Effectiveness of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights on Inter-State Applications Concerning the Situation in Nagorno-Karabakh

The events taking place in Crimea since early 2014 have given rise to a number of international disputes currently pending before international courts and tribunals. Ukraine instituted inter-State proceedings against Russia before the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights and an unclos Annex vii Tribunal. Seven investor-State cases have been commenced against Russia. The Prosecutor of the icc is conducting preliminary examination into the crimes allegedly committed in Crimea in 2014 and afterwards. Foreign courts have also had to deal with cases related to the annexation of Crimea. This article provides an overview of cases pending before international courts and tribunals in relation to events in Crimea. The focus is on the questions related to jurisdiction of the international courts and tribunals seized in Crimea-related cases. The study explores the limits of the jurisdiction of international courts to adjudicate disputes concerning the interpretation and application of a treaty arising in connection with a larger dispute regarding the use of force, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. The article also discusses novel and debated jurisdiction-related matters that arise in cases brought in relation to events in Crimea. A brief description of cases heard in foreign courts is provided as well.

Download Full-text

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER-STATE COMPLAINTS TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Odesa National University Herald Jurisprudence ◽

10.18524/2304-1587.2019.1(34).170522 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 24 (1(34)) ◽

Author(s):

G. А. Lakarova

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

European Court ◽

Inter State

Download Full-text

Interstate Application on Behalf of Organisations Lacking Non-governmental Status is Inadmissible. Comment on ECtHR Decision in Slovenia v. Croatia (Application No. 54155/16)

Polish Review of International and European Law ◽

10.21697/priel.2021.10.2.09 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. 151-161

Author(s):

Natalia Cwicinskaja

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Case Law ◽

Fair Trial ◽

European Convention ◽

European Court ◽

The Republic ◽

Effective Remedy ◽

State Case ◽

Inter State

The present commentary concerns the claims alleging a violation under Article 6(1) (right to a fair trial), Article 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination) and Article 13 (Right to an Effective Remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) to the European Conventionon Human Rights by preventing Ljubljana Bank (a Slovenian bank) from enforcing and collecting the debts of its Croatian debtors in Croatia by the Croatian authorities. The case under discussion is an inter-state case and the applicant was the Republic of Slovenia. The decision is significant from the perspective of the development of case law in inter-state cases, which are still rare in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. It has been confirmed that inter-state applications are additional measures for the protection of the rights of individuals which cannot be used to protect State interests.

Download Full-text

On Inter-State Litigation and Armed Conflict Cases in Strasbourg

European Convention on Human Rights Law Review ◽

10.1163/26663236-bja10014 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-48

Author(s):

Philip Leach

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Eastern Europe ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Human Rights Violations ◽

Council Of Europe ◽

Regular Feature ◽

Member States ◽

Related Individual ◽

European Court ◽

Inter State

Abstract The reluctance of Council of Europe member states to challenge each other at the bar of Europe, through the litigation of inter-state cases at the European Court, used to be a regular feature of the Strasbourg system. However, conflicts of different kinds in eastern Europe have led to a surge of such cases in recent years, as well as the introduction of thousands of related individual applications. The serious challenges presented, in particular by conflict-related cases, have led some commentators to question whether they can feasibly remain part of the Strasbourg process. For others, the focus should rather be on how such cases can be more effectively processed and assessed. This article emphasises the significance of both inter-state cases in general, and of cases arising from armed conflict (including individual applications): their political and legal importance; their centrality to the European human rights system; and how vital they are for individual victims of human rights violations. It analyses a number of controversial or challenging aspects of the adjudication of these cases, and puts forward some proposals for reform.

Download Full-text

Le misure provvisorie della Corte europea dei diritti umani nell'ambito della procedura di ricorso interstatale Georgia c. Russia

DIRITTI UMANI E DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE ◽

10.3280/dudi2009-001006 ◽

2009 ◽

pp. 129-150

Author(s):

Andrea Saccucci

Keyword(s):

Case Law ◽

European Court ◽

Specific Object ◽

Rules Of Procedure ◽

Degrading Treatment ◽

The Right ◽

First Time ◽

Imminent Risk ◽

Individual Petition ◽

Inter State

- In the case Georgia v. Russia, the European Court has adopted provisional meas- ures requesting both States parties to ensure compliance with their engagements under the ECHR, particularly in respect of the right to life (Article 2) and the prohibition of tor- ture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3). It is the first time in the Court's history that Rule 39 of its Rules of Procedure is applied in the framework of an inter- state complaint procedure. Being themselves aimed at safeguarding pendente lite the rights of individuals exposed to the imminent risk of an irreparable damages rather than to protect States' own rights, inter-state provisional measures are subject to a legal re- gime largely correspondent to that of provisional measures adopted on request of an in- dividual applicant. Notwithstanding the despicable absence of any reasoning, the in- terim protection accorded by the Court in the case Georgia v. Russia seems to fall squarely within the previous practice in individual cases as to procedural and substantial requirements, certain peculiarities being in fact a mere consequence of the rules appli- cable to inter-state litigation and of the specific object of the complaint filed by Georgia in relation to an ongoing armed conflict. The most controversial issue remains that of the binding nature of provisional measures, given that the solution embraced by the re- cent Court's case-law relies on the obligation not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual petition and cannot be extended to inter-state complaints. A proposal for a different approach is therefore offered, which links the binding nature of provi- sional measures to the substantive obligations they seek to ensure respect for against possible violations having irreparable consequences.

Download Full-text