Doc. 8460

9 July 1999

Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

Report

Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Rapporteur: Lord Kirkhill, United Kingdom, Socialist Group

Summary

The system of interviewing the candidates to the European Court of Human Rights is considered most helpful and is to be continued, not only in the case of partial renewals of the Court but also for any election the Assembly carries out in the case of resignation or death of one of the judges. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights – through one of its sub-committees – should therefore continue to organise interviews of all candidates standing for election to the Court and make its findings available to the members of the Assembly.

In addition, candidates are invited to submit a curriculum vitae on the basis of the model which is appended to the draft resolution.


I. Draft resolution

1.        The Assembly recalls that, for the election of the judges to the new single Court of Human Rights, the candidates were invited to interviews organised by a sub-committee of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

2.        The conclusions of the sub-committee were made available to all members of the Assembly, prior to elections during one of its part-sessions.

3.        The Assembly is of the opinion that these interviews were most helpful in order to obtain a better insight into the qualities of the candidates and thus facilitate a better-informed choice.

4.        The Assembly considers, therefore, that the system of holding interviews should be continued, not only in the case of partial renewals of the Court (which take place every three years and in theory concern one half of the judges) but also for any election in the case of, for instance, resignation or death of one of the judges.

5.        Consequently, it instructs the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights – through one of its sub-committees – to continue organising interviews of all candidates standing for election to the Court and to make its findings available to members of the Assembly.

6.        For the first election to the Court candidates were invited to send in a curriculum vitae on the basis of a model adopted by the Assembly in its Resolution 1082 (1996).

7.        This model curriculum vitae proved to be very useful as it contains a number of questions considered to be essential and facilitates comparison between the candidates.

8.        Following the experience of the first election of judges to the new Court – and after informal consultation with the Committee of Ministers – the Assembly considers that the practice of inviting candidates to answer the questions in a model curriculum vitae is to be continued but that the model could be improved upon on a number of points.

9.        The Assembly adopts, therefore, the model curriculum vitae which is reproduced below as an appendix to this resolution.

10.        The Assembly furthermore calls on the Secretary General, and all others involved in the process of selection and election, to start the proceedings at least twelve months before the expiration of the term of office of the sitting judge and to respect the indicative time-table set out in Appendix II to this resolution.

Appendix I

Model curriculum vitae for candidates seeking election to the European Court of Human Rights

In order to ensure that the members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have comparable information at their disposal when electing judges to the European Court of Human Rights, candidates are invited to submit a short curriculum vitae on the following lines:

I. Personal details

II. Education and academic and other qualifications

III. Relevant professional activities

(Please underline the post(s) held at present)

IV. Activities and experience in the field of human rights

V. Public activities

(Please underline the post(s) held at present)

VI. Other activities

(Please underline your current activities)

VII. Publications and other works

(You may indicate the total number of books and articles published, but mention only the most important titles (maximum 8)

VIII. Languages

IX. Other relevant information

X.       Please confirm that you will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge on the Court.

Appendix II

Indicative time-table for the partial renewals of the Court

Time to be granted to the governments of member states for the selection of their candidates and their transmission to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe

4 months

Time to be granted to the Committee of Ministers for consideration of the candidates and deliberation prior to transmission to the Assembly

1 ½ months

Time to be granted to the Assembly for its election procedures

2 ½ months (this time may be longer depending upon the Assembly's part-sessions)

Time to be granted to the judge elected for terminating his/her previous employment and settling in Strasbourg (this is important for newly-elected judges but it may, of course, also be important for a sitting judge, who was a candidate but was not re-elected and must therefore make preparations for finding other employment and, possibly, removal to his home country)

4 months

Total time needed for the proceedings

12 months

II. Explanatory memorandum by Lord Kirkhill

A. Introduction

1.        When the new single Court of Human Rights was inaugurated, on 3 November 1998 in Strasbourg, many members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights as well as other members of the Assembly were present - and rightly so! Indeed, the Committee and the Assembly had played a very important role both in the elaboration of Protocol No 11 to the Convention setting up the single Court, and at my suggestion, in the election procedures for the judges.

2.        Perhaps it is useful to recall that the new Protocol did not significantly change the system of the election. In fact, it is the statutory responsibility of the Assembly to elect a judge in respect of each contracting State to the Convention on the basis of a list of three candidates – who do not necessarily have to be nationals of that State – submitted to it by the Committee of Ministers. The three candidatures thus transmitted by the Committee of Ministers are those proposed by the member State in question. As far as I know, the Committee of Ministers has never modified such a list nor even changed the order of priority in which the candidates are presented for Assembly determination.

3.        Although Protocol No 11 only introduced minor changes in respect of the election procedure1 the Assembly itself, acting upon a proposal of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, decided to improve its own procedures in respect of the elections. First, it was decided to draw up a model curriculum vitae to be sent to all candidates and, secondly, it was decided to invite the candidates to brief interviews to be held by the sub-committee of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in accordance with Resolution 1082 (1996)2.

4.        The aim of this report is to reassess the Assembly's action and to decide, subsequently, whether it should be modified or improved for future elections. In this respect it may be recalled that the judges in the Court are elected for six years, but in order to avoid the entire renewal of the Court at the end of this period, the Convention provides for a partial renewal every three years. As a consequence, one half of the judges elected in 1998 will see their terms of reference expire in three years' time, that is to say on 31 October 2001. In accordance with the Convention "the terms of office of one-half of the judges elected at the first election shall expire at the end of three years. The judges whose terms of office are to expire at the end of the initial period of three years shall be chosen by lot by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe immediately after their election".3 As they must be re-elected or not in 2001, at the January, April or June session of the Assembly at the latest, I do not consider it premature to draw such lessons as are appropriate from our current procedures especially since these are still fresh in our minds.

5.        In addition, one should consider how to proceed in the case of a by-election, which may be necessary in the case of the resignation or death of one of the judges, or when he or she reaches the age of 70, now an age-limit set by the Convention itself.4

B.       The interviews

6.        Well before Protocol No 11 to the Human Rights Convention, setting up the single Court, entered into force the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights started to organise the interviews of the candidates. In the Resolution it had been foreseen to organise these interviews in Strasbourg – and, in fact, I had presented some good reasons for holding the interviews at the seat of the Council of Europe in my explanatory report to the Resolution – but in the end members decided it would be more practical – for example ease of transport, etc. for all the participants - to hold them in Paris. For that reason the Committee requested a derogation by the Assembly's Bureau from the Resolution.

7.        The interviews were held therefore at the Council of Europe's Paris Office which was suitable for this purpose. We held interviews on 17-19 December 1997, 7-9 January 1998, 6 April 1998 and on 7 January 1999. The last interviewing session was necessary to hear the candidates from Russia, which had ratified the Convention in May 1998. Subsequently, that country rapidly submitted a list of three candidates, but the first candidate – the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation in Strasbourg – was killed in a car accident and a new list was not submitted until the autumn. For that reason no Russian judge could sit among the 39 judges at the inauguration ceremony of the Court on 3 November 1998. Shortly after the interviews of the three Russian candidates on 7 January 1999 the Russian government informed the Council of Europe that it wished to withdraw its list of three candidates. When this report was written (April 1999) there was, therefore, still no sitting judge on behalf of the Russian Federation.

8.        Resolution 1082 left it to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to decide whether it should ask its Sub-Committee on Human Rights to carry out the interviews or whether a special ad hoc sub-committee should be set up. The Committee opted for the latter solution since in that way the sub-committee could be made up of members who would be available on the dates chosen for the interviews. In addition, given the great importance of the interviews, a balance had to be struck among the members of the Sub-Committee between the four main political groups in the Assembly. Every titular member of the Sub-Committee was expected to attend and a great effort was made to have the member replaced by another member of the same political group if he or she were not available. Nominations for the Sub-Committee were thus made by the political groups, but, of course, it was in the end the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights which appointed the Sub-Committee's members, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly.

9.        Personally, I had the honour to be elected Chairperson of the Sub-Committee which then elected Mrs Wohlwend (Liechtenstein, EPP/CD) as its Vice-Chairperson.

10.        As for the interviews themselves, for each Contracting Party the Sub-Committee reserved one hour, ie fifteen minutes for each candidate, followed by fifteen minutes of deliberations to evaluate and compare the three candidates in each case. Whilst an interview which lasts only fifteen minutes is not ideal for possible appointment to such an important position – critics should keep in mind that the Sub-Committee interviewed more than 120 candidates – holding the interviews had at least the merit of a measure of democratic transparency and was a considerable improvement upon the Assembly's appointments procedure from that which had previously obtained relative to the part-time Commission and part-time Court.

11.        Almost all of the Contracting Parties accepted the Sub-Committee's recommendation the most notable exception being that of the United Kingdom which used its influence to successfully promote a candidate who had not been the original choice of the Sub-Committee.

12.        After the interviews the conclusions were reproduced in a report which was submitted to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and to the Bureau of the Assembly.

13.        Immediately after having been considered by the Bureau the report was made available to all members of the Assembly.

C.       Curricula vitae

14.        In the past the Assembly always proceeded to the election of the judges on the basis of the curricula vitae which were submitted to it. These curricula vitae were drawn up either by the candidates themselves or by their governments, who felt free to produce the information they wished to give and to present it in the way they preferred. Because there was no uniform structure to these curricula vitae it was sometimes difficult to compare the candidates and quite often essential information on the candidates was not provided. In Resolution 1082 (1996) the Assembly considered that it would be useful if the information to be provided by the candidates was presented systematically and on broadly similar lines to facilitate comparison between them. For that reason, a model curriculum vitae was established which formed an integral part of Resolution 1082 (1996). This model curriculum vitae was sent to all candidates who were invited to complete it.

15.        Most candidates completed their curriculum vitae seriously and concisely, but a number of them tended to be far too prolific. One candidate submitted a curriculum vitae containing 20 pages of bibliography! His whole curriculum vitae was 25 pages long. It is obvious that if all candidates had done likewise Assembly members would have had to study 25 pages pertaining to each of the 120 candidates.

16.        Professor Jean-François Flauss of the Law Faculty of Strasbourg University has produced a very interesting "x-ray" of the election of the new Court in the "Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme" of 1 July 1998.5 This excellent article, which is reproduced as a working document of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, contains, on pages 448-4516, a very useful description and summary of the replies to the curriculum vitae sent to the candidates, which I am reproducing below:

17.        There is not much which I would like to add to the comments by Professor Flauss, except to mention that the information provided in the curricula vitae of the candidates was not always easy to verify and that, to a very large extent, the Sub-Committee had to assume it was correct.

18.        On the basis of our experience I think it would be useful to modify the model curriculum vitae along the following lines:

i. Under Section III (relevant professional activities) of the model curriculum vitae as appended to Resolution 1082 (1996) I propose that candidates be asked to underline the posts they hold at the time of the application.

This proposal is based on my experience that many candidates often failed to make it clear which posts were or were not held at the time of the completion of the curriculum vitae.

ii. I recommend that Section V of the curriculum vitae should be called "Public activities" and not "Political activities". We should make this change at the wish of the Committee of Ministers, several members of which expressing the view that "political activities" was too limited and that the question in itself was not entirely relevant. I propose, therefore, to replace it by "Public activities". Subsequently, this paragraph should read:

-       elected posts

iii. It is proposed to add at the end of Section VI: "Other activities":

"(Please underline your current activities)"

iv.       In Section VIII (languages) it is proposed to make a breakdown for the languages similar to the one which is used in the Council of Europe for the assessment of the staff's linguistic abilities:

v.       At the very end of the model curriculum vitae one should add a new section X, worded as follows:

This is, of course, very important because one wants to make sure that all the judges live in Strasbourg. As Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights I always asked this question, as did Mrs Wohlwend, Vice-Chairperson of the Sub-Committee when she replaced me in the Chair. We always received confirmation that the candidate would reside in Strasbourg, if elected and we consider this to be very important for the regular functioning of the Court.

D.       The renewals of the Court

19.        The judges of the Court are elected for a period of six years. They may be re-elected once or several times until they reach the age of 70 when they must retire. Although normally elected for six years the Convention provides that the term of office of one half of the judges elected at the first election shall expire at the end of three years. Those so elected have been drawn by lot by the Secretary General. As a result, there will be partial renewals of the Court every three years when one half of the judges is to be elected or re-elected. It may be recalled that in the old Court the term of office of the judges was nine years and that there was a partial renewal every three years of one third of the judges. The list of judges whose term of office expires on 31 October 2001 and of those whose term of office expires on 31 October 2004 is reproduced in Appendix III.

20.        In addition to these regular three-yearly renewals of the Court, by-elections will have to be held in order to replace judges who reach the age of 70, resign or die before the end of their term of office. As a result, it may be expected that the election of a judge in respect of one or several member States will quite often be on the order of business of the Assembly's sessions.

21.        With the exception of cases of resignation or death, when the proceedings will have to be carried out as quickly as possible in order to fill the vacant seat, it will be important to reserve sufficient time for the selection and election procedures or – to put it in other words – these need to be in place well in advance of actual need.

22.        In the past, when there was a partial renewal of the old Court, judges were normally elected at short notice when the terms of office of the sitting judge was about to expire or – in some cases – had already expired. I think this system was unsatisfactory, even for the old Court, where the judges were not sitting on a permanent basis and remained resident at home where they normally had their principal occupation. Yet such a situation could easily have been avoided if the whole proceedings had started a little earlier. For the new Court precipitation should be avoided as far as possible. Of course, it may be expected that a number of the sitting judges will always stand for re-election and that in many cases they will be re-elected. But one could also think of newcomers who should have sufficient time to prepare themselves for the important work in Strasbourg they might be called upon to do.

23.        Taking into account the above considerations I suggest the following indicative time-table for the partial renewals of the Court:

Time to be granted to the governments of member States for the selection of their candidates and their transmission to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe

4 months

Time to be granted to the Committee of Ministers for consideration of the candidates and deliberation prior to transmission to the Assembly

1 ½ months

Time to be granted to the Assembly for its election procedures

2 ½ months (this time may be longer depending upon the Assembly's part-sessions)

Time to be granted to the Judge elected for terminating his/her previous employment and settling in Strasbourg (this is important for newly-elected judges but it may, of course, also be important for a sitting judge, who was a candidate but was not re-elected and must therefore make preparations for finding other employment and, possibly, removal to his home country)

4 months

Total time needed for the proceedings

12 months

24.        Given the fact that the first partial renewal of the Court is to take place on 1 November 2001, the election proceedings for the judges in this renewal should start one year before, ie on 1 November 2000, the date before which the Secretary General should send out his first letter to the Governments of Contracting Parties inviting them to nominate three candidates.

25.        If judges reach the age of 70 the same procedure should also be followed. The judge on behalf of Italy, Mr Conforti, will reach this age-limit in September 2000 and, as a result, the Secretary General's letter to the Government of Italy should be sent not later than September of this year.

26.        It may perhaps be argued that, in accordance with Article 23 § 7 of the Convention, judges shall hold office until being replaced. Therefore, if one were not in a hurry to replace Mr Conforti he might go on well beyond the age-limit! Personally, however, I reject such reasoning and think that judges should be replaced on time. Some of the judges will continue to sit in the Court anyway as they will "continue to deal with such cases as they already have under consideration", as provided for in the same Article.

27.        Perhaps I might add that the selection at national level of the three candidates for consideration has been criticised in several countries. For example, it was argued that the appointment of judges at national level is usually subordinated to very strict rules which have to be complied with by the governments, the candidates, and all others concerned. However, in respect of the selection of candidates for the Court of Human Rights at national level frequently no such procedures were applied or respected. I should add that it was only in Slovenia that the three candidates were elected by parliament.

28.        Given the shortage of time, governments had to proceed rapidly, but, as a result, many potential candidates were not informed in time and did not have the possibility to apply. There seemed to be little transparency in many of the national proceedings. One effect of such a lack resulted in rather fewer female candidates being presented than might reasonably have been expected. In some cases, there were doubts as to whether the candidates selected by the governments were always the best possible candidates a country could propose or whether some other (political) arguments were involved in their nomination. This is, however, a matter to be discussed in another report which at the moment is under preparation by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (Rapporteur: Mrs Wohlwend).7

E.       Conclusions

29.        In this report I have described the new proceedings which were followed in the Assembly for the election procedure of the first 40 judges in the new single Court of Human Rights. These procedures were new in two respects. There was a model curriculum vitae which all candidates were invited to complete and then they were invited to interviews of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights' Sub-Committee on the Election of Judges to the Court.

30.        All this was in the nature of an experiment and the second aim of this report is to make an evaluation of the procedures followed and to see how they may be continued and improved.

31.        In conclusion, it may be said that there is an overwhelming majority of members in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights who feel that the election proceedings as described in this report were largely satisfactory and that the Assembly should proceed in similar fashion for the next elections.

32.        Consequently, this report contains a draft resolution to confirm the Assembly's clear wish to continue the proceedings in the manner outlined.

33.        The election procedure is a matter in which the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly must closely cooperate. Clearly it is not only a matter of courtesy but I think also of common sense if, prior to its final adoption, this report were to be discussed once in a Joint Committee meeting, that is to say, between Assembly members and members of the Committee of Ministers.

34.        Having said this I would like to underline that this report does not seek in any way to enlarge the powers of the Assembly in the election procedures, but rather to implement, as best we can, the provision in the European Convention on Human Rights which grants the Assembly the right to elect the judges of the Court on the basis of making a choice of one from three candidates submitted by the respective member States.

35.        Finally, I should like to place on record my appreciation of the advice and help the secretariat gave to me and to my Sub-Committee whenever it was requested of them and in my capacity as Chairperson I would like to thank also the members of the Sub-Committee for their regular attendance and for the many hours of their time which they spent in responsible deliberation.

APPENDIX I

Resolution 1082 (1996)1

on the procedure for examining candidatures for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

1.       Protocol No. 11 to the European Convention on Human Rights is expected to be ratified by all Contracting Parties to the Convention in the course of 1996, in which case it will enter into force a year later, probably in the course of 1997.

2.        The protocol will introduce a single European Court of Human Rights on a permanent basis in Strasbourg to replace the existing Commission and Court. It will preserve, in essence, the proceedings and guarantees under the Convention. The judges (one in respect of each Contracting Party - as against one for each member state at present) will be elected by the Assembly for a period of six years (nine years at present) from a list of three candidates proposed by the Contracting Party concerned.

3.        Now that a single Court is to be set up on a fully professional basis, with judges residing permanently in Strasbourg, the Assembly wishes to improve its own procedure for the selection of candidates from a list of three names proposed by the Contracting Party concerned.

4.        Undoubtedly, it would be useful if the information to be provided by the candidates was presented systematically and on broadly similar lines to facilitate comparison between them. For this reason a model curriculum vitae should be established and sent to each candidate, who will complete the document as part of his or her submission of candidature. The model curriculum vitae which is attached forms an integral part of this resolution.

5.        The Assembly shall undertake to call upon candidates to participate in a personal interview, to be organised in Strasbourg by the Sub-Committee on Human Rights or by an ad hoc sub-committee of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

6.        Finally, the Assembly calls upon all member states of the Council of Europe and upon all candidates to the new European Court of Human Rights to co-operate with this new procedure which should considerably improve the system of the election of judges by the Assembly.

Appendix

Model curriculum vitae for candidates seeking election to the European Court of Human Rights

In order to ensure that the members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have comparable information at their disposal when electing judges to the European Court of Human Rights, candidates are invited to submit curriculum vitae on the following lines.

I. Personal details

II. Education and academic and other qualifications

III. Professional activities

IV. Activities and experience in the field of human rights

V. Political activities

VI. Other activities

VII. Publications and other works

VIII. Languages

(Indicate degree of fluency: speaking, reading, writing)

IX. Other relevant information

__________

1. Assembly debate on 22 April 1996 (9th Sitting) (see Doc.7439, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Lord Kirkhill).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 22 April 1996 (9th Sitting).

APPENDIX II

Articles 20-23

of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Article 20 – Number of judges

The Court shall consist of a number of judges equal to that of the High Contracting Parties.

Article 21 – Criteria for office

1        The judges shall be of high moral character and must either possess the qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office or be jurisconsults of recognised competence.

2        The judges shall sit on the Court in their individual capacity.

3        During their term of office the judges shall not engage in any activity which is incompatible with their independence, impartiality or with the demands of a full-time office; all questions arising from the application of this paragraph shall be decided by the Court.

Article 22 – Election of judges

1        The judges shall be elected by the Parliamentary Assembly with respect to each High Contracting Party by a majority of votes cast from a list of three candidates nominated by the High Contracting Party.

2        The same procedure shall be followed to complete the Court in the event of the accession of new High Contracting Parties and in filling casual vacancies.

Article 23 – Terms of office

1        The judges shall be elected for a period of six years. They may be re-elected. However, the terms of office of one-half of the judges elected at the first election shall expire at the end of three years.

2        The judges whose terms of office are to expire at the end of the initial period of three years shall be chosen by lot by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe immediately after their election.

3        In order to ensure that, as far as possible, the terms of office of one-half of the judges are renewed every three years, the Parliamentary Assembly may decide, before proceeding to any subsequent election, that the term or terms of office of one or more judges to be elected shall be for a period other than six years but not more than nine and not less than three years.

4        In cases where more than one term of office is involved and where the Parliamentary Assembly applies the preceding paragraph, the allocation of the terms of office shall be effected by a drawing of lots by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe immediately after the election.

5        A judge elected to replace a judge whose term of office has not expired shall hold office for the remainder of his predecessor's term.

6        The terms of office of judges shall expire when they reach the age of 70.

7        The judges shall hold office until replaced. They shall, however, continue to deal with such cases as they already have under consideration.

APPENDIX III

Judges of the Court

A. Judges whose term of office expires on 31 October 2001

Mr András BAKA       (Hungary)

Mr Corneliu BÎRSAN       (Romania)

Mrs Snejana BOTOUCHAROVA       (Bulgaria)

Mr Volodymyr BUTKEVYCH       (Ukraine)

Mr Josep CASADEVALL       (Andorra)

Mr Benedetto CONFORTI       (Italy)

Mr Luigi FERRARI BRAVO       (San Marino)

Mr Marc FISCHBACH       (Luxemburg)

Mr Willi FUHRMANN       (Austria)

Mr Egils LEVITS       (Latvia)

Mr Peer LORENZEN       (Denmark)

Mr Loukis LOUCAIDES       (Cyprus)

Mr Tudor PANTIRU       (Moldova)

Mr Antonio PASTOR RIDRUEJO       (Spain)

Mr Kristaq TRAJA       (Albania)

Mrs Margarita TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA       (the former Yugoslav

Mr Riza TÜRMEN       (Turkey)

Mr Luzius WILDHABER, President       (Switzerland)

Mr Boštjan ZUPANČIČ       (Slovenia)

B. Judges whose term of office expires on 31 October 2004

Mr Giovanni BONELLO       (Malta)

Mr Nicolas BRATZA, Section President       (United Kingdom)

Mr Ireneu CABRAL BARRETO       (Portugal)

Mr Lucius CAFLISCH       (Liechtenstein)

Mr Jean-Paul COSTA       (France)

Mrs Hanne Sophie GREVE       (Norway)

Mr John HEDIGAN       (Ireland)

Mr Gaukur JÖRUNDSSON       (Iceland)

Mr Karel JUNGWIERT       (Czech Republic)

Mr Pranas KŪRIS       (Lithuania)

Mr Jerzy MAKARCZYK       (Poland)

Mr Rait MARUSTE       (Estonia)

Mrs Elisabeth PALM, Vice-President       (Sweden)

Mr Matti PELLONPÄÄ, Section President       (Finland)

Mr Georg RESS       (Germany)

Mr Christos ROZAKIS, Vice-President       (Greece)

Mrs Viera STRÁŽNICKÁ       (Slovakia)

Mrs Wilhelmina THOMASSEN       (Netherlands)

Mrs Françoise TULKENS       (Belgium)

Mrs Nina VAJIĆ       (Croatia)

Reporting committee: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none

Reference to committee: Order No. 485 (1995)

Draft resolution unanimously adopted by the committee on 25 May 1999

Members of the committee: MM Jansson (Chairperson), Bindig, Frunda, Moeller (Vice-Chairpersons), Mrs Aguiar, MM Akçali, Arzilli, Attard Montalto, Bal, Bartumeu Cassany, Brand, Bulic, Clerfayt, Columberg, Contestabile, Demetriou, Enright, Mrs Frimansdóttir, Mr Fyodorov, Mrs Gelderblom-Lankhout, Ms Hlavac, Mr Holovaty (alternate: Zvarych), Mrs Imbrasiene, MM Jaskiernia, Jurgens, Kelam, Kelemen, Lord Kirkhill, Mr Kresak, Mrs Krzyzanowska, Mr Le Guen, Ms Libane, MM Lintner, Loutfi, Magnusson, Mancina, Mrs Markovic-Dimova, MM Martins, Marty, McNamara, Mozetic, Mrs Näslund (alternate: Mr von der Esch), MM Nastase (alternate: Mrs Ionescu), Pavlov, Pollo, Polydoras, Mrs Pourtaud, MM Rippinger, Robles Fraga, Rodeghiero (alternate: Speroni), Roth, Mrs Roudy, MM Saakashvili, Schwimmer, Shishlov, Simonsen, Solé Tura (alternate: Mrs Calleja), Solonari, Svoboda, Symonenko, Tabajdi, Verivakis, Vishnyakov, Vyvadil, Weyts, Mrs Wohlwend.

N.B. The names of those members who were present at the meeting are printed in italics.

Secretaries to the committee: Mr Plate, Ms Coin and Ms Kleinsorge


1 See Articles 20-23 of the Human Rights Convention as amended by Protocol No 11 – see Appendix II.

2 See Appendix I.

3 See Article 23, sections 1 and 2.

4 In accordance with Article 23 § 6 of the Convention, the terms of office of judges shall expire when they reach the age of 70.

5 Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme, 9th year, No 35, pp 435-464.

6 See document AS/Jur (1999) 3, pp 11-14 of the English version.

7 AS/Jur (1999) 1.