CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 2 juin 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB3C13F7 { width:33%; text-align:justify } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   277 2.6.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   FIRST DECISION ON COURT’S COMPETENCE TO GIVE AN ADVISORY OPINION   At a public hearing held today in Strasbourg, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has delivered its decision concerning the first request to the Court for an advisory opinion under Article   47 [1] (advisory opinions) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court concluded unanimously that the request for an advisory opinion, submitted by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, did not come within the Court’s advisory competence. The request concerned the co-existence of the Convention on Human Rights of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the European Convention on Human Rights. (The decision is available in English and in French.)     1.     The request for an advisory opinion   The Commonwealth of Independent States (“CIS”) was established in 1991 by a number of former Soviet Republics and at present has 12 members.   On 26 May 1995, the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Commonwealth of Independent States (“the CIS Convention”) was opened for signature. It provides for the establishment of a Human Rights Commission of the Commonwealth of Independent States (“the CIS Commission”) to monitor the fulfilment of the human rights obligations entered into by States. The CIS Convention entered into force on 11 August 1998.   In May 2001 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation 1519(2001), in which it recommended that the Committee of Ministers request the Court to give an advisory opinion on the question whether the CIS Commission should be regarded as “another procedure of international investigation or settlement” within the meaning of Article 35 § 2(b) of the European Convention on Human Rights [2] . The Parliamentary Assembly referred to “the weakness of the CIS Commission as an institution for the protection of human rights” and expressed the view that it should not be regarded as a procedure falling within the scope of Article   35 § 2(b). The Committee of Ministers decided to accept the advice of the Parliamentary Assembly and requested the Court to give an advisory opinion on “the co-existence of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the European Convention on Human Rights”.   2.     Procedure   The request was submitted by letter of 9 January 2002. It was assigned to the Grand Chamber of the Court (Article 31(b) of the Convention). In accordance with Rule   84   §   2 of the Rules of Court, the Registrar informed the Contracting Parties that the Court was prepared to receive their written comments. Written comments were submitted by a number of the Contracting Parties.   The decision was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:     Mr   L. Wildhaber , President ,   Mr   C.L. Rozakis ,   Mr   J.-P. Costa ,   Mr   G. Ress ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mr   L . Caflisch ,   Mr   R. Türmen,   Mr   C. Bîrsan,   Mr   V . Butkevych,   Mrs   N. Vajić,   Mr   M. Pellonpää,   Mr   A. B. Baka,   Mr   R . Maruste,   Mr   A. Kovler,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky ,   Mrs   A . Mularoni,   Mrs   E . Fura-Sandström, judges , and Mr E . Fribergh , Deputy Registrar   3.     Summary of the decision [3]   The Court considered that the request for an advisory opinion related essentially to the specific question whether the CIS Commission could be regarded as “another procedure of international investigation or settlement” within the meaning of Article   35 § 2(b) of the   Convention and was satisfied that the request related to a legal question concerning the interpretation of the Convention, as required by Article 47 § 1.   It was, however, necessary to examine whether the Court’s competence was excluded by Article 47 § 2, on the ground that the request raised a “question which the Court or the Committee of Ministers might have to consider in consequence of any such proceedings as could be instituted in accordance with the Convention”. The Court considered that “proceedings” in this context referred to those relating to applications lodged with it by States or individuals under Articles 33 and 34 of the Convention respectively and that the term “question” extended to issues concerning the admissibility of applications under Article 35 of the Convention. It went on to observe that the question whether an individual application should be declared inadmissible on the ground that the matter had already been submitted to “another procedure of international investigation or settlement” had been addressed in a number of concrete cases in the past, in particular by the former European Commission of Human Rights. In that connection, the Court endorsed the Commission’s approach, which showed that the examination of this question was not limited to a formal verification of whether the matter had been submitted to another procedure but extended, where appropriate, to an assessment of the nature of the supervisory body concerned, its procedure and the effect of its decisions. The question whether a particular procedure fell within the scope of Article 35 § 2(b) was therefore one which the Court might have to consider in consequences of proceedings instituted under the Convention, so that its competence to give an advisory opinion was in principle excluded.   As far as the CIS Convention procedure was concerned, the Court noted that several States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights were members of the CIS and that three had signed and one had ratified the CIS Convention. Moreover, the rights set out in the CIS Convention were broadly similar to those in the European Convention on Human Rights. It could not therefore be excluded that the Court might have to consider in the context of a future individual application whether the CIS procedure was “another procedure of international investigation or settlement”.   The Court concluded that the request for an advisory opinion did not come within its advisory competence.   ***   The Court’s judgments and decisions are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges.   [1] Competence to give advisory opinions was originally conferred on the Court by the Second Protocol to the Convention, which came into force on 21 September 1970.   [2] Article 35 § 2(b) of the European Convention provides: “The Court shall not deal with any application submitted under Article 34 that ( a ) is anonymous; or ( b ) is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court or has already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement and contains no relevant new information.” [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.