Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Duty of Cooperation of the Respondent State During the Proceedings Before the European Court of Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the 21st Century

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 30))

  • 1565 Accesses

Abstract

The right of individual petition under Article 34 ECHR is the cornerstone of the European Convention on Human Rights, but it is rather odd that its efficiency can be so easily undermined by member states. Indeed, without the states’ cooperation in clarifying the facts, it is impossible for the European Court of Human Rights to adjudicate the case. Therefore, Article 38 ECHR obliges respondent states to furnish all necessary facilities to the European Court. Eventually, the ultimate goal in this provision is thus to conserve the effective character of the substantive rights in the ECHR. Statistical data reveal a growing unwillingness of certain member states to faithfully collaborate with Court in relation to certain fundamental rights, which is an alarming trend. A comprehensive case law analysis on the one hand reveals the exact situations where member states are failing in their duty to cooperate and their reasons for acting in that way, but it also shows the ingenuity with which the Court is expanding the scope of the protection under Article 38, and the legal consequences which it attaches to the establishment of a violation of the provision, and is thereby for the first time ‘giving teeth’ to this under-explored provision. While the Court’s interpretation of Article 38 aims to counter the erosion of the right of individual petition and thus renders the substantive rights in the Convention efficient, this contribution offers some suggestions to improve the current system.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See e.g. D. Baluarte and C.M. Vos, From Judgment to Justice. Implementing International and Regional Human Rights Decisions (New York: Open Society Foundations, 2010) 198; E. Bates, “Supervising the Execution of Judgments Delivered by the European Court of Human Rights: The Challenges Facing the Committee of Ministers”, in T.A. Christou and J.P. Raymond (eds.) European Court of Human Rights. Remedies and Execution of Judgments, (London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2005) 49–106; E. Lambert Abdelgawad, “L’execution des arrets de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme”, Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’Homme,77 (2007), 669–705, 78 (2008), 647–686, 79 (2009), 651–682, 2010, 793–814, 81 (2011), 939–958; M. Marmo, “The execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – a politicalbattle”, 15 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 2008, 235–276; X. Ruedin, Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Procédure, obligations des Etats, pratique et réforme (Brussels: Bruylant, 2009) 244.

  2. 2.

    For the odd (partial) exception, see O. Chernishova and N. Vajic, “The Court’s evolving response to the states’ failure to cooperate”, in D. Spielmann (ed.), The European Convention on Human Rights: a living and dynamic instrument – liber amicorum in honour of judge Rozakis, (Brussels: Bruylant 2011) 47–79, 58–79; J. Măckić, “Artikel 38 EVRM [Article 38 ECHR]”, in J. Gerards, Y. Haeck, de Hert, A. Woltjer, M. Tjepkema and J. van der Velde (eds.), EVRM Rechtspraak & Commentaar [ECHR Case Law & Commentary] (The Hague: Sdu Publishers, loose-leaf) 1–18, 11–17; J. Vande Lanotte and Y. Haeck, Handboek EVRM Deel 1. Algemene Beginselen [Handbook ECHR. Part 1. General Principles], (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2005) 361–369.

  3. 3.

    ECtHR 28 October 1998, No. 24760/94, Assenov v. Bulgaria, para. 170 (discouraging to submit an application).

  4. 4.

    ECtHR 25 September 1997, No. 23178/94, Aydin v. Turkey, para. 120 (intimidation).

  5. 5.

    ECtHR 18 June 2002, No. 25656/94, Orhan v. Turkey, para. 402.

  6. 6.

    Collected edition of the “Travaux préparatoires” of the European Convention on Human Rights/Council of Europe (henceforth: Travaux Préparatoires) Vol. 4. Committee of Experts (30 March–17 June 1950) (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977) 18–19.

  7. 7.

    Art. 19 ECHR. The Commission was elected on 18 May 1954 and met for the first time on 12 July 1954, while the Court was set up on 21 January 1959.

  8. 8.

    Travaux Préparatoires Vol. 1, Appendix.

  9. 9.

    Travaux Préparatoires Vol. 1 Sitting of the Committee of Legal and Administrative Questions (22 August–5 September 1949) 154.

  10. 10.

    “Furthermore, the European States were governed by the rule of law: the rare cases of violation, once established by the Commission, would give rise to immediate restitution by the Member States, who were all anxious that human rights should be respected.”Travaux Préparatoires Vol. 3 Committee of Experts (2 February–10 March 1950) 18.

  11. 11.

    Travaux Préparatoires Vol. 6 Consultative Assembly 64.

  12. 12.

    Article 13 became Article 14: Travaux Préparatoires Vol. 3 Committee of Experts (2 February–10 March 1950) 196; Article 14 became Article 18: Travaux Préparatoires Vol. 3 Committee of Experts (2 February – 10 March 1950) 236; Article 18 became Article 24: Travaux Préparatoires Vol. 3 Committee of Experts (2 February–10 March 1950) 328. In the four alternative draft conventions drawn up by the Committee of Experts: Article 24 or 26; Travaux Préparatoires Vol. 4 Committee of Experts. Eventually this becomes Article 28: Travaux Préparatoires Legal Committee, Ad Hoc Joint Committee, Committee of Ministers, Consultative Assembly (23 June–28 August 1950) 88.

  13. 13.

    Protocol No. 8 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 19 March 1985, ETS No. 118.

  14. 14.

    Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, restructuring the control machinery established thereby, 11 May 1994, ETS No. 155.

  15. 15.

    Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention, Strasbourg, 13 May 2004, ETS No. 194.

  16. 16.

    Explanatory Report to the Protocol No. 14 to the ECHR, para. 90.

  17. 17.

    Including the former Articles 28 ECHR and 38(1)(a) ECHR.

  18. 18.

    It often concerns the procedural limb under Article 2 and 3 ECHR, next to Article 34 ECHR.

  19. 19.

    ECtHR 8 July 1999, No. 23763/94, Tanrikulu v. Turkey.

  20. 20.

    In 96 % of cases.

  21. 21.

    In 85 % of cases.

  22. 22.

    ECtHR 20 February 2007, No. 35865/03, Al-Moayad v. Germany, para. 107; ECtHR 12 April 2005, No. 36378/02, Shamayev and others v. Georgia and Russia, para. 407; ECtHR 20 July 1998, No. 23818/94, Ergi v. Turkey, para. 105; R. Toma, “The Sanctioning of Hindrances to the Exercise of the Right of Individual Petition before the European Court of Human Rights: Is it Effective?”, in E. Lambert Abdelgawad (ed.), Preventing and sanctioning hindrances to the right of individual petition before the European Court of Human Rights (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2011)34. But see ECtHR 23 November 2003, Nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, Elci and others v. Turkey, para. 716, where the 6-month limit was applied. See also ECtHR 28 October 2010, No. 23284/04, Boris Popov v. Russia, para. 117, where an Article 34 case was declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.

  23. 23.

    ECtHR 8 April 2004, No. 26307/95, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, para. 252.

  24. 24.

    E.g. ECtHR 28 March 2000, No. 22492/93, Kilic v. Turkey; ECtHR 4 July 1999, No. 23657/94, Cakici v. Turkey; ECtHR 14 November 2000, No. 24396/94, Tas v. Turkey; ECtHR 9 March 2004, No. 22494/93, Hasan Ilhan v. Turkey.

  25. 25.

    E.g. ECtHR 1 November 2000, No. 25760/94, Ipek v. Turkey; J. Vande Lanotte and Y. Haeck, Handboek EVRM Deel 1. Algemene Beginselen [Handbook ECHR. Part 1. General Principles], (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2005) 606.

  26. 26.

    E.g. ECtHR 24 January 2008, No. 48804/99, Osmanoglu v. Turkey, para. 44; ECtHR 5 April 2007, No. 74237/01, Baysayeva v. Russia, para. 167; ECtHR 5 Juli 2007, No. 68007/01, Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, para. 104.

  27. 27.

    E.g. ECtHR 26 January 2006, No. 77617/01, Mikheyev v. Russia, para. 144.

  28. 28.

    ECtHR 8 July 1999, No. 23763/94, Tanrikulu v. Turkey, para. 70.

  29. 29.

    ECtHR 5 February 2009, No. 21519/02, Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, para. 177.

  30. 30.

    E.g. ECtHR 26 July 2007, Nos. 57941/00 58699/00 60403/00, Musayev and others v. Russia, para. 183. ECtHR 27 July 2006, No. 69481/01, Bazorkina v. Russia, paras. 172–174.

  31. 31.

    Explanatory Report to the 14th Protocol to the ECHR, para. 73.

  32. 32.

    ECtHR 28 October 2010, No. 35079/04,Sasito Israilova and others v. Russia; ECtHR 7 October 2010, No. 41840/02, Sadykov v. Russia; ECtHR 26 April 2011, No. 25091/07, Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia.

  33. 33.

    Partly dissenting opinion of judge Adeishvili under ECtHR 26 April 2011, No. 25091/07, Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia.

  34. 34.

    ECtHR 12 February 2009, No. 2512/04, Nolan and K v. Russia.

  35. 35.

    ECtHR 5 April 2005, No. 54825/00, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, paras. 76–77; ECtHR 5 July 2005, No. 49790/99, Trubnikov v. Russia, para. 52.

  36. 36.

    ECtHR 18 June 2002, No. 25656/94, Orhan v. Turkey.

  37. 37.

    Ibid, para. 270.

  38. 38.

    ECtHR 6 April 2004, No. 21689/93, Ahmet Ozkan and others v. Turkey, paras. 481–482.

  39. 39.

    ECtHR 20 September 2005, No. 27309/95, Dizman v. Turkey, paras. 57–66.

  40. 40.

    ECtHR 13 June 2000, No. 23531/94, Timurtas v. Turkey, para. 70.

  41. 41.

    ECtHR 8 July 1999, No. 23763/94, Tanrikulu v. Turkey, para. 71.

  42. 42.

    ECtHR 13 June 2000, No. 23531/94, Timurtas v. Turkey, paras. 66 and 70.

  43. 43.

    ECtHR 6 April 2004, No. 21689/93, Ahmet Ozkan and others v. Turkey, paras. 479–482.

  44. 44.

    ECtHR 24 February 2005, No. 57942/00 57945/00, Khasashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, para. 138. Repeated in ECtHR 26 July 2007, No. 57941/00 58699/00 60403/00, Musayev and others v. Russia, para. 146.

  45. 45.

    ECtHR 24 May 2005, No. 25660/94, Suheyla Aydin v. Turkey.

  46. 46.

    ECtHR 16 November 2006, No. 45964/99, Karov v. Bulgary, paras. 97–98.

  47. 47.

    ECtHR 25 August 2009, No. 23458/02, Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy, paras. 269–271; ECtHR 24 March 2011, No. 23458/02, Gialiani and Gaggio v. Italy, para. 344.

  48. 48.

    ECtHR 18 January 2007, No. 59334/00, Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia, para. 207; ECtHR 17 January 2008, No. 5108/02, Khatsiyeva and others v. Russia, para. 207.

  49. 49.

    ECtHR 15 November 2007, No. 29361/02, Kukayev v. Russia, para. 121; ECtHR 29 November 2007, No. 57935/00, Tangiyeva v. Russia, paras. 73–78; ECtHR 24 January 2008, No. 839/02, Maslova and Nalbandov v. Turkey, paras. 127–128; ECtHR 10 January 2008, No. 67797/01, Zubayrayev v. Russia, paras. 74–77; ECtHR 29 May 2008, No. 29133/03, Utsayeva and others v. Russia, paras. 149–153.

  50. 50.

    ECtHR 2 October 2008, No. 12713/02 28440/03, Lyanova and Aliyeva v. Russia, paras. 143–147.

  51. 51.

    See supra, note 10 and 4. Admissibility, sub 4.2. Is Article 38 applicable in the pre-admissibility stage?

  52. 52.

    ECtHR 14 November 2000, No. 24396/94, Tas v. Turkey, para. 54.

  53. 53.

    ECtHR 24 May 2005, No. 25660/94, Suheyla Aydin v. Turkey, paras. 138–142.

  54. 54.

    ECtHR 27 July 2006, No. 69481/01, Bazorkina v. Russia, para. 171; O. Chernishova and N. Vajic, “The Court’s evolving response to the states’ failure to cooperate”, in D.Spielmann (ed.), The European Convention on Human Rights: a living and dynamic instrument – liber amicorum in honour of judge Rozakis, (Brussels: Bruylant, 2011) 67.

  55. 55.

    ECtHR 9 March 2004, No. 22494/93, Hasan Ilhan v. Turkey: in this case 1 out of 11 summoned witnesses did not appear, but the witness sent a letter stating that he only played a limited role.

  56. 56.

    ECtHR 18 June 2002, No. 25656/94, Orhan v. Turkey, para. 271; ECtHR 1 November 2000, No. 25760/94, Ipek v. Turkey, para. 124; ECtHR 24 May 2005, No. 25660/94, Suheyla Aydin v. Turkey, para. 142; ECtHR 1 July 2010, No. 17674/02 39081/02, Davydov and others v. Ukraine, para. 174.

  57. 57.

    ECtHR 8 July 1999, No. 23657/94, Cakici v. Turkey, para. 43.

  58. 58.

    ECtHR 28 March 2000, No. 22492/93, Kilic v. Turkey, para. 35.

  59. 59.

    ECtHR 1 November 2000, No. 25760/94, Ipek v. Turkey, paras. 119–121.

  60. 60.

    ECtHR 12 April 2005, No. 36378/02, Shamayev and others v. Georgia and Russia, paras. 492–504.

  61. 61.

    E.g. ECtHR 12 October 2006, No. 60272/00, Estamirov and others v. Russia, para. 104; ECtHR 9 November 2006, No. 7615/02, Imakayeva v. Russia, para. 123; ECtHR 26 January 2006, No. 77617/01, Mikheyev v. Russia, para. 104; ECtHR 21 June 2007, No. 57953/00 37392/03, Bitiyeva and X v. Russia, para. 125.

  62. 62.

    ECtHR 26 January 2006, No. 77617/01, Mikheyev v. Russia, para. 104.

  63. 63.

    ECtHR 5 April 2007, No. 74237/01, Baysayeva v. Russia, para. 166. And inter alia ECtHR 15 November 2007, No. 29361/02, Kukayev v. Russia, para. 121; ECtHR 29 November 2007, No. 57935/00, Tangiyeva v. Russia, para. 76.

  64. 64.

    ECtHR 23 April 2009, No. 57953/00 37392/03, Bitiyeva and X v. Russia, paras. 124–125.

  65. 65.

    ECtHR 4 December 2008, No. 27243/03, Musikhanova and others v. Russia, para. 104; ECtHR 12 February 2009, No. 7654/02, Ayubov v. Russia, para. 108; ECtHR 7 October 2010, No. 41840/02, Sadykov v. Russia, para. 280; ECtHR 28 October 2010, No. 35079/04, Sasita Israilova and others v. Russia, para. 142.

  66. 66.

    ECtHR 8 April 2004, No. 71503/01, Assanidze v. Georgia, para. 146.

  67. 67.

    E.g. ECtHR 13 June 2000, No. 23531/94, Timurtas v. Turkey, para. 28.

  68. 68.

    E.g. ECtHR 12 February 2009, No. 2512/04, Nolan and K v. Russia, para. 56; ECtHR 9 November 2006, No. 7615/02, Imakayeva v. Russia, para. 92.

  69. 69.

    ECtHR 16 November 2006, No. 45964/99, Karov v. Bulgaria, para. 97.

  70. 70.

    ECtHR 8 January 2009, No. 27251/03, Shakhgiriyeva and others v. Russia, para. 136.

  71. 71.

    ECtHR 19 December 2002, No. 57942/00 57945/00, Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, para. 138.

  72. 72.

    E.g. ECtHR 8 July 1999, No. 23763/94, Tanrikulu v. Turkey; ECtHR 24 May 2005, No. 25660/94, Suheyla Aydin v. Turkey.

  73. 73.

    ECtHR 4 July 1999, No. 23657/94, Cakici v. Turkey, para. 43.

  74. 74.

    ECtHR 9 May 2003, No. 27244/95, Tepe v. Turkey, para. 133.

  75. 75.

    ECtHR 1 July 2010, No. 17674/02 39081/02, Davydov and others v. Ukraine, paras. 33 and 162.

  76. 76.

    ECtHR 24 May 2005, No. 25660/94, Suheyla Aydin v. Turkey, para. 13.

  77. 77.

    ECtHR 2 August 2005, No. 65899/01, Tanis and others v. Turkey, paras. 8–9 and 160.

  78. 78.

    ECtHR 18 July 2002, No. 25656/94, Orhan v. Turkey, para. 272.

  79. 79.

    ECtHR 4 July 1999, No. 23657/94, Cakici v. Turkey, para. 43.

  80. 80.

    ECtHR 8 July 1999, No. 23763/94, Tanrikulu v. Turkey para. 39.

  81. 81.

    ECtHR 28 March 2000, No. 22492/93, Kilic v. Turkey, para. 35.

  82. 82.

    ECtHR 28 March 2000, No. 22492/93, Kilic v. Turkey.

  83. 83.

    ECtHR 18 January 1978, No. 5310/71, Ireland v. UK, para. 160.

  84. 84.

    E.g. ECtHR 28 June 1998, No. 23818/94, Ergi v. Turkey, paras. 77–78; ECommHR, 5 November 1969, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands v. Greece, Yearbook, Vol. XII bis, 196.

  85. 85.

    ECtHR 18 January 1978, No. 5310/71, Ireland v. UK, para. 161.

  86. 86.

    ECtHR 13 June 2000, No. 23531/94, Timurtas v. Turkey, para. 66.

  87. 87.

    ECtHR 18 June 2002, No. 25656/94, Orhan v. Turkey.

  88. 88.

    E.g. ECtHR 19 December 2002, No. 57942/00 57945/00, Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, para. 139.

  89. 89.

    E.g. ECtHR 8 July 1999, No. 23763/94, Tanrikulu v. Turkey.

  90. 90.

    ECtHR 2 August 2005, No. 65899/01, Tanis and others v. Turkey, para. 160.

  91. 91.

    ECtHR 24 March 2005, No. 21894/93, Akkum and others v. Turkey, para. 211.

  92. 92.

    Ibid.

  93. 93.

    ECtHR 12 October 2006, No. 60272/00, Estamirov and others v. Russia, para. 122.

  94. 94.

    ECtHR 24 January 2008, No. 48804/99, Osmanoglu v. Turkey, para. 45.

  95. 95.

    ECtHR 27 July 2006, No. 69481/01, Bazorkina v. Russia, para. 106.

  96. 96.

    ECtHR 31 May 2005, No. 27601/95, Togcu v. Turkey, para. 96.

  97. 97.

    ECtHR 9 March 2004, No. 22494/93, Hasan Ilhan v. Turkey paras. 82, 87.

  98. 98.

    ECtHR 29 November 2007, No. 57935/00, Tangiyeva v. Russia, para. 80.

  99. 99.

    ECtHR 10 January 2008, No. 67797/01, Zubayrayev v. Russia, paras. 82–83.

  100. 100.

    ECtHR 12 February 2009, No. 7654/02, Ayubov v. Russia, paras. 65 and 67.

  101. 101.

    O. Chernishova and N. Vajic, “The Court’s evolving response to the states’ failure to cooperate”, in D.Spielmann (ed.), The European Convention on Human Rights: a living and dynamic instrument – liber amicorum in honour of judge Rozakis, (Brussels: Bruylant, 2011) 76.

  102. 102.

    ECtHR 16 December 1997, No. 25528/94, Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, paras. 42 and 55.

  103. 103.

    ECtHR 9 May 2003, No. 27244/95, Tepe v. Turkey, paras. 214–218.

  104. 104.

    ECtHR 15 November 2007, No. 6846/02, Khamila Isayeva v. Russia, paras. 181–183; ECtHR 4 December 2008, No. 27243/03, Musikhanova and others v. Russia, para. 116; ECtHR 15 November 2007, No. 29361/02, Kukayev v. Russia, paras. 128–130.

  105. 105.

    ECtHR 12 February 2009, No. 7654/02, Ayubov v. Russia; para. 122; ECtHR 7 October 2010, No. 41840/02,Sadykov v. Russia, para. 291. Compare: ECtHR 4 February 2005, Nos. 46827/99 46951/99, Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, para. 134, where non-pecuniary damage was awarded following the establishment of a violation of Article 34 ECHR, in order to remedy the harm caused by the incompliance with the aforementioned provision.

  106. 106.

    ECtHR 12 April 2005, No. 36378/02, Shamayev and others v. Georgia and Russia, paras. 492–504.

  107. 107.

    In fact, it is the only fact-finding mission which was ever planned in the Northern Caucasus regions (i.e. the Chechen region).

  108. 108.

    Rule 44A (Duty to cooperate with the Court) states: “The parties have a duty to cooperate fully in the conduct of the proceedings and, in particular, to take such action within their power as the Court considers necessary for the proper administration of justice. This duty shall also apply to a Contracting Party not party to the proceedings where such cooperation is necessary.”

  109. 109.

    Rule 44B (Failure to comply with an order of the Court) states: “Where a party fails to comply with an order of the Court concerning the conduct of the proceedings, the President of the Chamber may take any steps which he or she considers appropriate.”

  110. 110.

    Rule 44C (Failure to participate effectively) states: “1. Where a party fails to adduce evidence or provide information requested by the Court or to divulge relevant information of its own motion or otherwise fails to participate effectively in the proceedings, the Court may draw such inferences as it deems appropriate. 2. Failure or refusal by a respondent Contracting Party to participate effectively in the proceedings shall not, in itself, be a reason for the Chamber to discontinue the examination of the application.”

  111. 111.

    Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 14 to the ECHR, para. 90.

  112. 112.

    Resolution 1571 (2007) Council of Europe member states’ duty to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights.

  113. 113.

    Resolution Res DH (2006) 45 States’ obligation to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights.

  114. 114.

    Recommendation 1809 (2007) Council of Europe member states’ duty to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights.

  115. 115.

    Interlaken Declaration (2010), High Level Conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights.

  116. 116.

    Izmir Declaration (2011) on the future of the European Court of Human Rights.

  117. 117.

    Brighton Declaration (2012), High Level Conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law Office, Simont Braun, Brussels, Belgium

    Helena De Vylder (Lawyer)

  2. Human Rights Centre, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Helena De Vylder (Voluntary Research Fellow)

  3. Human Rights Centre, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Yves Haeck (Professor of International Human Rights Law)

Authors
  1. Helena De Vylder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helena De Vylder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yves Haeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helena De Vylder .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Human Rights Centre, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Yves Haeck

  2. Human Rights Centre, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Eva Brems

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

De Vylder, H., De Vylder, H., Haeck, Y. (2014). The Duty of Cooperation of the Respondent State During the Proceedings Before the European Court of Human Rights. In: Haeck, Y., Brems, E. (eds) Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the 21st Century. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 30. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7599-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation