How to remedy potential conflicts of interest of judges at the European Court of Human Rights?
Restoring the integrity of the European Court of Human Rights
The systemic problem of conflicts of interests between NGOs and judges of the European Court of Human Rights
Reply to Written question
| Doc. 15258
| 08 April 2021
1. The Committee of
Ministers has examined the questions submitted by the Honourable
Parliamentarians. Given their similarity, the Committee provides
a single reply to the three questions.
2. It is noted at the outset that the member States have underlined
the extraordinary contribution of the Convention system, including
the Court, to the protection of human rights in Europe in every
Declaration adopted on the reform of the Court from the start of
the reform process in 2010; those declarations recognise its independence
and the need to maintain and preserve it. The Rules and procedures
relating to the election of judges are there to guarantee the independence
and impartiality of the Court.
3. In its work to secure the long-term future of the Court, the
Committee has affirmed that its judges must enjoy the highest authority
in national and international law. In 2010, to ensure the impartiality
and quality of the Court, with the unanimous support of member States,
the Committee of Ministers established an Advisory Panel of Experts
on Candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human
Rights (
CM/Res(2010)26)
to advise on the suitability of candidates that member States intend
to put forward for office. The Assembly has a defined role in electing
the judges under Article 22 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The procedures of the Committee of Ministers and of the Parliamentary
Assembly ensure fairness and transparency throughout, so that the
best candidates are proposed for election.
4. As part of the follow-up to the Copenhagen Declaration, the
Committee of Ministers considered the entire process of selecting
and electing judges to the Court. It did so in co-operation with
the Parliamentary Assembly and relying on detailed reports from
its Steering Committee on Human Rights which observed that the Strasbourg
Court’s outstanding impact in Europe and beyond must in great part
be attributed to the authority and wisdom of numerous judges who
have served on its bench. The Committee adopted, in January 2019, decisions
(see
CM/Del/Dec(2019)1333/4.1) recalling its priority of preserving the independence
of the Court. It encouraged the Parliamentary Assembly in its work
ensuring the transparency and effectiveness of its procedures to
elect judges.
5. The Committee will continue to evaluate the effectiveness
of the current system for the selection and election of the Court’s
judges. Most recently, it has called upon all Convention actors
to continue to guarantee the highest standard of qualifications,
independence and impartiality of the Court’s judges. It has agreed
to consider further means to ensure due recognition for judges’
status and service on the Court and providing additional safeguards
to preserve their independence, including after the end of their
terms. It will again evaluate by the end of 2024, in light of further
experience, the effectiveness of the current system for the selection
and election of the Court’s judges.
Note
6. On the specific issue of recusal, it is noted that Rule 28
of the Rules of Court provides for a judge’s inability to sit, and
their withdrawal and exemption from proceedings, if for any reason,
their independence or impartiality may legitimately be called into
doubt. Reflection on the rules and procedures on recusal is a matter that
comes under the competence of the Court in the context of its procedure
for amending the Rules of Court.
7. The Committee has regularly reaffirmed its deep and abiding
commitment to the European Court of Human Rights as a cornerstone
of the system for protecting the rights and freedoms set forth in
the European Convention on Human Rights. It recently did so in its
Declaration on the 70th anniversary of
the Council of Europe when it also affirmed its commitment to securing
the independent functioning of the judiciary and to continuously
reinforcing the authority of the rule of law.
