Make a Submission
Vol. 38 (2018)
General Articles

Summary Procedure before the Strasbourg Court under Article 28(1)b of the European Convention on Human Rights: Judicial Economy under Scrutiny

PDF
  • ,

University of Novi Sad Faculty of Law

University of Novi Sad Faculty of Law

Published 2018-12-31

Keywords

  • reform of the European Court of Human Rights,
  • summary procedure,
  • judicial economy,
  • Article 28(1)b of the ECHR,
  • legal remedies,
  • socially-owned property
    • ...More
    Less

Copyright (c) 2021 ILS PAS

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Summary Procedure before the Strasbourg Court under Article 28(1)b of the European Convention on Human Rights: Judicial Economy under Scrutiny. (2018). Polish Yearbook of International Law, 38, 73-98. https://doi.org/10.24425/pyil.2019.129607

Abstract

This article critically evaluates the summary procedure introduced by Protocol No. 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights, adopted within the reform of the European Court of Human Rights system. The summary procedure, now set out in Art. 28(1)b of the Convention, was instituted in order to facilitate expediency and to reduce the case load of the Court. This article argues that while judicial economy is a legitimate goal, the summary procedure under Art. 28(1)b has considerable deficiencies that undermine some of the systemic goals and core values of ECHR law. There is a manifest lack of remedies vis-à-vis the choice of the procedure, choice of applicable law, and no appeals against final decisions rendered in the course of the summary procedure. Notably, the concept of “well-established case-law” seems to be neither clear nor reliable, as evidenced in the cases analysed in the article. These cases, which involve the issue of socially- owned property in Serbia, serve to demonstrate some of the significant errors in interpretation and decision-making which can result from application of the summary procedure.

PDF

References

  1. Amerasinghe Ch.F., Local Remedies in International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004.
  2. Amnesty International, Injustice Incorporated, 2014, 17, available at: https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/8000/po-1300012014en.pdf [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  3. Amnesty International's Comments on the Interim Activity Report. Guaranteeing the Long-term Effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights, 1 February 2004, at 21, available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior6l/005/2004/en/ [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  4. Beco G. de, Non-Judicial Mechanisms for the Implementation of Human Rights in European States, Bruylant, Brussels 2010.
  5. Boyle K., European Experience. The European Convention on Human Rights, „Victoria University of Wellington Law Review” 2009-2010, vol. 40, no. 1.
  6. Brems E., Lavrysen L., Procedural Justice in Human Rights Adjudication, „Human Rights Quarterly” 2013, vol. 35, no. 1.
  7. Carillo Salcedo J.A., The European Convention of Human Rights [in:] F. Gomez Isa, K. de Feyter (eds.), International Protection of Human Rights. Achievements and Challenges, University of Deusto, Bilbao 2006.
  8. Crawford J., The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility. Introduction, Text and Commentaries, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002.
  9. Declaration of the Committee of Ministers: Ensuring the effectiveness of the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights at national and European levels (12 May 2004), available at: https://bit.ly/2XxeoSC [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  10. ECtHR Committee, AndeidW and Others v. Serbia (App. No. 57611/10 et al.), 28 May 2013.
  11. ECtHR Committee, Blagojevic and 14 Others v. Serbia (App. Nos. 61604/10), 20 October 2015.
  12. ECtHR Committee, Gavovic v. Serbia, (App. No. 13339/11), 24 February 2015.
  13. ECtHR Committee, Klikovac and Others v. Serbia (App. No. 24291/08), 5 March 2013.
  14. ECtHR Committee, Koka Hybro Komerc DOO Broyler v. Serbia (App. No. 59341/0), 14 March 2017.
  15. ECtHR Committee, Lucic v. Serbia (App. No. 13344/11), 24 February 2015.
  16. ECtHR Committee, Milenkovic and Veljkovic v. Serbia (App. Nos. 7786/13 and 47972/13), 20 October 2015.
  17. ECtHR Committee, Rakic and Sarvan v. Serbia (App. Nos. 47939/11 and 56912/11), 20 October 2015.
  18. ECtHR Committee, Rakid and Sarvan v Serbia (App. Nos. 47939/11 and 56912/11), 20 October 2015.
  19. ECtHR Committee, Serifovic and 2 Others v. Serbia (App. No. 5928/13 et al.), 20 October 2015.
  20. ECtHR Committee, Stojilkovid and Others v. Serbia (App. No. 36274/08), 5 March 2013.
  21. ECtHR Committee, Stokovic and 17 Others v. Serbia (App. No. 75879/14 et al.), 8 March 2016.
  22. ECtHR Committee, Tomovic and 18 Others v. Serbia, (App. No. 5327/11 et al.), 24 February 2015.
  23. ECtHR, Adamovi v. Serbia (App. No. 41703/06), 2 October 2011.
  24. ECtHR, Broniowski v. Poland (App. No. 31443/96), Grand Chamber, 22 June 2004.
  25. ECtHR, Crnisanin and Others v. Serbia (App. No. 35835/05 et al.), 13 January 2009.
  26. ECtHR, Jovicic v Serbia (App. No. 37270/11), 13 January 2015.
  27. ECtHR, Kacapor and Others v. Serbia, (App. No. 2269/06), 15 January 2008.
  28. ECtHR, Liseytseva andMaslov v. Russia (App. Nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10), 9 October 2014.
  29. ECtHR, Marid and 16 Others v. Serbia (App. No. 17556/05 et al.), 30 October 2007.
  30. ECtHR, Marinkovi v. Serbia (App. No. 5353/11), 22 October 2013.
  31. ECtHR, Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine (App. Nos. 35091/02 et al.), 30 November 2004.
  32. ECtHR, Petroviv. Serbia (App. No 40485/08), 15 October 2014.
  33. ECtHR, Raikovid and Milunovi v. Serbia (App. Nos. 1789/07 and 28058/07), 31 May 2011.
  34. Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 14, C.E.TS. 194 (2004), available at: https://rm.coe.int/Co-ERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentld=09000016800d380f [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  35. Fontanelli E., Busco P., The Function of Procedural Justice in International Adjudication, „Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals” 2016, vol. 15, no. 1.
  36. Gaja G., General Principles of Law [in:] Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013.
  37. Gray Ch.D., Judicial Remedies in International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1990.
  38. Guaranteeing the long-term effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights - Implementation of the declaration adopted by the Committee of Ministers at its 1 21h session (14-15 May 2003), available at: https://bit.ly/2DuKOAx [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  39. Haider D., The Pilot-Judgment Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Hague 2013.
  40. Halverson K., Privatization in the Yugoslav Republics, „Journal of World Trade” 1991, vol. 25, no. 6.
  41. Harmsen R., The Reform of the Convention System: Institutional Restructuring and the (Geo)Politics of Human Rights [in:] J. Christoffersen, M.R. Madsen (eds.), The European Court Of Human Rights Between Law And Politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2011.
  42. Harris D. et al., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford University Press, New York 2018.
  43. Helfer L.R., Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights. Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime, „European Journal of International Law” 2008, vol. 19, no. 1.
  44. Keller H., Fischer A., Kuhne D., Debating the Future of the European Court of Human Rights after the Interlaken Conference. Two Innovative Proposals, „European Journal of International Law” 2010, vol. 21, no. 4.
  45. Kolb R., General Principles of Procedural Law [in:] A. Zimmermann, Ch. Tomuschat, K. Oellers-Frahm, Ch. Tams, T. Thienel (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice. A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006.
  46. Leach P., Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights, Blackstone Press Limited, London 2001.
  47. Mayer C., Wutscher H., Are Austrian Courts Obliged to Consider the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights when Interpreting the ECHR?, „Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law” 2014, vol. 8, no. 2.
  48. Mayert B., Rajavuor M., National Fossil Fue Clompanies and Climate Change Mitigation under International Law, „Syracuse Journal of International Law” 2016, vol. 44, no. 1.
  49. McKaskle P.L., The European Court of Human Rights: What It Is, How It Works, and Its Future, „University of San Francisco Law Review” 2005, vol. 40, no. 1.
  50. Medjad K., The Fate of the Yugoslav Model. A Case against Legal Conformity, „American Journal of Comparative Law” 2004, vol. 52, no. 1.
  51. Mertsch A.Q., The Reform Measures of ECHR Protocol No. 14 and the Provisional Application of Treaties [in:] P. Merkouris, M. Fitzmaurice (eds.), The Interpretation and Application of the European Convention o Human Rights. Legal and Practical Implications Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden 2013.
  52. Muharremi R., The Role of the United Nations and the European Union in the Privatization of Kosovo Socially-Owned Enterprises, „German Law Journal” 2013, vol. 14, no. 7.
  53. Ohms B., The Coming into Force of Protocol No. 14 and the Short but Very Successful Life of Protocol No. 14bis to the ECHR, „European Yearbook on Human Rights” 2010, vol. 207.
  54. Popovic D., Marinkovic T., Serbia. The emergence of the human rights protection in Serbia under the European Convention on Human Rights. The experience of the first ten years [in:] I. Motoc, I. Ziemele (eds.), The Impact of the ECHR on Democratic Change in Central and Eastern Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2016.
  55. Press country profile: Serbia, European Court of Human Rights, at 5, available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CPSerbiaENG.pdf [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  56. Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention, opened for signature on 13 May 2004, C.E.TS. No. 194.
  57. Protocol No. 14bis to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 27 May 2009, C.E.TS. No. 204.
  58. Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature on 24 June 2013, C.E.TS. No. 213.
  59. Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature on 2 October 2013, C.E.TS. No. 214.
  60. Reforming the European Convention on Human Rights, A Work in Progress, 148, available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/librarydocs/dg2/isbn/coe-2009-en-9789287166043.pdf [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  61. Report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly on the Draft Protocol No. l4bis to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 28 April 2009, Doc 11879, available at: https://bit.ly/2ZtmsWd [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  62. Report of the Evaluation Group to the Committee of Ministers on the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 27 September 2001, available at: https://bit.ly/2W7t9ve [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  63. Serbia Judicial Functional Review, Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Justice Sector Support in Serbia, Report No. 94014-YF World Bank, 2014, at 140, para. 62, available at: http://www.vk.sud.rs/sites/default/files/attachments/Serbia%20Judicial%2oFunctional%2oReview-Full%2oReport.pdf [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  64. Shelton D., Remedies in International Human Rights Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2015.
  65. Short Survey of the Main Judgments and Decisions Delivered by the in 2009: Annual Report 2009 of the European Court of Human Rights 73, available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/ShortSurvey2009_ENG.pdf [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  66. Starace V., Modifications Provided by Protocol No. 14 Concerning Proceedings Before the European Court of Human Rights, „The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals” 2006, vol. 5, no. 1.
  67. Starr S., Rethinking 'Effective Remedies'. Remedial Deterrence in International Courts, „New York University Law Review” 2008, vol. 83, no. 3.
  68. The European Convention on Human Rights at 50: what future for the protection of human rights in Europe?, available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/cddh/reformechr/dhgdr/Declaration-Rome-en.pdf [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  69. The Pilot-Judgment Procedure, Information issued by the Registrar of the Court, para. 2, available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pilot-judgment-procedureENG.pdf [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  70. The Report of the Reflection Group on the Reinforcement of the Human Rights Protection Mechanism is included in Appendix IV to the Report of the Evaluation Group to the Committee of Ministers on the European Court of Human Rights. The Court of Human Rights for Europe, Committee of Minister's Declaration adopted at its 111th session (6-7 November 2002), available at: https://bit.ly/2ZtxKtE [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  71. Turnbull L., A Victim of its Own Success: The Reform of the European Court of Human Rights, „European Public Law” 1995, vol. 1, no. 2.
  72. Wildhaber L., Rethinking the European Court of Human Rights [in:] J. Christoffersen, M.R. Madsen (eds.), The European Court of Human Rights Between Law and Politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2011.
  73. Williams R.C., Property, „Studies of Transnational Legal Policy” 2010, vol. 41.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.