Responding to systemic human rights violations : an analysis of 'pilot judgments' of the European Court of Human Rights and their impact at national level / Philip Leach [and others].
2010
KJC5132 .R47 2010 (Map It)
Available at Cellar
Formats
| Format | |
|---|---|
| BibTeX | |
| MARCXML | |
| TextMARC | |
| MARC | |
| DublinCore | |
| EndNote | |
| NLM | |
| RefWorks | |
| RIS |
Items
Details
Title
Responding to systemic human rights violations : an analysis of 'pilot judgments' of the European Court of Human Rights and their impact at national level / Philip Leach [and others].
Published
Antwerp ; Portland : Intersentia, [2010]
Distributed
Portland, OR : Distribution for the USA and Canada: International Specialized Book Services
Copyright
©2010
Call Number
KJC5132 .R47 2010
ISBN
9789400000414
9400000413
9400000413
Description
xii, 208 pages ; 24 cm
System Control No.
(OCoLC)617565245
Note
Funded by the Leverhulme Trust.
Bibliography, etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references (pages 191-206).
Record Appears in
Added Author
Added Corporate Author
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
xi
Introduction
1
ch. 1
The Pilot Judgment Procedure. Responding to states' failure to resolve systemic human rights violations
9
1.1.
The origins of the procedure: The Court's backlog and states' failure to implement Court judgments
9
1.2.
The purpose of the pilot judgment procedure and the defining elements of a pilot judgment
13
1.2.1.
The first tier: ̀Full' Pilot Judgments
15
1.2.1.1.
Broniowski v Poland
16
1.2.1.2.
Hutten-Czapska v Poland
18
1.2.1.3.
Burdov v Russia (No.2)
18
1.2.1.4.
Olaru and others v Moldova
19
1.2.1.5.
Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v Ukraine
20
1.2.1.6.
Suljagic v Bosnia and Herzegovina
21
1.2.1.7.
The common characteristics of ̀full' pilot judgments
22
1.2.2.
The second tier: ̀Quasi-Pilot' Judgments
24
1.2.3.
The third tier: other judgments addressing systemic issues
26
1.2.4.
Questions arising from the initial application of the pilot judgment procedure
28
1.3.
Securing states' compliance with the European Convention
32
1.4.
The mechanics of the pilot judgment procedure
34
How are cases chosen for the application of the pilot judgment procedure - a question of selective justice?
34
ch. 2
Poland: The ̀Homeland' of Pilot Judgments?
41
2.1.
Introduction
41
2.1.1.
The status of the Convention with respect to domestic law
41
2.1.2.
Poland's track record in responding to Strasbourg
43
2.1.2.1.
The problem of ensuring effective parliamentary engagement in the implementation process
46
2.1.2.2.
The failure of the legislature and the executive to respond to Constitutional Court judgments
47
2.1.2.3.
̀Full' Pilot Judgments: Broniowski and Hutten-Czapska
48
2.2.
Compensation for expropriated property (Broniowski)
49
2.2.1.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the ̀Broniowski law'
51
2.2.2.
Amendments to the Broniowski law
55
2.3.
State rent-control and subsidisation for property renovation (Hutten-Czapska)
56
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the ̀rent mirror scheme' and the law on renovation and thermo-modernization
58
2.4.
̀Quasi-pilot' judgments and ̀third tier' judgments
59
2.4.1.
Excessive length of proceedings (Kudla)
60
Evaluation of the impact of the Kudla judgment on domestic law
62
2.4.2.
Excessive length of pre-trial detention (Kauczor)
64
Evaluation of the impact of the Kauczor judgment on domestic law
65
2.4.3.
Poor prison conditions and inhuman treatment (Slawomir Musial)
67
Evaluation of the impact of the Slawomir Musial judgment on domestic law
67
2.5.
Evaluation of the monitoring of the implementation of Strasbourg judgments
68
2.6.
Conclusion
71
2.6.1.
What factors have led the Court to apply the pilot judgment procedure?
72
2.6.1.1.
The Role of Individuals
72
2.6.1.2.
Collaboration between the Polish Constitutional and European Courts
73
ch. 3
The Slovenian Experience of ̀Quasi-Pilot' Judgments. Has the Court over-reached its powers in length of proceedings cases?
75
3.1.
Introduction
75
3.1.1.
The status and application of the European Convention in domestic law
75
3.1.2.
Slovenia's track record in responding to Strasbourg
76
3.1.2.1.
The Executive
76
3.1.2.2.
The Legislature
77
3.2.
The causes of the excessive length of legal proceedings in Slovenia
79
The particular problem in Celje
83
3.3.
Excessive length of proceedings: the cases of Belinger & Lukenda
85
3.3.1.
The ̀quasi-pilot' judgment of Lukenda v Slovenia
86
3.3.1.1.
The impact of Lukenda on domestic law
87
3.3.1.2.
Changes in the law to make administrative procedures in courts more efficient
89
3.3.1.3.
Alternative means of dispute resolution
89
3.3.1.4.
How effective was the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Lukenda?
90
3.4.
The sequel to Lukenda: the Robert Lesjak judgment
94
The 2009 amendments to the 2006 Law
95
3.5.
̀Third tier' Judgments - the cases of Matko and Silih
96
3.5.1.
Investigation into claims of police brutality: Matko
97
The effect of the Matko judgment on domestic law
98
3.5.2.
Investigation of medical malpractice: Silih v Slovenia
98
The effect of the Silih judgment on domestic law
99
3.6.
Evaluating how the implementation of Strasbourg judgments is monitored
100
3.7.
Conclusions
101
3.7.1.
What factors led the Court to issue ̀quasi-pilot' and ̀third tier' judgments against Slovenia?
101
Cooperation between the Slovenian Constitutional Court and the European Court
102
3.7.2.
The efficacy of the ̀quasi-pilot' judgment in Lukenda
103
3.7.3.
The erga omnes implications of Lukenda
104
ch. 4
Italy: Pinto, Azzolini and the Elevation of the Status of the European Convention in Domestic Law
105
4.1.
Introduction
105
4.1.1.
The status of the Convention with respect to national law
105
4.1.2.
Italy's track record in responding to Strasbourg
107
4.1.2.1.
Implementation of Constitutional Court judgments
109
4.1.2.2.
The implementation of Strasbourg judgments - the roles of the executive and legislature
109
4.2.
̀Quasi-pilot' judgments in Italian cases
111
4.2.1.
The right to a fair trial (Article 6)
111
4.2.1.1.
Sejdovic v Italy
112
4.2.1.2.
R.R. v Italy
113
4.2.2.
Compensation for expropriated property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1)
115
4.2.2.1.
Scordino v Italy (No. 1)
116
4.2.2.2.
Scordino v Italy (No. 3)
118
4.2.2.3.
Guiso-Gallisay
119
4.2.2.4.
Prohibition of building on land for expropriation
120
4.2.3.
Right to trial within a reasonable time (Article 6(1))
121
Scordino v Italy (No.1) and the ineffectiveness of the Pinto Law
122
4.3.
The effect of pilot judgments on the status of the European Convention on Human Rights in domestic law: Constitutional Court judgments 348 & 349
124
4.4.
Monitoring Implementation of Strasbourg Judgments
128
The Àzzolini Law'
128
4.4.1.
Report on the Pinto Law
129
4.4.2.
Report on the rendition of terrorist suspects: Saadi v Italy
130
4.5.
Conclusion
131
ch. 5
Expanding the Scope of the Pilot Judgment Procedure. The experience of Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turkey, Georgia and the United Kingdom
133
5.1.
Introduction
133
5.2.
The failure to implement domestic court judgments
134
5.2.1.
Burdov v Russia
134
5.2.1.1.
Burdov v Russia (No. 2)
137
5.2.1.2.
The response to Burdov (No. 2) from the executive, the judiciary and the legislature
141
5.2.2.
Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v Ukraine
145
5.2.3.
Olaru and others v Moldova
150
The ̀forces' within the state ìn favour' of the pilot judgment procedure
152
5.3.
Compensation for lost foreign currency savings after the break-up of Yugoslavia: Suljagic v Bosnia and Herzegovina
153
5.4.
Quasi-pilot judgments & communicated cases
156
5.4.1.
Xenides-Arestis v Turkey
156
The effectiveness of the 2005 Law
158
5.4.2.
Manole and others v Moldova
160
5.4.3.
Bekoyeva v Georgia
163
5.4.4.
O'Donoghue v United Kingdom
164
5.5.
Conclusion
166
5.5.1.
The response of the executive to the pilot judgment procedure
166
5.5.2.
Differing domestic pressures in favour of Article 46 judgments
167
5.5.3.
The efficacy of the Pilot Judgment Procedure
168
ch. 6
Conclusions and Recommendations
171
6.1.
The Origins and objectives of the pilot judgment procedure
171
6.2.
Defining pilot judgments, quasi-pilot judgments and other systemic cases
171
6.2.1.
(i) ̀Full' pilot judgments
172
6.2.2.
(ii) ̀Quasi-pilot' judgments
173
6.2.3.
(iii) Other judgments addressing systemic issues
173
6.3.
The selection of cases for the application of the pilot judgment procedure
173
6.4.
The practice and procedure of the Court in pilot judgment cases
174
6.5.
Questions arising from the application by the Court of the pilot judgment procedure
175
6.6.
The effectiveness of the pilot judgment procedure
177
6.7.
How states respond to pilot judgments
178
6.7.1.
Poland
179
6.7.2.
Slovenia
180
6.7.3.
Italy
181
6.8.
The contribution of other Council of Europe entities
182
6.9.
Recommendations
183
6.9.1.
Contracting States
183
6.9.2.
Civil Society
184
6.9.3.
Council of Europe
184
List of Cases
187
Bibliography
191
About the Authors
207