Protecting the right to request the recusal of a judge of the European Court of Human Rights
Creating a right to request for a revision of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
Reply to Written question
| Doc. 15345
| 26 July 2021
1. The Committee of
Ministers has examined the questions submitted by the Honourable
Parliamentarians and given their similarity, provides a single reply.
2. The inability of judges of the European Court to sit in a
particular case is regulated by Rule 28 of the Rules of Court, according
to which any judge who is prevented from taking part in sittings
which he or she has been called upon to attend shall, as soon as
possible, give notice to the President of the Chamber (Rule 28 paragraph 1).
The Rule also applies to judges acting as a single judge or participating
in a Committee.
Note
3. Rule 28 paragraph 2 lists a number of situations where a judge
may not take part in the consideration of a case including and not
limited to, where he or she
previously acted in the case, whether as the Agent, advocate or
adviser of a party or of a person having an interest in the case,
or as a member of another national or international tribunal or
commission of inquiry, or in any other capacity.
4. In line with the Court’s working methods and Rules of Procedure,
parties to a case are aware of which Section their case has been
assigned to, at the latest as of the communication of a case for
observations. The compositions of the various Sections (as well
as the list of the judges appointed by the President as Single Judges)
being publicly available on the Court’s
webpage, the parties may at any time verify that composition and
request the Court that a particular judge not be involved in deciding
their case for duly explained reasons. In such a case, the procedure
provided for in Rule 28 shall be followed.
5. As to inadmissibility decisions, such decisions are by their
nature final and not amenable to appeal. It is nevertheless possible
to reopen a case declared inadmissible when it emerges that the
decision was taken on the basis of erroneous information which had
a direct effect on the outcome.
Note
6. The Committee of Ministers is asked what it intends to do
about the scope and functionality of the Court’s rules of recusal
and revision mentioned above. In this respect, the Committee recalls
that since its adoption in 1950 the European Convention on Human
Rights has provided that the Court shall draw up its own rules and determine
its own procedure. Under Article 25 of the European Convention on
Human Rights, the plenary court of the European Court of Human Rights
adopts the Rules of Court. Therefore, the Committee considers that
it is not for it to take any action about the scope and functionality
of the Court’s rules of recusal and revision, nor comment on individual
cases.
7. Finally, the Committee takes note of the fact that, in the
context of its continuous work under the mandate accorded to the
Court by the Convention, the Court’s Committee on Working Methods
is reviewing the existing Rules of Court, including Rule 28.
