Activity 1. Skim through the text to get an overview of what it comprises

Since the Convention's entry into force eleven Protocols have been adopted. Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7 to the Convention added further rights and liberties to those guaranteed and Protocol No. 2 conferred on the Court the power to give advisory opinions. Protocol No. 9 enabled individual applicants to bring their cases before the Court subject to ratification by the respondent State and acceptance by a Screening Panel. Protocol No. 11 restructured the enforcement machinery. The remaining Protocols concerned the organisation of and procedure before the Convention institutions. From 1980 onwards, the steady growth in the number of cases brought before the Convention institutions made it increasingly difficult to keep the length of proceedings within acceptable limits. The problem was aggravated by the accession of new Contracting States from 1990. The number of applications registered annually with the Commission increased from 404 in 1981 to 2,037 in 1993. By 1997 that figure had more than doubled (4,750). By 1997 the number of unregistered or provisional files opened each year in the Commission had risen to over 12,000. The Court's statistics reflected a similar story, with the number of cases referred annually rising from 7 in 1981 to 52 in 1993 and 119 in 1997. The increasing case-load had prompted a lengthy debate on the necessity for a reform of the Convention supervisory machinery. Opinions were divided at the beginning of the negotiations on restructuring the Convention system, but ultimately the solution adopted was the creation of a single full-time court. The aim was to simplify the structure with a view to shortening the length of proceedings and at the same time to strengthen the judicial character of the system by making it fully compulsory and abolishing the Committee of Ministers' adjudicative role. On 11 May 1994 Protocol No. 11 to the European Convention on Human Rights "restructuring the control machinery" was opened for signature. Protocol No. 11 required ratification by all the Contracting States and entered into force one year after the last ratification had been deposited. That ratification was deposited with the Council of Europe in October 1997, ushering in a preparatory period of one year during which the judges were elected and held a number of meetings to take the necessary organisational and procedural measures for the establishment of the Court. In particular the judges elected their office holders and drew up new draft Rules of Court. The new European Court of Human Rights came into operation on 1 November 1998 with the entry into force of Protocol No. 11. On 31 October 1998, the old Court had ceased to function. However, the Protocol provided that the Commission should continue for one year (until 31 October 1999) to deal with cases which had been declared admissible before the date of entry into force. The European Court of Human Rights set up under the Convention as amended is composed of a number of judges equal to that of the Contracting States (currently forty-one). The Convention has been ratified by most European States, from Iceland to Turkey and from Andorra to Russia. The only exceptions to this are some states of the former Soviet Union and Ex-Yugoslavia, such as Belarus, Armenia, Serbia, Azerbaijan, Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina. There is no restriction on the number of judgesof the same nationality. Judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for a term of six years. The terms of office of one half of the judges elected at the first election will expire after three years, so as to ensure that the terms of office of one half of the judges are renewed every three years. The official languages of the Court are English and French but the Rules of the Court provide that applications may be presentedto the Court in any of the official languages of the High Contracting Parties. There are 32 such official languages at present. Of course it goes without saying that an international court could not function efficiently if it had to work in such a large number of languages. While it is open to the applicant to present his case in an official language, the Rules of the Court make it clear that if a case is communicated to the Government for observations or if a hearing is to be held in the case, English or French must be employed unless the President decides otherwise. Accordingly Governments are requested to submit their written observations in one of the official languages of the Court and permission must be sought from the President of the Chamber to make written or oral submissions in another language. If the Government desires to address the Court in the national language it must bear the costs of interpretation. If the applicant cannot secure the services of a lawyer who speaks one of the official languages of the Court and permission is given by the President of the Chamber to speak the national language the Court will bear the costs. Judges sit on the Court in their individual capacity and do not represent any State. They cannot engage in any activity which is incompatible with their independence or impartiality or with the demands of full-time office. Their terms of office expire when they reach the age of seventy. The Plenary Court elects its President, two Vice-Presidents and two Presidents of Section for a period of three years. Under the Rules of Court, the Court is divided into four Sections, whose composition, fixed for three years, is geographically and gender balanced and takes account of the different legal systems of the Contracting States. Each Section is presided over by a President, two of the Section Presidents being at the same time Vice-Presidents of the Court. Section Presidents are assisted and where necessary replaced by Vice-Presidents of Section. Committees of three judges are set up within each Section for twelve month periods. Committees are an important feature in the new structure as they are responsible for much of the filtering formerly carried out by the Commission. Chambersof seven members are constituted within each Section on the basis of rotation, with the Section President and the judge elected in respect of the State concerned sitting in each case. Where the latter is not a member of the Section, he or she sits as an ex officio member of the Chamber. The members of the Section who are not full members of the Chamber sit as substitute members. The Grand Chamber of seventeen judges is constituted for three years. Apart from the ex officio members - the President, Vice-Presidents and Section Presidents — the Grand Chamber is formed by rotation within two groups, which will alternate every nine months. These groups are composed with a view to geographical balance and are intended to reflect the different legal traditions. The Chamber judgment in an admissible case will also examine the question of just satisfaction (Article 41). It is also at Chamber level that friendly settlements will normally take place although a settlement can intervene at any stage of the proceedings. Where appropriate, the Chamber may appoint a delegation of judges to carry out fact-finding and hear witnesses. TheRules of Court provide that it may appoint independent experts to assist a delegation. It is thus in Chambers that a large part of the Court's work is carried out. Within a period of three months from the date of the Chamber judgment a party may request that a case be referred to the Grand Chamber of seventeen judges. A panel of five judges shall accept the request if the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or a serious issue of general importance. Article 43 makes it clear that reference may only take place in 'exceptional cases'. This restriction is an essential part of the reform of the Convention procedure and embodies the compromise reached between States in the drafting of Protocol No. 11 that were in favour of a single examination by one instance and States that favoured a double examination. If interpreted strictly by the Panel of the Grand Chamber it will mean that the Chamber judgment will be the final judgment in most of the cases raising problems of Convention law, which can be decided on the basis of existing principles. The role of the Grand Chamber is thus to rule on cases of the utmost importance. The Convention also enables a Chamber to relinquish jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber "at any time before it has rendered its judgment" in cases which raise a serious question of interpretation or "where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court." The parties have the right to object to a relinquishment but the Rules of the Court require the parties to file their objections within a month and to provide reasons for them. In the limited practice to date, Chambers have relinquished jurisdiction in cases where there existed a certain inconsistency between the Chambers in their approach to certain issues or where there was a need to clear up uncertainties and contradictions stemming from existing case-law. The role of the Grand Chamber is crucial to the success of the reform for two main reasons. First it will fall to the Grand Chamber to examine inter alia the leading cases that will be brought to Strasbourg, which raise new points of Convention law. The Grand Chamber will thusestablish the most important case-lawof the new Court. Second it is clear that if the objectives of the reform process are to be attained — i.e. if the system is able to examine cases within a reasonable time — the Panel of the Grand Chamber will have to be extremely selective in those cases where it accepts a referral. If there are to be a large number of referrals from the Sections to the Grand Chamber it is very likely to become overburdened with cases leading to the inevitable (and familiar) delays in deciding important cases. The Panel is thus acting as a 'filter', accepting only the most 'exceptional cases' for adjudication. It will thus play a key role in the effectiveness of the new arrangements. Since the Court is still in a transitional phase it is too early yet to give any indication how this shift from Chamber to Grand Chamber will be managed by the Panel.

entry into force – набрання чинності   advisory opinions — консультативні висновки applicant — заявник   steady growth — постійне зростання   aggravate — посилювати, загострювати accession — приєднання   unregistered or provisional files — незареєстровані або тимчасові справи     case-load — навантаження prompt — спонукати, спричиняти supervisory machinery — наглядовий механізм   simplify the structure — спрощувати структуру with a view to shortening the length of proceedings — з метою скорочення тривалості провадження abolish — скасовувати     open for signature —відкрити для підписання     in particular — зокрема     deal with cases — розглядати справи   as amended — зі змінами     restriction on the number of judges — обмеження щодо кількості суддів     applications may be presented — заяви можуть подаватися     it goes without saying — само собою зрозуміло     unless the President decides otherwise — якщо Голова не вирішить інакше Governments are requested — від урядів вимагається     written or oral submissions — письмові або усні подання   it must bear the costs of interpretation — на нього має покладатися вартість перекладу   incompatible with their independence or impartiality — несумісна з їхньою незалежністю чи безсторонністю   take account (of) — враховувати     responsible (for) — відповідальний (за) formerly — раніше     ex officio member of the Chamber — член палати за посадою   substitute members — підмінні члени палати   with a view to — з метою   an admissible case — прийнятна справа     intervene at any stage of the proceedings — вступити у справу на будь-якій стадії провадження     refer to the Grand Chamber — передавати до Великої палати raise a serious question — порушувати важливе питання     reach a compromise — досягати компромісу     final judgment — остаточне судове рішення     relinquish jurisdiction — відмовлятися від юрисдикції render а judgment — виносити судове рішення raise a serious question of interpretation —порушувати важливе питання щодо тлумачення   to file their objections within a month —подавати заперечення в межах місяця   approach to certain issues — підхід до певних питань     crucial to the success of the reform — вирішальний для успіху реформ inter alia — між іншим establish the most important case-law — створювати найважливіше прецедентне право attain the objectives of the reform process — досягати цілей процесу реформування     рanel — колегія     overburden —перевантажувати inevitable delays —неминучі затримки

Activity 2. Read the text carefully, paying attention to the words and phrases in bold. Check your knowledge of the basic vocabulary looking at their Ukrainian equivalents in the margin.

Activity 3. Complete the sentences choosing the phrase that best fits the sentence:

1. The Chamber may appoint a delegation of judges ____________

A) to attain objectives of the reform process;

B) to carry out fact-finding and hear witnesses;

C) to submit written observations.

2. Cases against Russia which relate to events occurring before May 1998 ______________

A) fail to be rejected on the basis of the six-month rule;

B) will lead to the inevitable (and familiar) delays;

C) are obviously inadmissible and will be candidates for a Committee procedure.

3. _________________________a party may request that a case be referred to the Grand Chamber of seventeen judges.

A) If there are to be a large number of referrals from the Sections to the Grand Chamber;

B) Within a period of three months from the date of the Chamber judgment;

C) Since the Court is still in a transitional phase.

4. The role of the Grand Chamber is crucial to the success of the reform for two main reasons, one of them being that__________

A) the Grand Chamber is very likely to be overburdened with cases;

B) the system will be able examine cases within a reasonable time;

C) it will establish the most important new case-law of the new Court.

Activity 4. Find the most important facts concerning the functioning of the Court. Leave out the unessential details.

Activity 5. Translate the following questions into English and ask your classmates to answer them:

1. Скільки суддів у Європейському суді з прав людини? 2. Які офіційні мови Суду? 3.

Якими мовами можна подавати заяви до Суду? 4. Чи можливо, щоб уряд подавав свої письмові зауваження національною мовою? 5. На кого в такому разі покладається вартість перекладу? 6. Яка роль Великої палати Суду? 7. Коли палата може відмовитися від своєї юрисдикції та передати справу до Великої палати? 7. Скільки суддів входять до складу Великої палати? 8. У яких випадках колегія з п'яти судді вирішує передати справу до Великої палати? 9. Cкільки суддів входить до складу комісії? 10. Які функції комісії? 11. Чи підлягають оскарженню рішення комісій?

Activity 6. Write an essay on the new Court. Use the following linking words/phrases:

To make general statements: as a (general) rule, generally, in general, on the whole, in most cases.

To introduce examples: for example, for instance, such, like, in particular, especially, this is clearly shown by the fact that...

To make partially correct statements: to a certain extent/degree, to some extent, there is some truth in this...

To clarify a point: in other words, that is to say.

To express intention: so as to, in order to, so that, with the intention of (+ing).

To express effect: therefore, thus, as a result /consequence, consequently, so, for this reason, if it were to happen,... the effect would be...