Search Results

This chapter describes the standard development of a case that arrives in Strasbourg to show the various opportunities for the settlement of a case in the different phases of the proceedings. The chapter examines when friendly settlements come into play in the normal progression of an application before the Court. As the legal framework has changed in the last twenty years, the chapter reflects the roles of the different actors involved in friendly settlements following the various reforms. Further, it reviews the practice of the former European Commission of Human Rights by showing the peculiarities and the continuation of the scheme. The main focus is, however, the period from 1998 until 2009 and the legal framework in force at that time.

The European Court of Human Rights's (ECtHR) jurisprudence relating to friendly settlements sometimes lacks uniformity and is difficult to classify into precisely circumscribed categories. In order to be understood properly, it often needs to be seen against the background of the political situation in a given country, the systemic nature of the alleged violations, or the circumstances of the individual case. In an attempt to provide a useful insight into the practice, this chapter examines different countries, different European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) areas, and different procedures used by the Court. The samples to be studied were selected based on a thorough analysis of the Court's case law and the interviews were conducted with the most relevant actors. The objective of this multi-levelled analysis is to uncover some of the most relevant and complex features of friendly settlements. The practice of two countries, Turkey and Poland, under three different provisions, Articles 2, 3, and 6 (1) ECHR, are considered on the basis of the statistics collected for this study. The chapter also examines whether the premise ‘more money faster’, often associated with friendly settlements, really holds.

This chapter focuses on the diversity of friendly settlements in appearance and function. It shows the subtle difference between the various forms of friendly settlements and arrangements. It also connects these practices to the phenomenon of unilateral declarations based on a failed friendly settlement. The chapter is based on twenty-eight interviews with judges, state agents, the Registry's personnel and human rights lawyers.

This chapter summarises the findings of the study and makes reform proposals for a better management of friendly settlements. The proper handling of friendly settlements requires a high degree of professionalism. This holds true for both the Registry's personnel and for the applicant's lawyers. In this regard, there is still much to be done in future years.

This chapter sheds light on the question of whether friendly settlements are legitimate from an ethical point of view. Two lines of philosophical thought are applied to the problem. The first is whether all human rights violations should be settled via financial awards, even the most serious ones. The result is not unambiguous and makes clear that the procedural requirements for a fair settlement play an essential role in the ethical assessment. The second is whether a concrete friendly settlement fulfils this high standard of procedural fairness and substantive justice, and this can only be answered on an individual basis. As a matter of course, the Court cannot limit itself to a solution ex bono et gratia because friendly settlements often do not just have implications for the individual applicant, but also for a larger group of individuals. Ultimately, it is the Court's primary task to ensure that human rights are respected in the settlement. This is the equally prominent and difficult duty that the Court has to fulfil in each and every single case endorsed by a friendly settlement.

This introductory chapter begins with discussions of the broader use of friendly settlement in the daily life of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) daily life and the legitimacy of friendly settlements when are employed in the context of human rights violations. It then describes the research method used in this book and presents an overview of the subsequent chapters.

This chapter examines the legality of discontinuance and friendly settlement of cases brought before international tribunals and alleging breaches of jus cogens. The practice of major international tribunals is covered.

This chapter describes the attempts by Greece to internationalize her dispute with the UK over the EOKA movement in Cyprus, and the allegations of human rights violations there, and of the consternation in London when Greece formerly began proceedings against the UK under the European Convention in Application 176/56. It describes the processes whereby the decision was taken to resist this application within the terms of the Convention, and gives a detailed account of the conduct of the case, the arguments on admissibility, concessions proposed and made by the UK, the texts of the documents submitted by the parties, and the attempts to achieve a friendly settlement. It describes the appointment of a sub-commission to investigate the facts, and the considerable but eventually unsuccessful attempts to prevent it visiting Cyprus.