نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استاد گروه حقوق عمومی و بینالملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بینالملل عمومی، پردیس دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
تشخیص نفع حقوقی و تعیین ذینفع از جمله مهمترین اشتغالات قضایی هر مرجع دادگستری در سطح داخلی یا بینالمللی است. ذینفع به موجودیتی اطلاق میشود که در اقامه دعوی دارای نفع حقوقی است. کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر بهعنوان سند حقوقی مورد استناد دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر در مواد 34،33 و 35 به ترسیم گستره ذینفع برای حضور، نزد خود پرداخته است. پرسش این است که ابتکار دیوان در قبال توسعه مفهومی و مصداقی ذینفع تا چه میزان بوده و چه اصول و توجیهاتی اساس این تحول رویهای را تشکیل داده است. مداقه در رویه قضایی دیوان، حاکی از بروز نوآوریهای قابل توجهی در رویه دیوان نسبت به مفهوم ذینفع است که از جمله به استناد اصول اساسی حقوق بشری، فنّ حقوقی و شناخت تحولات اجتماعی روز حاصل شده است. این مقاله با بهرهگیری از منابع کتابخانهای و تصمیمات صادره از دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر و با استفاده از روش تحلیلی – توصیفی، به بازخوانی مفهوم ذینفع در رویه دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر پرداخته است.
کلیدواژهها
- دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر
- ذی نفع در دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر
- قربانی نقض حق های بشری
- رویه دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر
- تحول مفهوم ذی نفع
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
Revisiting the Concept of Interested Party in Light of the Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights
نویسندگان [English]
- Seyed Qasem Zamani 1
- Siavash Alizadeh 2
1 Professor, Department of Public International Law, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
2 Ph.D Student, Public International Law, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
Introduction
Tribunals, in both domestic and international legal systems, hear the claims of parties only under specific circumstances. The rules that define these circumstances fall under the concepts of jurisdiction and admissibility. Rules relating to jurisdiction determine whether a particular judicial body has the authority to consider the nature and form of the arguments presented before it. By contrast, rules of admissibility assess whether, in a given case, the necessary conditions for the exercise of that jurisdiction are satisfied with respect to the parties to the lawsuit.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) is one of the main bodies for adjudicating human rights disputes in the world. After establishing that it has jurisdiction to examine the lawsuit, the ECtHR takes the first step to determine whether an applicant has a sufficient legal interest in bringing a claim. Under European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention), Article 33 allows any member state to refer to the ECtHR any alleged violation of the Convention or its Protocols by another member state. Likewise, pursuant to Articles 34 and 35, the ECtHR examines individual applications to ensure that they comply fully with the substantive and procedural requirements set out in the ECHR and that the applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage. If these conditions are satisfied, the ECtHR may declare the application admissible. Accordingly, individuals, groups of individuals, or NGOs may refer to the ECtHR as victims of alleged violations of the ECHR or its Protocols. These provisions define both the conditions under which the ECtHR may hear a case and the categories of applicants entitled to bring claims before it.
Despite ECHR’s defining the scope of the interested party and setting out the conditions for access to the dispute-resolution mechanism, the ECtHR provides only a limited procedure. In practice, the ECtHR’s procedure demonstrates both the inadequacy of this restrictive list and the Court’s willingness to broaden the concept of legal interest in order to accommodate a greater number of victims of human rights violations, in accordance with the ECHR and its Protocols. The ECtHR has adapted its approach to contemporary developments within the international community by relying on Article 35(3)(b) of the Convention and employing various interpretative techniques, such as dynamic interpretation and reference to human rights principles (including the principle of access to international justice). By moving away from excessive formalism and rigid reasoning, the ECtHR has recognized the need to develop a more flexible and functional understanding of the concept of interested party in its case law.
In light of these developments, the present research aimed to answer the following research question: To what extent has the ECtHR taken the initiative in developing the scope of the concept of interested party? And what principles and justifications have formed the basis of this procedural evolution?
Literature Review
There is a substantial body of English-language scholarship on the concept of the interested party, legal interest in bringing a claim, and the jurisdiction of the ECtHR. In contrast, Persian-language scholarship appears to be limited, with only a few studies addressing the concept of the interested party, primarily within the contexts of private and public law. However, there appears to be a significant gap in Persian-language scholarship concerning the status, definition, and examples of interested party as reflected in the ECtHR’s procedure. What distinguishes the present study from similar works is its emphasis on the Court’s innovations and initiatives in developing and expanding this concept.
Materials and Methods
The present article adopted an analytical–descriptive approach to examine the distinctive treatment of the concept of interested party in the ECtHR’s procedure. It offered a detailed analysis of the Court’s judgments by drawing on library sources, including books, scholarly articles, and credible legal websites—particularly those relating to the ECtHR.
Results and Discussion
The principle of effective protection of individuals and the defense of social interests has led to significant innovations in the concept of interested party and the identification of victims of human rights violations. The ECtHR, through legal techniques such as the evolutionary interpretation of procedural rules, caution against excessive formalism, and consideration of the best interests of individuals—particularly minors and the sick—has succeeded in broadening the scope of who may bring claims. Moreover, profound social changes, the evolving roles of individuals in each other’s lives, and the impact of human rights violations on those beyond the direct victim have prompted the ECtHR to recognize claims from indirect victims, thus expanding the scope of who may bring claims. According to the ECtHR, a victim is not only a person directly affected by a rights violation but also anyone who can present logical and convincing evidence indicating the likelihood of such a violation. This approach has effectively opened the door for a wider range of individuals to bring claims. Finally, the recognition of public interest litigation, such as collective litigations, represents one of the ECtHR’s most recent initiatives. This mechanism allows individuals or NGOs to represent a group collectively, protecting universal rights such as the right to health, the right to a clean environment, and the right of access to information.
Conclusion
In international law, the right to bring a claim is generally determined by the nature of the case and the purpose of each judicial system. In the International Court of Justice, only states possess the legal standing to file a claim. Over time, however, while this principle has been maintained, the concept of standing before this court has evolved. Similarly, the ECtHR grants legal standing to certain individuals, groups, and NGOs, in line with the objectives for which it was established. Social developments, the growing importance of individual rights, the shift away from formalism, and, most importantly, the humanization of procedural rights have significantly expanded the concept of standing in this court.
کلیدواژهها [English]
- ECtHR
- Interested Party
- Human Rights
- Procedure
کتاب ها
- کرافورد، جیمز، اصول حقوق بینالملل عمومی برانلی، ترجمه محمد حبیبی مجنده، ویرایش هشتم (قم: انتشارات دانشگاه مفید، 1396).
- جوزف، سارا؛ شولتز، جنی و کسن، ملیسا، میثاق بینالمللی حقوق مدنی و سیاسی؛ دعاوی، آموزهها، تفاسیر، ترجمه سید قاسم زمانی و همکاران )تهران: موسسه مطالعات و پژوهشهای حقوقی شهر دانش، 1395(.
- زمانی، سید قاسم، بیست و یک گفتار در حقوق بینالملل بشر، چاپ اول (تهران: انتشارات خرسندی، 1395).
- فلسفی، هدایتالله، سیر عقل در منظومه حقوق بینالملل، اصول اساسی روششناسی حقوق بینالملل (تهران: فرهنگ نشر نو، 1396).
- قاری سیدفاطمی، سید محمد، جستارهایی تحلیلی در حقها و آزادیها، چاپ پنجم (تهران: انتشارات نگاه معاصر، 1396).
- قرباننیا، ناصر، حقوق بشر و حقوق بشردوستانه (تهران: سازمان انتشارات پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و اندیشه اسلامی، 1387).
- متین دفتری، احمد، آیین دادرسی مدنی و بازرگانی، جلد 1، چاپ سوم (تهران: مجد، 1388).
مقاله ها
- حسینی اکبرنژاد، هاله، «نفع عمومی در دعاوی زیستمحیطی: رویه دادگاههای منطقهای حقوق بشر و محاکم ملی»، مجله پژوهشهای حقوقی، شماره 18، نیمسال دوم، (1389).
- حدادی، مهدی و رضائیان کوچی، حسین، «چالش حقوقی شیوههای رسیدگی جمعی دعاوی حقوق بشری در دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دوره 51، شماره 4، (1400).
- سادات اخوی، سید علی و پارسانیا، نفیسه، «قواعد تفسیر کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر در پرتو رویه قضایی دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر»، مجله حقوقی بینالمللی، دوره 30، شماره 49، (1392).
- طباطبایی، سید احمد، «دادگاه اروپایی حقوق بشر؛ ساختار و صلاحیتهای جدید»، مجله اندیشههای حقوقی، سال اول، شماره 5، (1382).
- عبیری، ارمغان، «نقش سازمانهای بینالمللی غیردولتی در حمایت از حقوق بشر در رویه دادگاه اروپایی حقوق بشر»، مجله پژوهشهای حقوقی، شماره 22، (1391).
- قاری سیدفاطمی، سیدمحمد، «دادگاه جدید اروپایی حقوق بشر»، نشریه دفتر خدمات حقوق بینالملل جمهوری اسلامی ایران، دوره 18، شماره 25، (1379).
- محبی، محسن و سماوی، اسماعیل، «نقش رویه دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر در تفسیر پویای معاهدات حقوق بشری»، مجله حقوقی بینالمللی، شماره 58، (1397).
- ویژه، محمدرضا، «مفهوم تعهدات مثبت در رویه دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر»، مجله تخصصی الهیات و حقوق، شماره 13، (1383).
References
Books
- Ahmadov, F, The Right of Actio Popularis Before Intarnational Courtd and Tribunals, Edited by Malgosia Fitzmaurice (Boston: Brill Nihhoff, 2018).
- Cançado Trindade, A.A, The Access of Individuals to International Justice, 3rd. ed., (Brazil: Belo Horizonte Edit. Del Rey, 2003).
- Cançado Trindade, A.A, International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010).
- Latin Words & Phrases, Law and Business Publications, First Published (Canada: Datinder S. Sohdi, 1980).
- Pirjatanniemi, E, Greening Human Rights Law: A Focus on the European Convention on Human Rights, in Gerhard Bos & Marcus Düwell, (eds) Human Rights and Sustainability: Moral Responsibilities for the Future (New York: Routledge, 2016).
- Parlett, K, The Individual in the International Legal System; Continuity and Change in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
- Schabas, William A, The European Convention on Human Rights; A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2015).
Articles
- Acconciamessa, L, “Public-Interest Litigation before the EctHR: Towards a Human Rights Approach to the Universal Protection of Cultural Heritage?”, Ordine internazionale e diritti umani, (2022), https:// rivistaoidu. net/ wp- content/ uploads/ 2022/03/10_ Acconciamessa.pdf.
- Ander, M, “Public End Through Private Means: A Comparative Study on Public Interest Litigation in Europe”, Erasmus Law Review, (ELR), (2023). doi: 10.5553/ELR.000245.
- Brian, McGarry, “Obligation Erga Omnes (Partes) and the Participation of third States in Inter-State Litigation”, Brill/Nhjhoff, (2023), https://doi:10.1163/15718034-bja10099.
- Cançado Trindade, A, “The Emancipation of the Individual from His Own State: The Historical Recovery of the Human Person as Subject of the Law of Nation in Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law”, Liber Amicorum L. Wildhaber (eds. S. Breitenmoser et al., ii), Zürich/Baden-Baden, Dike/ Nomos, Vol. 7, No. 7, (2007), https:// doi. org/ 10.1093/ acprof: oso/ 9780199580958. 003.0001.
- Fiss, M, “The Political Theory of the Class Action”, 53 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 21, 25, (1996), https:// scholarlycommons. law. wlu. edu/ wlulr/ Vol. 53/ iss1/4.
- Gaja, G, “The Position of Individuals in International Law: An ILC Perspective”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 21, Issue 1, February 2010, Pages 11–14, (2010). https:// dx. doi. org/ 10. 1093/ ejil/chq002.
- Gerard, J.H, Glas, R, “Access to Justice in the European Convention on Human Rights System”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 35, No. 1, (2017), https://doi.org/10.1177/0924051917693988.
- Marcus, D, “The Public Interest Class Action”, 104 Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 104, No. 4, (2015), https:// dx. doi. org/ 10.2139/ ssrn.2565988.
- Posner, A, “Erga Omnes Norms, Institutionalization, and Constitutionalism in International Law”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE, (2009), Vol. 165, No. 1. 5-23 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.1211424.
- Robertson, A.H, “First Case before the European Court of Human Rights: Lawless v. the Government of Ireland”, The Note, 36 Brit. Y. B. Int'l L. 343 (1960).
- Tzevelekos, P “Standing before the European Court of Human Rights”, Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law, (2019), https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3968200.
- Vermeer-Künzli, V, “A Matter of Interest: Diplomatic Protection and State Responsibility Erga Omnes”, International & comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 56, Issue. 3, (2007). DOI: https:// doi. org/ 10.1093/ iclq/lei182.
Cases
- The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Greece v. Britain, Judgment, PCIJ, (1924), https:// www. worldcourts. com/ pcij/ eng/ decisions/ 1924.08.30_ mavrommatis.htm
- Nottebohm Case, Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, Judgment, ICJ, (1955).
- Cyprus v. Turkey (IV), Judgment, ECtHR, (2014). [ECtHR], https:// hudoc. coe.int/fre?i=001-144151.
- Mamatkulov & Askarov v. Turkey [GC], Judgment, ECtHR, 46827/99 and 46951/99, 2005. [ECtHR] https:// hudoc. echr. coe. int/ eng?i=001-68183.
- Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), Judgment, 15318/89, 23 March 1995. [ECtHR] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-57920.
- Aizpurua Ortiz and Others v. Spain, Judgment, 42430/05, 02/02/2010. [ECtHR] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-97084.
- Vallianatos and others v. Greece(coe.int). Judgment, 29381/09 32684/09, 07/11/2013. [ECtHR] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-128294.
- Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, Judgment, 62543/ 00, 27/ 04/2004. [ECtHR] https:// hudoc. echr. coe. int/ fre? i= 001-61731.
- Aksu v. Turkey [GC], Judgment, 4149/04 41029/04, 15/03/2012. [ECtHR] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-83.
- Micallef v. Malta, Judgment, 17056/06, 15/10/2009. [ECtHR] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-95031.
- Bursa Barosu Başkanliği and Others v. Turkey, Judgment, 25680/05, 19/06/2018. [ECtHR] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-184293.
- Van Colle v. the United Kingdom, Judgment, 7678/09, 13/11/2012. [ECtHR] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=002-7280.
- Janowiec & others v. Russia (coe.int), Judgment, 55508/07, 29520/09 - 21/10/2013. [ECtHR] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=002-8933.
- Chernenko and others v. Russia(coe.int), Judgment, no, 4246/14- 05/02/2019.[ ECtHR] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-191649.
- Malhous v. The Czech Republic(coe.int).no Judgment, 33071/96- 13/12/2000. [ECtHR] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=002-5837.
- Aizpurua Ortiz and Others v. Spain, Judgment, no. 42430/05, 2 February 2010.(ECtHR), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-1139.
- Campaenu v. Romania (coe.int) (Centre For Legal Resourses on Behalf of Valentin Campaenu), Judgment, no, 47848/08 - 17/07/2014. (ECtHR) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-145577.
- Van Der Sluijs, Zuiderveld and Klappe v the Netherlands, Judgment, no. 9362/81, 22 May 1984.(ECtHR) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-165120.
- Amuur v. France, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 19776/92, 1996. (ECtHR) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-57988.
- Association des amis de Saint-Raphaël et de Fréjus and Others v. France, Judgment, no. 38192/97, Commission decision of 1 July 1998. (ECtHR) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-29747.
- Klass and Others v. Germany, Judgment, 5029/71, 6 September 1978. (ECtHR) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-57510.
- Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom, 14553/89 14554/89, 26/05/1993.(ECtHR) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57819.
- Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 5856/72, 24 April 1978.(ECtHR).
Documents
- European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos 11 and 14 (adopted 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953).
- ILC, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001.
- ILC, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, 2006.
Thesis
- Martoiu Ticu, The Pink Elephant in the Courtroom, Private Individuals Should Have Legal Standing Before International Courts?, Master Thesis, Utrecht University of Law, Supervisors: prof. dr. H.H.A. van den Brink, prof. C.G. Roelofsen, 6 dec (2010). https:// studenttheses. uu.nl/ handle/ 20.500. 12932/7036?show=full.
)