ECHR new President Bratza to EuroFora : Due consideration for Human Rights in Individual Judgements

 In one among his topical Replies to "EuroFora"s 2 Questions (See also other NewStory, hereby), ECHR's new President, Sir Nicolas Bratza, ensured,  concerning MEPs and Press' concerns about alleged risks against Citizens' Right to receive an Individual Judgement for each serious case about Human Rights' violations, (See infra), that, as a matter of general principle, ECHR must and will "give the necessary consideration" to all serious cases, as he stressed.

- "Otherwise, it should be corrected", the new ECHR's President promissed in the conclusion of his reply to this "'EuroFora"s question.

-----------
    German governing coalition partner's, Liberal Party's Spokeswoman on Human Rights, PACE's MEP Ms Marina Schuster, speaking earlier to "EuroFora", explained that a relevant question that she had raised to the current British Presidency of the CoE, on the need to safeguard the respect of Citizens' Right to Individual "Decisions" by ECHR, and not merely "Applications", stem from concerns recently expressed in the German Press, (such as "Spiegel" and/or nearby "F.A.Z.", etc) about some alleged proposals from certain parts of the current Torry UK Government on the Reforms which, according to their views, should be made in the ECHR.

    + Moreover, at the same time, several other People related to Cyprus' issue, warned that some on going Political manoeuvers intend to push aside Greek Cypriot Refugees' Human Rights' cases, in an attempt to clear the way for a kind of an over-all Deal exchanging Refugees/Displaced Persons' Rights with Land controlled by this or that among the two future federated entities. If such a political deal is done, it cannot be excluded for the ECHR to be incited to massively reject many Individual applications just by repeating mechanically one and the same, identical formula, i.e. without any examination of the particular circumstances of each individual case.

    But,  ECHR's own case-law, has clearly stressed, in several other cases, that, even if, eventually, a restriction of an individual Right might, perhaps, be justified, in certain circumstances, by a General Interest, nevertheless, the damages thus provoked to the detriment of one or another particular person, among all those affected, must not be "disproportionate". And it's, precisely, impossible to examine whether a person has been affected, in fact, by more or less than the allowed degree of damages, without doing any concrete analysis of the particular situation of each person concerned..       

    For these and other such reasons, Schuster, speaking on behalf of all the Liberal Group in CoE's Paneuropean Assembly, asked earlier this week, the representative of the British chair of the CoE, Minister for European affairs Lidington, what iit intends to do about the "Right to Individual Decisions" from the ECHR, which is "just as important" as "the Right to Individual Petitions" itself, which, as all admitted, "was   .. Fundamental".

    Lidington replied, in substance, by rather mixing up the (different) Rights to individual "petition" with that to individual "decision", since he apparently focused on denying any intention to block the 1st, but making a distinction between "identically worded representations to the CoE", from one side, and "really important casesn which raise fundamental questions", from the other side, which should have priority inside the ECHR.
---------------
    - "EuroFora", in the 1st among 2 questions raised to the new President of the ECHR, Sir Nicolas Bratza (See other NewStory, herewith, on our 2nd question), observed the fact that, "yesterday, during CoE Assembly's Debates,  many spoke about the (European Human Rigfhts) Court, even the new PACE President, (French MEP Jean-Claude Mignon), the (CoE's) Secretary General (Jagland), etc. and one of the concerns expressed was, not exactly on the (well known) worries about eventual risks in the future for the Right to Individual Petition, that you know very well, but, as they said, also, for the right to Individual Decision".

    - We made it clear that our question "didn't  mean about the cases which are a mere "copy - paste", a kind of "Class action", as the one that (Bratza had ealier)evoked, which are completely Identical from the Legal point of view. But cases that are, sometimes, similar, and, nevertheless, not identical : As, f.ex. when there are cases of Life and Death, under similar circumstances, but which cannot, obviously, be considered completely identical, Or cases of Refugees' (violent expulsion from their Family Homes, etc), or Torture, which, even if similar, cannot be considered completely identical".

    - "Do you have any concern about this, in the foreseable future ?", "EuroFora" invited ECHR's new President to take a stance.
-----------------------------

    Sir Bratza, carefully, asked more clarifications on this specific point only, (while, on the contrary, he replied immediately to our 2nd question, on another point : See other NewsReport, herewith) :

    - "I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure that I understood your 1st Question. Are you suggesting that we (ECHR) should give more, fuller reasons, or less full reasons, or what ?", he wondered.

   - "It was an intervention by a German MEP in the (CoE's) Assembly, when there was a Debate about the (EHR) Court, before (British) Prime Minister Cameron's (arrival), but in the same week", "EuroFora" explained in reply.

    - "And what was striking was the invitation to ECHR to try to be Careful in order  to protect, according to the MEP's view, (who was citting 2 Articles in German Newspapers about alleged aims of some UK politicians) People from a Risk against Individuals' Right not only to make an Individual Petition, but also to have an Individual Decision (by the ECHR), about the Concrete Cases",

    => - "(I.e.) that (ECHR) examines concretely the cases, in order not to have "copy and paste" decisions, (at least not) when it's not justified,   (Because) there are some cases where it might be justified, when they are completely Identical", we admitted. "But there are also others, (f.ex. concerning) Life or Death, or other issues, as Torture, etc.", including, f.ex. when a whole Family is brutally obliged to flee, abandoning its Home with all its private Belongings,  and afterwards violently hindered to return, (etc. : Comp. supra), which, normally, should not be automatically considered as identical, (i.e. without examining the particular circumstances of the case), "EuroFora" concluded in reply to Sir Bratza's demand for clarification (See supra).
--------------------

    >>> ECHR new President's reply to "EuroFora"s No 1 question (See supra) appeared crystal-clear :

    - "All I can say is that, I hope we (ECHR) give the Necessary Consideration to Every case which comes before us", Sir Nicolas Bratza expressed the wish, speaking as matter of principle.

      - Naturally, "if", on the contrary, "it's a "copy and paste" case", (as "EuroFora" had earlier depicted : See supra), " then, no doubt, you are likely to get a "copy and paste" decision" by the ECHR, he warned.
----------------------------

    >>> "But If it isn't,  then (each Human Rights case) it will GET ITS OWN, INDIVIDUAL, REASONED DECISION" by the ECHR, its  new President clearly underlined.

    - Because, "This is, I think, the way it should be", (according to the legal rules for jurisdictional acts and "Fair Trials", particularly on Human Rights' cases), Sir Nicolas Bratza stressed.

    => - "And if it isn't happening, (as he promissed), then, I think that WE(ECHR) SHOULD CORRECT IT" !, ECHR's new President promissed, speaking as a matter of general principle.  

-----------------

       + Moreover, "from by knowledge and experience,  on the whole, if it's a Special, One-Off case, then, it's given a Special, One-Off treatment",  Bratza concluded in reply to "EuroFora"s 1st question (See supra), by adding even a 3rd, more important category of Human Rights Cases, needing Deeper than usual analysis.