Published: 1 Jun 2007
EHRAC Bulletin Summer 2007
Issue 7 of the EHRAC Bulletin is now available online. Please click the link below to read the full issue.
Statistics published recently by the European Court of Human Rights confirm that the number of cases pending before it continues to rise significantly. In 2006 50,500 new applications were lodged at the Court, which produced a total of 1,560 judgments and 28,300 other decisions. There are now 90,000 pending cases. By January 2007 there were more than 19,000 cases pending against the Russian Federation. These figures again emphasise the vital importance of improving and developing the effective implementation of human rights standards within each Council of Europe state.
This edition of the Bulletin therefore focuses on domestic implementation, by discussing, firstly, the adequacy of states’ responses to Strasbourg judgments. Beso Bokhashvili (Georgian Government agent’s office) discusses the position in Georgia, in the light of the ten European Court judgments to date, arguing the need for an expansive approach by the state in order to tackle broader, systemic problems. Pavlo Pushkar (European Court Registry) analyses a new law introduced in Ukraine in 2006, which imposes specific obligations on state authorities in responding to a Strasbourg decision. He also calls for a more proactive approach by the domestic authorities in disseminating information about the Court’s case-law.
Kirill Koroteev (Memorial/EHRAC) discusses the differing ways in which European states have brought the European Convention into force in their respective domestic legal systems, and the varying status of the Convention in domestic law, as a result. There is also a discussion of how the European Court has more recently shown willingness in its judgments to require states to take specific consequential steps: articles by Costas Paraskeva (London Metropolitan University), Dina Vedernikova (Interights) and Eleonora Davidyan (Memorial/EHRAC) consider, amongst other things, the Court’s strategy of issuing ‘pilot judgments’ in cases evidencing broad, systemic human rights problems.