Brussels, 27/06/2014 (Agence Europe) - 47 judges of the European Court of Human Rights (one for each member state) are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) for a term of nine years, after having been put forward as candidates by their countries of origin. They usually make their decisions in college (single judge, committees of three judges, chambers of seven judges and the Grand Chamber of 17 judges) on cases opposing European citizens and states, once all national redress has been exhausted. However, it is worth noting that in each case, the judge from the country in question is always involved in examining the case and in the ensuing verdict, as he or she is best placed to be familiar with the legal peculiarities inherent in the case in question.
This functioning is logical but could still bear improvement, argues the report defended by Latvian Socialist Boriss Cilevics before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) this Friday, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Progress has certainly been made, with the introduction in 2010 of Protocol 14, changing the former mandate of six years renewable into nine years non-renewable, to avoid a situation in which judges may be tempted to pacify their home governments in order to avoid jeopardising their chances of being re-elected. With supporting figures based on a panel of 30 judges of various nationalities, the report by Boriss Celvics shows that they often continue their careers in international bodies such as the UN or the European Union, unless they return to their national governments as advisers or take a university post. Some have gone on to become members of Parliament or ministers.
The fact remains, however, that others have struggled to find another job and, in certain extreme but demonstrable cases, these difficulties could be due to adopting positions which are “not patriotic enough in important cases concerning their own State”. The fact that the fear of “reprisals” of this kind can affect the independence of the judges of the ECHR is stressed in this report, and this cannot be tolerated.
Among the possible solutions, the text debated proposes to “suspend the post held by the judge when he or she takes up duties in Strasbourg, to allow them to return to it at the end of their mandate” (as is apparently possible in Germany, Andorra, Belgium, Spain, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Monaco and Serbia and, in practice, in Austria, Slovenia and the Czech Republic, although the legislation of these countries does not contain clear provisions on this matter). This solution is possible for those who previously held office in the national legal systems or university circles, but could prove harder to apply for practising lawyers.
Another point recommended by the text, at least for judges, public prosecutors and civil servants, is a continuation of the benefit of the increase in salaries and promotions they would have had. This will help to prevent them from being under any form of control during their term in Strasbourg and to make their post-ECHR future more secure. The recommendation voted on unanimously by the 45 members of PACE who attended the debates calls for a reflection on this subject. It calls for the ratification, by the member states which have not yet done so, of the sixth additional protocol to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, and for a review of the provisions of the pension and social security regimes of the judges. (VL)