Rules of Procedure of the Assembly (July 2019)

(Resolution 1202 (1999) adopted on 4 November 1999) with subsequent modifications of the Rules of Procedure* * Resolutions 1220 (2000),
1234 (2000), 1235 (2000), 1266 (2001), 1275 (2002), 1284 (2002),
1296 (2002), 1325 (2003), 1343 (2003), 1348 (2003), 1356 (2003),
1368 (2004), 1369 (2004), 1379 (2004), 1395 (2004), 1431 (2005),
1432 (2005), 1445 (2005), 1447 (2005), 1448 (2005), 1490 (2006),
1491 (2006), 1503 (2006), 1504 (2006), 1515 (2006), 1529 (2006),
1554 (2007), 1583 (2007), 1584 (2007), 1585 (2007), 1658 (2009),
1698 (2009), 1699 (2009), 1712 (2010), 1780 (2010), 1799 (2011),
1841 (2011), 1842 (2011), 1854 (2011), 1903 (2012), 1911 (2012),
1937 (2013), 1965 (2013), 2002 (2014), 2058 (2015), 2102 (2016),
2169 (2017), 2182 (2017), 2208 (2018)

Rules of Procedure of the Assembly

Parts: I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII.

Complementary texts

Parts: I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII.

Index

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Print

    Elections by the Parliamentary Assembly Retour au sommaire Atteindre l'élement suivant Atteindre l'élement précédent

      v. - Candidates for the European Court of Human Rights

      Resolution 1366 (2004) as modified by Resolutions 1426 (2005), 1627 (2008), 1841 (2011), 2002 (2014) and 2278 (2019)
      1. The Parliamentary Assembly, referring to its Recommendation 1649 (2004), continues to support the procedure by which candidates are asked to complete a standard curriculum vitae; See appendix to Resolution
1646 (2009). it believes that the model to be used should be reviewed by the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights and that proposals for modification should be reported to the committee for adoption by the Assembly.
      2. The Assembly remains convinced that the twelve-month timetable it has adopted provides a practical model for all participants, but resolves nevertheless to keep its targets under review.
      3. The Assembly decides not to consider lists of candidates where:
      i. the areas of competence of the candidates appear to be unduly restricted;
      ii. not all of the candidates fulfil each of the conditions laid down by Article 21, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights;
      iii. one of the candidates does not appear to have an active knowledge of one of the official languages of the Council of Europe and a passive knowledge of the other;
      iv. the national selection procedure did not satisfy the minimum requirements of fairness and transparency;
      v. the Advisory Panel was not duly consulted.
      In such cases, the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights shall decide on a proposal to reject a list of candidates by a majority of the votes cast. This proposal shall be endorsed by the Assembly in the Progress Report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee. The Assembly’s endorsement of the proposal to reject a list entails its definitive rejection; the State concerned is invited to submit a new list. Rejection by the Assembly of the committee’s proposal to reject a list shall entail the referral of the list back to the committee.
      4. Moreover, the Assembly decides to consider single-sex lists of candidates when the candidates belong to the sex which is under-represented in the Court (i.e. the sex to which under 40% of the total number of judges belong), or in exceptional circumstances where a contracting party has taken all the necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that the list contains candidates of both sexes meeting the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 21 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
      Such exceptional circumstances must be duly so considered by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast by members of the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights. If the required majority has not been achieved, the committee shall recommend that the Assembly reject the list concerned. This position shall be endorsed by the Assembly in the Progress Report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee.
      5. The Assembly continues to believe that the process of interview provides additional insight into the qualities of the candidates and decides:
      i. that nominated candidates should be informed as far as possible of the purpose of the interview and procedures for its conduct;
      ii. that alternative locations for interviews should be considered if there is a valid reason for holding interviews outside Strasbourg and Paris;
      iii. that further staggering or additional sessions of the committee might permit an extension of the time available for each interview;
      iv. that the political groups, when nominating their representatives to the committee, should aim to include at least 40% women, which is the parity threshold deemed necessary by the Council of Europe to exclude possible gender bias in decision-making processes;
      v. that candidates should be made aware of the criteria employed by the committee in reaching its decision;
      vi. that one of the criteria used by the committee should be that, in the case of equal merit, preference should be given to a candidate of the sex under-represented at the Court;
      vii. that a fair and efficient interview process requires a continuous process of training and re-assessment of the members and staff involved in selection panels;
      viii. that the obligation to promote an open and transparent process might require the committee to give reasons for its recommendations and ranking of candidates and in particular to give positive reasons for its recommendation in favour of a particular candidate;
      ix. that it would be desirable to provide timely feedback to both the individual candidate and the nominating state.
      6. The Chairperson or a representative of the Advisory Panel shall be invited by the Chairperson of the Committee on the Election of Judges to explain the reasons for the panel’s views on candidates, during the briefing sessions scheduled before each set of interviews.