A lot has been written on the preparations for the Brighton conference on the ECHR. The newest version of the Draft Brighton Declaration was discussed yesterday in Strasbourg. I have not been able to track an online version of this newest draft, but apart from a number of points which have been left out (no consensus on those?), it is striking that the state parties still envisage to include the margin of appreciation explicitly in the ECHR. Secondly, the most debated admissibility criterion change is still in, but in a slightly different way:
“Concludes that Article 35 of the Convention should further be amended to make clear that an application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35(3)(a), inter alia, to the extent that the Court is satisfied that the application raises a complaint that has been duly considered by a national court applying the Convention in light of the well-established case law of the Court, unless the application raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention; and invites the Committee of Ministers to adopt the necessary amending instrument by the end of 2013.”
The old draft read as follows:
“Concludes that Article 35 of the Convention should further be amended to make clear that an application is inadmissible if it is the same in substance as a matter that has been examined by a national court taking into account the rights guaranteed by the Convention, unless the Court considers that:
i) The national court clearly erred in its interpretation or application of the Convention rights; or
ii) The application raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention.”
Finally, what in the last draft were still several options about the time limit within which to lodge complaints with the Court (two, three or four months) has now been changed into four months (as opposed to the current six).
