Mr Jan Petersen Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway

The Agenda for Reform of the European Human Rights System

High Level Seminar on Reform of the European Human Rights System 18 October 2004, Oslo, Norway

Read the French version of the speech here

Check against delivery

Your Royal Highness,

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

As Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, I would also like to welcome you all to this seminar.

I am pleased that such eminent representatives of the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe and such renowned experts from all parts of Europe have been able to join us today.

A particular welcome to the President of the Court, its Registrar and the representative of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe.

This seminar on reform of the European human rights system reflects one of the key priorities of the Norwegian chairmanship. All over Europe, individuals put their ultimate trust in the Court in Strasbourg when their fundamental rights and freedoms are at stake. It is thanks to the Court that the European Convention on Human Rights is a living instrument that has adapted to modern conditions.

This Court is widely perceived as the world’s leading human rights court, and rightly so. The fact that its influence is growing, even outside Europe, is remarkable. Not only have other human rights bodies drawn on its rich case law – so have national supreme courts of States on other continents, as well as the international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The Strasbourg Court thus contributes to the development of international law, promotes our common values and has a unique legitimacy even at the global level.

As members and representatives of the Council of Europe and the Court, we have reason to be proud of what has been achieved.

At the same time, we must not let pride lead to complacency.

The Court’s formidable success has itself contributed to the rapidly increasing flow of individual applications. The huge backlog of pending cases, and also the failure in certain cases of States to effectively implement judgements, have become major challenges. These must be addressed if our sustainable and effective system for protecting human rights in Europe is to be preserved. When we consider that at this very moment, more than 75 000 individuals, some of them in desperate circumstances, have an application pending, it is obvious that there is no time to lose.

The European Court of Human Rights must, as a court of last resort, respond to the human rights needs of 800 million people. It can therefore be no surprise that the practical and theoretical challenges are many and various. At the same time the resources available to respond to these needs are obviously limited.

The way these challenges are met also has a bearing on the broader discussion of the division of labour between national and international systems, as well as the form of co-operation between the two levels. The basic idea is that questions should primarily be solved at the local, national level. Furthermore, we may talk about complementarity between international criminal justice and national systems, or subsidiarity, as is the case between the Strasbourg Court and national systems. However, States retain a primary responsibility for ensuring full compliance with international obligations.

Issues of division of labour are common in federalist structures, but international courts are not federal courts, their relations are with sovereign States. These have different legal traditions and cultures and margins of appreciation recognised by the Strasbourg Court.

The Convention and the Court were not created to replace governments or remove important matters from national regulation. States retain the primary duty and responsibility to protect human rights through implementation of the Convention at the domestic level. At the international and European level, the Strasbourg Court is the ultimate safety net.

Moreover, a distinguishing feature and a core principle of the Strasbourg system is the fundamental right of individuals to petition the Court. This right is not at issue. Nor is the single Court that emerged from the reform in 1998, based on Protocol 11.

The agreed priorities are the Court’s organisation and procedures, more effective implementation of judgements and the need for more adequate national measures. Thus in concrete terms, the questions before this seminar are simply:

What should now be done by

- the Court itself,

- by the Council of Europe

- and by Member States?

The reform package adopted by the Committee of Ministers in May, with Protocol 14 and a number of other texts, is a turning point. But the adoption of these texts is also only a starting point. Concrete follow-up is now the task facing the Court and the Committee of Ministers, its subsidiary bodies, and other organs of the Council of Europe. And last but by no means least, member States at the national level.

Some of the overriding questions in this respect are:

How can we ensure that the resources of the Court are allocated to the most important cases? And how can we deal with the flood of inadmissible cases?

I should like to list some of Norway’s key priorities during its chairmanship with these questions in mind:

• First, to promote the necessary steps to ensure the swift entry into force of Protocol 14 and the full utilisation of its potential;

• Second, to support effective steps to follow up other reform measures by the competent bodies of the Council of Europe, including in particular the Committee of Ministers;

• Third, to focus further on specific and effective measures to improve and accelerate the execution of the Court’s judgements, notably those revealing an underlying systemic problem.

The first point concerns the amendment through Protocol 14 of the control system of the Convention. The aim is to make the system more efficient while at the same time preserving the individual right of application as the pillar of the European system of human rights protection.

The entry into force of the Protocol has considerable potential for removing bottlenecks in the work of the Court. It will enable the Registry and the judiciary of the Court to take action themselves, for example through abbreviated or summary procedures. It is urgent to ensure that the Court is able to take such steps as soon as possible. We, the States, can contribute by swiftly signing and ratifying the Protocol.

I call on the participants in this seminar to consider ways and means of bringing the Protocol into force well before May 2006. It should be noted that ratification of the Protocol in most cases will not require any new legislation nor will it have financial implications.

To encourage the swift entry into force of Protocol 14, Norway and Poland have asked the Secretariat of the Council of Europe to organise a Treaty Event in Strasbourg on 10 November, to coincide with the transfer of the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers from Norway to Poland.

I take this opportunity to urge all member States that have not already done so to sign the Protocol on this occasion and to proceed with ratification as soon as possible.

The second priority for our chairmanship reflects the fact that Protocol 14 is only one element of a broader reform package, which includes other measures requiring follow-up by States and competent bodies, notably those of the Council of Europe.

The Committee of Ministers should take specific and effective measures towards improving and accelerating the execution of the Court’s judgements, notably those revealing an underlying systemic problem.

Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers should undertake a review of the implementation of the above-mentioned recommendations to member States.

Finally, the Ministers should assess the resources necessary for the rapid and effective implementation of Protocol 14, and take measures accordingly.

The main pillar of the European Human Rights system is of course compliance by States with the Human Rights Convention. The Court is not responsible for straightening out systemic failures within States. Effective measures must be adopted by parliaments, governments and courts at the national level. The obligations of States under the Convention and the recommendations and resolutions adopted by the Committee of Ministers must be put into effect.

Our third priority is to contribute to increased focus on specific and effective measures to improve and accelerate the execution of the Court’s judgements, notably those revealing an underlying systemic problem.

In a Resolution concerning this issue, the Court is invited to identify, in the judgments that find a violation of the Convention, what it considers to be the underlying systemic problem and the source of this problem. The Court is also invited to notify other Council of Europe organs and the general public of any judgement containing indications of a systemic human rights problem.

Finally, I will revert to the main issue: States have the main responsibility for ensuring that the European system of human rights is effective.

We must therefore ask ourselves how States can ensure effective compliance. This question is not limited to the execution of judgements. Effective implementation goes deeper and beyond formal execution. It requires a full revision of legislation and administrative practice, in order to prevent the Court from being overloaded with cases of great similarity.

I believe it is indispensable that States and the Court develop an even closer partnership in addressing this most pressing issue.

I hope that this seminar, which is bringing together prominent practitioners and academics, will inspire a spirit of partnership in which we can enhance our understanding of these complicated issues.

I also hope that this forum will help to identify practical measures within the framework of the adopted reform package.

Before giving the floor to the President of the European Court of Human Rights, I should like to convey my particular thanks to the Council of Europe Secretariat and to the Court for their extremely useful assistance in the preparations for the seminar.

Thank you for your attention. I wish you all a fruitful and constructive day of discussions.