
    • 152. eg Gerards (n 148).
    • 153. Glas (n 63).
    • 154. Glas (n 58) 490 -1.
    • 155. For the different variations in the Court's case-law, see Glas (n 58) 493 ff.
    • 156. eg Stella and Others v Italy App no 49169/09 and others (ECtHR, 16 September 2014). See further Glas (n 58) 495 ff.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from