Protocol No. 11 to the European Convention for Human Rights: A Drastic Revision of the Supervisory Mechanism under the ECHR
| DOI | 10.1177/092405199601400104 |
| Date | 01 March 1996 |
| Published date | 01 March 1996 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Protocol No. 11 to the European Convention for Human Rights:
ADrastic Revision
of
the Supervisory Mechanism under the
ECHR
Yvonne Klerk'
Abstract
The supervisory mechanism under the European Convention on Human Rights is
threatening to collapse under the weight
of
its own success. Protocol No. 11, which was
adopted in May 1994, should offer a solution to the problems. This protocol embodies a
drastic revision
of
the present mechanism. In this article the new mechanism is analysed.
According to the author, Protocol No. 11 has some major disadvantages. Nevertheless. the
new mechanism should be preferred to the present one. 1n the final analysis therefore. the
author expresses the hope that Protocol No. 11, in spite
of
itself, soon enters into force.
Introduction
On 11 May 1994 'Protocol No.
II
to the Convention for the Protection
of
Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms, Restructuring the Control Machinery Established Thereby'
was signed by all Member States
of
the Council
of
Europe but one. IThis Protocol is the
result
of
adiscussion for years on the supervisory mechanism under the European
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter: ECHR) and embodies a drastic revision
ofthis
mechanism. Thus, the European Commission and European Court
of
Human Rights will
disappear and make way for a new, permanent European Court
of
Human Rights.
The feeling that the
ECHR
control machinery should be revised was inspired by
various factors. It is a famous statement that the Strasbourg supervisory mechanism has
become a victim
of
its own success. Many individuals venture to lodge a complaint with
the European Commission." Besides, the quality
of
the complaints has increased. This has
led to a growing workload
of
the Convention organs. A backlog in dealing with the cases
has arisen which makes the proceedings even more protracted than is already due to the
structure
of
the system itself. The problem got new dimensions when Eastern European
States became members
of
the Council
of
Europe and parties to the ECHR.3This
increased membership has led to another practical problem: the size
of
the supervisory
Lecturer in the Law
of
International Organisations, Faculty
of
Law, Utrecht University.
Due to the resignation
of
its Government, Italy could not sign the Protocol on the day
of
the opening for
signature. It did so on 21 December 1994.
In 1994, 2944 applications were registered. Ten years earlier the registered applications numbered 586. The
number
of
registered applications is not the same as the number
of
letters
of
complaint sent to the European
Commission. Members
of
the Secretariat
of
the Commission try to persuade applicants to withdraw a
complaint which has no prospect
of
success. This policy
of
discouragement is rather effective: circa 75
percent
of
the applicants do not continue. When an applicant persists, his. application will be registered.
On 2 January 1996, the Council
of
Europe had 38 members. Of these Albania, Andorra, Estonia, Latvia,
Moldova, the former Yugoslav Republic
of
Macedonia and Ukraine were not parties to the ECHR yet.
BUlgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia had ratified the
of
Russia, it is
to be expected that this State will become a member
of
the Council
of
Europe within the coming months.
Netherlands Quarterly
of
Human Rights. Vol. \4/1,35-46, 1996.
©The Netherlands Institute
of
Human Rights (SIM). Printed in the Netherlands. 35
To continue reading
Request your trial