a kaleidoscope of people their work and apossible core group of strong judges who share a vision.72 Each case decided by the ECtHRor CJEUprovides a unique picture where, unified in its multitude of colours, the individual differences of the judges add the richness of the kaleidoscope.Both theECtHRand the CJEU are evidence of the importance of the initial years, which provide structure and generate a hybrid legal culture whereby individual legal backgrounds are absorbed into the existing system.73 Thus while the ECtHRjudges in Strasbourg seem to be united in their clear vision of human rights protection, theCJEUjudges in Luxembourg are alert to their collective importance as the last resort for European legal matters. European citizens are well protected, as theCJEUpresident Koen Lenaerts remarked in 2019. Yet while welcoming European citizens’ trust and enthusiasm for using the ECtHR or CJEU, a major risk for both courts is the continuous increase in cases.75 The problem of increasing numbers of applications and 72 Ibid. 124. 73 See Arold Lorenz et al. 2013, 65. While there are some similarities in the legal cultures of both institutions, there are also significant differences. The ECtHRas separate legal system is common law rather than civil law. While founded on the Convention text of the 1950s, the judges’ work is the constant interpretation of the Convention’s meaning today, heavily influenced by the body of case law. Compared to theEUwith all its legislation, the Convention is supplemented by the use of ECtHRcase law. The treatment of precedent, argument, and the individual responsibility of the judges in freely concurring or dissenting opinion is more common law than civil law, and also allows for legal creativity. TheCJEU’s structure is of the civil law model, with high law density (all European legislation), and precedents used for coherency of case law. 74 Speech by Koen Lenaerts, in European Court of Human Rights, Annual Report 2018 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe 2019, 35, www.echr.coe.int. 75 In 2018, the ECtHRdelivered 1,014 judgements with a backlog of 56,350 pending applications at the end of the year (see ibid. 161). Almost half of all judgements in 2018 concerned three states – Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine. From the pending applications most were lodged against Russia (20.9%) and Romania (15.1%). See European Court of Human Rights, The European Court of Human Rights in Facts and Figures 2018, Council of Europe 2019, 3, 5, www.echr.coe.int. 317 In my view, there is no better way to improve the protection of fundamental rights at European level than to enhance citizens’ trust and confidence in their two European Courts, by showing they share the same values and work together, to the benefit of all Europeans.75
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=