Composition and competence of ECHR Cover Image
  • Price 4.50 €

Componenţa şi competenţa CEDO în etapa actuală
Composition and competence of ECHR

Author(s): Mihaela VIȘAN
Subject(s): Law, Constitution, Jurisprudence, International Law, EU-Legislation
Published by: Editura Sitech
Keywords: human rights; European Court of Human Rights; application; judges; ECHR evolution;

Summary/Abstract: The European Court of Human Rights – represents the European mechanism in human rights protection established within the Council of Europe by the European Convention of Human Rights. In terms of The European Court of Human Rights evolution, we could distinguish three stages: 1. The first stage – 1953 – 1988, in which the control’s responsibility was divided between the European Commission of human rights, the European Court of human rights and the Ministers Committee from Council of Europe. In this stage The European Convention of Human Rights had been giving to the Ministers Committee of the Council of Europe a certain jurisdictional role, if the case didn’t get to the Court within 3 months from receiving by the Committee the report elaborated by the Commission. 2. The second stage - 1998 – 2010, when by the entry into force of 11th Protocol was created a new European Court of Human Rights, unique and permanent, with the center at Strasbourg, which had replaced the old Commission and Court, associating their attributes as the entire procedure is being held at the new ECHR. Is is for the first time in the history of international jurisdictional organs when the jurisdictional competence of such a court, created by treaty signed by sovereign states, has become imperative [1]. In the same time the Ministers Committee is losing his jurisdictional competence. This result doesn’t have to minimize the Committee role, the Committee still has the role to supervise the compliance of definitive Court decisions.2 3. The actual stage began at 1 June 2010, once with the entry into force of 14th Protocol, which followed to streamline the activity of the Court by some jurisdictional innovations. The reform was absolutely necessary due to the overload activity of ECHR.

  • Issue Year: II/2013
  • Issue No: 2
  • Page Range: 27-34
  • Page Count: 8
  • Language: Romanian