Author: Tigran Oganesian
Keywords: European Convention on Human Rights; European Court of Human Rights; evolutive interpretation; in search of lost time; living instrument doctrine
Time is central to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. By monitoring the effectiveness of the Convention’s system, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) tries to maintain relevancy and respond to new challenges. The author notes that the evolutionary interpretation is a method that provides the ECHR with the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure that the implementation of the rights is guaranteed by the Convention. Throughout this comparative analysis, the author emphasises that due to the peculiarities and differences in the legal culture of the respondent States, it is can be extremely difficult for the Court to promote a progressive interpretation of the Convention’s rules, even if it is consistent with the objectives of the Convention. In this regard, the Court’s decision in the Tyrer case is the embodiment of the philosophy of the living instrument. However, the Court presented a model of evolutionary interpretation and failed to immediately demonstrate how it works and will work in the future, which gave rise to a significant part of the criticism. As part of the critical views’ analysis on the application of the ECHR’s evolutionary interpretation, the author highlights that one way to overcome the subjective factor in evolutionary interpretation is the European consensus. This allows the Court to base its decisions on the “common denominator”, that is, not on the judges’ personal preferences, but on the existing consensus among the member States on any given issue. Considering this from a dialogical approach, the author proposes to consider consensus as a form of dialogue that flows from Member States to the Court on the question of what they believe should be the proper settlement of convention rights. The analysis of the application of the evolutionary method’s interpretation by other international courts is carried out, thus proving that the evolutionary interpretation is not merely a figment of the Strasbourg Court’s imagination and nor is it the result of judicial activism, but instead it is the consequence of today’s necessity. The author emphasises that a static understanding of rights and freedoms cannot guarantee the effectiveness of any system of international justice. The textual interpretation of the Convention is blind to contemporary developments and unjustifiably ignores the changed nature of human rights in the twenty-first century. On a practical level, it is likely that politically sensitive decisions will continue to provoke internal criticism. In the final part of the article, the author draws an analogy with Proust’s In Search of Lost Time, noting that the evolutionary interpretation is a kind of formula for the search for time, which simultaneously combines both the past and the present, and is a necessary formula for maintaining the effectiveness and relevance of the conventional system.
About the author: Tigran Oganesian – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in law; Associate Professor of the Department of International Law of the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Oganesian T. (2021) Evropeyskiy Sud po pravam cheloveka “v poiskakh utrachennogo vremeni”: evolyutivnoe tolkovanie [The European Court of Human Rights in Search of Lost Time: an evolutionary interpretation]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.11, no.3, pp.75–104. (In Russian).
(1995) Interv'yu Predsedatelya Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii prof., doktora yurid. nauk V.A.Tumanova zhurnaly “Gosudarstvo i pravo” [Interview with the Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, prof., Doctor of Law Sciences V.A.Tumanov to the “State and Law” journal]. Gosudarstvo i pravo, no.9, pp.3–9. (In Russian).
(2013) Lord Justice Laws. Lecture III: The Common Law and Europe (Hamlyn Lectures, 27 November 2013). Available at: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Speeches/laws-lj-speech-hamlyn-lecture-2013.pdf (accessed: 19.06.2021).
(2013) The Limits of Law: Lord Sumption Gives the 27th Sultan Azlan Shah Lecture, Kuala Lumpur. 20 November 2013. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-131120.pdf (accessed: 19.06.2021).
Andenas M. (2017) Sovereignty. In: Baudenbacher C. (ed.) The Fundamental Principles of EEA Law: EEA-ities, Cham: Springer, pp.91–108.
Arden M. (2014) An English Judge in Europe (Neill Lecture: 28 February 2014). Available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Speeches/lj-arden-an-english-judge-in-europe.pdf (accessed: 19.06.2021).
Bates E. (2010) The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights: From Its Inception to the Creation of a Permanent Court of Human Rights, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Bjorge E. (2017) The Convention as a Living Instrument: Rooted in the Past, Looking to the Future. Human Rights Law Journal, vol.36, nos.7–12, pp.243–255.
Carulla S.R. (2007) El sistema europeo de protección de los derechos humanos y el Derecho español, Barcelona: Atelier.
Dzehtsiarou K. (2011) European Consensus and the Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. German Law Journal, vol.12, no.10, pp.1730–1745.
Degtyarev К. (2016) Spasyot li konsensus sud? Razmyshleniya o roli evropeyskogo konsensusa v pretsedentnom prave Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [Will the Court save the Consensus? Reflections on the role of the European consensus in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights]. Rossiyskiy ezhegodnik Evropeyskoy konventsii po pravam cheloveka, no.2, pp.58–76. (In Russian).
Fitzmaurice М. (2009) Dynamic (Evolutive) Interpretation of Treaties. Part II. Hague Yearbook of International Law, vol.22, pp.3–31.
Fitzmaurice M. (2010) The Practical Working of the Law of Treaties. In: Evans M.D. (ed.) International Law, 3rd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.172–199.
Gerards J. (2009) Judicial Deliberations in the European Court of Human Rights. In: Huls N., Adams M., Bomhoff J. (eds.) The Legitimacy of Highest Сourts’ Rulings, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp.407–436.
Greer S. (2006) The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and Prospects, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gribnau H. (2002) Legitimacy of the Judiciary. In: Hondius E., Joustra C. (eds.) Netherlands Reports to the Sixteenth International Congress of Comparative Law: Brisbane 2002, Antwerpen; Oxford; New York: Intersentia, pp.25–45.
Hale B. (2011) Common Law and Convention Law: The Limits to Interpretation. European Human Rights Law Review, pp.534–542.
Harris D.J., O’Boyle M., Bates E.P., Buckley C.M. (2009) Harris, O’Boyle and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hazel Genn D. (2012) Why the Privatisation of Civil Justice Is a Rule of Law Issue: 36th F A Mann Lecture, Lincoln’s Inn. 19 November 2012. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/sites/laws/files/36th-f-a-mann-lecture-19.11.12-professor-hazel-genn.pdf (accessed: 19.06.2021).
Helmersen S.T. (2013) Evolutive Treaty Interpretation: Legality, Semantics and Distinctions. European Journal of Legal Studies, vol.6, no.1, pp.161–188.
Ispolinov A.S. (2017) Voprosy vzaimodeystviya mezhdunarodnogo i vnutrennego prava v resheniyakh Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Issues of relationship of international and domestic law in the judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation]. Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.1, pp.73–93. (In Russian).
Ispolinov A. (2016) Sudebnyy aktivizm i sudebnoe normotvorchestvo Suda Evropeyskogo Soyuza [Judicial activism and judicial rule-making of the Court of Justice of the European Union]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.6, no.1, pp.81–94. (In Russian).
Kikoina L. (2012) Filosofiya utrachennogo i obretennogo vremeni Marselya Prusta [The Philosophy of Lost and Found Time by Marcel Proust]. Available at: http://www.rehes.org/lst7/lst7_kikoina.html (accessed: 19.06.2021). (In Russian).
Kovalenko S.I. (2020) Teoretiko-prakticheskie aspekty evolutsionnogo tolkovaniya Evropeyskoy konventsii o zashchite prav cheloveka i osnovnykh svobod v praktike Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka: Dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Theoretical and practical aspects of the evolutionary interpretation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights: Cand. in law sci. diss.], Moscow. Available at: https://disser.spbu.ru/files/2019/disser_kovalenko.pdf (accessed: 19.06.2021). (In Russian).
Kovler A. (2016) Yavlenie sudeyskogo aktivizma: osobye mneniya sudey Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [The phenomenon of judicial activism: dissenting opinions of judges of the European Court of Human Rights]. Rossiyskiy ezhegodnik Evropeyskoy konventsii po pravam cheloveka, no.2, pp.30–57. (In Russian).
Kovler A.I. (2016) Evolyutivnoe tolkovanie Evropeyskoy Konventsii po pravam cheloveka: vozmozhnosti i predely. Evropeyskiy Sud po pravam cheloveka kak sub'ekt tolkovaniya prava [Evolutionary interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights: possibilities and limits. The European Court of Human Rights as a subject of interpretation of law]. Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya, no.3, pp.92–100. (In Russian).
Lawson R. (2020) The ECHR at 70: A Living Instrument in Precarious Present-Day Conditions. The Leiden Law Blog, 7 February. Available at: https://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/the-echr-at-70-a-living-instrument-in-precarious-present-day-conditions (accessed: 19.06.2021).
Letsas G. (2007) A Theory of the Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Letsas G. (2010) Intentionalism and the Interpretation of the ECHR. In: Fitzmaurice M., Elias O., Merkouris P. (eds.) Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 Years On, Leiden; Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp.257–272.
Letsas G. (2012) The ECHR as a Living Instrument: Its Meaning and Its Legitimacy. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2021836 (accessed: 19.06.2021).
Mahoney P. (1990) Judicial Activism and Judicial Self-Restraint in the European Court of Human Rights: Two Sides of the Same Coin. Human Rights Law Journal, vol.11, nos.1–2, рр.57–89.
Mahoney P. (2004) The Comparative Method in Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: Reference Back to National Law. In: Canivet G., Andenas M., Fairgrieve D. (eds.) Comparative Law Before the Courts, London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, pp.135–150.
Mamardashvili M. (2010) Marsel' Prust i ego roman “V poiskakh utrachennogo vremeni” [Marcel Proust and his novel “In Search of Lost Time”]. Seans, no.3. Available at: https://seance.ru/articles/prust_mamard/ (accessed: 19.06.2021). (In Russian).
Matscher F. (1998) Les contraintes de l’interprétation juridictionnelle. Les méthodes d’interprétation de la Convention européenne. In: Sudre F. (ed.) L’interprétation de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, Bruxelles: Nemesis: Bruylant, pp.11–37.
Matscher F., Petzold H. (1988) Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension: Studies in Honour of Gérard J.Wiarda, Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag.
Pascual Vives F. (2014) Consenso e interpretación evolutiva de los tratados regionales de derechos humanos. Revista Española de Derecho Internacional, vol.66, no.2, pp.113–153.
Prebensen S.C. (2000) Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. In: Mahoney P. et al. (eds.) Protecting Human Rights: The European Perspective: Studies in Memory of Rolv Ryssdal, Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag, pp.1123–1137.
Proust M. (2013) V storonu Svanna [Du côté de chez Swann], E.Baevskaya (transl.), Moscow: Inostranka; Azbuka-Attikus. (In Russian).
Raab D. (2009) The Assault on Liberty: What Went Wrong with Rights, London: Fourth Estate.
Schabas W.A. (2015) The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Senden H. (2011) Interpretation of Fundamental Rights in a Multilevel Legal System: An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, Cambridge; Antwerpen: Intersentia.
Waldock H. (1958) The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. British Yearbook of International Law, vol.24, pp.28–39.
Straw J. (2013) Aspects of Law Reform: An Insider’s Perspective, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sumption J. (2011). Judicial and Political Decision-Making: The Uncertain Boundary. Available at: https://ru.scribd.com/document/72814968/Sumption-Mann-Lecture-Final (accessed: 19.06.2021).
Tumanov V.A. (2001) Evropeyskiy Sud po pravam cheloveka: Ocherk organizatsii i deyatel'nosti [The European Court of Human Rights. Review of its organisation and activities], Moscow: Norma: INFRA-M. (In Russian).
Webber T. (2016) The European Convention on Human Rights and the Living Instrum.ent Doctrine: An Investigation Into the Convention’s Constitutional Nature and Evolutive Interpretation: Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton. Available at: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/413852/1/17._Final_submission_of_thesis.pdf (accessed: 19.06.2021).
White R.C.A., Ovey C. (2006) Jacobs and White: The European Convention on Human Rights, 4th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wildhaber L., Hjartarson A., Donnelly S. (2013) No Consensus on Consensus? The Practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Journal, vol.33, pp.248–263.
Zor'kin V.D. (2015) Problemy realizatsii Konventsii o pravakh cheloveka [Problems of implementation of the Convention on Human Rights]. 22 October. Available at: http://www.ksrf.ru/ru/News/Speech/Pages/ViewItem.aspx?ParamId=72 (accessed: 19.06.2021). (In Russian).