The Room at the Top: Separate Opinions in the Grand Chambers of the ECHR (1998-2006)

• Author: Fred J. Bruinsma
• Position: Professor of Law and Society at Utrecht University.
• Pages: 32-43

32 ANCILLAIURIS(anci.ch)2008:32–Article

Summary1

Aquantitativeandqualitativeanalysisoftheseparateopinionsin

theGrandChamberoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights

(n=106,fromNovember1998untilSeptember2006)revealsthe

followingpatterns:(a)judgeselectedinrespectofthenewmem

berStatesofCentralandEasternEuropedeliversignificantlyless

separateopinionsthanjudgeselectedinrespectoftheoldmember

States;(b)nationalbiasinthesensethatthejudgestakeamore

benevolentpositionwhentheirhomecountryistherespondent

Statedoesinfactoccur,andmoresoamongadhocjudgesthan

amongelectedjudges;and(c)thelawyerstatesmansperspective

seemstoprevailinthemajorityjudgmentwhilehumanrightsac

tivismfindsanoutletinseparateopinions.Interviewswith(19)

judgesenrichthesedatawithinsightsintothesocialandinstitu

tionalcontextofjudicialdecisionmakingintheGrandChamber.

*

Despitethefactweallcomefromdifferentcountrieswearein

thesamediscourse,andweenjoyit.Someofusswimbetteror

fasterthanothersbutitisthesamewaterwearein.Formu

latedfromanegativepointofview:thereisalmostnomisun

derstanding.YouwalkintotheGrandChamberandyoudo

exactlythesamethingyoudidathome,nowwithcolleagues

fromothercountriesbutatthesamelevelofcommunication

betweenprofessionals.Itshowsthatthejudgingprocessisnot

nationbound;itiscrossculturalandithasitsownautono

my.

AJudgeoftheECHR

Introduction

TheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightswassetupin

StrasbourgbythememberStatesoftheCouncilofEurope

in1959inordertodealwithallegedviolationsofthe1950

EuropeanConventiononHumanRights.MemberStates

areobligedtoacceptthejurisdictionoftheCourtandindi

vidualshavetherighttobringtheircasetotheCourtafter

alldomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted(Articles34and

35oftheConvention).PursuanttoProtocol11,theCourt

becameasingleandpermanentcourtinNovember1998.

Thenumberofjudgesisequaltothenumberofmember

1FredJ.BruinsmaisProfessorofLawandSocietyatUtrechtUni

versity.Ashorterversionofthisarticle wasfirstpublishedin

RechtderWerkelijkheid2/28(2007),724.

States(Article20).Article23oftheConventionprovidesfor

asixyeartermofofficewiththepossibilityofreelection.

ForthejudgestheworkingunitoftheCourtconsistsofthe

Chamberscomposedofsevenjudges,whoarerecruited

fromSections.2Casesthatraiseseriousinterpretationprob

lemsaredecidedinanadhocGrandChamberof17judges.

WhereastheSectionsmeetonceaweektheaveragejudge

isonlyonceinawhileinvolvedintheGrandChamber.The

GrandChamberismoreinterestingandmorerelevant,

however,asthecriticalmassfordeliberationsinsmall

Chambersisinsufficientbecauseofcaseloadpressure.The

enlargementoftheCourt(24oldmemberStatesofthe

CouncilofEuropebeforethecollapseoftheIronCurtain,

and20newmemberStatesin2006)3justifiesspeakingin

theplural,i.e.GrandChambers,ascomplexprocedural

rulesdecidetheadhoccompositionoftheGrandChamber,

“havingdueregardtotheneedforageographicallybal

ancedcompositionreflectingthedifferentlegalsystems

amongtheContractingParties”(RulesofCourt24§2sube).

ItisagrowingconcernoftheCourthowtoguaranteecon

sistentcaselawwithfiveSectionsandadhocGrandCham

bers.

Theresearchquestions,theresearchsiteandthe

methodsused

Article45§2oftheConventionreadsasfollows:“Ifa

judgmentdoesnotrepresent,inwholeorinpart,theunan

imousopinionofthejudges,anyjudgeshallbeentitledto

deliveraseparateopinion.”Rule74§2oftheRulesofCourt

specifies:“Anyjudgewhohastakenpartintheconsider

ationofthecaseshallbeentitledtoannextothejudgment

eitheraseparateopinion,concurringwithordissenting

fromthatjudgment,orabarestatementofdissent.”This

provisionmakesitpossibletocomposeprofilesofindivid

2“ThecompositionoftheSectionsshallbegeographicallyandgen

derbalancedandshallreflectthedifferentlegalsystemsamong

theContractingParties”(Rule25§2).Sectionsarereshuffledonce

everythreeyears.

3TheoldmemberStates(OMS)are:Andorra,Austria,Belgium,

Cyprus,Denmark,Finland,France,Germany,Greece,Iceland,Ire

land,Italy,Liechtenstein,Luxembourg,Malta,theNetherlands,

Norway,Portugal,SanMarino,Spain,Sweden,Switzerland,Tur 

key,andtheUnitedKingdom.ThenewmemberStates(NMS)are:

Albania,Armenia,Azerbaijan,BosniaHerzegovina,Bulgaria,

Croatia,theCzechRepublic,Estonia,Georgia,Hungary,Latvia,

Lithuania,Macedonia,Moldova,Poland,Romania,Russia,Slova

kia,Slovenia,andUkraine.

TheRoomattheTop : SeparateOpinionsintheGrandChambersoftheECHR(19982006)

FredJ.Bruinsma