History of the European Court of Human Rights (OCR A-Level Law): Revision Notes
History of the European Court of Human Rights
Introduction to the European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is an international court that was created in 1959. Its primary function is to hear and determine cases brought by individuals or states alleging breaches of the civil and political rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Court is distinct from the institutions of the European Union and is instead part of the Council of Europe, a separate international organisation focused on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. It sits in Strasbourg, France, and is composed of judges from each member state of the Council of Europe.
Important Distinction: The European Court of Human Rights is not part of the European Union. It belongs to the Council of Europe, which has a broader membership of 46 member states and focuses specifically on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
The establishment of the European Court of Human Rights
The creation of the ECtHR followed a series of significant developments in post-war Europe, reflecting a collective commitment to preventing future human rights abuses.
The Council of Europe (1949)
On 5 May 1949, the Council of Europe was established. This international organisation was founded by ten European states in the aftermath of the Second World War with the aim of promoting democracy, human rights, and the rule of law across the continent. The Council of Europe is separate from the European Union and has a broader membership, currently including 46 member states.
The European Convention on Human Rights (1950)
On 4 November 1950, the European Convention on Human Rights was formally adopted by the Council of Europe. The Convention set out a comprehensive list of fundamental rights and freedoms that member states agreed to protect. These included the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the right to a fair trial, and the right to respect for private and family life, among others.
The Convention was groundbreaking because it established not only substantive rights but also a mechanism for enforcing those rights through an international court. This represented a significant development in international law, as it allowed individuals to bring claims against their own governments for human rights violations.
Entry into force (1953)
The European Convention on Human Rights officially came into force on 3 September 1953. This meant that the rights enshrined in the Convention became legally binding on the states that had ratified it. However, the enforcement mechanism through the Court was not yet operational at this stage.
Election of the first judges (1959)
On 21 January 1959, the first judges of the European Court of Human Rights were elected by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe (now known as the Parliamentary Assembly). Each member state of the Council of Europe nominates a judge to serve on the Court. These judges serve in their individual capacity and are required to be independent and impartial.
The Court's first session (1959)
Between 23 and 28 February 1959, the European Court of Human Rights held its first official session. During this initial period, the judges established the working procedures and operational framework that would govern the Court's activities. This was a formative stage in which the institutional structures necessary for hearing cases were put in place.
Adoption of the Rules of Court (1959)
On 18 September 1959, the Court formally adopted its Rules of Court. These procedural rules set out how cases would be brought before the Court, how hearings would be conducted, and how judgments would be delivered. The Rules of Court have been amended and updated over time to reflect changes in the Court's workload and procedural requirements.
Landmark judgments and developments
First judgment: Lawless v Ireland (1960)
On 14 November 1960, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its first judgment in the case of Lawless v Ireland. This case concerned the detention without trial of an individual suspected of involvement with the IRA during a time when Ireland had declared a state of emergency. The applicant argued that his detention violated Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.
The Court found that Ireland had validly derogated from its obligations under Article 5 during the state of emergency, and therefore no violation had occurred. However, the significance of this case lay not in the outcome but in the fact that it demonstrated the Court was operational and capable of adjudicating disputes between individuals and states. It established the Court's authority and legitimacy as an international human rights tribunal.
Protocol No. 11 and the full-time Court (1998)
On 1 November 1998, Protocol No. 11 came into force, fundamentally reforming the structure and operation of the European Court of Human Rights. Prior to this date, the Court operated on a part-time basis, and there was also a separate European Commission of Human Rights that screened applications before they reached the Court.
Major Reform: Protocol No. 11 abolished the Commission and established the Court as a full-time institution. This was necessary due to the increasing volume of applications being brought before the Court, particularly following the accession of Central and Eastern European states to the Council of Europe after the fall of communism.
The reform made the Court more efficient and accessible, allowing individuals to bring their cases directly to the Court rather than going through the Commission first.
The 10,000th judgment (2008)
On 18 September 2008, the European Court of Human Rights issued its 10,000th judgment. This milestone reflected the enormous growth in the Court's caseload over the preceding decades. The increasing number of judgments demonstrated both the Court's importance as a human rights institution and the challenges it faced in dealing with a backlog of cases. Since 2008, the Court has continued to deliver thousands of judgments each year, addressing human rights violations across all member states of the Council of Europe.
Significant case law: Thompson and Venables v United Kingdom
One notable case that demonstrates the application of Convention rights is Thompson and Venables v United Kingdom (1999).
Case Study: Thompson and Venables v United Kingdom (1999)
Facts: Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were convicted in 1993 of the murder of two-year-old Jamie Bulger in Liverpool. At the time of the killing, Thompson and Venables were only ten years old, making them the youngest convicted murderers in modern English history. Their trial took place in an adult Crown Court and was subject to intense media scrutiny and public outrage. The case attracted unprecedented media coverage, with crowds gathering outside the court and extensive reporting on every detail of the trial.
Legal issue: The applicants argued before the European Court of Human Rights that their trial had violated Article 6 ECHR, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. Their lawyers contended that the formality and public nature of the Crown Court proceedings, combined with the intense media frenzy surrounding the case, had made it impossible for the two children to receive a fair trial. They argued that the children had been unable to participate effectively in the proceedings due to their age and the intimidating nature of the environment.
Outcome: The European Court of Human Rights found in favour of Thompson and Venables. The Court held that the trial procedure and the surrounding media attention had indeed undermined their right to a fair trial under Article 6. The Court emphasised that special measures should have been taken to ensure that the young defendants could effectively participate in and understand the proceedings against them.
While no financial compensation was awarded to the applicants, the UK Government was ordered to pay their legal costs. This judgment had significant implications for the UK's treatment of child defendants and led to reforms in how young people are tried in criminal courts.
Connection to UK domestic law
While the history of the European Court of Human Rights is primarily about international law, it is important for A-Level Law students to understand how this international system connects to UK domestic law.
The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) incorporated the majority of the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights into UK domestic law. The Act was passed in 1998 and came into force in 2000. This meant that UK citizens could enforce their Convention rights directly in UK courts, rather than having to take their cases all the way to Strasbourg. However, individuals can still apply to the European Court of Human Rights if they believe UK courts have failed to protect their Convention rights and they have exhausted all domestic remedies.
The Two-Tier System: The Human Rights Act 1998 created a two-tier system for human rights protection. UK citizens can first pursue their Convention rights in domestic courts, but if they exhaust all domestic remedies and still believe their rights have been violated, they retain the right to apply directly to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
The European Court of Human Rights was established in 1959 to enforce the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights, which was adopted in 1950 and came into force in 1953.
-
The Court delivered its first judgment in Lawless v Ireland (1960), establishing its authority as an international human rights tribunal.
-
Protocol No. 11 (1998) transformed the Court into a full-time institution, making it more accessible and efficient in dealing with the growing volume of applications.
-
The case of Thompson and Venables v United Kingdom (1999) illustrates the application of Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial), particularly in the context of child defendants and the impact of media attention on trial proceedings.
-
The Court reached a significant milestone in 2008 when it issued its 10,000th judgment, reflecting its central role in protecting human rights across Europe.