|
Cyprus
v.
Turkey
, European Court of
Human Rights, Judgment of 10 May 2001, paras. 75 ff.; 120 ILR, p. 10.
24
See
Bankovi´c
v.
Belgium
, Judgment of 12 December 2001, paras. 63, 67 and 71; 123 ILR,
pp. 110, 111 and 113. The Court noted that ‘the Convention is a multi-lateral treaty
operating
· · ·
in an essentially regional context and notably in the legal space (
espace
juridique
) of the contracting states’,
ibid
., para. 80. See also
Issa
v.
Turkey
, Judgment of 16
November 2004, paras. 65 ff., where the Court held that the degree of control exercised
by Turkish troops during a large-scale incursion into northern Iraq did not amount to
overall control, and
Assanidze
v.
Georgia
, Judgment of 8 April 2004.
25
Judgment of 8 July 2004 at paras. 312–13.
26
Ibid.
, paras. 314–19.
r e g i o na l p r o t e c t i o n o f h u m a n r i g h t s
351
so that the impugned action was, in principle, ‘attributable’ to the UN
and thus not to the states brought before the Court.
27
The convention system
With the coming into force of Protocol 11 on 1 November 1998, a single
permanent and full-time Court was established, so that the former Court
and Commission ceased to exist. The new Court consists of a number of
judges equal to that of the contracting parties to the Convention. Judges
are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for
six-year terms.
28
To consider cases before it, the Court may sit in Commit-
tees of three judges, in Chambers of seven judges and in a Grand Chamber
of seventeen judges.
29
The Rules of Court provide for the establishment of
at least four Sections, the compositions of which are to be geographically
and gender-balanced and reflective of the different legal systems among
the contracting states.
30
The Chambers of seven judges provided for in the
amended Convention are constituted from the Sections, as are the Com-
mittees of three judges.
31
The plenary Court is responsible for the election
of the President and Vice-Presidents of the Court, the appointment of the
Presidents of the Chambers, constituting Chambers and adopting rules
of procedure.
32
In ascertaining whether an application is admissible, the President of
the Chamber to which it has been assigned will appoint a judge as Judge
Rapporteur to examine the application and decide whether it should be
considered by a Committee of three or a Chamber.
33
A Committee, acting
unanimously, may decide to declare the application inadmissible or strike
it out of the list.
34
That decision is final. In other cases, the application will
be considered by a Chamber on the basis of the Judge Rapporteur’s report.
27
Judgment of 2 May 2007, paras. 141 ff.; similarly with regard to those activitites falling
within the framework of the UNMIK, deemed to be a subsidiary organ of the Security
Council, para. 143. But see
Bosphorus Airways
v.
Ireland
, Judgment of 30 June 2005. See,
as to the situation in Kosovo, above, chapter 5, pp. 204 and 232.
28
Articles 22 and 23. Note that there will no longer be a prohibition on two judges having
the same nationality. The terms of office of the judges will end at the age of seventy.
29
Article 27.
30
Rule 25. There are now five Sections.
31
Rules 26 and 27.
32
Article 26.
33
Rule 49.
34
Ibid
. and article 28. In so doing, the Committee will take into account the report of the
Judge Rapporteur, Rule 53. Note that the Court has the right to strike out an application at
any stage of the proceedings where it concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue
his application or the matter has been resolved or, for any other reason established by the
Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. However,
the Court shall continue the examination of an application if respect for human rights as
defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires: see article 37.
352
i n t e r nat i o na l l aw
The Chamber may hold oral hearings. The question of admissibility will
then be decided. Once an application is declared admissible, the Chamber
may invite the parties to submit further evidence and written observations
and a hearing on the merits may be held if the Chamber decides or one
of the parties so requests.
35
At this point the respondent government is
usually contacted for written observations.
36
Where a serious question
affecting the interpretation of the Convention or its Protocols is raised
in a case, or where the resolution of a question might lead to a result
inconsistent with earlier case-law, the Chamber may, unless one of the
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
