Standpoint readers are not likely to be confused by the fact that there are two, entirely separate, European courts. It should come as no surprise to find that the European Court of Human Rights enforces the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) while the European Court of Justice — now formally known as the Court of Justice of the European Union-enforces European Union (EU) law.
You are also likely to know that the Human Rights Court is run by the 47-member Council of Europe from its base in Strasbourg while the Court of Justice was established in Luxembourg by what is now the 27-member EU. And you may even have grasped the essential difference between the two courts' powers: human rights rulings from Strasbourg take effect only when states choose to amend their own laws — think prisoners' votes — while decisions from Luxembourg on EU law are immediately binding on national courts and public authorities.
That distinction is reflected in UK legislation. Section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 merely requires our own courts to "take into account" Strasbourg rulings. Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 says that all rights and remedies under the EU treaties "shall be recognised and available in law".
With me so far? This, I'm afraid, is where it gets difficult. And that's not just my view. In November, the joint parliamentary committee on human rights invited the Lord Chief Justice to give oral evidence. Lord Judge was asked about the relationship between the two European courts.
Like this article? Share, save or print using the icons below:
