Table of Contents

Acknowledgements - v
Table of Cases with Interventions - xiii
List of Abbreviations - xlix
Chapter 1. Introduction - 1
1. Context and Scope of the Study - 1
2. Method - 2
3. Basic Legal Framework - 4
3.1. Historical Background - 4
3.2. Ratione Personae - 5
3.2.1. Amicus Curiae Intervention - 6
3.2.2. Member-State Intervention - 9
3.2.3. Third-Party Intervention - 9
3.3. Ratione Materiae - 10
3.4. Ratione Temporis - 10
3.5. Form - 11
3.5.1. Written Comments - 11
3.5.2. Oral Comments - 11
3.6. The Court’s Engagement with Interventions - 12
3.6.1. Summary in Judgments - 12
3.6.2. Reference in Reasoning - 13
3.6.3. Reference in Separate Opinions - 15
Chapter 2. Amicus Curiae Intervention - 17
1. Introduction - 17
2. Historical Origin - 19
3. Rationale of Amicus Curiae - 20
4. The Court’s Legitimacy - 22
4.1. Tension between Democracy and Judicial Review - 22
4.1.1. Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty - 24
4.1.2. Quasi-Constitutional Function - 26
4.2. Constitutional Features - 29
5. Argumentative Representation - 30
5.1. Ideological Submissions - 31
5.1.1. Restraint Amicus Curiae Interventions - 33
5.1.1.1. Faith-based NGOs - 33
5.1.1.2. Churches - 35
5.1.2. Activist Amicus Curiae Interventions - 35
5.1.3. Beginning and Ending of Life - 38
5.1.4. Rights of LGBT People - 40
5.1.5. Relation between Religion and the State - 41
5.1.6. Influence on Ideological Directions of Cases - 44
5.2. Knowledge Production - 46
5.2.1. Information on International Law - 47
5.2.1.1. International Human Rights Law - 49
5.2.1.2. European Union Law - 50
5.2.1.3. International Humanitarian Law - 51
5.2.1.4. Preliminary Conclusion - 53
5.2.2. Contextualisation - 53
5.2.2.1. Factual Information - 54
5.2.2.2. Legal Information - 55
5.2.2.3. Situation in Northern Ireland - 56
5.2.2.4. Regime Changes in Central and Eastern Europe - 58
5.2.2.5. Preliminary Conclusion - 60
5.3. Lend Credibility to Arguments - 61
5.3.1. Membership-Based Organisations - 61
5.3.2. Authority - 63
5.4. Preliminary Conclusion - 65
6. Principled Decision-Making - 65
6.1. Proportionality - 66
6.1.1. Proportionality in the European Court’s Judgments - 67
6.1.2. Proportionality in the Narrow Sense - 68
6.1.2.1. Intensity - 69
6.1.2.2. Importance - 72
6.1.2.3. Justification - 73
6.1.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 74
6.2. Consensus and Comparative Reference - 75
6.2.1. Absence of Established Case Law - 76
6.2.2. Social or Political Development - 79
6.2.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 81
6.3. Margin of Appreciation - 82
6.4. Precedent - 85
6.4.1. Endorsement - 86
6.4.2. Rejection - 87
6.4.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 90
6.5. Development of the Convention - 91
6.5.1. Rights of Detainees - 92
6.5.1.1. Extradition and Expulsion - 93
6.5.1.2. Enforced Disappearance and Secret Detention - 96
6.5.1.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 98
6.5.2. Rights of LGBT People - 99
6.5.2.1. Rights of Transsexuals - 100
6.5.2.2. Family Life and Marriage - 100
6.5.2.3. Adoption - 102
6.5.2.4. Preliminary Conclusion - 102
6.5.3. Rights of Roma and Travellers - 103
6.5.4. Preliminary Conclusion - 107
7. Acceptance of Court’s Authority - 108
7.1. Specific Support - 109
7.2. Diffuse Support - 112
7.2.1. Use of Amicus Curiae - 113
7.2.2. Transparent Procedure - 115
7.2.3. Arbitrary Refusals - 116
7.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 117
8. Admissibility of Amicus Curiae - 118
8.1. Admissibility Ratione Materiae - 118
8.1.1. The Interest of Proper Administration of Justice - 118
8.1.2. General Principles - 119
8.1.3. Practical Implications - 122
8.2. Admissibility Ratione Personae - 123
8.2.1. Non-Governmental Organisations - 123
8.2.1.1. European Organisations - 123
8.2.1.2. Non-European Organisations - 124
8.2.2. National Human Rights Institutions and Ombudspersons - 125
8.2.3. Individuals - 126
8.2.4. Members of Parliamentary Assemblies - 126
8.2.5. International Organisations - 127
8.2.6. Non-Member States - 127
8.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 127
9. Conclusion - 128
Chapter 3. Member-State Intervention - 131
1. Preliminary Observation - 131
2. Notion and Origin - 132
3. Reinforcement of State Sovereignty - 134
4. Judicial Restraint - 136
4.1. Margin of Appreciation - 138
4.2. Subsidiarity - 140
4.3. Historical Interpretation - 141
4.4. Reserved Domain - 142
4.4.1. Immigration and National Security - 143
4.4.2. Governmental Structure - 145
4.5. State Responsibility in Relation to Inter-Governmental Organisations - 147
4.6. Restraint Ideological Submissions - 150
5. The Court’s Engagement with Member-State Intervention - 152
5.1. Reflection in Judgments - 152
5.2. Weakening Established Case Law - 153
6. Conclusion - 154
Chapter 4. Actual Third-Party Intervention - 157
1. Preliminary Observation - 157
2. Origin and Notion - 158
3. Legal Interest - 161
3.1. Ratione Materiae - 161
3.1.1. Execution of Judgments - 162
3.1.1.1. Reopening of Domestic Proceedings - 163
3.1.1.2. Other Individual Measures - 165
3.1.2. Conflict of Rights - 166
3.1.2.1. Property - 166
3.1.2.2. Ancestry - 168
3.1.2.3. Abduction of Children - 169
3.1.2.4. Child Custody and Visiting Rights - 171
3.1.2.5. Employment - 171
3.1.2.6. Defamation and Privacy Invasion - 172
3.1.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 173
3.2. Ratione Personae - 173
3.2.1. Natural and Legal Persons - 174
3.2.2. State Entities and Intergovernmental Bodies - 175
3.3. Preliminary Conclusion - 177
4. The Court’s Practice - 177
5. Scope of Participation - 179
5.1. Right to Intervene - 179
5.2. Litigation Rights - 181
6. Conclusion - 182
Chapter 5. Conclusion - 183
1. Third-Party Intervention: One Term, Three Concepts - 183
1.1. Amicus Curiae: Strengthen the Court’s Legitimacy - 183
1.2. Member States: Reinforce State Sovereignty - 185
1.3. Actual Third Party: Protect Own Legal Interests - 185
2. Non-Transparent Procedure and Admissibility Criteria - 186
2.1. Amicus Curiae Intervention - 186
2.2. Third-Party Intervention - 187
3. Impact of Intervention - 188
3.1. Amicus Curiae Intervention - 189
3.2. Member-State Intervention - 192
3.3. Third-Party Intervention - 192
Bibliography - 195
Index - 211

About the Author

Dr Nicole Burli has been a human rights adviser with the World Organisation Against Torture since 2014. Prior to this, she was a research associate at the University of Zurich (2008-2012) and a visiting fellow at the University of Copenhagen (2012) and the University of Cambridge (2013). Nicole Burli holds law degrees from the University of Bern and the University of Zurich.