Abstract
The issue: In March 2015, the Italian Constitutional Court judgment on the Varvara case concluded that only consolidated law (diritto consolidato) of the Strasbourg Court is binding erga omnes in the domestic legal order. Although the notion of consolidated law is not clearly established, it includes at least Grand Chamber and pilot judgments and eventually committee judgments. Chamber judgments are binding only inter partes and have no other effect in similar cases sharing the same structural problems. In July 2015, the Russian Constitutional Court delivered a judgment on the Federal Law on the Accession of the Russian Federation to the ECHR, which affirmed that the judgments of the Strasbourg Court would not be enforceable if and when they contradict the Russian Constitution, according to its reading by the Russian Constitutional Court. This line of domestic case law puts in question the legal force of the European Court’s case law and of the European Convention itself. Other cases in UK and German jurisdictions raise similar concerns. The tense relationship between some Supreme and Constitutional Courts and the European Court raises the question of principle: what are the obligations of the contracting parties to the Convention to implement the European Court’s judgments?
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Corte costituzionale, sentenza 49, 26 Mar 2015, GU 1 Apr 2015, para 7.
- 2.
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Resolution No 21-P/2015 on request of State Duma deputies, 14 July 2015, translated by M. Smirnova, found at http://transnational-constitution.blogspot.de/2015/08/russian-constitutional-court-decision.html. Accessed 11 July 2017. The President of the Russian Federation signed a corresponding law on 15 Dec 2015, summary found at http://en.kremlin.ru/acts/news/50935. Accessed 11 July 2017.
- 3.
This requirement is spelled out in ECtHR jurisprudence on a regular basis, see for instance ECtHR, Maestri v Italy, judgment of 17 Feb 2004, No 39748/98, para 47.
- 4.
ECtHR, Vermeire v Belgium, Series A 214-C (1991).
- 5.
ECtHR, Marckx v Belgium, Series A 31 (1979).
- 6.
ECtHR, Marckx v Belgium, Series A 31 (1979), para 58.
- 7.
ECtHR, Ireland v UK, Series A 25 (1978).
- 8.
Ibid, para 154.
- 9.
Ibid.
- 10.
ECtHR, Karner v Austria, Reports 2003-IX.
- 11.
Ibid, para 26.
- 12.
ECtHR, Loizidou v Cyprus (preliminary objections), Series A 310 (1995), para 75.
- 13.
ECtHR, Bosphorus v Ireland, Reports 2005-VI, para 154.
- 14.
- 15.
High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, Declaration of 19 and 20 Apr 2012, A. 7, http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2012_Brighton_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2018.
- 16.
ECtHR, Mocanu v Romania, judgment of 17 Sept 2014, nos 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, para 321; for the American and African systems, see Cerna, State Obligations in the Inter-American System, and Jansen Reventlow and Curling, State Obligations in the African System, both in this Volume, respectively.
- 17.
See ECtHR, X and Y v The Netherlands, Series A 91 (1985), para 27, and M.C. v Bulgaria, Reports 2003-XII, paras 50, 166.
- 18.
ECtHR, Siliadin v France, Reports 2005-VII, para 112, and C.N. and V. v France, judgment of 11 Oct 2012, No 67724/09, paras 105–108.
- 19.
ECtHR, Sandra Janković v Croatia, judgment of 5 Mar 2009, No 38478/05, para 36.
- 20.
ECtHR, Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, Reports 2010-I, paras 284 and 288.
- 21.
ECtHR, Stoll v Switzerland (GC), Reports 2007-V, para 155.
- 22.
The Court not only reviews the political decision not to criminalise certain conduct, but also the excessive or disproportionate criminalisation of certain conduct, such as in ECtHR, Dudgeon v United Kingdom, Series 45 (1983), para 60; Norris v Ireland, Series A 142 (1988), para 46; Modinos v Cyprus, Series A 259 (1993), para 24; A.D.T. v United Kingdom, Reports 2000-IX, para 38 (private homosexual acts between consenting adults); S.L. v Austria, Reports 2003-I, para 44 (homosexual acts of adult men with consenting adolescents between 14 and 18 years of age); Vajnai v Hungary, Reports 2008-IV, paras 54–56 (wearing of red star); Altug Taner Akçam v Turkey, judgment of 25 Oct 2011, No 27520/07, paras 93–95 (insulting Turkishness); Mosley v the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 May 2011, No 48009/08, para 129 (non-compliance with pre-notification requirement to publish news on private life); Akgöl and Göl v Turkey, judgment of 17 May 2011, nos 28495/06 and 28516/06, para 43 (participation in an unlawful but peaceful demonstration); Wizerkaniuk v Poland, judgment of 5 July 2011, No 18990/05, paras 82–83 and 86 (publication of unauthorised verbatim quotations); Mallah v France, judgment of 10 Nov 2011, No 29681/08, para 40 (assisting illegal entry, circulation or stay of foreigner in the national territory); Gillberg v Sweden (GC), judgment of 3 Apr 2012, No 41723/06, paras 68–71 (misuse of office due to refusal of access to research material owned by a public university); Stübing v Germany, judgment of 12 Apr 2012, No 43547/08, paras 63–65 (incest); Şükran Aydın and Others v Turkey, judgment of 22 Jan 2013, Nos 49197/06, 23196/07, 50242/08, 60912/08 and 14871/09, para 55 (use of mother tongue in political campaign).
- 23.
See ECtHR, Calvelli and Ciglio v Italy (GC), Reports 2002-I, para 51; Vo v France (GC), Reports 2004-VIII, paras 90–94; Dodov v Bulgaria, judgment of 17 Jan 2008, No 59548/00, paras 17, 87; Branko Tomašić and Others v Croatia, judgment of 15 Jan 2009, No 46598/06, para 64; Maiorano and Others v Italy, judgment of 15 Dec 2009, No 28634/06, para 128.
- 24.
ECtHR, K.U. v Finland, Reports 2008-V, para 46. The case dealt with a minor of 12 years of age who was the subject of an unauthorised advertisement of a sexual nature on an Internet dating site. In C.A.S. and C.S. v Romania (No 26692/05, 20 Mar 2012), the Court clearly recognised that states had an obligation under Arts 3 and 8 ECHR to ensure the effective criminal investigation of cases involving violence against children, referring to the international obligations the respondent state had entered into for the protection of children against any form of abuse.
- 25.
See ECtHR, Okkalı v Turkey, Reports 2006-XII, para 73, and Darraj v France, judgment of 4 Nov 2010, No 34588/07, para 49.
- 26.
ECtHR, Vermeire v Belgium, Series A 214-C (1991), para 26.
- 27.
ECtHR, Olsson v Sweden (No 2), Series A 250 (1992).
- 28.
Ibid, para 94.
- 29.
ECtHR, Wemhoff v Germany, Series A 7 (1968).
- 30.
Ibid, para 8.
- 31.
- 32.
ECtHR, VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland (No 2), Reports 2009-IV.
- 33.
ECtHR, VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland (No 1), Reports 2001-VI.
- 34.
ECtHR, VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland (No 2), Reports 2009-IV, para 66.
- 35.
ECtHR, Emre v Switzerland (No 2), judgment of 11 Oct 2011, No 5056/10.
- 36.
ECtHR, Emre v Switzerland (No 1), judgment of 22 May 2008, No 42034/04.
References
Ryssdal R (1993) Vers une Cour constitutionnelle européenne. In: Academy of European Law (ed) Collected Courses of The Academy of European Law II – The Protection of Human Rights in Europe. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 3–20
Wildhaber L (2002) Un avenir constitutionnel pour la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme? Revue universelle des droits de l’homme 14:1–6
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pinto de Albuquerque, P. (2019). State Obligations in the European System. In: Kadelbach, S., Rensmann, T., Rieter, E. (eds) Judging International Human Rights. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94848-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94848-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94847-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94848-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)