Advertisement

The Acceptability of the Rulings of the European Court of Human Rights

  • Paul Mahoney
Chapter

Abstract

I have to confess that it was with some trepidation that, in 2005 at the start of my function as President of the newly instituted, and now already defunct, European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Luxembourg, I awaited the appointment that was to be set up with Carl Baudenbacher in order to explore the possibility of organising a working meeting between our small Tribunal and his EFTA Court. Who was this man, I wondered, who could take on the job of succeeding the mythical and monumental Icelander, Thór Vilhjálmsson as President of the EFTA Court? When, very soon after my arrival in Luxembourg, I did meet Carl, at an official dinner of the EFTA Court, I discovered the congenial, cultured and dynamic reality of “this man”. What followed was a still continuing history of family friendship. This modest article on one aspect of judicial reasoning—namely, whether the acceptability of a court’s ruling should enter into the decision-making process of judges—is dedicated to Carl in thanks for that friendship, as well as being an expression of respect for his professional achievements.

References

  1. Baudenbacher C (2018) Farewell speech on the occasion of his stepping down from the bench, 9 April 2018. Online available at: http://www.eftacourt.int/fileadmin/user_upload/Files/Events/2018_CB_Stepping_down_from_EFTA_Court.pdf
  2. Bingham T (2010) The rule of law. Penguin, Allen Lane, London, pp 20–21Google Scholar
  3. Birks P (1998) The academic and the practitioner. Leg Stud 18(4):399–400Google Scholar
  4. Bjorge E (2014) The evolutionary interpretation of treaties. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjorge E (2015) Domestic application of the ECHR: courts as faithful trustees. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bürli N (2013) Amicus Curiae as a means to reinforce the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights. In: Flogaitis S, Zwart T, Fraser J (eds) The European Court of Human Rights and its discontents. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 71–95 and 135–146Google Scholar
  7. Çalı B, Koch A, Bruch N (2011) The legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights: the view from the ground. UCL, Strasbourg, pp 6, 35–36Google Scholar
  8. Çalı B, Koch A, Bruch N (2013) The social legitimacy of human rights courts: a grounded interpretivist theory of the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights. Hum Rights Q 5:955–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costa J-P (1998) La Cour européenne des Droits de l’homme: Vers un ordre juridique européen. In: Flécheux G et al (eds) Mélanges en hommage à Louis-Edmond Pettiti. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 197–206Google Scholar
  10. Delzangles B (2009) Activisme et autolimitation de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, Fondation Varenne. LGDJ, Paris, p 402Google Scholar
  11. Dzehtsiarou K (2015) European consensus and the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ch. 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feldman D (2013) Sovereignties in Strasbourg. In: Rawlings R, Leyland P, Young AL (eds) Sovereignty and the law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 213–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flogaitis S, Zwart T, Fraser J (2013) The European Court of Human Rights and its discontents. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kondak R, Mahoney P (2015) Common ground: a starting point or destination for comparative-law analysis by the European Court of Human Rights ? In: Adenas M, Fairgrieve D (eds) Courts and comparative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 119–140Google Scholar
  15. Mahoney P (2005) The European Convention on Human Rights as a living instrument. Bulletin des droits de l’homme, nos. 11/12Google Scholar
  16. Mahoney P (2008) The international judiciary – independence and accountability. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 7(3):313–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mahoney P (2009a) Effect, non-compliance and enforcement of judgments of international/supranational courts – the European Court of Human Rights as a case-study. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) International dispute resolution, vol I. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart, pp 95–117Google Scholar
  18. Mahoney P (2009b) The drafting process of the European Court of Human Rights, unpublished paperGoogle Scholar
  19. Mahoney P (2011a) Precedent in European High Courts: an introduction. In: Baudenbacher C, Planzer S (eds) International dispute resolution (vol III) – the role of precedent. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart, pp 103–112Google Scholar
  20. Mahoney P (2011b) La consolidation du droit européen des droits de l’homme: le rôle des doctrines nationales – Le point de vue de Strasbourg. In: Hennette-Vauchez S (ed) Les droits de l’homme ont-ils constitutionnalisé le monde? Bruylant, Brussels, p 281Google Scholar
  21. Mahoney P (2016) Judicial power plus judicial duty equals judicial legitimacy. Hum Rights Law J 36:300–303Google Scholar
  22. Mowbray A (2015) Subsidiarity and the European Convention on Human Rights. Hum Rights Law Rev 15:313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pollock F (1929) Judicial caution and valour. Law Q Rev 45:293Google Scholar
  24. Rodger A (2003) The future of the European Court of Human Rights. Hum Rights Law J 24:149Google Scholar
  25. Spano R (2014) Universality or diversity of human rights? Strasbourg in the age of diversity. Hum Rights Law Rev 14:487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Spielmann D (2014) Speech at the Dialogue between Judges on 31 January 2014, “Implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: a shared judicial responsibility?”. Online available at: www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Dialogue_2014_ENG.pdf#page31
  27. Sudre F (2013) La motivation des décisions de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. In: Ruiz-Fabri H, Sorel J-M (eds) La motivation des décisions des juridictions internationales. Editons Pedone, Paris, p 177Google Scholar
  28. Terris D, Romano CPR, Swigart L (2007) The international judge. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 205Google Scholar
  29. Weir T (1996) Swag for the burglar. Camb Law J 55:182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weir T (2012) Tony Weir on the case: Tony Weir’s Cambridge Law Journal Casenotes, pp 113–116Google Scholar
  31. Wildhaber L, Hjartarson A, Donnelly S (2013) No consensus on consensus? The practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Hum Rights Law J 33:248Google Scholar
  32. Zwart T (2013) More human rights than court: why the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Right is in need of repair and how it can be done. In: Flogaitis S, Zwart T, Fraser J (eds) The European Court of Human Rights and its discontents. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Mahoney
    • 1
  1. 1.StrasbourgFrance

Personalised recommendations