1. Non-implementation of ECtHR rulings

2. Judgements of the ECtHR Article 46 ECHR – Binding force and execution of judgements Obligation to abide by the final judgement Committee of Ministers supervises the execution of the final judgement Problems of interpretation - referral to the ECtHR for clarification Refusal to execute the judgement - formal notice served on the State + referral to the ECtHR If violation found – Committee of Minister may suggest a measure to be taken

3. Case 1 - Hirst v UK October 2005 – Grand Chamber ruling June 2010 - Committee of Ministers - 3-month deadline to announce changes to the blanket ban 2,500 similar applications received – pilot judgement procedure adopted September 2010 - Committee of Ministers suggested solution December 2010 – Committee of Ministers commented for the 4 th time on the UK’s failure (May 2010 general elections) – UK should present an action plan for implementation of the judgement with a clear timetable 2011 - Westminster debate + House of Commons debate - many MPs against prisoners’ voting rights The House of Lords Reform Bill 2012-2013

6. Case 2 - Görgülü v. Germany FFeb. 2004 - ECtHR: violation of art. 8 (possibility at least to have access to the child GGerman Local Court – yes + temporary injunction (2 h every Sat.) HHigher Regional Court (Appeal instance) – no! “ECtHR’s judgment pronounced an obligation for Germany, but not for German Courts” OOct. 2004 - German FCCt: violation of art. 6 GG (protection of family life) BUT! ((ECHR = federal statute (not supreme law!) => it’s ok to have conflicts + German Basic Law should be applied) ((“take into account”, “consider” rather than “abide by”, “obey”) PProportionality (Right of G. Under art. 8 ECHR = Right of FF. under nat. law ?) NNot casatory, but declaratory effect of ECtHR´s decisions

7. Improving implementation of ECtHR rulings Creation of a sanctioning system Must be proportional Concretize article 46.5 of the ECHR in case of non-implementation