to concentrate on the political approach. I will analyze the interaction between the Moscow Patriarchate and the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “ecthr”) following Russia’s accession to the Statute of the Council of Europe in 1996. 2 In concentrating on the political angle, however, I
the former or the latter; it is uncommon to build, argue, and decide a case using both. Second, it is a case where the Russian Constitutional Court effectively overruled itself and acted to implement a series of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights on a legal issue affecting almost any
Edited by Peter Kempees
Dominik Haider examines to which extent the Pilot-Judgment Procedure is reconcilable with the European Convention on Human Rights. After an analysis of the member states’ obligations to resolve structural deficiencies, the author asks if the European Court of Human Rights is empowered to take the procedural steps which are characteristic of the Pilot-Judgment Procedure. In particular, the Court's express orders are critically scrutinised.
Edited by Peter Kempees
Laurence A. Groen
This note analyzes the functioning of the Russian judiciary on the basis of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgments in the cases of OAO Neftianaia Kompaniia Iukos and three of the company’s former leading executives, Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovskii, Platon Leonidovich Lebedev and the late Vasilii Aleksanian. The analysis turns to the breaches by the Russian state of Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 18 (permissible restrictions to the rights guaranteed) of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as established by the Court in the aforementioned cases, and the role of the Russian judiciary therein. In light of the fundamental flaws and structural nature characterizing the violations found, the conclusion is reached that the Russian judiciary (still) appears not to be entirely free from undue influence by the other branches of government.
substantial reforms, especially in the criminal justice system. The author examines these reforms as well as the increasing number of cases in which Russia is a respondent before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Drawing on interviews, the Court’s statistics and his own experience training
Freek van der Vet
This article asserts that Russian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) contribute to processes of transitional justice in Chechnya through their litigation in front at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Having delivered more than 200 judgments on atrocities which occurred during the two recent conflicts in Chechnya, the ECtHR has repeatedly ruled that the state should pay financial compensation to the victims. While the Russian Federation has been following through on such payments, human-rights monitors allege that domestic authorities have failed to take active measures to address the atrocities themselves.
Through a qualitative interview study with Russian lawyers and NGO representatives, this article seeks to scrutinize how NGOs have been using the ECtHR’s mechanisms and judgments by way of leverage to initiate processes of transitional justice in post-conflict Chechnya. It appears that the ECtHR is not an end-station for human-rights claims and individual grievances but, rather, the start of a series of further claims. NGOs: (a) engage in political advocacy in implementing the judgments; and (b) create leverage for the criminal prosecution of perpetrators.