European Court of Human Rights

VISIT TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

STRASBOURG, 15 OF JULY 2017

On our first day in Strasbourg, the birthplace of European integration, we visited the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR was established by the European Convention on Human Rights, adopted on the 4 of November 1950. Initially established in 1959, the Court hears applications of citizens alleging that a member of the Council of Europe and thus a contracting state of the Convention, has violated one or more of the human rights provisions set in this Convention.

Our visit of the Court, which started with a documentary in the press room, continued in the magnificent courtroom, where we sat and chatted with Ana María Mengual, one of the Spanish attorneys working for the ECHR. She explained the functioning of the court and how the cases are dealt with to us, highlighting the important fact that before going before the court, the citizen must have exhausted the national juridical channels. In the case of Spain, which she represented, she explained that the case presented to the ECHR must have been previously judged by the Tribunal Constitucional. This, she explained, was out of respect for subsidiarity, also known as “letting countries work on their own judicial systems, before intervening”.

Ms Mengual mentioned many important instances of case law, such as López Ribalda v. Spain, which has been a very important case in the media in our country. With her expertise, she made us see how in law, we cannot just decide quickly and follow what we think is fair: we must listen objectively to both sides and decide carefully.

Some interesting facts Ms Mengual laid out for us were:

·      The Articles of the Convention Spanish citizens present more cases about were Art. 6 (Right to a fair trial) and Art. 8 (Right to respect for private and family life)

·      Not all members of the Council of Europe face the same number of cases per year. Roughly, she told us that Spain received 1,200 demands per year, while Ukraine could receive 20,000.

·      If a national law goes against an Art. in the Convention, the member State is obliged to change it.

Our visit to the ECHR was short but intense, and left us all wanting more, wanting to hear about all the important cases that have been judged in the Courtroom. For many of us, a human rights court may have sounded as something idealistic, as a shallow and arrogant institution which is still alive only because of its name. However, after the visit and in the little time we had before getting completely immersed in the European Parliament, I had some time to think about how approachable the Court actually seemed and how it is an institution that serves European citizens, protecting our most fundamental rights and ensuring we get compensation in the worst case of seeing them violated. To me, the European Court of Human Rights was a shield against the thirst for power that all States have and that us, citizens, tend to suffer the most. Where time will take this magnificent institution, we cannot know. We can say, for sure, that wherever the ECH is, on its own or working jointly with the European Court of Justice, the rights of the European citizens will be cared for and about by a team of experts, working for the common good.

- Blanca Ginés