Abstract
This contribution seeks to examine Article 36 of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning third-party interventions before the European Court of Human Rights. After briefly reviewing the first four types of interveners—namely the applicant’s State of nationality, third States, amici curiae and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights—I will focus mainly on interventions by third parties who are “concerned” by the outcome of a given dispute before the Court because they were involved in the proceedings at the domestic level. In this regard, I argue that the rights and interests of the original parties should be guaranteed by granting them a genuine and effective possibility to participate in the proceedings pending before the Strasbourg Court. To that end, intervening should be a right rather than a mere possibility left to the discretion of the President of the Court. To be effective, such a right would entail automatic notification by the Court to the original parties that such proceedings are pending before it and should be accompanied by appropriate litigation rights.
Pere Pastor Vilanova is Judge at the European Court of Human Rights. The views expressed herein are personal. I would like to warmly thank Ms Camila Dupret Torres for her valuable collaboration in both the research and the writing of this article.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
While most cases oppose persons or groups of individuals to Member State(s) in the sense of Article 34 of the Convention, others are inter-State cases within the meaning of Article 33 of the Convention, and oppose exclusively Member States.
- 2.
Article 36 ECHR was initially introduced by Protocol No. 11, 11 May 1995.
- 3.
The text of Article 36 § 2 is taken from the former version of Rule 37 § 2 of the Rules of Court.
- 4.
The French version of Article 36 § 2 refers to “toute personne intéressée”.
- 5.
I refer to the United Kingdom, in the case of Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, no. 6301/71, 24 October 1979.
- 6.
While this number may seem low, it should be stressed that the wording of the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 14 emphasises that the Commissioner’s role is to highlight “structural or systemic weaknesses in the respondent or other High Contracting Parties” (13 May 2004, § 87).
- 7.
Harvey (2015).
- 8.
Sicilianos (2005), p. 122.
- 9.
Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights amending the control system of the Convention, Strasbourg, 13.V.2004, Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 194, § 89.
- 10.
Rule 44 § 1 (a) of the Rules of Court.
- 11.
Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 173-176, 15 October 2015.
- 12.
Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, §§ 59-60, 18 May 2004.
- 13.
K.K.C. v. the Netherlands, no. 58964/00, 21 December 2001.
- 14.
Rule 44 § 2 of the Rules of Court.
- 15.
As of January 2019, the last intervention was in December 2018 in the case of Mehmet Osman Kavala v. Turkey, which concerned the arrest and detention of the applicant, a civil-society activist and human-rights defender in Turkey, and the alleged use of this detention as a mean of silencing him.
- 16.
Costa (2008).
- 17.
Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 14, § 87.
- 18.
Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 11, 11 May 1995, § 91.
- 19.
Bürli (2017), pp. 132–135.
- 20.
Harvey (2015), op. cit.
- 21.
Lautsi and Others v. Italy, no. 30814/06, § 47, 18 March 2011. The Governments of Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Romania, the Russian Federation and the Republic of San Marino submitted written observations.
- 22.
In the case of “leading judgments”, for example. On the issue of the reach of the Court’s cases, see Pastor Vilanova (2018), pp. 120–121.
- 23.
Burgorgue-Larsen (2011), p. 73.
- 24.
Vincent Berger, Regional Consultation on Advancing a Pacific Regional Human Rights Mechanism, Suva, 28–30 November 2011.
- 25.
Burgorgue-Larsen (2011), p. 75.
- 26.
Bürli (2017), p. 9.
- 27.
On the origins of this rule, see J. M. Kelly, “Audi Alteram Partem. Note”, Natural Law Forum, Paper 84, 1964, p. 103.
- 28.
Bürli (2017), p. 160.
- 29.
Bürli (2017), p. 161.
- 30.
French Code of Civil Procedure, Article 66 § 1.
- 31.
Chainais et al. (2018), § 435.
- 32.
Fiche d’orientation: Intervention en Procédure civile, Éditions Dalloz, Septembre 2017.
- 33.
French Code of Civil Procedure, Article 330 § 2.
- 34.
French Code of Civil Procedure, Article 169 § 2.
- 35.
Ley de Enjuiciamiento civil, Article 13 § 1.
- 36.
Ortells Ramos (2005), p. 183.
- 37.
Llei de la jurisdicció administrativa i fiscal, Article 25.
- 38.
Bürli (2017), p. 159.
- 39.
They are, however, excluded from institutional disputes between Member States, institutions of the Union or between Member States and any of the said institutions.
- 40.
Bürli (2017), p. 159.
- 41.
Statute of the CJEU, Article 40(3).
- 42.
De Schutter (2005).
- 43.
Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Article 93(3).
- 44.
Bürli (2017), p. 178.
- 45.
Rule 18 A of the Rules of Court.
- 46.
Bürli (2017), p. 161.
- 47.
For example, the French “demande reconventionnelle”; see French Code of Civil Procedure, Article 64.
- 48.
Lambert v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, 5 June 2015. One of the interveners, Vincent Lambert’s half-sister, was also a third party to the domestic proceedings.
- 49.
Or any similar mechanism through which the victim intervenes as an accessory complainant, such as the “Nebenklage” in German criminal proceedings. This was the status of the interveners in Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], namely the parents of the child who had been killed by the applicant (no. 22978/05, 1 June 2010).
- 50.
Bürli (2017), p. 181.
- 51.
Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, 13 February 2001 (judgment); no. 67521/14, 20 February 2018 (decision).
- 52.
See, concerning property law for example: Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, 28 October 1999 (Merits) and 23 January 2001 (Just Satisfaction); Vrioni and Others v. Albania, no. 2141/03, 24 March 2009; Birzescu and Others v. Romania, no. 9304/05, 25 September 2012; Batkivska Turbota Foundation v. Ukraine, no. 5876/15, 9 October 2018.
- 53.
Lambert v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, 5 June 2015.
- 54.
For cases where the applicants were employed by religious institutions, see Schüt v. Germany, no. 1620/03, § 52, 23 September 2010; Obst v. Germany, no. 425/03, 23 September 2010; Siebenhaar v. Germany, no. 18136/02, 3 February 2011; Fernandez Martinez v. Spain [GC], 56030/07, 12 June 2014.
- 55.
Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, no. 41615/07, 6 July 2010.
- 56.
Anayo v. Germany, no. 20578/07, 21 December 2010; Schneider v. Germany, no. 17080/07, 15 September 2011; Ahrens v. Germany, no. 45701/09, 22 March 2012; Mandet v. France, no. 30955/12, 14 January 2016.
- 57.
Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, 12 July 2001; Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, 24 June 2004; Aquilina and Others v. Malta, no. 2141/03, 24 March 2009; Bohlen v. Germany, no. 53495/10, 19 February 2015; Kahn v. Germany, no. 16313/10, 17 March 2016.
- 58.
The process of constitution de partie civile can, for example, be found in Article 3 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure.
- 59.
Spencer (2002), p. 156.
- 60.
T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, 16 December 1999.
- 61.
Child Welfare Act of 17 July 1992 (Barnevernloven), section 4-20.
- 62.
Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], ECHR press release 347 (2018), 17 October 2018.
- 63.
In Germany, the possibility of reopening criminal proceedings is found in Article 359 § 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and for civil proceedings in Article 580 § 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- 64.
Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, 12 May 2005; Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 52, 11 July 2017.
- 65.
Lambert-Abdelgawad (2008), p. 18.
- 66.
Gorgülü v. Germany, no. 74969/01, 26 February 2004.
- 67.
Bundesverfassungsgericht, Beschluss, 14 October 2004 (2 BvR 1481/04) NJW 2004, 3407, § 65.
- 68.
Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, Concurring Opinion of Judge Wojtyczek, 5 February 2015.
- 69.
Unless another deadline is set by the President of the Chamber, see Rule 44 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court.
- 70.
Unless another deadline is set by the President of the Court, see Rule 44 § 4 (a) of the Rules of Court.
- 71.
Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], ECHR press release 347 (2018), 17 October 2018.
- 72.
Rule 44 § 3 (a) of the Rules of Court. In Lambert v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, 5 June 2015, the three interveners were given leave both to submit written observations and to take part in the hearings.
- 73.
For example, Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, 6 July 2010. In this case, the Court found a violation of Article 8 in favour of the applicant who had abducted her child, making it impossible for the Swiss authorities to enforce the domestic decision ordering the child’s return to his father in Israel.
- 74.
Rules 100-105 of the Rules of Court.
- 75.
For an interesting description of this issue, see Gruodyte and Kirchner (2016), p. 41.
- 76.
Law to introduce Legal Aid for affected Third Persons in Proceedings before the ECHR or Gesetz zur Einführung von Kostenhilfe für Drittbetroffene in Verfahren vor dem Europäschen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, 20 April 2013, section 1 (1).
References
Burgorgue-Larsen, L. (2011). Les interventions éclairées devant la Cour Européenne des droits de l’Homme ou le rôle stratégique des amici curiae. In La conscience des droits. Mélanges en l’honneur de Jean-Paul Costa (p. 73). Paris: Dalloz.
Bürli, N. (2017). Third-party interventions before the European Court of Human Rights (1st ed.). Cambridge: Intersentia.
Chainais, C., Ferrand, F., Guinchard, S., & Mayer, L. (2018). Procédure civile. Droit interne et européen du procès civil (34th ed.). Paris: Dalloz.
Costa, J.-P. (2008). Les enquêtes sur place de la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme. In L’État souverain dans le monde d’aujourd’hui. Mélanges en l’honneur de J.-P. Puissochet. Paris: Pedone.
De Schutter, O. (2005). Les tiers à l’instance devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne. In H. R. Fabri & J.-M. Sorel (Eds.), Les tiers à l’instance. Paris: Pedone.
Gruodyte, E., & Kirchner, S. (2016). Legal aid for intervenors in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 2, 41.
Harvey, P. (2015). Third party interventions before the ECtHR: A rough guide, Strasbourg Observer.https://strasbourgobservers.com/2015/02/24/third-party-interventions-before-the-ecthr-a-rough-guide/
Lambert-Abdelgawad, E. (2008). The execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Human rights files, no. 19, 18.
Ortells Ramos, M. (2005). Derecho Procesal Civil (6th ed.). Navarra: Editorial Aranzadi.
Pastor Vilanova, P. (2018). La Contribution du droit de la Convention Européenne des droits de l’Homme à l’intégration européenne. In J. Andriantsimbazovina (Ed.), Intégration et droits de l’Homme (pp. 120–121). Paris: Mare et Martin.
Sicilianos, A. (2005). La Tierce intervention devant la Cour Européenne des droits de l’Homme. In H. R. Fabri & J.-M. Sorel (Eds.), Les tiers à l’instance devant les juridictions internationales (p. 122). Paris: Pedone.
Spencer, J. R. (2002). The English system. In M. Delmas-Marty & J. R. Spencer (Eds.), European criminal procedures (p. 156). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pastor Vilanova, P. (2019). Third Parties Involved in International Litigation Proceedings. What Are the Challenges for the ECHR?. In: Pinto de Albuquerque, P., Wojtyczek, K. (eds) Judicial Power in a Globalized World. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20744-1_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20744-1_25
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20743-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20744-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)