Logo Assembly Logo Hemicycle

Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights{In accordance with Article 22 of the European Convention on Human Rights.}

List and curricula vitae of candidates submitted by the Government of the United Kingdom

Communication | Doc. 14050 | 28 April 2016

Author(s):
Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly

1 List and curricula vitae of candidates submitted by the Government of the United Kingdom

Letter from Mr Christopher Yvon, Ambassador of the United Kingdom to the Council of Europe, to Mr Wojciech Sawicki, Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly, dated 5 April 2016

[…]

The Lord Chancellor is responsible for submitting the shortlist of three candidates for election on behalf of the United Kingdom. The recruitment process developed for this campaign draws upon best practice as expressed in documents issued by the Council of Europe – particularly ‘Procedure for electing judges to the European Court of Human Rights’ (AS/Jur/Inf (2014) 03 rev 5) and ‘Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers on the selection of candidates for the post of judge at the European Court of Human Rights’ (CM(2012)40 final) – and UK practice in judicial and public appointments. Keen to make sure that the candidates put forward would be of the highest calibre, the Lord Chancellor tasked the Judicial Appointments Commission of England and Wales (JAC) with the administration of the recruitment campaign. The JAC has proven resources, particularly in respect to outreach and candidate attraction, and has the reputation and background to attract excellent candidates with the sufficient judicial capability. The JAC was asked to work closely with the Northern Irish Judicial Appointments Commission (NIJAC) and the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland (JABS) from the start of the process.

In consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (and with the judicial heads of the two other independent UK jurisdictions: Scotland and Northern Ireland), the Lord Chancellor also enabled qualified candidates to apply for a parallel recruitment exercise for the High Court in England and Wales and allow those who pass both to defer their High Court deployment until their term in Strasbourg is complete. This was intended to serve as an added incentive to help secure the strongest candidates.

Dame Rosalyn Higgins, the former President of the International Court, was appointed to chair the selection panel. Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Reed, a Justice of the Supreme Court and former judge in the Court of Session (Scotland) also served on the selection panel, bringing considerable legal and judicial expertise and experience. The panel also included Richard Heaton, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, Professor Graham Gee, a legal academic, Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Iain Macleod, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Legal Adviser.

The JAC advertised the opening of the campaign in November, having trailed this for some weeks on its website. The JAC’s online application form was adapted to include all the information needed for the Council of Europe’s model curriculum vitae. The published application materials also included a complete description of the process and the selection criteria used (attached). Applications closed in January 2016. The selection panel met in February 2016 to sift applications received and reconvened at the end of February 2016 to conduct interviews. The candidates shortlisted for interview were also tested for French language competence by the Institut Français. The JAC consulted widely on the candidates to gather objective evidence from across the UK jurisdictions both before the panel sift and prior to interviews. Following interviews, the panel provided the Lord Chancellor with a detailed report on all eight candidates. To further make sure that the selection process is merit based, the panel was asked only to recommend candidates they assessed as suitable to take up the office of UK Judge at the Strasbourg Court.

The panel was unanimous in recommending the following three candidates:

Tim Eicke QC

Murray Hunt

Jessica Simor QC

The curricula vitae of the three candidates are also attached to this letterNote and I can confirm that their level of French has been tested and found to be at operational level or above. I can also confirm that the Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human Rights have concluded that all three candidates meet the requirements of Article 21(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  

[…]

Information on national selection procedure for the position of a judge of the European Court of Human Rights

INTRODUCTION

Each Member State of the Council of Europe has one judge at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home. Judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) - the political arm of the Council of Europe - which includes a UK delegation (UKDEL PACE) drawn from both houses of Parliament.

BACKGROUND

The current UK judge, Paul Mahoney, retires on 6 September 2016. The Council of Europe has asked the UK to put forward three nominees (including at least one male and one female) for his successor. Following scrutiny by the Committee on the Election of Judges, (http://assembly.coe.int/nw/Committees/as-cdh/as-cdh-main-EN.asp) the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) will then elect the UK judge from the nominees put forward. While the UK has discretion in how it selects its nominees, PACE requires the process of nominating candidates to the ECtHR to reflect the principles of democratic procedure, transparency and non-discrimination. The Lord Chancellor is responsible for putting forward the UK nominees to PACE and has decided to ask the JAC to administer the selection panel.

More information about the selection process can be found by following this link to the PACE website:

http://website-pace.net/documents/1653355/1653736/ProcedureElectionJudgesEN.pdf/e4472144-64bc-4926-928c-47ae9c1ea45e

Job Description

There is no job description of the type published for JAC exercises. However, the office of judge is described in the European Convention on Human Rights, as amended, which is available at ETS no. 005 at the Council of Europe Conventions website at: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/005.

Further provisions on the office of judge, the organisation and working of the court and on court procedure can be found in the Rules of Court, available as a PDF download at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_Court_ENG.pdf.

Eligibility

Under Article 21(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, judges must be of high moral character and either possess the qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office or be jurisconsults (for example academic lawyers and practitioners) of recognised competence.

Additionally, the UK expects that candidates should have a proven and consistently high level of expertise, with at least seven years’ experience in the areas of law in which they have been engaged. Candidates will normally be expected to have experience in criminal or civil fields, with demonstrable knowledge of the UK’s national legal systems, public international law, public law, Strasbourg law and human rights.

Working as a Judge in the ECtHR will require an aptitude for working as part of a team in an international environment in which several legal systems are represented. The nominee will also need to possess the interpersonal and communication skills necessary to exert his or her influence within the Court.

Language requirements

Candidates are required to have at least a passive knowledge of French, or a commitment to acquire such knowledge in due course, so as to be able to play a full part in the work of the Court. In this instance, passive knowledge means listening, reading and understanding. Judges may communicate in either official language of the Court (English and French), but must be able to understand case documents in both languages.

Nationality

You must complete a declaration of your nationality in the application form.

SELECTION PROCESS

The selection is made from a national shortlist which is prepared in a two-stage process. The first stage, in the UK, results in a longlist of up to ten candidates being presented to the Lord Chancellor. From this list, he will ultimately recommend a shortlist of three to Strasbourg.

The second stage takes place in Europe, where Council of Europe bodies based in Strasbourg first liaise with the UK on its shortlist, and then, in ParisNote, conduct interviews of the candidates before they are presented to PACE for election in June 2016. At a suitable point before the PACE election, the UK’s Delegation to PACE will wish to meet the three shortlisted candidates in London.

The UK stage timetable

Exercise launch date

3 December 2015

Notify intent to apply, with two referees’ contact details

1300 (GMT) 9 December 2015

Closing date for applications

1300 (GMT) 4 January 2016

Provisional dates for sift

27 - 28 January 2016

Window for language assessment for sifted candidates

29 Jan – 11 Feb 2016

Provisional dates for interviews

26 Feb, 29 Feb and 1 March

Longlist recommendations to the Lord Chancellor

By 10 March 2016

Lord Chancellor’s decision on shortlist

By 15 March 2016

The Strasbourg stage timetable

Shortlisted candidates interviewed in Paris

10 June 2016Note

Candidate elected by PACE

20 - 24 June 2016

Assume appointment

September 2016

By the end of March 2016, UK’s shortlist of three candidates will be submitted to PACE. Candidates will be interviewed in Paris, on 10 June by the Committee on the Election of Judges to the ECtHR. The judge will be elected by majority vote at the third part-Session of 2016 by the Parliamentary Assembly held between 20 – 24 June 2016.

The UK Delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (UKDEL PACE)

Members of the UK Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly will also ask to meet the three shortlisted candidates in London for about half an hour on either 31 May / 1 June or 7 / 8June. This is because members of the Delegation wish to be able to attend the Parliamentary Assembly’s Part Session during 20 – 24 June, having met each one. The Delegation is not invited formally to interview candidates or comment on their merits. The composition of the Delegation is here: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-andoffices/offices/delegations/coe2/membership1/.

APPLICATION PROCESS

Expression of interest

In order to meet the appointment timetable you should, as soon as possible, identify two referees who will have to submit references by 5 January 2016.

You are reminded that by 1300 (GMT) on 9 December, you will be expected only to have notified us of your intent to apply, with the names and contact details of up to two referees, having established that your referees can meet the deadline of 5 January 2016. Not submitting your expression of interest by this time will not disqualify you from applying, but may disadvantage you. The expression of interest form which you have to complete will be found to the right of this information page when the exercise launches on 3 December at 13:00 (GMT). More detail on referees is given within the form and in the referee section below. Your fully completed application form is required by 1300 (GMT) on 4 January 2016.

The application form sections

These play an important part in the selection process. You should complete all sections in the form, ensuring the information you supply is clear and accurate.

The application form will be found on the website when the exercise launches on 3 December at 13:00 (GMT).

The self-assessment

When completing the self-assessment please be concise; you are limited to 300 words per box; anything in excess of this will not be used to support your application. Note form is acceptable.

This assessment is your opportunity to expand on the information you have provided about your career history. It should explain how you demonstrate the selection criteria and not simply be a reiteration of your career history. You should consider the following:

  • Make sure that you provide specific examples that demonstrate how your skills match the selection criteria sought at the level appropriate for the role for which you are applying. It is not sufficient to talk generally about a situation and what happened – the panel needs to know specifically what the situation was, your task and the result.
  • Be clear and explicit when writing your examples so that there is no room for doubt about how you personally have tackled something. Do not assume that the person reading your form will be able to infer, from your description, what your role was and for what specifically you were responsible.
  • Keep your answers concise and to the point. It is important that the focus is on you – your actions and your responsibilities – not the situation as a whole.
  • If, when completing your self-assessment, your text is within the word limit but fills more than the space provided, all your text will be saved and your full response will be received by the JAC.

Selection criteria

The selection criteria against which applicants will be assessed are on the JAC’s website https://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/vacancies/018 and in the application form.

Submission of written work

When you make your application, you are also asked to cite two recent and significant pieces of written work. For example, these can be academic articles, judgments, legal opinions or some other relevant paper. (If there are web links available to these, please provide them; if not, please email the work.) Please summarise, in no more than 500 words, two aspects: what the written works are about, and critically, how they support your suitability for the role.

These pieces of written work, along with your 500-word summary, will be assessed and used primarily, but not exclusively, to give evidence of the following criteria:

  • Intellectual Capacity
  • Personal Qualities
  • Ability to Understand and Deal Fairly
  • Authority & Communication Skills

You should be aware that you may also be asked questions about the written work if you are selected for interview. If you need any information in a different format, for example in Braille, please contact [...].

Longlisting

The seven member sift panel will consider the information provided in your application including the written work described above and your self-declared linguistic aptitude. It will also have your references to assist with its assessment. There will be no feedback provided to candidates not selected for interview.

Language Assessment

If you are selected for interview, you will be contacted directly by the Institut Français. Your current level of French will be assessed between 29 January and 11 February. The assessments are likely to include an assessment online and by telephone.

Interviews

If you are sifted in, you will be invited to interview which will include situational questions. Further details will be sent with the interview invitation.

Referees

You will require two referees to support your application. You may choose your referees but they must be people who are well placed to comment on how you meet the selection criteria for this job. They should be able to do this from direct knowledge of the professional work you do, providing specific examples, rather than assertions.

This could be someone you work for, with, or on behalf of and we recommend that you check with your referees that they do not have a conflict of interest in this exercise. You should not nominate as a referee a person you know to be a candidate in this exercise. Please ensure you provide the name, title, position and an accurate email address as this will be our means of contacting them.

The tables set out below give guidance only on the type of person you might wish to select depending on whether you are a judicial office holder, legal professional or academic [...].

Conflict of interest

Please do not nominate any of the following panel members as a referee. You should also state in the relevant section of the application form if you are in any way related to or known by any of the panel members and give details. The panel comprises:

Chairman

Dame Rosalyn Higgins, former President of the International Court of Justice

Judicial Member

Lord Reed, UK Supreme Court

Judicial Member

Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls

Lay Member

Baroness Onora O’Neill, Chair, Equality and Human Rights Commission

Lay Member

Professor Graham Gee, University of Sheffield

Lay Member (MoJ)

Richard Heaton, Permanent Secretary

Legal Member (FCO)

Mr Iain Macleod, Legal Advisor

Consultation

The panel will consult the senior judiciary of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, senior lay figures and senior officials, before sift and interviews as necessary. Ministers will be consulted on longlisted candidates before interviews. The Lord Chancellor may consult again, after he has received the longlist, before deciding on the shortlist.

Declaration of character

Article 21(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights sets out the criteria for office as a judge of the Court and states “judges shall be of high moral character”.

In order to assist the selection panel in assessing whether this test is met, applicants are asked to declare whether anything they have said, written or done, should it be made public, would be capable of bringing the Court into disrepute.

Please be aware, that we may ask your permission to carry out character checks as the exercise progresses.

Selection decisions and report to the Lord Chancellor

The panel will provide a report, including the longlist of up to ten of the most meritorious candidates to the Lord Chancellor by 10 March 2016.

Outcome of the UK selection stage

Please note that longlisted candidates will not be advised of their results until the LC has sent his shortlist of three to Strasbourg. Once this has happened, shortlisted and unsuccessful candidates who attended the UK interviews will be sent their results by email at the same time. NB: The Lord Chancellor requires those who were recommended by the panel, but not selected for the shortlist, should remain available to him in case a shortlisted candidate becomes unavailable.

If you are unsuccessful following interview, you may request written feedback. You should make this request within six weeks of the date of the letter informing you that you have not been successful. The panel will aim to respond to your request within 20 working days. Any request for feedback should be sent to [...].

Outcome of the Strasbourg selection stage

It is expected that shortlisted candidates will be informed of the outcome of the PACE elections by the end of June 2016. If you are offered the post you will be expected to take up the post in September 2016.

Domestic life in Strasbourg

Children’s schooling

[...]

Setting up home

[...]

Terms and conditions of office

The term of office which will begin in September 2016, is for nine years, is non-renewable and expires when the judge reaches the age of 70. Judges are employed by the Council of Europe and will serve the Court on a full-time basis. Candidates will need to be ready to make such arrangements as are necessary to work on a full-time basis in Strasbourg, as judges are required to reside in or near Strasbourg. During their terms of office, judges must not engage in any activity which is incompatible with their independence or impartiality, or with the demands of full-time office. Judges hold office until replaced, but shall continue to deal with such cases as they already have under consideration. No judge may be dismissed from office unless the other judges decide by a majority of two thirds that judge has ceased to fulfil the required conditions.

Reasonable length of service

Candidates should be able to serve at least half their term (i.e. be aged up to 65 on the date of appointment) before retirement at the age of 70.

Pay

Monthly emoluments

[...]

Medical, dental and social cover

[...]

Retirement pension

[...]

Medical examination

[...]

Annual Leave

[...]

Training requirements

[...]

Complaints procedure

[...]

Travel and subsistence

[...]

Appendix 1 – Tim EICKE

CURRICULUM VITAENote

I. Personal details

Name, forename: Eicke, Tim

Sex: Male

Date and place of birth: 27/07/1966, Hannover, Germany

Nationalities: British and German

II. Education and academic and other qualifications

  • 1986–1988 – Passau University, Germany (German law)
  • 1988–1992 – Dundee University (English and Scottish Law - LL.B (Hons) in English law)
  • 1990 – Summer School, International Institute of Human Rights, Strasbourg
  • 1990–91 – represented Scotland, Telders International Law Moot
  • 1991–1993 – Legal Consultant (p/t), Petroconsultants (UK) Ltd., reporting/advising on Russian constitutional/administrative law, foreign investments, natural resources and commercial law
  • 1993–date – Barrister
  • 1994–1995 – Director of Studies, Santa Clara Summer School, International and International Human Rights Law, Geneva
  • 1999–2011 – Junior Counsel to the Crown
  • 2007–2008 – European human rights law lecturer (p/t), Pepperdine University (London)
  • 2011–2015 – EHRC panel of counsel
  • 2011 – QC
  • 2011–date – member BIICL Public International Law Advisory Panel
  • 2014 – Bencher Lincoln's Inn

III. Relevant professional activities

Since 1993:

Extensive experience as counsel/advocate (representing applicants and respondent Governments as well as Third Party intervenors, incl. UNHCR, Equal Opportunities Commission (UK), Inter-Governmental Organisations and NGOs) in cases raising difficult and important human rights issues in national, supra-national and international (human rights) courts and tribunals and in particular regular appearances in CA, UK Supreme Court (“UKSC”; more than 20), the European Commission and Court of Human Rights, the CJEU and CEDAW, across the whole range of domestic law issues and substantive rights; where appropriate acting pro bono (e.g. Sugar v BBC, on right to access to information up to House of Lords (2009) and UKSC(2012))

Extensive advisory experience, including advising in context of ECHR application in relation to Nagorno-Karabakh, advising investors on relationship between ECHR application and Energy Charter Treaty arbitration (fork-in-the-road/Art. 35(2)(b) ECHR), advising individuals in relation to ECHR challenges against criminal proceedings in e.g. Austria, Switzerland and Moldova; advising Armenian Church in relation to possible proceedings related to Armenian Genocide; advising international organisation on jurisdictional immunities and Article 6 ECHR; advising Government on extra-territorial effect of ECHR

Independent expert at colloquies organised by the Council of Europe, including the consultation process that led to the adoption of Protocol 14 to the ECHR and the 3rd Colloquy (with UNHCR) on the European Convention of Human Rights and the Protection of Refugees, Asylum-Seekers and Displaced Persons with special emphasis on the new EU asylum system

judicial training on behalf of the UK Judicial Studies Board (1998-2000; in preparation for the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998; “HRA”) as well as for judges in the Netherlands, Lithuania, Russia and Albania, for Indonesian civil servants and judges (on behalf of the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg) and, most recently, lecture on comparative discrimination law for Attorney General's Chambers Singapore

active involvement, as volunteer, trustee and/or director, in work of two prominent UK-based human rights NGOs: AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe) and Interights. This included providing advice to staff in relation to (or acting pro bono on) individual cases (tactics, substantive law and/or advocacy), sitting on internal grievance appeal as well as selecting and interviewing candidates for position of Executive Director

lectured widely in the UK and abroad on human rights/ECHR and its relationship with Public International Law (incl. Investor State Dispute Settlement)/EU law, including for or on behalf of various UK Government Departments, UNHCR, Lincoln's Inn, Justice, AIRE Centre, Liberty, Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, Lord Slynn of Hadley Foundation, Immigration Advisory Service, Public Law Project, International Law Association and Singapore International Arbitration Forum

publications on human rights and especially ECHR, HRA and EU Charter, including European Human Rights Reports (Sweet&Maxwell/Thomson Reuters; only commercial reports of ECtHR caselaw) and loose-leaf entitled “Human Rights Damages – Principles and Practice” (Sweet&Maxwell/Thomson Reuters; cited with approval by UK Court of Appeal in Anufrijeva)

  • 2000 – Gave evidence (both written and oral) to the House of Lords EU Select Committee on Fundamental Rights in the EU (Eighth Report)
  • Sept. 2015 – instructed as consultant expert by Norwegian mission to Council of Europe for 1236th (Human Rights) meeting of the Ministers' Deputies considering enforcement of ECtHR judgments (including Hirst (No 2))

Selected cases: ECHR (unless stated, UK case; party represented in parentheses):

  • 2015 – Perinçek v Turkey (Intervener)
  • 2012 – MS (Government); Abu Qatada (G); El Haski v Belgium (I)
  • 2008 – NA (G); N (G); Nnyanzi (G)
  • 2006 – Grant (Applicant)
  • 2005 – Beric v Bosnia Herzegovina (I); Bosphorus v Ireland (A); B and L (A)
  • 2004 – Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (I)
  • 2002 – P, C and S (G); Christine Goodwin (A)
  • 2002 – Kingsley (I)
  • 2001 – Pellegrini v Italy (I)
  • 2001– B and P (A); Beard (A)
  • 2000 – Cooke v Austria (A)
  • 1998 – A (A); Sheffield and Horsham (A); Ahmed (I); McGinley and Egan (I)
  • 1997 – Adams and Benn (A)
  • 1996 – Chahal (I); Akdivar v Turkey (I)
  • 1995 – National and Provincial Building Society (A); Laskey, Jaggard and Brown (A); V., W., X., Y. and Z. (A); CEDAW (2007): Salgado v UK (G); NSF v UK (G)
  • CJEU – T-248/13 Al-Ghabra v Commission (2016, I); C-300/11 ZZ (2013, G); C‑57/09 B (2010, I); C-423/04 Richards (2006, A); C-117/01 KB (2004, A); C-466/00 Kaba (No 2) (2003, A); C-357/98 Yiadom (2000, A); C-175/94 Gallagher (1995, A)

IV. Activities and experience in the field of human rights

My capabilities and expertise required for this office are demonstrated by (a) my extensive knowledge of the ECtHR, the wider Convention system and its relationship with other aspects of public international law, EU law and domestic legal/constitutional systems, in the UK and other Contracting Parties, and (b) my detailed familiarity with ECHR case law through editorship of European Human Rights Reports and Human Rights Damages loose-leaf. This experience, drawn from work for/with the different ‘constituencies’ of the Convention system (Governments, victims and NGOs/IGOs including Interights, AIRE, Justice, AI, Liberty, UNHCR), includes:

  • numerous cases before European Commission of Human Rights (incl. Building Societies, Laskey) and ECtHR (listed above), including “key” cases incl. Chahal, Bosphorus, Qatada, N, A or Goodwin
  • advising on enforcement of judgments and (September 2015; for Norwegian Delegation) attending Committee of Ministers 1236th (Human Rights) meeting of the Ministers' Deputies
  • actively participating, as independent expert, in reform of Convention system through Protocol 14
  • appearing, at highest level, in English/UK courts, frequently in cases concerning effect of Convention/human rights in English/UK law, before and after HRA, including as counsel in leading cases incl. Alconbury, A (No 2), AF (No 2), RB, Bank Mellat, Pham, MA, Benkharbouche, Johnson v SSHD
  • advising in and litigating (in ECtHR, CJEU and domestic courts) cases about relationship between ECHR and public international law and/or EU law (incl. Kaba (No 2), Bosphorus, Al-Dulimi, ZZ, Benkharbouche, Al-Juffali)
  • advising on and litigating issue of ECHR and “historic injustices” (incl. Armenian Genocide; Grant v UK, Johnson)
  • frequently working as part of multi-national, multi-lingual and multi-jurisdictional legal teams, before ECtHR (e.g. Perincek), CJEU (e.g. T-264/07 CSL Behring v Commission and EMA) and other international proceedings (incl. as counsel and expert witness in Investor-State arbitrations)
  • having provided training to English judges (in preparation for HRA) and to judges and lawyers in other Convention countries, including the Netherlands, Lithuania, Slovenia, Russia and Albania

V. Public activities

  • 2003–2011 – member of the Governing Body of Dulwich Village Church of England Infants School (and chair of Admissions Committee), London, United Kingdom

VI. Other activities

  • 12/2015–date – Chair, Lincoln's Inn European Law Committee
  • 2004–2015 – Trustee/member of Board of Directors of INTERIGHTS, The International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights, London
  • 2000–2008 – member of the Board of Directors of the A.I.R.E. Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe), London

VII. Publications and other works

European Human Rights Reports, Sweet&Maxwell/Thomson Reuters, Assistant Editor (1995-99) and then Editor (1999-date)

“Human Rights Damages - Principles and Practice”, loose-leaf, Sweet&Maxwell 2002, Joint Author

“The Strasbourg Case Law-Leading Cases from the European Human Rights Reports”, Sweet&Maxwell 2001, Joint Editor

Grosz, Beatson and Duffy, “Human Rights – The 1998 Act and the European Convention”, Sweet&Maxwell, 2000, Contributor

Article “The European Charter of Fundamental Rights – Unique Opportunity or unwelcome distraction”, (2000) E.H.L.R. 280

“Rights in the Work Place” (with Natasha Joffe), A NATFHE/Liberty booklet (1999)

“Study Guide – Human Rights Act 1998”, published by the UK Home Office and the General Counsel of the Bar on 2 October 2000 on the occasion of the entry into force of the Act, Joint author

Article “Human Rights in the European Community: Past, Present and Future”, Focus, European Current Law, October 1997

VIII. Languages

Language

Reading

Writing

Speaking

 

very good

good

fair

very good

good

fair

very good

good

fair

a. First language:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

German

X

   

X

   

X

   

b. Official languages:

 

   

 

   

 

   

English (main working language)

X

   

X

   

X

   

French

X

           

X

 

IX. In the event that you do not meet the level of language proficiency required for the post of judge in an official language [the second], please confirm your intention to follow intensive language classes of the language concerned prior to, and if need be also at the beginning of, your term of duty if elected a judge on the Court.

Yes

X. Other relevant information

XI. Please confirm that you will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge on the Court.

Yes

Appendix 2 – Murray HUNT

CURRICULUM VITAENote

I. Personal details

Name, forename: Hunt, Murray Robert

Sex: Male

Date and place of birth: 29/09/1965, Croydon, UK

Nationality: British

II. Education and academic and other qualifications

  • 1977–1984 – Wallington High School for Boys
  • 1984–1988 – Keble College, Oxford
  • BA (Jurisprudence) 1987, First Class (proxime accessit to Law Prize for joint second highest First in year)
  • Bachelor of Civil Law (BCL) 1988, First Class
  • 1988–89 – Lecturer in law, teaching constitutional law, Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford
  • 1989–90 – Harvard Law School, specialising in U.S. constitutional and administrative law
  • Master of Laws (LL.M) 1990
  • 1990–91 – Bar Vocational Course and part time lecturer in law, teaching constitutional law, Exeter College, Oxford
  • 1991–92 – Visitor to the Faculty, University of Toronto Law School (Middle Temple Fox Scholar), researching the impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on Canadian constitutional and administrative law
  • 1992 – Called to the Bar
  • 1992–93 – Pupillage at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square (Chambers of Michael Beloff QC)
  • May–July 1993 – Stagiaire at European Commission of Human Rights, working in the Commission Secretariat

III. Relevant professional activities

  • 1993–2004 – Independent private practice as a Barrister, specialising in public law and human rights, at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square (1993-2000) and Matrix (2000-2004). Advised and appeared as Counsel in numerous cases concerning human rights in both the ECtHR and UK higher courts, for a wide range of clients including individual claimants, NGOs and a variety of public bodies such as local authorities.
  • 2004 to date – Legal Adviser to Joint Committee on Human Rights of UK Parliament (employed barrister) (present full time position) advising the Committee and drafting reports to Parliament on:
    • the human rights compatibility of all Government Bills, including with the ECHR
    • the implementation by the Government of human rights judgments, including judgments of the ECtHR
    • the UK’s compliance with international human rights treaties
    • the development of human rights institutions and legal machinery for protecting human rights
    • the human rights implications of international treaties prior to their ratification
    • significant human rights issues of national concern
  • 2015 – Called to the Bench of Middle Temple

IV. Activities and experience in the field of human rights

I have more than 25 years’ experience in human rights and public law, acquired in three different capacities: parliamentary legal adviser, practising barrister and legal academic.

As Legal Adviser to Parliament’s JCHR since April 2004 I have scrutinised most Government Bills for human rights compatibility. This work involves identifying quickly the most significant human rights issues raised by a Bill, asking the right questions of the Minister to test whether the Bill is compatible with human rights or may give rise to breaches of human rights, advising the Committee about the Bill’s compatibility, drafting the Committee’s reports to Parliament, and suggesting amendments to the Bill in order to make it compatible. I have also monitored and scrutinised the Government’s response to court judgments finding a breach of human rights (both declarations of incompatibility made under the Human Rights Act and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights). This work involves identifying the measures which the Government should take in order to prevent a repetition of the breach, scrutinising the adequacy of the Government’s proposed response and reporting to Parliament to encourage debate in both Houses about the appropriate response to the judgment. I have been involved in scrutinising all remedial orders introduced in response to judicial findings of violation since 2004 and all of the Government’s responses to adverse judgments of the Strasbourg Court.

Before becoming Legal Adviser to the JCHR in 2004 I practised as a barrister for more than 10 years. During my career as a practising barrister I frequently appeared in the higher courts in judicial review and human rights cases and took a number of cases to the European Court of Human Rights, some of them culminating in judgments of the Court. I also gained practical experience of how the Convention machinery works in practice, spending a period as a stagiaire in the Secretariat of the then European Commission of Human Rights. I therefore have many years’ first hand experience of public law and human rights litigation as a practitioner, including of how the European Convention system itself works, and of the interface between the ECHR and the national system.

I have throughout been an active participant in academic debates about human rights and public law. After graduating I taught constitutional and administrative law as a lecturer in Oxford, including whilst qualifying to be a barrister. In 1997 I published Using Human Rights Law in English Courts, based on the several years’ teaching and research I had undertaken in the fields of constitutional, administrative and human rights law since I graduated. I have maintained my academic profile, writing a number of articles on human rights related subjects. The focus of my contributions has been the national implementation of international human rights norms, the capacity of the common law to provide the necessary normative foundation for this evolution, and the importance of democratic considerations in any contemporary account of public law and human rights. In 2010 I was appointed a Visiting Professor at Oxford University. In that capacity I have led a research project aimed at carrying out and stimulating research into finding practical ways of embedding respect for the rule of law and human rights in democratic institutions.

V. Public activities

  • 2010 to date – Visiting Professor in Human Rights Law, Oxford University (post currently held). Activities in this office include:
  • Principal Investigator in ongoing Arts and Humanities Research Council project on “Parliaments, the Rule of Law and Human Rights” https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-and-subject-groups/parliaments-rule-law-and-human-rights-project
  • Convenor of international conferences, eg. April 2012 conference on Redressing the Democratic Deficit; September 2015 conference at Westminster on The Role of Parliaments in Protecting the Rule of Law and Human Rights
  • Initiator of international process on draft Principles and Guidelines on the Role of Parliaments in Protecting the Rule of Law and Human Rights, endorsed by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and to be discussed in UN Human Rights Council in June 2016
  • Co-author of research papers and co-editor of collection of essays (e.g. 2012 research paper on parliamentary debate about human rights and 2015 edited collection Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the Democratic Deficit)
  • Annual seminar course on the role of parliaments in the European system of human rights protection
  • Supervisor of work of post-doctoral researchers
  • D Phil examiner (e.g. of thesis on Gender, judging and appellate courts)

VI. Other activities

  • 2000–2004 – Director of Matrix Chambers Limited (the corporate entity of Matrix Chambers)
  • 2007–2016 – parent Governor of Cutteslowe Primary School in Oxford
  • Activities in this office included, as Chair of Governors from 2010-2012, leading the school’s successful conversion to academy status as a sponsored academy
  • 2014–15 – Director of Cherwell School Academy Trust, a multi-academy trust in Oxford

VII. Publications and other works

My publications and other works fall into three broad categories, illustrated by the following sample:

Parliament’s role in the protection of human rights, e.g.:

  • “Introduction” to Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the Democratic Deficit, with H. Hooper and P. Yowell (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2015), seeking to address concerns that the institutional arrangements for the protection of human rights suffer from a democratic deficit
  • “Enhancing Parliaments’ Role in the Protection and Realisation of Human Rights”, concluding chapter in Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the Democratic Deficit, with H. Hooper and P. Yowell (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2015), suggesting some concrete ways in which parliaments’ role can be increased
  • “The Impact of the Human Rights Act on the Legislature: A Diminution of Democracy or a New Voice for Parliament?” (2010) European Human Rights Law Review 601
  • “The Joint Committee on Human Rights” in A. Horne, G. Drewry and D. Oliver (ed.s), Parliament and the Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2013)

The ECHR and the Human Rights Act, e.g.:

  • Protocol 15 to the European Convention on Human Rights (JCHR Fourth Report of Session 2014-15, December 2014) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201415/jtselect/jtrights/71/71.pdf) (a Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights drafted in my capacity as Legal Adviser to the Committee)
  • “The ‘Horizontal Effect’ of the Human Rights Act” [1998] Public Law 423
  • “State Obligations following from a Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights” in N. Bratza, T.A. Christou and J.P. Raymond (ed.s), European Court of Human Rights: Remedies and Execution of Judgments (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2005)

The domestication of human rights, especially by the common law, e.g.:

  • Using Human Rights Law in English Courts (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1997), arguing for the articulation of an explicit common law basis for protecting human rights
  • A Simple Common Lawyer: Essays in Honour of Michael Taggart with D. Dyzenhaus and G. Huscroft (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2009), exploring the ways in which the common law of administrative law has received human rights law and maintained its legitimacy by acknowledging the important role played by democratic decision-makers
  • “The Principle of Legality in Administrative Law: Internationalisation as Constitutionalisation” (2001) 1 Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 5 (co-written with David Dyzenhaus and Mike Taggart), demonstrating the extent to which international norms now permeate common law legal systems in the Commonwealth

VIII. Languages

Language

Reading

Writing

Speaking

 

very good

good

fair

very good

good

fair

very good

good

fair

a. First language:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. Official languages:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

– English

X

   

X

   

X

   

– French

   

X

   

X

   

X

IX. In the event that you do not meet the level of language proficiency required for the post of judge in an official language [the second], please confirm your intention to follow intensive language classes of the language concerned prior to, and if need be also at the beginning of, your term of duty if elected a judge on the Court.

Yes

X. Other relevant information

My present role as Legal Adviser to the JCHR requires many of the qualities and abilities that are required for judicial office. By drafting many of the Committee’s reports, I have often had to show that I can perform a role akin to that of a judge rapporteur: marshalling all the evidence and the legal arguments on both sides of an issue and drafting a report which is both legally sound and capable of commanding a consensus on the Committee. The evidence that I have demonstrated this capability is in the reputation of the JCHR’s reports for being entirely even-handed in appraising the relative merits of the arguments on both sides. The Committee deals with many deeply contentious issues on which opinion, in the Committee and in Parliament generally, is often very polarised, sometimes on party political lines. To be able to advise the Committee and draft its reports in relation to such contentious issues, I have had to command the respect and confidence of members from all political parties. In the highly political environment of Parliament, I have also had to maintain a robust independence, from the Government, from the Chair of the Committee, and from individual members, and complete impartiality as between those who seek to influence the Committee, as well as between its members and the political parties to which they belong. I greatly prize my independence - I have never been a member of any political party – and I believe that I have demonstrated it in my capacity as Legal Adviser to the JCHR, as well as by obtaining peer-reviewed research council funding to support my academic research into the role of parliaments in relation to the rule of law and human rights.

XI. Please confirm that you will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge on the Court.

Yes

Appendix 3 – Jessica SIMOR

CURRICULUM VITAENote

I. Personal details

Name, forename: Simor, Jessica Margaret Poppaea

Sex: Female

Date and place of birth: 07/03/1968, London

Nationality: British

II. Education and academic and other qualifications

  • 1986–89 – St. Catherine's College, Oxford, MA Hons (Oxon)
  • 1990–1991 – City University London, CPE.
  • 1991–1992 – Bar Finals (Harmsworth and Inns of Court Law scholar)
  • 1992 – Called to the Bar (Middle Temple)
  • 1992–1993 – Pupillage with First Treasury Counsel and Christopher Vajda QC (now UK judge at CJEU)
  • September 1993 to March 1994 – Stagiaire in DGXI (Environment) of the European Commission, Brussels, working largely on infraction proceedings against the UK.
  • 1994–1995 – Post-graduate diploma in EC Law, King’s College, London
  • 2003 – Appointed to Attorney General’s B Panel of Counsel
  • 2010 – Appointed to Attorney General’s A Panel of Counsel
  • 2013 – Appointed as Queen’s Counsel
  • 2015 – Fellow, Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, British Institute on International and Comparative Law
  • 2016 – Elected a Bencher of Middle Temple (Inns of Court)

III. Relevant professional activities

Barrister; London Bar since 1993.

Practising in constitutional/administrative law, public and regulatory law with particular specialisms in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and EU law. Numerous cases for public/government and private clients before the higher courts and tribunals, including more than fifteen cases before the House of Lords (HL) and UK Supreme Court (SC), more than ten cases before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg (CJEU), more than thirty cases before the European Court of Human Rights/Commission in Strasbourg (ECtHR) and well-over fifty cases before the UK higher courts and tribunals.

From March to August 1994 practised in Brussels, working in competition and environmental law and completing a contract for the European Commission on the UK’s implementation of EU pollution legislation.

From 1995 to 1997 lawyer at the European Commission on Human Rights in Strasbourg and then as a legal adviser to the Human Rights Ombudsman in Sarajevo (see further below).

1997 to 2016: significant human rights domestic litigation and advisory work. Advised and acted for public and private parties in innumerable matters raising human rights issues in a wide range of fields covering deaths in custody, freedom of expression, privacy, temporal and geographical scope of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998, rights of assembly, asylum/Article 3, fair trial rights, ill treatment/torture. Examples include: for the Crown R v Bieber (2009) (first challenge to whole life sentences); R (Coombes) v S/S Communities (2010) (challenge to compatibility of section 3 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 with Article 8 of the ECHR) for the applicant R (Gallastegui) v Westminster (2013) (protest rights outside Parliament); R (Barclay) v Minister of Justice (2013 -SC) and (2009 - SC) fair trial rights in Sark; for the Equality and Human Rights Commission: R (Letts) v Lord Chancellor (2015) (legal aid and inquests); R (Van Colle) (2009 - HL) (positive obligations on police to protect – Article 2); R (HJ) Iran v Home Secretary (2013 – SC) (legality of expulsion where individual would have to hide sexual orientation to avoid persecution); for families of British soldiers who died in Iraq R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence (2011 - SC) and Smith v MoD (2013 -SC) (concerning the question of whether Article 1 jurisdiction extends to British soldiers operating overseas); for Privacy International and Open Rights Group, R (Davis and Watson) v Home Secretary (data retention powers and privacy rights (2015); for Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and International Commission on jurists in R (Al Waheed) v Ministry of Defence (2016 – SC) (concerning the legality of detention in non-international armed conflicts under humanitarian law); for the applicant: In re McCaughey & Anor (2011 - SC) (temporal scope of investigatory obligation under Article 2); for the applicant: E v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary & Anor (2008 HL) (regarding policing techniques used to contain loyalist violence directed at parents and children walking to and from a school in the Ardoyne Road in Belfast in 2001); for Justice, Liberty and British Institute of Human Rights: YL v Birmingham City Council & Ors (2007 – SC) (meaning of public authority under Human Rights Act); for UNHCR: Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for the Home Department; (2012 – SC) (concerning the meaning of Article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention); for the applicants: R (AM & Ors) v Secretary of State for Home Department & Anor (2009) (investigatory obligation under Article 3 –in relation to disturbance at Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre).

Examples of cases before the European Court of Human Rights include, for the United Kingdom: B & L v UK (prohibition on marriages between parent in law and child); DP & JC v UK (state responsibility for parents’ ill-treatment of children); Devlin v UK (Article 6/civil service employment proceedings); Faulkner v UK (prisoner’s correspondence); Bland v UK (male/female age-eligibility for state pension); Matthews v UK (age discrimination and travel concessions); Clunis v UK (state obligation to protect individual from psychiatric illness); O’Rourke v UK (right to housing). For applicants: Smith and Grady v UK (challenge to prohibition on gays in the armed forces); McGonnel v United Kingdom (independence and impartiality of the judge, the Bailiff, in Guernsey); McLeod v United Kingdom (breach of the peace). Axel Springer AG v Germany (for Media Defence Litigation Initiative (MDLI) concerning the legality of a restriction on publication by ‘Bild’ of a story regarding the former Chancellor Schroder); Delfi v Estonia (Grand Chamber) (acted for industry intervenors in case concerning liability for comments of a news website; freedom of expression); Dareskibz Ltd v Armenia (for MDLI in its intervention in this case concerning the legality of a legislative measure prohibiting on ‘false news’ under Article 10); Avotins v Latvia (for the Aire Centre in intervention in case concerning the Brussels Regulation and Article 6 ECHR); MSS. v Belgium and Greece (2011) (assisted the UNHCR with its oral submissions at the hearing of this case concerning the relationship between Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and the protections in the Refugee Convention); Assenov v Bulgaria (amicus brief for Amnesty International).

High degree of knowledge and experience over a wide range of other areas, from competition and tax law to environmental law, advising and representing clients in domestic and international courts, in particular the CJEU and the ECtHR. Some examples of cases in the domestic courts are numerous cases for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) including: R (Telefonica) v HMRC (2016) (challenge by Telefonica to removal of a VAT exemption); R (Whistl/TNT) v HMRC (2015) (challenge by Whistl re-fiscal neutrality/postal services directive); R (Minister for Economic Development of the States of Jersey) v HMRC (2012) (challenge by Guernsey and Jersey in respect of the UK intention to remove from low value consignment relief in respect of goods entering the UK from the Channel Islands); for the OFT: Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v PLT Anti-Marketing Ltd (2015) (materiality of information under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008); for GNER: R(GNER) v ORR (2006) (EU rail liberalisation directive); for Welsh Water: Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig v Barratt Homes (No. 1) (2009 – SC) (meaning and effect of s106 of the Water Industry Act 1991); for the applicants: R (Ingenious Media Holdings plc & Anor) v HMRC (2015) (‘off the record’ briefings to journalists and HMRC - confidentiality obligations to taxpayers).

Before the CJEU/CFI (Luxembourg): Numerous cases representing the UK and private parties. Recent examples include: for Privacy International and Open Right Group: Tele2 Sverige (Sweden) and Davis & Watson & Others C-203/15 and C-698/15 (2016 - Grand Chamber) (data retention powers and privacy); for the United Kingdom: Purely Creative C-428/11 (OFT) (consumer protection) and C-285/12 Diakite (refugee Convention); for WWF,WWF UK v Council T-91/07 and C-355/08P (challenge to Council directive on cod-quotas); for JPMO: Jersey Potato Marketing Organisation Ltd v States of Jersey & Anor C-293/02)(Grand Chamber) (challenge to legislation that provided for executive control of the entire Jersey new potato market); for the applicant: Inuit Tapiritt Kanatami & Ors v European Parliament & Ors Case T-18/10 (advised in relation to actions for the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009, concerning a ban on trade in seal products).

IV. Activities and experience in the field of human rights

See section III above for examples of litigation and advisory experience.

  • October 1995 to December 1996 – lawyer at the (then) European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg (before Protocol 11 created the single Court). Responsible for own case list, drafting decisions and reports (equivalent to decisions and judgments of the Court today) and assisting Members of the Commission, including Sir Nicolas Bratza QC, at 6-weekly Commission sessions.
  • January to July 1997 – Legal adviser to the Human Rights Ombudsman, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Managing and training Bosnian lawyers in quasi-judicial institution set up pursuant to the Dayton Accords, supervising, reviewing and writing decisions and reports, analogous to decisions and judgments of the Court of Human Rights.
  • 1998 to 1999 – Sabbatical to write ‘Human Rights Practice’ (Sweet and Maxwell (Thomson Reuters) loose-leaf practitioners’ text (current editor).
  • 1999 to 2000 – contracted by the Judicial Studies Board to train British judges on the European Convention on Human Rights, prior to the Human Rights Act 1998 coming into force.

V. Public activities

No (a) public office (b) elected posts or (c) posts held in a political party or movement

VI. Other activities

  • 1999 to 2000 – Carried out Council of Europe study (and produced Report in French) with a French and Belgian expert on the compatibility of Armenian law with the ECHR, prior to Armenia being permitted to join the Council of Europe. Involved one week in Yerevan and discussions with relevant governmental officials
  • 2001 – Project on International Courts and Tribunals: Conference in Iran, speaking on the ECHR
  • 1997–2010 – Member of the Executive of the British Institute of Human Rights, Chair 2005 (running the appointment of new director)
  • 1997 to 2013 – Executive Council member of Justice
  • 2012 to date – Executive member of the Lawyers’ Circle (current)
  • 2014–2015 – Circle Maputo Protocol project, leading one of four groups of lawyers working on study of the application of the Maputo Protocol in Kenya, in conjunction with Oxfam and Kenyan lawyers
  • 2015 – Member of international group working on ‘Oslo principles’
  • 2010 to date – UNHCR panel of counsel (current)
  • 2015 to date – running a Circle project in conjunction with Trust Law (Reuters) and the Clean Clothes Campaign looking at labour laws in the global retail garment sector (fast fashion and modern slavery). Considering 15 jurisdictions, including Bangladesh, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Turkey, Indonesia, India, China and Haiti

Frequent speaker and participant in conferences, lectures, seminars and training in the UK and internationally, for example in Russia, Estonia, Turkey, Ukraine, Iran and most recently speaking at UN seminar for business and Human Rights in Geneva November 2015. 

VII. Publications and other works

‘Human Rights Practice’, co-author and current editor. Two updates p.a., publisher: Sweet and Maxwell

Green's ‘Scottish Human Rights Service’, author of chapter on Principles of the Convention; publisher: Sweet and Maxwell

‘The Law of Criminal Cartels, Practice and Procedure’ by Michael O’Kane, OUP. Author of chapter on Civil Cartel Enforcement

‘Procedural Aspects of Convention Rights’, [2008] 4 Judicial Review vol 13, pp. 232-243

Review of ‘Non-derogable Rights and States of Emergency’ Bruylant, Brussels (1996) in [1998] 6 EHRLR 360

‘Bosnia and Herzegovina - Complex problems: the Convention is up to it; are its institutions?’ [1997] 6 EHRLR 644

Undertakings: Part 11 of ‘The Law of the European Communities’ (Ed. Vaughan) (Butterworths) Co-editor with Paul Lasok Q.C

The Competence of the Community Institutions to Conclude International Agreements concerning Services and the Protection of Intellectual Property: Intellectual Trade Law and Regulations (Sweet and Maxwell) [1995] 1 INT.TLR 29

‘UK Competition Law: The New Framework’, (OUP) (2016). Co-author of chapter on Private Enforcement

VIII. Languages

Language

Reading

Writing

Speaking

 

very good

good

fair

very good

good

fair

very good

good

fair

a. First language:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

English

                 

b. Official languages:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

– English

X

   

X

   

X

   

– French

X

     

X

 

X

   

IX. In the event that you do not meet the level of language proficiency required for the post of judge in an official language [the second], please confirm your intention to follow intensive language classes of the language concerned prior to, and if need be also at the beginning of, your term of duty if elected a judge on the Court.

Yes

X. Other relevant information

XI. Please confirm that you will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge on the Court.

Yes

;