Mattias Guyomar, a French judge at the European Court of Human Rights since 2020, was elected President of the Court on 28 April. Agence Europe met him less than a month into his three-year term, which began on 30 May. (Interview by Véronique Leblanc)
Agence Europe: What is your reaction to the Council of Europe-Ukraine agreement of Wednesday 25 June to set up a special tribunal to deal with Russia’s crime of aggression in Ukraine?
Mattias Guyomar: I would like to emphasise the complementarity between this future tribunal, which will deal with criminal proceedings against individuals, and the Court, which is currently the only international jurisdiction before which the Russian Federation, as a State, can be held to account for violations of human rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
On 9 July, it will also rule on the inter-state cases brought by Ukraine and the Netherlands against Russia [concerning the destruction of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in 2014 and Russian military operations in Ukraine since 2022 - editor’s note].
AE: What will be the focus of your mandate?
M.G.: Efficiency, visibility and responsibility.
Efficiency refers to the fact that justice must not only be done, it must also be administered. The Court’s reforms must continue so that its annual trial capacity of nearly 40,000 cases does not become overwhelmed.
We are already reaping the rewards of the reforms introduced to speed up the trial of “high-impact” cases. But we still have some way to go, particularly when it comes to the time taken to bring cases to trial.
Visibility, which implies transparency and accessibility, relates to the Court and the work of justice. People need to understand what the European Convention on Human Rights brings to Europe. Justice is dispensed by human beings for human beings; this dimension must be made visible.
In terms of responsibility, the President of the Court is the guardian of the independence of the judges and the institution. But there is no independence without responsibility, and we must take ownership of our jurisdictional responsibilities by explaining what we are doing.
These priorities are part of the shared responsibility between the national authorities and the Court which, by virtue of the principle of subsidiarity, intervenes after domestic remedies have been exhausted and while respecting national margins of appreciation. The Convention does not replace national legal frameworks. It applies to them without imposing any uniform legal model.
AE: What is your response to the letter published on 29 May by nine EU countries asking the Court to “rethink the way in which the European Convention on Human Rights is interpreted”, particularly in relation to migration?
M.G.: I’d like to make three points in response, the first being that I can’t and don’t want to respond to a political debate. However, I would like to reiterate - and this will be my second point - that I will be uncompromising on the issue of the independence of judges and the separation of powers. The third point is that we are faithful to the legacy of the founding fathers: the 1950 Convention is a living instrument, which, thanks to our dynamic interpretation of it, must be adapted to a given era and context.
The current context is marked by crises, particularly climate and migration, as well as the return of war to Europe. European judges would be out of touch if they decided the disputes submitted to them without taking this into account.
Having said that, I would like to put things into perspective: out of around 407,000 cases decided since 2016, across all areas and Member States, the Court has only found human rights violations in less than three hundred applications relating to the issue of immigration.
Putting these figures into perspective is part of our educational work.
AE: Are there still plans for the EU to ratify the Convention?
M.G.: The 75th anniversary of the Convention, signed in Rome in 1950, coincides with the 25th anniversary of the European Charter of Human Rights. The Council of Europe and the EU share a profound community of values and work together to safeguard a civilisational heritage, as confirmed by the bridges that exist between the European Court of Justice and the Strasbourg Court. The EU’s accession to the Convention will be a further step on the road to convergence. During my term of office, I will do everything I can to facilitate this. We will need to be innovative if we are to be up to the challenge when the time comes.