Third-Party Interventions Before the European Court of Human Rights

Over the past decades the European Court of Human Rights has been increasingly engaged in constitutional decision-making. In this time the Court has decided whether abortion, assisted suicide, and surrogate motherhood are human rights. The Court's judgments therefore do not just affect the parties to a particular case, but individuals, other member states, and often European society at large. Unsurprisingly, a variety of entities such as non-governmental organisations, try to participate in the Court's proceedings as third-party interveners. Acknowledging a certain public interest in its decision-making, the Court accepted the first intervention in 1979. Since that time, interventions by individuals, member states and non-governmental organisations have increased. Yet despite this long-standing practice, third-party interventions have never been fully theorised. Third-Party Interventions before the European Court of Human Rights is the first comprehensive and empirical study on third-party interventions before an international court.Analysing all cases between 1979 and 2016 to which an intervention was made the book explores their potential influence on the reasoning and decision-making of the Court. It further argues that there are three different type of intervention playing different roles in the administration of justice: amicus curiae interventions by organisations with a virtual interest in the case which strengthen the Court's legitimacy in its democratic environment; member state interventions reinforcing state sovereignty; and actual third-party interventions by individuals who are involved in the facts of a case and who are protecting their own legal interests. As a consequence, the book makes a plea for applying distinct admissibility criteria to the different type of interventions as well as a more transparent procedure when accepting and denying interventions.

Table of Contents:
Acknowledgements - v Table of Cases with Interventions - xiii List of Abbreviations - xlix Chapter 1. Introduction - 1 1. Context and Scope of the Study - 1 2. Method - 2 3. Basic Legal Framework - 4 3.1. Historical Background - 4 3.2. Ratione Personae - 5 3.2.1. Amicus Curiae Intervention - 6 3.2.2. Member-State Intervention - 9 3.2.3. Third-Party Intervention - 9 3.3. Ratione Materiae - 10 3.4. Ratione Temporis - 10 3.5. Form - 11 3.5.1. Written Comments - 11 3.5.2. Oral Comments - 11 3.6. The Court’s Engagement with Interventions - 12 3.6.1. Summary in Judgments - 12 3.6.2. Reference in Reasoning - 13 3.6.3. Reference in Separate Opinions - 15 Chapter 2. Amicus Curiae Intervention - 17 1. Introduction - 17 2. Historical Origin - 19 3. Rationale of Amicus Curiae - 20 4. The Court’s Legitimacy - 22 4.1. Tension between Democracy and Judicial Review - 22 4.1.1. Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty - 24 4.1.2. Quasi-Constitutional Function - 26 4.2. Constitutional Features - 29 5. Argumentative Representation - 30 5.1. Ideological Submissions - 31 5.1.1. Restraint Amicus Curiae Interventions - 33 5.1.1.1. Faith-based NGOs - 33 5.1.1.2. Churches - 35 5.1.2. Activist Amicus Curiae Interventions - 35 5.1.3. Beginning and Ending of Life - 38 5.1.4. Rights of LGBT People - 40 5.1.5. Relation between Religion and the State - 41 5.1.6. Influence on Ideological Directions of Cases - 44 5.2. Knowledge Production - 46 5.2.1. Information on International Law - 47 5.2.1.1. International Human Rights Law - 49 5.2.1.2. European Union Law - 50 5.2.1.3. International Humanitarian Law - 51 5.2.1.4. Preliminary Conclusion - 53 5.2.2. Contextualisation - 53 5.2.2.1. Factual Information - 54 5.2.2.2. Legal Information - 55 5.2.2.3. Situation in Northern Ireland - 56 5.2.2.4. Regime Changes in Central and Eastern Europe - 58 5.2.2.5. Preliminary Conclusion - 60 5.3. Lend Credibility to Arguments - 61 5.3.1. Membership-Based Organisations - 61 5.3.2. Authority - 63 5.4. Preliminary Conclusion - 65 6. Principled Decision-Making - 65 6.1. Proportionality - 66 6.1.1. Proportionality in the European Court’s Judgments - 67 6.1.2. Proportionality in the Narrow Sense - 68 6.1.2.1. Intensity - 69 6.1.2.2. Importance - 72 6.1.2.3. Justification - 73 6.1.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 74 6.2. Consensus and Comparative Reference - 75 6.2.1. Absence of Established Case Law - 76 6.2.2. Social or Political Development - 79 6.2.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 81 6.3. Margin of Appreciation - 82 6.4. Precedent - 85 6.4.1. Endorsement - 86 6.4.2. Rejection - 87 6.4.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 90 6.5. Development of the Convention - 91 6.5.1. Rights of Detainees - 92 6.5.1.1. Extradition and Expulsion - 93 6.5.1.2. Enforced Disappearance and Secret Detention - 96 6.5.1.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 98 6.5.2. Rights of LGBT People - 99 6.5.2.1. Rights of Transsexuals - 100 6.5.2.2. Family Life and Marriage - 100 6.5.2.3. Adoption - 102 6.5.2.4. Preliminary Conclusion - 102 6.5.3. Rights of Roma and Travellers - 103 6.5.4. Preliminary Conclusion - 107 7. Acceptance of Court’s Authority - 108 7.1. Specific Support - 109 7.2. Diffuse Support - 112 7.2.1. Use of Amicus Curiae - 113 7.2.2. Transparent Procedure - 115 7.2.3. Arbitrary Refusals - 116 7.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 117 8. Admissibility of Amicus Curiae - 118 8.1. Admissibility Ratione Materiae - 118 8.1.1. The Interest of Proper Administration of Justice - 118 8.1.2. General Principles - 119 8.1.3. Practical Implications - 122 8.2. Admissibility Ratione Personae - 123 8.2.1. Non-Governmental Organisations - 123 8.2.1.1. European Organisations - 123 8.2.1.2. Non-European Organisations - 124 8.2.2. National Human Rights Institutions and Ombudspersons - 125 8.2.3. Individuals - 126 8.2.4. Members of Parliamentary Assemblies - 126 8.2.5. International Organisations - 127 8.2.6. Non-Member States - 127 8.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 127 9. Conclusion - 128 Chapter 3. Member-State Intervention - 131 1. Preliminary Observation - 131 2. Notion and Origin - 132 3. Reinforcement of State Sovereignty - 134 4. Judicial Restraint - 136 4.1. Margin of Appreciation - 138 4.2. Subsidiarity - 140 4.3. Historical Interpretation - 141 4.4. Reserved Domain - 142 4.4.1. Immigration and National Security - 143 4.4.2. Governmental Structure - 145 4.5. State Responsibility in Relation to Inter-Governmental Organisations - 147 4.6. Restraint Ideological Submissions - 150 5. The Court’s Engagement with Member-State Intervention - 152 5.1. Reflection in Judgments - 152 5.2. Weakening Established Case Law - 153 6. Conclusion - 154 Chapter 4. Actual Third-Party Intervention - 157 1. Preliminary Observation - 157 2. Origin and Notion - 158 3. Legal Interest - 161 3.1. Ratione Materiae - 161 3.1.1. Execution of Judgments - 162 3.1.1.1. Reopening of Domestic Proceedings - 163 3.1.1.2. Other Individual Measures - 165 3.1.2. Conflict of Rights - 166 3.1.2.1. Property - 166 3.1.2.2. Ancestry - 168 3.1.2.3. Abduction of Children - 169 3.1.2.4. Child Custody and Visiting Rights - 171 3.1.2.5. Employment - 171 3.1.2.6. Defamation and Privacy Invasion - 172 3.1.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 173 3.2. Ratione Personae - 173 3.2.1. Natural and Legal Persons - 174 3.2.2. State Entities and Intergovernmental Bodies - 175 3.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 177 4. The Court’s Practice - 177 5. Scope of Participation - 179 5.1. Right to Intervene - 179 5.2. Litigation Rights - 181 6. Conclusion - 182 Chapter 5. Conclusion - 183 1. Third-Party Intervention: One Term, Three Concepts - 183 1.1. Amicus Curiae: Strengthen the Court’s Legitimacy - 183 1.2. Member States: Reinforce State Sovereignty - 185 1.3. Actual Third Party: Protect Own Legal Interests - 185 2. Non-Transparent Procedure and Admissibility Criteria - 186 2.1. Amicus Curiae Intervention - 186 2.2. Third-Party Intervention - 187 3. Impact of Intervention - 188 3.1. Amicus Curiae Intervention - 189 3.2. Member-State Intervention - 192 3.3. Third-Party Intervention - 192 Bibliography - 195 Index - 211

About the Author :
Dr Nicole Burli has been a human rights adviser with the World Organisation Against Torture since 2014. Prior to this, she was a research associate at the University of Zurich (2008-2012) and a visiting fellow at the University of Copenhagen (2012) and the University of Cambridge (2013). Nicole Burli holds law degrees from the University of Bern and the University of Zurich.