L'éternel retour

Abstract

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour Armand Colin. © Armand Colin. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays.La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.

Blanket Bans, Subsidiarity, and the Procedural Turn of the European Court of Human Rights

“…145 If Judge Spano is correct then it may well be that the procedural turn described in this article is not only inevitable, but is also to be welcomed as a part of this 'new historical era'. Indeed, if the Promised Land envisaged by the likes of Judges Spano and Spielmann 146 is achieved, whereby contracting states properly adopt human rights standards and procedures into their domestic processes, the European Court's subsidiary role will become one of checking domestic procedures and correcting flagrant and egregious abuses. 147 However, as we have argued, some serious questions remain about an untrammeled move to process-based review, especially in relation to the imposition of inflexible blanket bans.…”

When ‘reform’ meets ‘judicial restraint’: Protocol 15 amending the European Convention on Human Rights

“…65 For the ECtHR's President, the application of the doctrine is indeed 'predictable only to a certain degree', but this is inevitable as the facts and the legal framework of the case are of utmost importance: the margin 'is not a fixed unit of legal measurement [,] [n]or is it applied at the Court's own pleasure'. 66 In an effort to apply the proportionality principle consistently, the ECtHR will often seek for -what is termed as -the European consensus, the identification of pan-European legal agreement on a -frequently -sensitive or controversial matter. The interpretative instrument of European consensus could also benefit from a precise definition, on the part of the Court, in order to unravel its true legitimising factor and to bring about 'clarity and foreseeability to case law in relation to almost all Convention rights'.…”

“…74 The Joint NGO Statement also observed that the subordination of the doctrine to the ECtHR's interpretative practices entails a confirmation of specific principles: 'the Court has always accepted that the doctrine of the margin of appreciation does not apply at all in respect of some rights, such as freedom from torture and other ill-treatment'. 75 The Strasbourg Court arguably believed that the inclusion of the phrase 'as developed by the Court's case law' would recognise the 'provenance of the margin of appreciation', 76 but the CDDH refrained from developing the text further.…”