Abstract
Faced with a sharp rise in the number of individual applications, the European Court of Human Rights has been forced to provide greater accountability to governments eager to downsize its budget and staff. This has resulted in the introduction of quantitative criteria, to the detriment of quality and of the service rendered to individual victims. These new management policies have admittedly reduced the number of pending cases, but they have also considerably eroded the right of individual application. The new managerial policy has definitely shaped anew Court.
Highlights
The evaluation of judicial performance has become a matter of concern for economists, sociologists, political scientists and more rarely jurists
Faced with a sharp rise in the number of individual applications, the European Court of Human Rights has been forced to provide greater accountability to governments eager to downsize its budget and staff. This has resulted in the introduction of quantitative criteria, to the detriment of quality and of the service rendered to individual victims. These new management policies have admittedly reduced the number of pending cases, but they have considerably eroded the right of individual application
The obligation for European states to comply with the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been alternatively analyzed as ‘the best remaining safeguard against the disciplinary instrumentalization of ethics and the excesses of managerial rationality’[4] and as a typical illustration of the prevailing new management doctrine.[5]
Summary
The evaluation of judicial performance has become a matter of concern for economists, sociologists, political scientists and more rarely jurists. The rhetoric promoting efficiency and the better use of resources prevailed to boost productivity as resources increased very marginally; it was used to provide the Committee of Ministers and the Secretariat General of the Council of Europe with the means and legitimacy to better control the Strasbourg Court, whose role has grown over the years These audits and the internal reports have paved the way for the intergovernmental Conferences and Declarations (from Interlaken in 2010 to Brussels in 2015) which have clearly indicated to the Court the ways this latter should manage its case-law. By setting the criteria for the measurement of performance, the executives have built a new ECtHR
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
