تأثیر دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر در نظام حقوق داخلی دولت‌های اروپایی

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکدۀ حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 دانش آموختۀ کارشناسی ارشد حقوق عمومی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

چکیده

تصویب کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر و تأسیس دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر به‌عنوان نهادهای صیانت‌کننده از مفاد آن و رویۀ قضایی دیوان، نقش قابل‌توجهی در تحول و تکامل نظام حقوق داخلی دولت‌های اروپایی داشته است؛ به‌گونه‌ای که امروزه در ادبیات حقوق اروپا با عبارت «درونی‌سازی مفاد کنوانسیون» روبرو هستیم. طی چند دهۀ اخیر دولت‌ها تلاش کرده‌اند تا با سازگار نمودن نظام حقوق داخلی خود با کنوانسیون، از محکومیت به نقض مفاد آن و پرداخت غرامت در دیوان جلوگیری کنند. بدیهی است که نحوۀ درونی‌سازی کنوانسیون در نظام حقوق داخلی دولت‌های اروپایی از قاعدۀ یکسانی پیروی نکرده است و دولت‌ها عملکرد متفاوتی از خود نشان داده‌اند. برای ارزیابی چگونگی رویارویی دولت‌ها با کنوانسیون بایستی به دو پرسش اساسی پاسخ داد؛ نخست آنکه دولت‌ها در نظام حقوقی خود چه جایگاهی برای کنوانسیون قائل هستند؟ چراکه برخی دولت‌ها کنوانسیون را هم‌شأن قانون اساسی، برخی مادون قانون اساسی و بالاتر از قوانین عادی و درنهایت گروهی آن را هم‌تراز قوانین عادی و یا رویۀ قضایی می‌دانند. دیگر آنکه دولت موردنظر تابع کدام نظریه (مونیستی یا دوئالیستی) در خصوص جایگاه حقوق بین‌الملل است؟ علی‌رغم تفاوت رویکردهای موجود، به‌طور کلی دولت‌های اروپایی کنوانسیون را به‌مثابۀ یک سند لازم‌الاجرا پذیرفته، در جهت ورود مفاد آن به ساختار حقوقی خود تلاش می‌کنند. بنابر یافتۀ اصلی این پژوهش، ارائۀ تفاسیر سازگار از کنوانسیون و امتناع از اعمال قوانین متعارض با آن، دو راهکاری است که دولت‌ها در جهت درونی‌سازی مفاد آن به‌کار برده‌اند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Impact of European Court of Human Rights on National Legal Order

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Jalali 1
  • Sogol Soodbar 2
1 Assistant Professor of Public Law Group, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 M.A. in Public Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

After the World War II, European countries decided to establish a convention which protects fundamental human rights in a comprehensive way. This act roots in two main reasons; first of all, as the war was initiated in Europe, it had to ratify a convention which reduces the probability of atrocities’ repetition , it also provides the opportunity  for European countries to supervise each other. It should be noted that at the time of the ratification, European countries did not have the same condition from the human rights law’s point of view. For instance, Ireland was the only country that ratified a national document which obligates the government to protect its citizens’ different human rights. In addition, many countries did not have any constitutional court in order to evaluate the consistency between constitutional law and other national laws.
European Court of Human Rights was established with the aim of protecting European citizens’ rights by the convention’s content. This court permits the citizens of European countries to lodge their applications against the implication of governments in human rights field. Although this organization does not have a direct mechanism to change national legal orders, it can affect the legal system of European countries indirectly. The research on the case law of European countries indicates that judges in national courts refer to the procedure of European court of human rights in many cases, which are dealing with human rights issues. It should be noted that if the court finds out that the human rights of an individual is breached according to the convention, it forces the governments to pay the compensation. After decades, governments realized that they can change their national laws in accordance with the convention in order to avoid paying compensation. This solution leads to the process which is called the Incorporation of European Convention of Human Rights in national legal orders.
As it mentioned before, European countries implicated convention in different ways; this difference is based on the legal position of European Document in European countries. Convention in some countries such as Austria has the same hierarchical position as the constitution. In other countries like France or Portugal, the convention is placed upper than normal laws and lower than the constitution. At last in some countries like Britain, the convention is considered the same as normal laws. From another point of view, the approach of European governments to international law affects their  behavior with convention as an international document. Some countries like Italy, has a monistic approach, which means that they adapt international law sources such as convention into their national legal order. But the other countries for instance France by choosing dualistic approach have different mechanism for the implication of international documents in comparison with national legal orders. Choosing each of these approaches leads to the different incorporation process of the convention.
Usually national judges use two main solutions in order to incorporate convention in the national legal procedure.  They try to interpret their national laws in the light of the convention, or they refuse to apply the implication of laws which are in conflict with the convention. The procedure of national courts indicates that incorporation of convention is a gradual process which is continued up to now. In spite of the different positions of European national legal orders, this convention is considered as an enforceable law. However, high number of applications which is lodged in European court of human rights, indicates that in many cases governments ignore this enforceable position.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • European Convention of Human Rights
  • Consistent interpretation
  • Displaying Conflicting Norms
  • European Court of Human Rights
  • incorporation
- کتاب‌ها
1. ضیائی بیگدلی، محمدرضا (1394)، حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، چ 51، تهران: گنج دانش.
2. کاپلتی، مورو و گارث، برایان جی (1389)، آیین دادرسی مدنی، مترجم: حسن محسنی، ج 1، چ 1، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
- مقالات
3. سادات اخوی، سیدعلی و حسینی اکبرنژاد، حوریه (1388)، «اعمال فراسرزمینی کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر در رویۀ قضایی دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر»، مجلۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، ش 4.
4. شریعت باقری، محمدجواد (1390)، «برتری معاهدات بین‌المللی نسبت به قوانین عادی»، فصلنامۀ تحقیقات حقوقی، ش 147.
5. فلسفی، هدایت‌الله (1373)، «اجرای مقررات حقوق بین‌الملل»، نشریۀ تحقیقات حقوقی، ش 13 و 14.
6. ویژه، محمدرضا (1383)، «مفهوم تعهدات مثبت در رویۀ دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر»، نشریۀ الهیات و حقوق، ش 13.
 
ب) خارجی
- Books
7. Arghir, Andria; Stănciulescu, Alina M. (2012), Romania in L. Hammer & F. Emmert (eds.), The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Central and Eastern Europe, Utrecht: Eleven International Publishing, p. 389-600.
8. Bradley, Anthony W.; Ewing, Keith D. (2007), Constitutional and Administrative Law, London: Pearson Longman.
9. Buyse, Antoine; Hamilton, Michael. (2011), Transnational Jurisprudence and the ECHR: Justice, Politics and Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Christoffersen, Jonas. (2009), Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
11. Christoffersen, Jonas; Rask Madsen, Mikael (2011)و The European Court of Human Rights between Law and Politics, New York: Oxford University Press.
12. Ferreres Comella, Victor. (2006), El juez nacional ante los derechos fundamentales europeos. Algunas reflexiones en torno a la idea de dialogo, in A. Saiz Arnaiz and M. Zelaia Garagarza (eds.), Integracion Europea y Poder Judcial, Bilbao: Instituto Vasco de Administraciones Publicas.
13. Grewe, Wilhelm G. (1996), La question de l’effect direct de la Convention et les resistences nationales, in P. Tavernier (eds.), Qullu Europe pour les droits de l’homme?, Bruxelles: Établissements Emile Bruylant.
14. Hammer, Leonard; Emmert, Frank. (2012), The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Central and Eastern Europe, Utrecht: Eleven International Publishing.
15. Stone Sweet, Alec. (2009), On the Constitutionalisation of the Convention: The European court of human rights as a constitutional court, Yale Law School, Faculty Scholarship Series, 71.
16. Stone Sweet, Alec; Keller, Helen. (2008), Assessing the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Yale Law School, Faculty Scholarship Series, 88.
- Articles
17. Cameron, Iain. (1999), "The Swedish Experience of the European Convention on Human Rights Since Incorporation", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 48, No.1, p.20-56.
18. Candela Soriano, Mercedes. (2008), "The Reception Process in Spain and Italy", in: H. Keller and A. Stone Sweet (eds.), A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal System, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 393-450.
19. De Wet, Erika. (2008), "The Reception Process in Netherlands and Belgium", in H. Keller and A. Stone Sweet (eds.), A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal System, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 229-309.
20. Duffy, Patrick J. (1980), "English Law and the European Convention on Human Rights", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 4, p. 585-618.
21. Hartwig, Matthias. (2005), "Much Ado About Human Rights: The Federal Constitutional Court Confronts the European Court of Human Rights", German Law Journal, Vol. 06, No. 05, p. 870-894.
22. Hoffmeister, Frank. (2006), "Germany: Status of European Convention on Human Rights in Domestic Law", International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 4, No. 4, p.722-731.
23. Jarukaitis, Irmantas. (2010), "Report on Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania", in G. Martinico and O. Pollicino (eds.), The National Judicial Treatment of the ECHR and EU Law. A comparative Constitutional Perspective, Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, p. 167-204.
24. Mak, Elaine. (2011), "Why Dutch and UK Judges Cite Foreign Law?", Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 70, No. 2, p. 420-450. 
25. Martinico, Giuseppe. (2012), "Is the European Convention Going to be ‘Supreme’? A Comparative-Constitutional Overview of ECHR and EU law before National Courts", The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 23, No. 2, p. 401-424.
26. Martinico, Giuseppe; Pollicino, Oreste. (2010), "Report on Italy", in G. Martinico and O. Pollicino (eds.), The National Judicial Treatment of the ECHR and EU Laws: A Comparative Constitutional Perspective, Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, p. 269-295.
27. Pavlovic, Dejan. (2011), "Serbia" in L. Hammer and F. Emmert (eds.), The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Central and Eastern Europe, The Hague: Eleven International Publishing, p. 496-497, 2012; Buyse, Antoine, Hamilton, Michael, Transnational Jurisprudence and the ECHR: Justice, Politics and Rights.
28. Pollicino, Oreste. (2008), "Italy: Constitutional Court at the crossroads between constitutional parochialism and co-operative constitutionalism Judgments No. 348 and 349 of 22 and 24 October 2007", European Law Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 363-382.
29. Stone Sweet, Alec. (2012), "The European Convention on Human Rights and National Constitutional Reordering", Yale Law School, Faculty Scholarship Series, 4995, p. 1859-1868. 
30. Stone Sweet, Alec; Keller, Helen. (2008), "The Reception of the ECHR in National Legal Orders", in H. Keller and A. Stone Sweet (eds.), A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal System, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 3-28.
31. Thurnherr, Daniela. (2008), "The Reception Process in Austria and Switzerland", in H. Keller and A. Stone Sweet (eds.), A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal System, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 311-391.
32. Van Dijk, Pietter. (1989), "Dutch Experience with European Convention in Domestic Law", in L.A. Rehof and C. Gulmann (eds.), Human Right in 20. Stone Sweet, Alec, (2009). “On the constitutionalisation of the convention: The European court of human rights as a constitutional court”, Yale Law School, Faculty Scholarship Series, 71.
21. Stone Sweet, Alec; Keller, Helen, (2008). "Assessing the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems", Yale Law School, Faculty Scholarship Series, 88.
- Reports
22. Councile of Europe, (2020). Annual Report 2019 of the European Court of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://echr.coe.int/pages/home.aspx?p=court/annualreports&c=.
- Cases
23. Case of Doorson v. The Netherlands App. no. 20524/92 (1996).
24. Case of Gorgulu v. Germany App. no. 74969/01 (2004).
25. Case of Kostovski v. The Netherlands App. no. 11454/85 (1989).
26. Case of von hannover v. germany App. no. 59320/00 (2004).
27. Constitutional Court of Latvia. Judgments of 29 Dec. 2004 (2004).
28. Constitutional Court of Latvia. Judgments of 11 Apr. 2006 (2006).
29. Constitutional Court of Latvia. Judgments of 28 May 2008 (2008).
30. Constitutional Court of Latvia. Judgments of 7 Jan. 2008 (2008).
31. Constitutional Court of Latvia. Judgments of 29 Oct. 2009 (2009).
32. Constitutional Court of Latvia. Judgments of 5 Nov. 2008 (2008).
33. Constitutional Court of Republic of Bulgaria. Case No. 6. (1998).
34. Constitutional Court of Spain. Pleno. Judgment 30/1991 (1991).
35. Corte Costituzionale, (Constitutional Court of Italy). JUDGMENT NO. 349 (2007).
36. Court of Appeal of Florance decision Nos. 570 (2005).
37. Court of Genoa 23 Nov. 2000 (2000).
38. Court of Pistoia 23 Mar. 2007 (2007).
39. Højesteret (The Supreme Court of Denmark). decisions U.1979.117/2H (1979).
40. Højesteret (The Supreme Court of Denmark). decisions U.1988.454H (1988).
41. Loizidou v. Turkey App. no. 15318/89 (1995).
42. Remedies against public bodies, A Scoping Report. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/04/Remedies_Public_Bodies_Scoping.pdf.
43. Steve Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin) (September 2002).
44. Supreme Court of Estonia. JUDGMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW CHAMBER no. 3-4-1-2-01 (2001).
45. THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA. Judgment No. 2000-03-01 (200AD).
46. THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA. Judgment No. 2006-29-0103 (2003).
47. THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA. Judgment No. 2005 – 24 – 01 (2005).
48. The Högsta domstolen (Supreme Court of Sweden). NJA 1996 s. 668 (1996).