Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Strategic litigation before the European Courts

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

Strategic litigation involves the continuation of politics before the courts by elements of civil society. Our European Courts appear reluctant to be drawn into areas of political controversy. The CJEU’s strict rules on standing discourage strategic litigation. Luxembourg’s restrictive approach occasions much expression of frustration (and disbelief) from NGOs that the doors of this court be closed to so many, who are thereby deprived of their fundamental right to an effective remedy. Less complaint is made of the ECtHR “victim test”, but that is primarily because NGOs can readily appear in their own right before the Strasbourg Court as interveners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Barber [1], pp. 417–418.

  2. C-334/12 RX-II Arango Jaramillo and Others v. EIB, ECLI:EU:C:2013:134, paragraph 43.

  3. Golder v. United Kingdom, no. 4451/70 [1975] 1 EHRR 524, paragraphs 535–536.

  4. See e.g. Joined Cases T-541/10 and T-215/11 ADEDY, ECLI:EU:T:2012:626, paragraphs 60–62, 64.

  5. See Case C-50/00 P Union de Pequenos Agricultores v. Council [2002] ECR I-6677.

  6. See Case 25/62 Plaumann v. Commission [1963] ECR 95 and Case C-321/95P Greenpeace Council and Others v. Commission [1998] ECR I-1651.

  7. See, e.g., Case C-260/05 P Sniace SA v. Commission [2007] ECR I-10005, paragraph 53.

  8. See Case T-292/02 Confederazione Nazionale dei Servizi (Confservizi) v. Commission [2009] ECR II-1659, paragraphs 52–53.

  9. Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v. European Parliament, ECLI:EU:C:2013:625, paragraphs 60–61, 75–77, 93–106.

  10. Case C-157/96 R v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte National Farmers’ Union [1998] ECR I-2211.

  11. See Case C-344/04 International Air Transport and others [2006] ECR I-403.

  12. Case C-314/85 Firma Foto-Frost v. Hauptzollamt Lübeck Ost [1987] ECR 4199.

  13. Case C-263/02 P Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA v. Commission of the European Communities [2004] ECR I-3425, paragraphs 30–33 (emphasis added).

  14. Case C-536/11 Bundeswettbewerbsbehorde v. Donau Chemie, ECLI:EU:C:2013:366, [2013] 5 CMLR 9, paragraph 27.

  15. Case C-562/12 Liivimaa Lihaveis MTÜ, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2229, paragraph 39.

  16. Walton v. Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44, paragraph 94.

  17. Case C 240/09 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v. Slovakia [2011] ECR I-1255, paragraph 58.

  18. See e.g. Case T-392/07 Strack v. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:8 (reversed on appeal Case C-127/13P Strack v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2250).

  19. Case C 115/09 Bund für Umwelt- und Naturschutz Deutschland [2011] ECR I-3673, paragraphs 44–47.

  20. Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston [2011] ECR I-3673, paragraphs 42, 74.

  21. Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston [2011] ECR I-1255, paragraph 15.

  22. Case C 240/09 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v. Slovakia [2011] ECR I-1255.

  23. Case C-404/12 P Council and Commission v. Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe, ECLI:EU:C:2015:5.

  24. Case C-260/11 R (Edwards) v. Environment Agency (no. 2), ECLI:EU:C:2013:221.

  25. Case C-530/11 European Commission v. UK, ECLI:EU:C:2014:67.

  26. Zamula and Others v. Ukraine, no. 10231/02, 8 November 2005, paragraph 34.

  27. Gakiyev and Gakiyeva v. Russia, no. 3179/05, 23 April 2009, paragraphs 161–162.

  28. Vatan v. Russia, no. 47978/99 (2006) 42 EHRR 7.

  29. Nencheva v. Bulgaria, no. 48609/06, 18 June 2013.

  30. Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Campeanu v. Romania, no. 47848/08, 17 July 2014.

  31. Lambert v. France, no. 46043/14, 5 June 2015.

  32. Simpson [3].

  33. See Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99 (2007) 44 EHRR 48 where the Court confirmed that concept of “possessions” embraces established interests having an economic value, and has been held to include the goodwill and other economic interests associated with the running of a business.

  34. See Colas Est and Others v. France (2004) 34 EHRR 17, paragraph 49 where the Strasbourg Court unequivocally endorsed the idea that companies, as well as private individuals, were accorded rights to private life and respect for their home/domicile against arbitrary police searches.

  35. Markt Intern v. Germany (1989) 12 EHRR 161.

  36. OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (2012) 54 EHRR 19.

  37. Agrotexim Hellas SA v. Greece (1996) 21 EHRR 250.

  38. Meltex Ltd and Mesrop Movsesyan v. Armenia (2009) 49 EHRR 40.

  39. Lewis [2].

  40. Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, no. 7525/76, 22 October 1981.

  41. Norris v. Ireland (1991) 13 EHRR 186.

  42. The application to the ECtHR in this case was, by consent, struck out by the Court following the coming into force of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000: see Sutherland v. United Kingdom, no. 25186/94, 27 March 2001.

  43. See to like effect the Strasbourg Court’s judgment in A.D.T. v. United Kingdom, no. 35765/97, 31 July 2000, where the ECtHR ruled a prosecution under UK criminal law which differentiated between the criminality of (videoed) group same-sex consensual sexual acts conducted in private, compared to group different-sex consensual sexual acts conducted in private constituted a violation of Article 8 ECHR.

  44. Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. United Kingdom, no. 31417/96; Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, no. 33985/96, 27 September 1999.

  45. Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, 21 December 1999.

  46. Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, 24 July 2003.

  47. Oliari v. Italy, nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11, 21 July 2015.

  48. D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 57325/00 (2008) 47 EHRR 3, paragraph 175. See too Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Italy: re discrimination against Roma and Sinti, no. 58/2009 (2011) 52 EHRR SE6, paragraphs 34–35; see also International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) v. Belgium: re Housing Rights for Travellers, no. 62/2010 (2012) 55 EHRR SE18, paragraphs 140–141.

  49. Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005-IX, paragraph 82.

  50. Smith v. Scott, 2007 SC 345, RAC/IH.

  51. Moohan and others v. Scottish Government [2014] UKSC 67.

  52. R. (Chester) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63.

  53. Case C-650/13 Delvigne, ECLI:EU:C:2015:648.

  54. Lautsi v. Italy, no. 30814/06 (2012) 54 EHRR 3.

References

  1. Barber, C.: Tackling the evaluation challenge in human rights: assessing the impact of strategic litigation organisations. International Journal of Human Rights 16, 411–435 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lewis, O.: Advancing legal capacity jurisprudence. European Human Rights Law Review 6, 700–714 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Simpson, A.W.B.: Review of Marius Emberland The Human Rights of Companies—Exploring the Structure of ECHR Protection. European Law Review 32, 419 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Matrix Chambers, Gray’s Inn, Griffin Building, London, WC1R 5LN, United Kingdom

    Aidan O’Neill

Authors
  1. Aidan O’Neill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aidan O’Neill.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Neill, A. Strategic litigation before the European Courts. ERA Forum 16, 495–509 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0409-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0409-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation