I pen this article as the Council of Europe prepares to vote on Malta's representative to the European Court of Human Rights. I dare say that this vote is long overdue because, for the last four years, Malta was involved in controversy with the Council of Europe in this sense. The polemic was only finally superseded once Malta conceded to nominate as one of its candidates a member of the female gender, Madame Justice Abigail Lofaro.
The European Court of Human Rights will shortly face its biggest challenge to date. The Strasbourg Court was the product of the Treaty of Rome signed on November 4, 1950. Pursuant to that treaty, on September 3, 1953, the European Court of Human Rights was established and this in order to oversee the full implementation of fundamental human rights in Europe in the aftermath of World War II.
As a point of interest, shortly after our country gained its Independence in 1964, Malta joined the Council of Europe and, soon afterwards, acceded to the Treaty of Rome, thereby embracing the European Court of Human Rights.
As a point of interest, our first member on this prestigious Court was Chief Justice Emeritus John J. Cremona while Malta's first and only member on the European Commission of Human Rights was the late eminent professor of Constitutional law, Edwin Busuttil. This two-tier system was, however, only recently revamped and, today, our full-time representative is, as everyone knows, Malta's foremost human rights lawyer, Judge Giovanni Bonello. By Act XIV of August 19, 1987, Malta became the only European country to include in its corpus juris the European Convention of Human Rights. By that same law, the Maltese were finally given the right of individual petition before the Strasbourg Court.
Over the last 60 years, the European Court of Human Rights has played a pivotal role in upholding fundamental human rights in European countries. In fact, I must reiterate that this pan-European Court has, in fact, succeeded in evolving abundant indispensable jurisprudence with regard to human rights and I will not hesitate to state that this tribunal has proved to be the most successful judicial forum in the entire world in this regard. Yet, as I have already stated, this Court will soon face its most difficult challenge.
On December 17, 2007, the Lisbon Treaty was finally ratified by the European Union member states. This is a Constitutional treaty, which has reaffirmed and strengthened former European institutions and introduced others such as the President of the European Union and the European Minister for Foreign Affairs. The said treaty also makes reference to the Union's human rights charter, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and makes it legally binding between European member states. This Charter was promulgated on December 18, 2000. There is as yet, however, no European judicial forum that can take cognisance of the said Charter, not even the European Court of Justice based in Luxemburg.
In the light of all this, therefore, the powers that be in Brussels seem to be endeavouring to set the ball rolling for the creation of a new European Court of Human Rights, which would have sole jurisdiction over European member states, a role to date ably assumed by the Strasbourg Court. In this respect, I perceive institutional duplicity and procedural problems since the jurisdiction of this Court will surely overlap that of the present Strasbourg Court, for obvious reasons.
What will be the new scenario in this respect? Will member states withdraw from the Treaty of Rome and submit themselves exclusively to the European Charter and the new upcoming European Tribunal? Or will European citizens have the option of selection? Will we have two parallel courts deliberating and deciding on the same issues?
These are pleasures yet to come and not easily overcome. To my mind, however, there is but one practical solution, which is already contemplated in some respect in the Lisbon Treaty. The European Union should itself become a signatory to the Treaty of Rome and submit itself to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg Court, which has, over the years, managed to create a definite aura of credibility. Europe does not need a plurality of human rights courts but it definitely needs one strong and respected forum in this regard.
Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament.