¹ Alemanno, Alberto, How Transparent is Transparent Enough ?: Balancing Access to Information Against Privacy in European Judicial Selections, in Selecting Europe's Judges: A Critical Review of the Appointment Procedures to the European Courts (Michal Bobek ed., 2015) at 204.Google Scholar

² Dunoff, Jeffrey L. & Pollack, Mark A., The Judicial Trilemma, 111 American Journal of International Law 225–276 (2017).Google Scholar

³ Article 21 sets out the criteria for office, which are short and succinct – ‘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'.Google Scholar

⁴ Article 22, which states that ‘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'.Google Scholar

⁵ Lemmens, Koen, (S)electing Judges for Strasbourg A (Dis)appointing Process?, in Selecting Europe's Judges: A Critical Review of the Appointment Procedures to the European Courts (Michal Bobek ed., 2015) at 98.Google Scholar

⁶ See, e.g., Limbach, Juta et al., Judicial Independence: Law and Practice of Appointments to the European Court of Human Rights (2003), http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/32795.pdf.Google Scholar

⁷ See Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights, Procedure for electing judges to the European Court of Human Rights, Information document prepared by the Secretariat, 22 November 2017, http://website-pace.net/documents/1653355/1653736/ProcedureElectionJudges-EN.pdf/e4472144-64bc-4926-928c-47ae9clea45e.Google Scholar

⁸ Resolution 1082 (1996), Procedure for examining candidatures for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (1996), http://semanticpace.net/tools/pdf.aspx?doc=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS5pbnQvbncveG1sL1hSZWYvWDJILURXLWV4dHluYXNwP2ZpbGVpZD0xNjQ5MyZsYW5nPUVO&xsl=aHR0cDovL3NlbWFudGljcGFjZS5uZXQvWHNsdC9QZGYvWFJIZi1XRC1BVC1YTUwyUERGLnhzbA==&xsltparams=ZmlsZWIkPTE2NDkz.Google Scholar

⁹ Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Recommendation 1429 (1999), National procedures for nominating candidates for election to the European Court of Human Rights, available at http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=16755&lang=en.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Recommendation 1649 (2004), Candidates for the European Court of Human Rights, available at http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/xref/xref-xml2html-en.asp?fileid=17193&lang=en.Google Scholar

¹¹ Committee of Ministers, Resolution CM/Res(2010)26 on the establishment of an Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human Rights (2010), http://vm.ee/sites/default/files/content-editors/Res_2010_26_eng.pdf.Google Scholar

¹² Id. Google Scholar

¹³ See Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights, http://www.assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/AssemblyList/AL-XML2HTML-EN.asp?lang=en&XmlID=Committee-Cdh.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Advisory Panel (2013)12EN, Final activity report for the attention of the Committee of Ministers, 11 December 2013, at para. 2. Available at https://dm.coe.int/CED20140017598.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Çalı, Başak et al., The Legitimacy of Human Rights Courts: A Grounded Interpretivist Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights, 35 Human Rights Quarterly 955–984 (2013).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Supra note 6.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Id. at 3.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁹ Id. at 34.Google Scholar

²⁰ Petkova, Bilyana, Spillovers in Selecting Europe's Judges Will the Criterion of Gender Equality Make it to Luxembourg?, in, Selecting Europe's Judges: A Critical Review of the Appointment Procedures to the European Courts (Michal Bobek ed“ 2015) at 230.Google Scholar

²¹ Id. at 230.Google Scholar

²² Id. See Letter from Mr. Jean-Paul Costa, President of the European Court of Human Rights, addressed to member states’ Permanent Representatives (Ambassadors), 9 June 2010, available at http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=12764&lang=en.Google Scholar

²³ High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, Interlaken Declaration, 19. February 2010 at para. 8. Available at http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2010_Interlaken_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

²⁴ Although it is worth noting that the process for selecting candidates at the national level varies from country to country with varying degrees of input from judicial peers in the selection process.Google Scholar

²⁵ Supra note 11, at para. 2.Google Scholar

²⁶ Presently, the other members are Lene Pagter Kristensen, Supreme Court (Denmark); Gintowt-Jankowicz, Maria, Constitutional Tribunal (Poland); Stirn, Bernard, Conseil d'Etat (France) and Associate Professor at Sciences Po, Christoph Grabenwarer, Constitutional Court (Austria) and Professor of Law at the Vienna University of Economic and Business; and Feteris, Maarten, Supreme Council (The Netherlands) and Professor of Tax Law at the Erasmus University, Rotterdam.Google Scholar

²⁷ They were Ms. Renate Jaeger (Germany), Mr. Matti Pellonpää (Finland) and Mr. Luzius Wildhaber (Switzerland).Google Scholar

²⁸ Supra note 11, at para. 3.Google Scholar

²⁹ Supra note 1, at 204.Google Scholar

³⁰ Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judges to the European Court of Human Rights, Third activity report for the attention of the Committee of Ministers, 30 June 2017 at para. 50. Available at https://rm.coe.int/en-3rd-activity-report/168074f0ad.Google Scholar

³¹ Id. at para. 51.Google Scholar

³² Lemmens supra note 5, at 106.Google Scholar

³³ Steering Committee for Human Rights, Ministers’ Deputies Exchange of Views with Mr. Luzius Wildhaber, Chairman of the Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human Rights, DH-GDR (2013) 005, 5 February 2013, as quoted in Lemmens supra note 5, at 106.Google Scholar

³⁴ Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judges to the European Court of Human Rights, Second activity report for the attention of the Committee of Ministers, 25 February 2016, at 18. Available at https://rm.coe.int/168066db65.Google Scholar

³⁵ Id. at para. 49.Google Scholar

³⁶ Supra note 30, at para. 53.Google Scholar

³⁷ Steering Committee for Human Rights, Committee of Experts on the System of the European Convention on Human Rights, Report on the process of selection and election of judges of the European Court of Human Rights, DH-SYSC(2017) R4 Addendum, 10 November 2017 at para. 84. Available at https://rm.coe.int/-draft-report-on-the-process-of-selection-and-election-of-judges-of-th/1680767b5a.Google Scholar

³⁸ The Copenhagen Declaration on the reform of the European Convention on Human Rights system, 12-13 April 2018, available at https://www.coe.int/bs/web/portal/-/copenhagen-declaration-adopt-l, at para. 61.Google Scholar

³⁹ Supra note 30, at para. 58.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See activity reports of the Panel, supra notes 30 and 34.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See John Murray's comments to 1233th meeting of Ministers’ Deputies on 8 July 2015, supra note 34, at p.18.Google Scholar

⁴² In the last year alone, the PACE Committee rejected the full list of candidates from Albania, Georgia and Turkey two times in a row. See Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights – tables of progress by Contracting Party, http://website-pace.net/documents/1653355/1653736/TableForthcomingJudgesElectionsEN.pdf/775de55c-67b8-4f46-befd-1063dca1b5e0.Google Scholar

⁴³ Supra note 37, at para. 103. See Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe, Resolution 2002 (2014), Evaluation of the implementation of the reform of the Parliamentary Assembly, available at http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=21049&lang=en.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Supra note 6, at 25-26.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Supra note 37, at para. 104. See also Drzemczewski, Andrew, The Parliamentary Assembly's Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights, 35 Human Rights Law Journal, 269–274 (2015).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Supra note 37, at para. 120.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Id. at paras 94-97.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ European Court of Human Rights, Rules of Court, http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_Court_ENG.pdf at Rule 8.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Id. at Rule 9.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Id. at Rule 9A.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Id. at Rules 15 and 16.Google Scholar

⁵² Id. at Rule 18B. See also Berger, Vincent, Jurisconsult of the Court (2006 – 2013), http://www.berger-avocat.eu/en/echr/jurisconsult.html Google Scholar

⁵³ John Paul Costa, Speech at Zagreb University, 30 March 2009, https://www.usud.hr/sites/default/files/dokumenti/President_Costas_Speech_given_at_the_Zagreb_Faculty_of_Law_on_30_May_2009.pdf at p.3.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Berger, supra note 52.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Costa, supra note 53, at 3.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Fribergh, Erik & Liddell, Roderick, The Interlaken Process and the Jurisconsult, http://www.berger-avocat.eu/the_interlaken_process_and_jurisconsult.pdf, at 184.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See List of Single Judges appointed by the President under Rule 27A of the Rules of Court, 1 February 2017, http://echr.coe.int/Documents/List_single_judges_BIL.pdf.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Interviews conducted by the first author as part of her study on ‘The Legitimacy and Authority of Supranational Human Rights Courts’ (2008 – 2011). See https://ecthrproject.wordpress.com/research-output/.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Id. Google Scholar

⁶⁰ These core values were selected by the JUDI-ARCH research team as being key to exploring the effects of JSG. See David Kosar's introduction to this Special Issue, ‘Beyond Judicial Councils: Forms, Rationales and Impact of Judicial Self-Governance in Europe'.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Supra note 2.Google Scholar

⁶² Id. at 249.Google Scholar

⁶³ Id. at 238.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Protocol No.14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Amending the Control System of the Convention, http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Library_CollectionP14_ETS194E_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Kosar, David, Selecting Strasbourg Judges: A Critique, in Selecting Europe's Judges: A Critical Review of the Appointment Procedures to the European Courts 127 (Michal Bobek ed“ 2015).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe, Resolution 1914 (2013), Ensuring the viability of the Strasbourg Court: structural deficiencies in States Parties, available at http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=19396&lang=en.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ European Court of Human Rights, Contribution from the Court regarding certain issues under consideration as part of the follow-up to the report of the CDDH on the longer-term future of the Convention system, 23 February 2017 at para 30. Available at https://rm.coe.int/steering-committee-for-human-rights-cddh-committee-of-experts-on-the-s/168071442e.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), CDDH Report on the long term future of the system of the European Court of Human Rights (2015), available at https://rm.coe.int/1680654d5f.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Donald, Alison & Leach, Phillip, ‘3 steps to save the European Court of Human Rights', January 16 2018, available at https://mdxminds.com/2018/01/16/how-to-save-the-european-court-of-human-rights-in-3-steps/.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Voeten, Erik, The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights, 102 American Political Science Review 417–433 (2008) at 426.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Id. at 429.Google Scholar

⁷² Id. at 431.Google Scholar

⁷³ Lemmens supra note 5, at 108.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See Lemmens supra note 5, at 109-117 for a comparative description of the French, Belgian and British national selection process in 2012.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Committee of Ministers, Resolution 2012 (40), Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers on the selection of candidates for the post of judge at the European Court of Human Rights, 28 March 2012, available at https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?Objectld=09000016805cb1ac.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1646 (2009), Nomination of candidates and election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights, 27 January 2009, available at http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17704&lang=en.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Id. Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe, Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights: Progress Report, 6 October 2016, http://semantic-pace.net/tools/pdf.aspx?doc=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS5pbnQvbncveG1sL1hSZWYvWDJILURXLWV4dHluYXNwP2ZpbGVpZD0yMzAzOCZsYW5nPUVO&xsl=aHR0cDovL3NlbWFu dGljcGFjZS5uZXQvWHNsdC9QZGYvWFJIZi1XRClBVC1YTUwyUERGLnhzbA==&xsltparams=ZmlsZWIkPTIzMDM4.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Supra note 74. See also Open Society Foundations, Strengthening from Within: Law and Practice in the Selection of Human Rights Judges and Commissioners, 2017, available at https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Universal-Strengthening-from-Within-Publications-Reports-2017-ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Supra note 2.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Supra note 2, at 226: “…specifically mechanisms that permit the identification of individual judicial positions, primarily through the publication of separate votes or opinions.”Google Scholar

⁸² Supra note 1, at 212.Google Scholar

⁸³ Id. at 215.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Id. Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Id. at 218.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), CDDH report on the review of the functioning of the Advisory Panel of experts on candidates for election as judge to the European Court of Human Rights, 29 November 2013, available at https://rm.coe.int/168045fe14.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Id. at para. 59. See also supra note 37, at para. 97.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See, e.g. supra note 30, at 41 and supra note 34, at para. 42.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See Judges of the Court, http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=court/judges&c=.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Supra note 69.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Id. Google Scholar

⁹² Supra note 48, at Rules 25 and 26.Google Scholar

⁹³ Id. at Rule 24e.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Supra note 68.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Supra note 2.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Supra note 67.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Supra note 48, at Rule 7.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Id. Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Bayev and others v. Russia, App No. 67667, [2017] ECHR 572 (20 June 2017).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Lavrysen, Laurens, Bayev and Others v. Russia: on Judge Dedov's outrageously homophobic dissent, Strasbourg Observers, 13 July 2017, https://strasbourgobservers.com/2017/07/13/bayev-and-others-v-russia-on-judge-dedovs-outrageously-homophobic-dissent/.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁰² Id. Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ European Court of Human Rights, The general practice followed by the panel of the Grand Chamber when deciding on requests for referral in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, http://echr.coe.int/Documents/Note_GC_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ European Court of Human Rights, Analysis of Statistics 2016, http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_analysis_2016_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ European Court of Human Rights, Resolution on Judicial Ethics, 23 June 2008, http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Resolution_Judicial_Ethics_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Id. at IV. and V.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Pop, Valentina, Strasbourg backs Romanian judge in jewellery-for-verdicts case, EU Observer, 20 October 2011, https://euobserver.com/justice/114006.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Id. Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ For a response to Dunoff and Pollack's Judicial Trilemma and a differing perspective on the value of judicial independence, see Keller, Helen & Meier, Severin, Independence and Impartiality in the Judicial Trilemma, 111 AJIL Unbound 344–348 (2017).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Çalı, et al., supra note 15, at 969.Google Scholar

¹¹² Id. at 970-971.Google Scholar

¹¹³ See supra note 38, at para. 55.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judges to the European Court of Human Rights, Final activity report for the attention of the Committee of Ministers, 11 December 2013 at para. 1. Available at https://dm.coe.int/CED20140017598.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Supra note 88.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Supra note 30, at para. 41.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Supra note 34, at p.17.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Id. Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Id. Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Supra note 30, at para. 34.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Voeten, Erik, Does a Professional Judiciary Induce More Compliance?: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights, available on SSRN <ssrn.com/abstract=2029786>..>Google Scholar

¹²² Id. at 9 and 12.Google Scholar

¹²³ Id. at 19.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Id. at 32.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Madsen, Mikael Rask, The Legitimization Strategies of International Judges: The Case of the European Court of Human Rights, in Selecting Europe's Judges: A Critical Review of the Appointment Procedures to the European Courts (Michal Bobek ed“ 2015).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Id. at 278.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Id. Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Çall, et al., supra note 15.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Some have argued that this had an important effect on the Court's case law. See Arnardóttir, Oddný Mjöll, Rethinking the Two Margins of Appreciation, 12 European Const. Law R. 27–53 (2016) and Mikael Rask Madsen, The Challenging Authority of the European Court of Human Rights: From Cold War Legal Diplomacy to the Brighton Declaration and Backlash, 79 Law & Contemporary Problems 141 (2016).Google Scholar

¹³⁰ See Bellamy, Richard, The Democratic Legitimacy of International Human Rights Conventions: Political Constitutionalism and the European Convention on Human Rights, 25 European J of Intl L 1019–1042 (2014).Google Scholar

¹³¹ Id. at 1036-1037. Bellamy describes the Court's review powers as “a ‘soft’ version of strong review” on the grounds that the rulings are binding on High Contracting Parties but the Court does not have the power to strike down national laws.Google Scholar

¹³² European Court of Human Rights, High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights: Brighton Declaration, available at http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2012_Brighton_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

¹³³ Madsen, Mikael Rask, Rebalancing European Human Rights: Has the Brighton Declaration Engendered a New Deal on Human Rights in Europe? (June 27, 2017). Forthcoming in Journal of International Dispute Settlement; iCourts Working Paper Series No. 100. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2993222.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ See supra note 74.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Supra note 34, at 18.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Supra note 30, at 22 and 25.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Supra note 30, at 25.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Id. Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Supra note 37, at para. 96-97.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Supra note 38, at para. 57.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Id. at para. 62.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Alemmano supra note 1, at 249.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ al Cali et supra note 15.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Voeten supra note 69.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Supra note 68.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Supra note 2.Google Scholar