The pilot-judgments procedure under scrutiny: Are its effects on the European system of human rights protection transformative, beneficial or perverse?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rdce.65.04Keywords:
European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights, pilot judgment procedure, ECHR reform process, access to justice, execution, systemic problem.Abstract
The following paper focused on the pilot judgment procedure aims to evaluate the impact of this instrument on the European Convention on Human Rights system. First of all, this has required to identify the main characteristics of this procedure in its current form, taking into account that it has been created and developed by jurisprudence in the context of the ECHR reform process. This provided us an opportunity to observe that there is not a perfect correlation between the «systemic problem» in the pilot judgment procedure and the notion of «systemic deficiencies» used by the EU Court of Justice. Secondly, the effects of the pilot judgment procedure in the relations between the European Court of Human Rights with the applicants, with the respondent state and with the Committee of Ministers have been analysed. As a result, we are facing a certain transformative procedure, which is deploying some beneficial effects on the Convention system, but which also requires several adjustments in order to avoid its perverse effects.Downloads
References
Abrisketa Uriarte, J. (2013), «Las sentencias piloto: el tribunal europeo de derechos humanos, de juez a legislador», Revista Española de Derecho Internacional, 65 (1), 73-99.
Acosta Alvarado, P. A. (2008), Tribunal Europeo y Corte Interamericana de derechos humanos: ¿Escenarios idóneos para la garantía del derecho de acceso a la justicia internacional? [Ebook], Universidad Externado de Colombia.
Buyse, A. (2016), «Flying or landing? The pilot judgment procedure in the changing European human rights architecture», en Mjöll Arnardóttir, O.; Buyse, O., Shifting Centres of Gravity in Human Rights Protection. Rethinking Relations between the ECHR, EU, and National Legal Orders, 101-115.
Di Marco, A. (2016), «L’État face aux arrêts pilotes de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme», Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme, 108, 887-914.
Ducoulombier, P. (2011), “Arrêts pilotes et efficacité des nouveaux recours internes”, en Lambert-Abdelgawad, E. y Dourneau-Josette, P. (dir.), Le filtrage des affaires à Strasbourg: l’examen de la recevabilité par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, Strasbourg, Éd. du Conseil de l’Europe, 255-292.
Fyrnys, M. (2011), «Expanding Competences by Judicial Lawmaking: The Pilot Judgment Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights», German Law Journal, 12 (05), 1231-1259.
Garlicki, L. (2007), «Broniowski and After: On the Dual Nature of ‘Pilot Judgments’», en Caflisch, L.; Callewaert, J.; Liddell, R.; Mahoney, P. y Villiger, M., (eds.), Liber Amicorum Luzius Wildhaber: Human Rights – Strasbourg Views, Kehl : Engel, 177-192.
Gerards, J. H. y Glass, L. R. (2017), «Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights System», Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 35 (1), 11-30.
Glas, L. (2016), «The Functioning of the Pilot-Judgment Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights in Practice», Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 34 (1), 41-70.
Haider, D. (2013), The Pilot-Judgement Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights, Países Bajos, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Kindt, E. (2017), «Non-execution of a pilot judgment: ECtHR passes the buck to the Committee of Ministers in Burmych and others v. Ukraine», Strasbourg Observers [blog].
Kindt, E. (2018), «Giving up on individual justice? The effect of state non-execution of a pilot judgment on victims», Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 36 (3), 173-188.
Kunz, R. (2018), «A further «constitutionalization» to the detriment of the individual? On the ECtHR’s stricter reading of the principle of subsidiarity regarding the admissibility of cases», Völkerrechtsblog [blog] (doi: 10.17176/20180919-182059-0).
Kurban, D. (2016), «Forsaking Individual Justice: The Implications of the European Court of Human Rights’ Pilot Judgment Procedure for Victims of Gross and Systematic Violations», Human Rights Law Review, 16 (4), 731-769.
Lambert Abdelgawad, E. (2007), «El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y la técnica de las sentencias piloto: una pequeña revolución en marcha en Estrasburgo …», Revista de Derecho Político, 69, 355-383.
Leach, P., Hardman, H. y Stephenson, S. (2010a), «Can the European Court’s Pilot Judgment Procedure Help Resolve Systemic Human Rights Violations? Burdov and the Failure to Implement Domestic Court Decisions in Russia», Human Rights Law Review, 10 (2), 346–359.
Leach, P., Hardman, H., Stephenson, S. y Blitz, B. K. (2010b), Responding to systemic human rights violations: an analysis of pilot judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and their impact at national level, Antwerp-Oxford-Portland, Intersentia.
López Guerra, L. M. (2014), “Los Protocolos de reforma nº 15 y 16 al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos”, Civitas. Revista española de derecho europeo, 49, 11-29.
Queralt Jiménez, A. (2018), «Las sentencias piloto como ejemplo paradigmático de la transformación del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos», UNED. Teoría y Realidad Constitucional, 42, 395-424.
Quispe Remón, F. (2018), «Acceso a la justicia y Objetivos del Desarrollo Sostenible», en Díaz Barrado, C. M., y Fernández Liesa, C. R. (Dirs), Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible y derechos humanos: paz, justicia e instituciones sólidas/derechos humanos y empresas, Madrid, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 235-248.
Rosu, A.-C. (2014), «Property Restitution in Romania», Global Economic Observer, 2 (2), 37-41.
Sadurski, W. (2009), «Partnering with Strasbourg: Constitutionalism 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», Human Rights Law Review, 9 (3), 397-453.
Sainati, T. (2015), «Human Rights Class Actions: Rethinking the Pilot-Judgment Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights», Harvard International Law Journal, 56 (1), 147-205.
Sardaro, P. (2005), «The Right of Individual Petition to the European Court», en Lemmens, P., y Vandenhole, W., Protocol nº 14 ant the Reform of the European Court of Human Rights, 45 y 47.
Sudre, Fr. (2016), «L’effectivité des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme», Revue trimestrielle droits de l’homme, 108, 917-947.
Szymczak, D. (2011), «Le droit à indemnisation dans le cadre des "procédures pilotes"», en Flauss, J-F.; Lambert, E. (dir.), La pratique d'indemnisation par la cour européenne des droits de l'homme, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 275-295.
Ulfstein, G., y Zimmermann, A. (2018), «Certiorari through the Back Door: The Judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in Burmyuch and Others v. Ukraine in Perspective», KFG Working Paper Series, 13.
Wallace, S. (2011), «Much ado about nothing? The pilot judgment procedure at the European Court of Human Rights», European Human Rights Law Review, 71-81.
Wildhaber, L. (2009), «Pilot Judgments in Cases of Structural or Systemic Problems on the National Level», en Deutsch U., Wolfrum R. (eds), The European Court of Human Rights Overwhelmed by Applications: Problems and Possible Solutions. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht (Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht), 205. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer, 69-75.
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright
Submission of a manuscript to the RDCE implies having read and accepted the journal's editorial guidelines and instructions for authors. When a work is accepted for publication, it is understood that the author grants the RDCE exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and, where appropriate, sale of his manuscript for exploitation in all countries of the world in printed version, as well as any other magnetic, optical and digital media.
Authors shall transfer the publishing rights of their manuscript to RDCE so that it may be disseminated and capitalised on Intranets, the Internet and any web portals and wireless devices that the publisher may decide, by placing it at the disposal of users so that the latter may consult it online and extract content from it, print it and/or download and save it. These activities must comply with the terms and conditions outlined on the website hosting the work. However, the RDCE authorises authors of papers published in the journal to include a copy of these papers, once published, on their personal websites and/or other open access digital repositories. Copies must include a specific mention of RDCE, citing the year and issue of the journal in which the article was published, and adding a link to the RDCE website(s).
A year after its publication, the works of the RDCE will be under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication is indicated, without the right to commercial exploitation and the elaboration of derivative works.
Plagiarism and scientific fraud
The publication of work that infringes on intellectual property rights is the sole responsibility of the authors, including any conflicts that may occur regarding infringement of copyright. This includes, most importantly, conflicts related to the commission of plagiarism and/or scientific fraud.
Practices constituting scientific plagiarism are as follows:
1. Presenting the work of others as your own.
2. Adopting words or ideas from other authors without due recognition.
3. Not using quotation marks or another distinctive format to distinguish literal quotations.
4. Giving incorrect information about the true source of a citation.
5. The paraphrasing of a source without mentioning the source.
6. Excessive paraphrasing, even if the source is mentioned.
Practices constituting scientific fraud are as follows:
1. Fabrication, falsification or omission of data and plagiarism.
2. Duplicate publication.
3. Conflicts of authorship.
Warning
Any breach of these Rules shall constitute a ground for rejection of the manuscript submitted.
