The History and the Structure of European Court of Human Right
Abstract
The European Court of Human Rights has been established by this convention, currently with more than 50 years of judicial experience, is also one of the most important international judicial organizations and from November 1998 onward the Protocol 11 became enforceable and along with its being imperative, the former two-steps system consisting of European Commission of Human Rights and the European court of Human Rights changed its structure into a one-step system, that is the new European Court of Human Rights, and that significant changes were made in the way an application was dealt with and in the Court procedure as well. This article will answer this question: How can this structure secure the rights guaranteed in this Convention against member states? Given that the topics related to the Court are very broad and diverse, attempts have been made to address issues about: the history and the structure of the Court, the issue of the Protocol 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the aforementioned Court after this Protocol, judges and the manner of their election, jurisdiction and so forth.
References
David L. Faigman. (2011) Reconciling Individual Rights and Governmental Interests: Madisonian Principles versus Supreme Court Practice, 78 VA. L. REV. 1522–1523.
Aaron A. Ostrovsky. (2015) What's So Funny About Peace, Love, and Understanding? How the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine Preserves Core Human Rights within Cultural Diversity and Legitimises International Human Rights Tribunals, 1 HANSE L. REV. 47, 57.
Georg Ress. (2005). The Effect of Decisions and Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Domestic Legal Order 40 TEX. INT’L L.J. 359, 374.
Luzius Wildhaber. (2008). A Constitutional Future for the European Court of Human Rights? 23 HUM. RTS. L. J. 161 (2002); GREER, supra note 9, at 172–173; Steven Greer, What's Wrong with the European Convention on Human Rights? 30 Hum. Rts. Q. 680, 684–685.
Tobias Thienel. (2001). The Burden and Standard of Proof in the European Court of Human Rights, 50 German Yearbook of International Law. 553–54.
Ugur Erdal. (2001). The Burden and Standard of Proof in Proceedings under the European Convention, 3 EUR. L. REV. 68, 81 (2001).
Mahoney. (1998). Marvellous Richness of Diversity or Invidious Cultural Relativism? 19 HUM. RTS. L.J. 1, 2 (1998) and Sweeney, supra note 30, at 472.
Jeroen Schokkenbroek. (1999). The Basis, Nature and Application of the Margin-of-Appreciation Doctrine in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights, 19 HUM. RTS. L.J. 30, 31–32
Trees A. M. (2004). Does a Fetus have a Right to Life? The Case of Vo. v. France, 11 Eur. J. Health L. 381, 387 and Goldman, supra note 112.
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
