Interim Measures in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights
| Published date | 01 December 2003 |
| Date | 01 December 2003 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/016934410302100402 |
| Subject Matter | Part A: Article |
INTERIM MEASURES IN THE CASE LAW OF THE
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS*
YVES HAECK** and CLARA BURBANO HERRERA***
Abstract
Under its Rules of Court, the European Court of Human Rights has the power to issue
interim measures. Case law shows that an interim measure is generally directed
towards the respondent State but it can also or at the same time be directed towards the
applicant. It has a proactive or a prohibitive nature: one or both of the parties in the
proceedings before the European Court may be required to act in a certain way or to
refrain from certain acts. In practice however, provisional measures are virtually only
issued by the new Court in cases of imminent expulsion, extradition or deportation of
individuals to their country of origin by the State against which the complaint is
directed, although exceptionally other factual situations may arise such as extremely
severe prison conditions or a hunger strike. As a result, the requests for interim
measures will contain references to Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention and/or
Article 1 of the Sixth Protocol. On the basis of the practice of the former European
Commission and the current European Court, an overview is given of the scope of
application of interim measures, the prerequisites to request an interim measure and
the procedure to be followed by applicants if requesting an interim measure. Although,
following two recent judgments of the First Section of the European Court, the
European Court has made it clear that interim measures are binding on the respondent
State, a viewpoint which is currently being challenged before the Grand Chamber of the
Court, it is argued that the applicant not only has a very limited chance of success in
obtaining a positive interim order, but that the new European Court is even more
reluctant than the former Commission was before, when deciding whether to issue an
interim measure or not. Where confronted with some specific kinds of factual
situations, it may be arguable that the European Court follows the same line of
reasoning towards requests for interim measures as its Interamerican counterpart,
PART A: ARTICLES
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 21/4, 625-675, 2003.
@ Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Printed in the Netherlands. 625
* Special thanks are due to Prof. Franc¸oise Tulkens, judge in the European Court, Mrs.
Montserrat Henrich Mas, Head of the Research Division of the European Court, Mrs.
Jacqueline Erb of the Research Division of the Court and to Pieter Vanden Heede of Ghent
University.
** Yves Haeck is a Senior Research Fellow at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University,
Belgium, and a staff member of the Department of Constitutional Law of the Faculty of Law at
the same university.
*** Clara Burbano Herrera is a Profesor de la Ca´tedra at the Faculty of Law of the Universidad de
Los Andes, Bogota´, Colombia, and a staff member of the Centro de Investigaciones Socio-
Juridicas (CIJUS) of the Faculty of Law at the same university.
626
thus extending the scope of application of the interim measures to rights and freedoms,
other than the above-mentioned.
1. GENERAL
1
In international law, interim or provisional measures in the international
law of human rights are, besides their in essence preventive character, also
intended to protect fundamental human rights, and more specifically, to
avoid irreparable damage from being inflicted onto persons. In this sense,
they go beyond the meaning of interim measures within a national legal
system, the purpose of which is generally to protect the rights of the parties
involved in the proceedings, and thus to guarantee that the judicial decision
relating to the merits of the case is not damaged by any acts during the
Yves Haeck and Clara Burbano Herrera
1
On this topic: Bernhardt, R., ‘Interim Measures of Protection under the European
Convention on Human Rights’, in: Bernhardt, R. (ed.), Interim Measures Indicated by
International Courts, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1994, pp. 95-114; Buquicchio-de Boer, M.,
‘Interim Measures by the European Commission of Human Rights’, in: de Salvia, M. and
Villiger, M.E. (eds), The Birth of European Human Rights Law. Liber Amicorum Carl Aage Norgaard,
Nomos, Baden-Baden, 1998, pp. 229-236; Callewaert, J., ‘La Cour europe´enne des droits de
l’homme et l’urgence’, Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme, 1994, pp. 391-403; Frumer, Ph.,
‘Pour un renforcement de la valeur juridique des mesures provisoires e´dicte´es par la Cour
europe´enne des droits de l’Homme’, Chroniques de droit public/Publiekrechtelijke Kronieken, 2000,
pp. 332-346; Eissen, M.A., ‘Les mesures provisoires dans la Convention europe´enne des droits
de l’homme’, Revue ge
´ne
´rale de droit international public, 1967, pp. 558-561; Eissen, M.A., ‘La
Convention europe´enne des droits de l’homme et les mesures conservatoires’, Revue des droits
de l’homme, 1969, pp. 252-258; Gaeta, P., ‘I providementi cautelari nel sistema europeo di
protezione dei diritti dell’uomo’, Rivista di diritto internazionale, 1996, pp. 34-70; Garry, H.R.,
‘When Procedure Involves Matters of Life and Death: Interim Measures and the European
¨ger, H.C., ‘The
European Commission of Human Rights’, Human Rights Law Journal, 1980, pp. 66-87; Kru
¨ger,
H.C., ‘Vorla
¨ufige Maßnahmen nach Art. 36 der Verfahrensordnung der Europa
¨ischen
Kommission fu
¨r Menschenrechte (insbesonderes in Ausweisungs- und Auslieferungsfa
¨llen)’,
Europa
¨ische Grundrechte Zeitschrift, 1996, pp. 346-349; MacDonald, R.St.J., ‘Interim Measures in
International Law, with special reference to the European System for the Protection of
Human Rights’, Zeitschrift fu
¨r Ausla
¨ndisches Offentliches Recht und Vo
¨lkerrecht, 1992, pp. 703-740;
No
¨rgaard, C.A. and Kru
¨ger, H.C., ‘Interim and Conservatory Measures under the European
System of Protection of Human Rights’, in: Nowak, M., Steurer, D. and Tretter, H. (eds),
Progress in the spirit of Human Rights: Festschrift fu
¨r Felix Ermacora, Engel Verlag, Kehl am Rhein,
1988, pp. 109-117; Ravaud, C., ‘Article 36’, in: Pettiti, L.E., Decaux, E. and Imbert, P.H. (eds),
La Convention europe
´enne des droits de l’homme. Commentaire article par article, Paris, Economica,
1995, pp. 725-737; Rogge, K., ‘Einstweilige Maßnahmen im Verfahren vor der Europa
¨ischen
Kommission fu
¨r Menschenrechte’, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 1977, pp. 1569-1570;
Spielmann, A. and Spielmann, D., ‘La Cour unique et permanente et les mesures provisoires’,
in: Mahoney, P., Matscher, F., Petzold, H. and Wildhaber, L. (eds), Protecting Human Rights:
The European Perspective. Studies in memory of Rolv Ryssdal, Carl Heymanns Verlag, Ko
¨ln, 2000,
pp. 1347-1358; Spielmann, D., ‘Les mesures provisoires et les organes de protection pre´vus
par la Convention europe´enne des droits de l’homme’, in: Pre
´sence du droit public et des droits de
l’homme. Me
´langes offerts a
`Jacques Velu, Bruylant, Brussels, 1992, pp. 1293-1317; Zwart, T., The
Admissibility of Human Rights Petitions. The Case Law of the European Commission of Human Rights
and the Human Rights Committee, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1994, pp. 34-37.
proceedings.
2
In contrast to some other conventions or treaties,
3
the text of
Fundamental Freedoms (hereafter referred to as: ECHR) does not contain
any provision which allows the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter
referred to as: European Court) to take interim measures (also referred to as
temporary measures, provisional measures or emergency measures).
4
The
drafters of the ECHR have deliberately opted not to give the European
Court any express powers to impose or to adopt interim measures. The
reason for this is to be found in the reluctance of the countries to create a
mechanism which would monitor their actions, and which would infringe
too much on their sovereignty.
5
However, the practice of interim measures
has been institutionalised for decades through the Rules of Procedure of the
former European Commission and the Rules of Court of the former
Interim Measures in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 21/4 (2003) 627
2
See I.A.Court H.R., Peace Community of San Jose
´de Apartado
´vs Colombia, Provisional Measures,
Order of 24 November 2000, 11th and 12th considering clause; I.A.Court H.R., Constitutional
Court vs Peru
´, Provisional Measures, Order by the President I.A.Court H.R. of 7 April 2000,
10th and 11th considering clause. Unless other references are given, cases of the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights can be found at www.corteidh.or.cr. See also Canc¸ado
Trindade, A.A., Medidas Provisionales. Pro
´logo del Presidente de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos
Humanos al Tomo III del Serie E., para. 10.
3
See, for example, Article 63(2) American Convention on Human Rights (22 November 1969),
Articles 242-243 of the EC Treaty (25 March 1957). Article 27(2) Protocol to the African
Charter for Human and Peoples’ Rights (9 June 1998), whereby an African Court for Human
Rights is founded, is inspired by Article 63(2) American Convention.
4
E.Court H.R., Conka and Others vs Belgium (Appl. No. 51564/99), decision of 13 March 2001
(Fr.) and Chroniques de droit public / Publiekrechtelijke Kronieken, 2001, p. 310: ‘... the authority to
indicate provisional measures cannot be deduced from Art. 34 ECHR, nor from any other sources (...)’
(own translation authors). Also earlier E.Court H.R., Cruz Varas and Others vs Sweden,
judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A, No. 201, paras 102-103. Unless other references are
given, cases of the European Court of Human Rights can be found at www.echr.coe.int. Like
the ECHR, the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (16 December 1966) does not
contain a provision which allows the Human Rights Committee to issue interim measures.
However, Rule 86 of its Rules of procedure allows the Human Rights Committee to take
provisional measures.
5
The draft statute for an International Court of Human Rights drawn up in 1949 by the
European Movement did, however, expressly include, in Article 35, the possibility for the
future Court to impose provisional measures (see Council of Europe, Collected Edition of the
‘Travaux Pre
´paratoires’ of the European Convention on Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff, The
Hague, 1975-1985, Vol. I, p. 314), and also later recommendations to add a provision in this
regard to the Convention, e.g. from the Parliamentary Assembly (e.g. Yearbook of the European
Convention on Human Rights, Vol. XIV, 1971, pp. 68-71), have been in vain. According to one
commentator, it would appear that the ultimate attempt, in connection with the reforms
which were introduced by the Eleventh Protocol, to introduce a provision into the ECHR
itself which would give the Court the authority to order interim measures, has failed because
of the wish of the States to proceed swiftly with the drafting of the Protocol and the belief that
further discussions on that matter would delay the reform (see Rudolf, B., ‘Der Entwurf eines
Zusatzprotokolls u
¨ber die Reform des Kontrollmechanismus der Europa
¨ischen Menschen-
rechtskonvention’, Europa
¨ische Grundrechte Zeitschrift, 1994, p. 58), notwithstanding the efforts
of the Swiss delegation to have the Convention reformed in that regard (see Drzemczewski,
A., ‘Le Protocole Nº 11 a` la CEDH. Aperc¸u du processus de ne´gociation’, Documentac¸a
˜oe
direito comparado, 1997, nos. 69-70, p. 424).
To continue reading
Request your trial