Working document in view of the 3 DH-SYSC-I meeting

Strasbourg, 10 February 2017
STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
(CDDH)
DH-SYSC-I(2017)010
______
COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON THE SYSTEM OF THE EUROPEAN
CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
(DH-SYSC)
______
DRAFTING GROUP I ON THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE CDDH REPORT ON
THE LONGER-TERM FUTURE OF THE SYSTEM OF THE CONVENTION
(DH-SYSC-I)
_____
Working document in view of the 3 rd DH-SYSC-I meeting
(prepared by the Secretariat)
_____

2 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3
I. THE SELECTION PROCEDURE ...................................................................... 9
A. National selection procedures ........................................................................... 9
B. The selection criteria ........................................................................................ 12
C. The role of the Advisory Panel in the selection and election process .......... 19
D. The interpretation of the criteria .................................................................... 26
II. THE ELECTION PROCESS ............................................................................. 28
A. The procedure ................................................................................................... 28
B. Challenges ......................................................................................................... 30
C. Responses within the framework of the existing structures ......................... 31
D. Alternative models of appointment outside the existing structures ............ 35
III.
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKING CONDITIONS
AT THE COURT ............................................................................................... 37
A. Challenges ......................................................................................................... 37
B. The conditions of employment: possible responses within the framework of
the existing structures .............................................................................................. 38
C. Working conditions at the Court: possible responses within the framework
of the existing structures ......................................................................................... 40
IV. AD HOC JUDGES ............................................................................................ 41
A. Challenges ......................................................................................................... 41
B. Responses within the framework of the existing structures ......................... 42
Appendix I ................................................................................................................. 44
Selection of candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human
Rights: procedure and selection criteria in member States .........................................
Appendix II ............................................................................................................... 78
Excerpt from the 2 nd Activity Report of the Advisory Panel of experts on candidates .
for election as judge to the European Court of Human Rights (February 2016) ........
Appendix III .............................................................................................................. 83
Tables on the recognition of service as a judge of the Court .......................................

3
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
INTRODUCTION
The work of the DH-SYSC: terms of reference and methodology in light of the DH-SYSC
and the CDDH decisions
1. The importance of the quality of judges has been emphasised on many occasions,
in particular in the Declarations adopted at the Interlaken, Izmir, Brighton and Brussels
Conferences as well as by all actors involved in the process. “The authority of the Court
is vital for its effectiveness and for the viability of the Convention system as a whole.
These are contingent on the quality, cogency and consistency of the Court’s judgments,
and the ensuing acceptance thereof by all actors of the Convention system, 1 including
governments, parliaments, domestic courts, applicants and the general public as a
whole”, 2 as the CDDH recently noted in its report on the longer-term future of the system
of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the CDDH report”). 3 In this report, the
CDDH concluded:
“A central challenge for the long-term effectiveness of the system is to ensure
that the judges of the Court enjoy the highest authority in national and
international law. A comprehensive approach examining all parameters
regarding the selection and election process, including all factors that might
discourage possible candidates from applying, is needed. The CDDH concludes
that all the above considerations and possible measures to be taken deserve a
further in-depth analysis that should be conducted as a follow-up to this report.
As noted above, this follow-up may result in responses outside the existing
structures.” 4
2. In its comments 5 on the CDDH report, the Court “note[d] the conclusion that a
thorough analysis of all these points is needed […] and expressed the wish to be closely
associated with such an exercise. The experience that sitting judges have had with the
procedure, and their thoughts on improvements, will be an important element in the
review”.
3. At their 1252 nd meeting, the Ministers’ Deputies welcomed the report of the
CDDH, took note of the Court’s comments on the report, and agreed on its follow-up.
The Deputies “deemed it essential that the judges of the Court enjoy the highest authority
in national and international law and to this end instructed the CDDH to examine, while
securing the participation of the Court and all other relevant actors concerned, the whole
selection and election process, including all factors that might discourage possible
1 In the solemn hearing for the opening of the judicial year of the European Court of Human Rights, the
former President of the Court noted: “We face a constant challenge as regards the acceptability of our
decisions”, opening speech, President Dean Spielmann, 30 January 2015.
2 CDDH(2013)R79, Addendum II, § 1.
3 § 96.
4 § 203 i).
5 Doc. #5281071, § 5.

4 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
candidates from applying, in the light of conclusion § 203 i) and the relevant paragraphs
of the report;”
4. This work was entrusted by the CDDH to the Committee of experts on the system
of the European Convention on Human Rights (DH-SYSC). It was further decided that
the preparatory work would be carried out by a first Drafting Group of the DH-SYSC
(DH-SYSC-I) that would meet from 29 June to 1 st July 2016, from 19 to 21 October 2016
and from 27 February to 1 st March 2017.
5. The current process of selection and election of judges at the Court comprises a
number of actors, namely the States Parties and the Advisory Panel of Experts on
Candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human Rights (“the Advisory
Panel”) as regards the national selection procedure and the Parliamentary Assembly
(“PACE” or “the Assembly”) and its Committee on the Election of Judges to the
European Court of Human Rights as regards the election procedure. On 26 April 2016,
the DH-SYSC held an exchange of views with all actors concerned, in the Council of
Europe, by the selection and election process of judges of the Court, namely the
Parliamentary Assembly, represented by Mr Wojciech SAWICKI, Secretary General of
the Parliamentary Assembly, accompanied by Mr Andrew DRZEMCZEWSKI, former
Head of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Department; the Registry of the European
Court of Human Rights, represented by Mr Roderick LIDDELL, Registrar of the Court,
and the Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judges to the Court,
represented by Mr John MURRAY, Chairperson, accompanied by Mr Jörg
POLAKIEWICZ, Director of Legal Advice and Public International Law.
6. The Committee gave the following guidance to the DH-SYSC-I with a view to its
1 st meeting (29 June – 1 st July 2016): 6
- consider all the parameters of the selection and election process in light of the
CDDH report on the longer term future of the Convention system while
preserving the credibility of the Court. The situation of judges of the Court
once their term of office has expired will as well be considered, also in light
of information provided by member States 7 ;
- take into consideration a) the work and reflections of all actors concerned,
including good practices developed and outstanding challenges, while
ensuring the appropriate level of confidentiality and b) the previous work
carried out by the CDDH including the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group
on national practices for the selection of candidates for the post of judge at
the European Court of Human Rights (CDDH-SC);
6 See doc. DH-SYSC (2016)R1, §7.
7 In March 2014, following concerns expressed by the President of the Court, the Ministers’ Deputies
adopted a number of decisions on the recognition of service as a judge of the Court. They called upon
States Parties to address appropriately the situation of judges of the Court once their term of office has
expired and invited them to provide any relevant information on the follow-up given to this decision. Some
member States have provided information on this issue. The Committee of Ministers’ decision of 30 March
2016 on the CDDH report on the longer term future of the Convention system covers also this question.

5
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
- examine the procedures and practices of selection/election of judges in other
international and regional courts and in highest national courts;
- examine possible measures to respond to the challenges identified with an
inclusive approach (i.e. without excluding responses that would require an
amendment to the Convention) while focusing on practical solutions
improving the current system. This work should involve a feasibility study.
7. This guidance was endorsed by the CDDH at its 85 th meeting (15 – 17 June
2016). 8 The CDDH was also informed of the exchange of views held by the DH-SYSC
with all actors concerned invited to its meeting and further underlined that:
- the working methods of the DH-SYSC I should correspond to those which
are normally followed by the other groups working under the CDDH or the
DH-SYSC;
- the DH-SYSC asked the DH-SYSC I to take into consideration the work
and reflections of all the actors concerned, while ensuring the appropriate
level of confidentiality. The Chair of the Group and the Secretariat will
ensure this, notably when drafting the meeting reports but all the
participants to this work also bear responsibility for this;
- States that wish to participate in the work of the DH-SYSC-I are invited to
appoint an experienced representative.
Towards the second meeting of the DH-SYSC-I: additional guidance and working
methods decided
8. The first meeting of the DH-SYSC-I was held on 29 June – 1 st July 2016 with Mr
Vít A. SCHORM (Czech Republic) in the Chair. The Group elected Mr Morten RUUD
(Norway) as its Vice-Chairperson.
9. The Group held an exchange of views on all aspects addressed in the working
document DH-SYSC-I(2016)003, 9 presenting all the steps of the process of
selection/election, the work and reflections of all relevant actors concerned (including the
previous work carried out by the CDDH), a comparative study of the practices of
selection and election of judges in other international and regional courts, as well as
references to relevant academic work. The document was intended to be used as a basis
for the first meeting of the Group, which was expected to be a brainstorming meeting and
to give pointers on the decisions to be taken on working methods and on the substance
with a view to the continuation of its work. The Group also held an exchange of views
with Mr Jörg POLAKIEWICZ, Director of Legal Advice and Public International Law
regarding the functioning of the Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as
8 See doc. CDDH(2016)R85, §§ 4 and 13.
9 Prepared in light of the guidance of the DH-SYSC (doc. DH-SYSC(2016)R1, § 8).

6 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
Judge to the Court on the occasion of the Second activity report of the Advisory Panel
which became public on 24 June 2016 (doc. Advisory Panel(2016)1).
10. After completion of its work, the DH-SYSC-I instructed the Secretariat to prepare
a new working document in view of the 2 nd meeting of the Group, in accordance with the
aforementioned guidelines drawn up by the DH-SYSC and endorsed by the CDDH. The
Group agreed that all the themes and subthemes covered in the working document DH-
SYSC-I(2016)003 should be addressed taking into account the elements raised during the
meeting. The Secretariat should maintain a degree of latitude with regard to the final
structure of the document in so far as all the questions are intrinsically linked.
11. For the purpose of preparing the working document that would be presented at the
next meeting of the Group (19–21 October), the DH-SYSC-I set a procedure and a
calendar. Furthermore, the DH-SYSC-I considered that it could also be useful to obtain
information regarding the various opinions and experiences, positive or negative,
concerning the national processes of selection of the candidates for the post of judge at
the Court and of election of the judges of the Court. It was noted that without at least
trying to ascertain to which extent the factors pre-identified in the CDDH report on the
longer-term future of the system of the Convention, that seem to discourage potential
candidates for the post of judge at the Court, correspond to reality, the Group would
simply stick to hypotheses. While noting the difficulty of this exercise, the Drafting
Group indicated that the request for information should be made by national experts in
accordance with the appropriate methods chosen by each expert. The modalities
regarding the request for information and its submission were laid down in Appendix III
of the report of the first meeting.
12. Before the 2 nd meeting, information was received from some member States on
the taking into account of the Guidelines on the selection of candidates at national level,
the recognition of service as a judge of the Court and possible relevant national practices
concerning the selection of the judges in the highest national courts, as well as from the
Representative of the Registry of the Court on certain questions raised during the first DH-
SYSC-I meeting (see document DH-SYSC-I(2016)005).
13. Regarding the call for opinions and experiences concerning the national processes
of selection of the candidates for the post of judge at the Court and of election of the
judges of the Court, elements were received directly from individuals or transmitted to
the Secretariat by national experts. The following contributions appear in the document
DH-SYSC-I(2016)006 Restricted:
- 4 contributions from individuals whose profile corresponds to the post of judge at
the European Court of Human Rights but do not wish to be candidates, more
particularly with regard to the factors that might discourage them;
- 4 contributions from individuals who were candidates for the post of judge at the
Court but were not retained in the national selection procedure;

7
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
- 3 contributions from individuals who were candidates for the post of judge at the
Court but were not elected following the procedure conducted before the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe;
- 3 contributions from former judges of the Court;
- 4 contributions from judges of highest national courts without indication of the
category under which they fall.
14. As agreed by the DH-SYSC-I, the Secretariat ensured the anonymity of this
information as well as the absence of any elements enabling the identification of the State
or the persons concerned.
15. At its second meeting (19–21 October 2016), the Group held an exchange of
views with Mr Wojciech SAWICKI, Secretary General to the Parliamentary Assembly,
accompanied by Mr Günter SCHIRMER, Head of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights
Department of the Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly. As instructed by the
Group, the Secretariat drafted a summary of this exchange of views (doc. DH-SYSC-I
(2016)008)), which was transmitted to the Committee of Experts on the System of the
European Convention on Human Rights (DH-SYSC) before its 2 nd meeting (8–10
November 2016).
16. The Representative of the Registry of the Court informed the DH-SYSC-I that the
Court’s Status Committee will meet in view of the drafting of its contribution to this
work, on the basis of all the reference documents examined by the Drafting Group. This
contribution will be submitted to the Court sitting in plenary session with a view to its
transmission in due course to the DH-SYSC-I before its 3 rd meeting (27 February–1 st
March 2017).
17. At its second meeting, the Drafting Group proceeded to the examination of all the
questions addressed in the working document DH-SYSC-I(2016)007. It decided to bring
to the attention of the DH-SYSC the decisions appearing in Appendix III of its meeting
report (doc. DH-SYSC-I (2016)R2) so as to gather its approval or possible guidance.
Towards the third meeting of the DH-SYSC-I: intermediate guidance by the Plenary
Committees
18. During its 2 nd meeting (8–10 November 2016), the DH-SYSC examined the
elements identified by the DH-SYSC-I Group during its 2 nd meeting, pronounced itself
on the four themes identified (the selection procedure, the election process, conditions of
employment and working conditions at the Court and ad hoc judges) and gave guidance
for the future work (see paragraphs 6 to 14 of the meeting report (DH-SYSC(2016)R2)).
19. The DH-SYSC instructed the Secretariat to prepare a revised version of the
working document based on comments formulated during its discussions and those from
the 2 nd meeting of DH-SYSC-I, as well as on all new contributions of experts, who were
invited to send them by Wednesday 14 December 2016, and of all the actors concerned.

8 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
20. During its 86 th meeting, the CDDH welcomed the results of the work to date and
endorsed the guidance given by the DH-SYSC to the DH-SYSC-I. Furthermore, it
responded positively to the request to hold a 4 th meeting of the DH-SYSC-I (18–20
October 2017) given the importance of the work for the system of the Convention as well
as their scope. During the discussion in the CDDH, the Chair of the DH-SYSC-I stressed
that it is important that States that wish to participate in the work of the DH-SYSC-I
appoint an experienced representative.
21. The present working document followed the above-mentioned guidance and was
drafted in light of the comments and the guidance given by the DH-SYSC, the comments
formulated at the 2 nd meeting of the DH-SYSC-I, as well as of new contributions
received from experts and all actors concerned. As of 8 February 2017, 4 contributions
were received; they appear in doc. DH-SYSC-I (2017)009. The contribution of the Court
is expected. The latter would determine the examination of certain proposed responses,
not least those related to conditions of employment of judges as well as their working
conditions. The present document will be subject to comments in accordance with the
procedure set up by the DH-SYSC. 10
22. The structure of the present document follows the guidance reiterated by the
Plenary Committee at its 2 nd meeting, 11 namely to “examine possible measures to
respond to the challenges identified with an inclusive approach (i.e. without excluding
responses that would require an amendment to the Convention) while focusing on
practical solutions improving the current system. This work should involve a feasibility
study.” The Committee however specified that the final report resulting from the Group’s
work should contain a comprehensive analysis of the themes, including the examination
of alternative models. Consequently each part presents the challenges identified and the
responses that could be given within the framework of the existing structures as well as
possible reforms outside the framework of the existing structures. In line with the
approach followed by the CDDH report on the longer-term future of the Convention
system, for the purposes of the present analysis, the possible responses that are presented
outside the framework of the existing structures are the ones that might presuppose the
creation of a new mechanism or a new function carried out by an existing mechanism, or
the elimination of an existing mechanism. As noted in the CDDH report, the distinction
between proposals requiring or not requiring amendment of the Convention was not
relevant for present purposes as certain proposals are not related to the Court’s
procedures. However the present document specifies which responses would require an
amendment to the Convention. 12
23. It is again recalled that the examination of the different parts should take into
account the fact that all angles and steps of the process form an aggregate where all parts
10 See doc. DH-SYSC (2016)R2, § 15: “As regards the organisation of future work, the Committee decided
[that] […]. Experts will be invited to comment on this draft by Wednesday 22 February 2017, so that the
comments can be transmitted in due course to the DH-SYSC-I before its 3 rd meeting.”
11 See doc. DH-SYSC (2016)R2, §6; see also CDDH(2016)R85, §§ 4 and 13 and doc. DH-SYSC(2016)R1,
§ 7.
12 As requested by the CDDH Bureau at its 96 th meeting, see doc. CDDH-BU (2016)R96, § 7 ii).

9
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
are interlinked. The decisions on possible responses to one particular challenge faced
should not lose sight of its bearing on other parts of the process and the aim of the present
exercise, which is to seek how to ensure that the best possible candidates apply, are
selected, and elected as judges of the European Court of Human Rights.
I. THE SELECTION PROCEDURE
A. National selection procedures
Challenges
24. During the 1 st meeting of the DH-SYSC-I, certain experts noted that national
selection procedures may be considered as the most important part of the process. If
candidates of “the highest possible quality” 13 are put in the national list, there would be
no concerns about the outcome of the procedure so as to ensure that the best possible
candidates are elected as judges to the Court. 14
25. National selection procedures have occupied the intergovernmental and
parliamentary work until not so long ago. Over the years, the Parliamentary Assembly
has used its direct practical experience to develop a body of recommendations to States
Parties concerning national procedures for the selection of candidates for the post of
judge at the Court. 15 The Parliamentary Assembly, in its Resolution 1646 (2009),
“referring to its Recommendation 1649 (2004) on candidates for the European Court of
Human Rights, [...] yet again reiterates that the process of nominating candidates to the
Court must reflect the principles of democratic procedure, transparency and nondiscrimination.
In the absence of a real choice among the candidates submitted by a State
Party to the Convention, the Assembly shall reject lists submitted to it. In addition, in the
absence of a fair, transparent and consistent national selection procedure, the Assembly
may reject such lists”. In that Resolution, it was also called upon member States, when
submitting the names of candidates to the Assembly, to describe the manner in which
they were selected (§ 4.2).
26. Many of these recommendations have been incorporated into the Committee of
Ministers’ Guidelines on the selection of candidates for the post of judge at the European
13 See the Preamble of the Committee of Ministers’ Guidelines on the selection of candidates for the post of
judge at the European Court of Human Rights of 28 March 2012.
14 See also the opening address of the former President of the Parliamentary Assembly and current member
of the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights (the AS/Cdh) at the
High-Level Conference on “the Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, our shared
responsibility” (“the Brussels Conference”) held in Brussels on 26-27 March 2015, Proceedings of the
Brussels Conference, p. 20: “If the findings of the Strasbourg Court are to be recognised as authoritative –
in particular by their peers at the domestic level – the Assembly must be in a position to elect judges with
appropriate stature and experience. Hence, it is – I submit – not only necessary to ensure national selection
procedures which are rigorous, fair and transparent […]”.
15 See doc. Procedure for electing judges to the European Court of Human Rights – Information document
prepared by the Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly – Committee on the election of judges to the
Court, AS/CdH/(2017) 01 rev 2.
.

10 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
Court of Human Rights (“the Guidelines”) 16 that had been prepared by the CDDH
through its Ad hoc Working Group on national procedures for the selection of candidates
for the post of judge at the European Court of Human Rights (CDDH-SC). The
Guidelines as well as the examples of good practice that accompany them apply to
national procedures for the selection of candidates for the post of judge at the European
Court of Human Rights. They are intended to cover all stages of this procedure, including
the establishment of the procedure, the identification of criteria applicable to the
inclusion of candidates on a list, the composition and procedures of the selection body
responsible for recommending candidates to the final decision-maker and the role of the
final decision-maker. They apply prior to presentation of a proposed list of candidates to
the Advisory Panel and thus also before submission of the list to the Parliamentary
Assembly. The Guidelines also provide that “[t]he High Contracting Parties are requested
to submit information about the national selection procedures to the Panel when
transmitting the names and curricula vitae of the candidates” (new Part VI).
27. However, it appears that important challenges persist. During the exchange of
views held at the 1 st DH-SYSC meeting, on 26 April 2016, it was more than evident that
the national selection procedures remain among the most crucial issues of the present
reflection. It is further recalled 17 that during the elaboration of the CDDH report it was
also put forward that the quality of lists has not been adequate in a number of cases and
that small States face particular difficulties in establishing a list, even more so, if they try
to do it with their own nationals. Certain contributions received in the framework of the
DH-SYSC-I work concurred with that conclusion. Concerns have been put forward
regarding practices that depart from the above-mentioned Guidelines, such as the lack of
confidentiality in certain instances, which may be harmful for the reputation of
candidates and a deterring factor to apply; the insufficient motivation of the selection
decision; the lack of hearings; the political influence (or the appearance thereof) in the
selection committee or in the decision making process.
28. On the other hand, during the 1 st DH-SYSC-I meeting and in certain written
national contributions received, recent good practices have been put forward. They
concern in particular the establishment and composition of national selection bodies,
which for many experts are at the heart of the selection procedure. Those bodies
guarantee the legitimacy of the selection process and the credibility of the candidates.
Other practices aim to contain the political influence in the selection process.
Possible responses within the framework of the existing structures
29. It should be recalled that follow up work was envisaged by the CDDH. As noted
in the CDDH report, the Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly Committee on the
Election of Judges to the European Court had confirmed its readiness to participate in any
review of national selection procedures in co-operation with the CDDH. Consideration
could also be given to carrying out such work in co-operation with the Secretariat of the
16 See doc. CM(2012)40, 29 March 2012, as amended on 26 November 2014.
17 Contribution by Mr Christoph Grabenwarter, doc. GT-GDR-F(2014)018, also reproduced in doc. DH-
SYSC-I(2016)001, pp. 2–6.

11
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
Advisory Panel. 18 This follow-up work should bear in mind that as noted by certain
experts during the 1 st meeting of the DH-SYSC-I, it is necessary to preserve the
particularities of the national system.
30. To facilitate this work, on the basis of the information at its disposal, 19 the
Secretariat had prepared a table with the most recent data available per country. This
table appears in Appendix I to the present document.
31. As regards the national selection procedures, the DH-SYSC endorsed the
conclusions of the Drafting Group. Furthermore, it underlined the importance of the full
implementation of the Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers on the selection of
candidates for the post of judge at the European Court of Human Rights and agreed upon
the following:
(i)
(ii)
In light of the information related to the national selection procedures
appearing in Appendix I of the working document DH-SYSC-I(2016)007,
the Committee decided, as had been envisaged by the CDDH, 20 that followup
work should be conducted.
This follow-up should take into account the fact that it is necessary to
preserve the particularities of the national system. A first step could be to
update the examples of good practices of the Guidelines of the Committee
of Ministers on the selection of candidates for the post of judge at the
European Court of Human Rights.
(iii) The update of the guidelines or the elaboration of a recommendation stating
the essential characteristics which every national selection procedure should
present could constitute an additional step, if it is found necessary.
32. This follow-up remains within the existing structures and does not require any
amendment to the Convention. It could be noted to this effect that in view of a first
analysis by the Secretariat of the tables mentioned in § 30, it appears that in 36 out of 47
member States the call for applications is made widely available to the public (Guideline
III.2.); the body responsible for recommending candidates is of balanced composition in
30 out of 47 member States (Guideline IV.1.); all members are able to participate equally
in this body’s decision in 14 out of 47 States (Guideline IV.4); any departure by the final
decision-maker from the selection body’s recommendation is justified in 3 out of 47
States (Guideline V.1.).
18 § 104 of the CDDH report.
19
National contributions received (doc. DH-SYSC-I(2016)005); the compilation of replies to the
questionnaire on national practices for the selection of candidates for the post of judge at the European
Court of Human Rights prepared in the framework of the work of the CDDH-SC and the Summary and
preliminary analysis of the replies to the questionnaire; the information provided by member States to
PACE with the submission of the list; the information provided in the context of the follow-up to the
Bighton Declaration (doc. DH-SYSC-I (2016)002).
20 § 104 of the CDDH report (doc. CDDH(2015)R84 Addendum I).

12 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
B. The selection criteria
33. Judges must meet the criteria for office stipulated by Article 21 of the
Convention. The criteria require judges to be of high moral character, possess the
qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office or be jurisconsults of
recognised competence, sit in their individual capacity, and not to engage in any activity
which is incompatible with their independence, impartiality or with the demands of fulltime
office.
34. The criteria as such are again examined in light of the guidance given by the DH-
SYSC with the exception of the linguistic requirement. Regarding the latter, the Plenary
Committee endorsed the conclusion of the Drafting Group and decided against any
modification of linguistic requirements, recalling that there are some indispensable
minimum requirements so that judges can be operational in an international court having
French and English as its two official languages. This matter was also addressed in the
context of the work previously carried out by the CDDH-SC. In this context, it was
recalled that there were certain unavoidable minimum requirements for judges to be
operational. It was agreed that whilst proficiency was required in one official language,
only passive knowledge – notably the ability to read and assimilate legal texts such as
Court judgments and case-notes – was required in the other. 21
The modification of the duration of the term of office
Challenges
35. The DH-SYSC agreed that the duration of the term must preserve the
independence of judges and the institutional stability of the Court. It noted that the
concerns related to the nine-year term, which could form an obstacle in the career of
younger judges, may be diluted in the framework of responses provided as regards the
recognition of service as a judge at the Court and future employment perspectives. It
considered however that the question deserves to be further explored, notably as to the
possibility to introduce an automatically renewable six-year term.
Possible responses outside the existing structures
36. It is recalled that the current non-renewable nine-year term of office for the
Court’s judges was introduced by Protocol No. 14 to “reinforce their independence and
impartiality, as desired notably by the Parliamentary Assembly in its Recommendation
1649 (2004)”. 22 This change echoed the conclusion of the Evaluation Group to the
Committee of Ministers on the European Court of Human Rights that “the Convention
should be amended so as to lay down that judges of the Court are elected for a single,
fixed term, without possibility of re-election. This term should not be less than nine
years. The effect of these changes would be to ensure continuity within the Court and,
21 See doc. CDDH-SC(2016)R2, § 3.
22 § 50 of the explanatory report of Protocol No. 14 to the ECHR.

13
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
moreover, to offer a further guarantee of the Court’s independence.” 23 Long renewable
terms are also common practice in a number of constitutional court judges.
37. It is against this background that the possible changes to the current term of
office, that would require an amendment to the Convention, need to be considered. The
introduction of a renewable term would go against the aforementioned rationale of
Article 23§1 of the Convention. The question still remains as to the duration of the said
term. During the meeting of the DH-SYSC, it was mentioned again that the term could be
shorter (e.g. 7 years as envisaged by certain contributions received following the “open
call”), but it was noted that the concerns for potential candidates, who are in the middle
of their career, to apply for the post of judge, could indeed be diluted in the framework of
responses provided as regards the recognition of service as a judge at the Court and
future employment perspectives (see below, part III. B.). On the other hand, it was
argued that a nine-year term of office is too short for the Court to develop a real
institutional expertise and for judges to develop a genuine career at the Court. The
question of a longer term (e.g. a twelve-year term of office) 24 would require a further
discussion at the 3 rd meeting of the Drafting Group. The examination should take into
account the Protocol No. 15 parameters: when Protocol No. 15 will enter into force,
judges will be able to serve until the age of 74 (article 2 of the Protocol).
A minimum age for candidates
Challenges
38. The DH-SYSC noted that the formal introduction of a minimum age for
candidates does not seem to be envisaged in the light of the diversity of national systems.
It is however an issue of concern to be examined in connection with the necessity to
emphasise professional (judicial) experience in domestic legislation as was also noted by
the CDDH in its report on the longer-term future of the system of the Convention (doc.
CDDH(2015)R84 Addendum I, § 105). 25
Possible responses outside the existing structures
39. Indeed, the discussions in the Plenary Committee demonstrated that it would be
inappropriate to set-up an age limit that would not correspond to the reality and the needs
in all 47 States Parties even if a minimum of 40 or 45 years is a requirement for many
national highest courts. The requirement would be countered by putting emphasis on
23 Report of the Evaluation Group to the Committee of Ministers on the European Court of Human Rights,
EG Court(2001)1, §89.
24 See the contribution of Christoph Grabenwarter in the document DH-SYSC-I (2016)001.
25 As of 27 January 2017, the profiles of judges of the Court are mostly divided amongst three distinct
categories of judges, civil servants, and academics. Amongst the current 47 sitting judges at the Court, 21
have a judge profile, 13 have a background in the civil service, 7 have an academic profile, and one comes
from the sector of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Furthermore, 5 of the judges at the Court have
a mixed profile. Amongst them, 2 have a profile combining academia and civil service; one has the mixed
background of being a judge and a civil servant, while another has a background in academia and private
law firm. Finally, one judge combines all three profiles of judge, civil servant and academic.

14 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
sufficient practical (judicial) experience in domestic legislation; as noted by the CDDH in
its report and also highlighted in recent contributions following the “open call”. This
requirement is closely linked to the possession of “qualification required for appointment
to high judicial office” or to the qualification of “jurisconsult of recognized competence”
in accordance with Article 21§1 of the Convention. It should also be highlighted that the
CDDH, in its aforementioned report underlined the importance of an additional
qualification, namely the “knowledge of general international law”, and concluded that it
should be considered whether both requirements should be more clearly stipulated in the
Convention. 26
40. It should thus be considered whether a possible formalization of the importance of
both qualities would need to be made within the Convention or via a revision of the CM
Guidelines. The qualities already appear in Guideline II. 4). Regarding the specific
content of the first requirement, if it were formalized, the following should be taken into
account by the Drafting Group:
- the current Guidelines II. 2. and 4. read in conjunction with the explanation and
good practice appearing in the explanatory memorandum:
Candidates shall possess the qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office or be
jurisconsults of recognised competence.
The requirement relating to the qualifications and competence of judges of the Court is contained in Article
21 of the Convention, which is binding on States as a matter of international treaty law. This implies that
candidates must also possess these attributes. They must be professionally qualified and competent to
exercise the office of judge at the Court. This may be reflected in requirements for specific qualifications or
a certain length of experience, possibly fixed.
Examples of good practice include the following:
Applicants must have at least a Master’s degree in law and practical experience in legal affairs. They must
fulfil the criteria for judges in Estonia as set out in art. 47 of the Court’s Act (Estonia).
Applicants must show a high level of achievement and experience (Ireland).
Candidates must meet the requirements for election to judge of either the Constitutional or the Supreme
Court (Slovenia).
Candidates must meet the requirements for appointment to higher national courts or be of equivalent
professional standing (Poland, United Kingdom).
26 § 177.

15
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
Candidates need to have knowledge of the national legal system(s) and of public international law.
Practical legal experience is also desirable.
The requirement relating to candidates’ legal knowledge derives from paragraph 8.a. of the Interlaken
Declaration. Although this criterion does not supersede Article 21 of the Convention, a high level of
knowledge in these fields should be taken as an implicit requirement for candidates for judge at the Court
and relative levels of knowledge could be taken into account when choosing between applicants of
otherwise equal merits. As the judges sit on an international court playing a subsidiary role in supervising
national implementation of the Convention, it is important for them to have knowledge of both public
international law and the national legal system(s). Although the Court’s composition benefits from a range
of legal expertise, it is generally advantageous that applicants have expertise in human rights, notably the
Convention and the Court’s case-law.
Examples of good practice include the following:
Applicants must have knowledge of public international law and of the national legal system (Albania).
Applicants must possess a good knowledge of national law and a solid training and practical experience in
the field of European human rights protection (Monaco).
Applicants should in principle have judicial experience and a thorough knowledge of the Convention (the
Netherlands).
- the interpretation of the article 21§1 criterion by the Advisory Panel
“The criteria provided for in Article 21(1) ECHR, although very general in its terms, fall to be understood
and applied in the context of the Convention as a whole. The object and purpose of the Convention, as an
instrument intended to guarantee rights which are practical and effective rather than theoretical and
illusory, should accordingly be taken into account in its interpretation. The effectiveness of the Convention
is influenced by the willingness of national authorities to follow the judgments of the Court. They would
readily do so if the quality of the reasoning is high and if the reputation of the Court is beyond question.
The process of establishing and maintaining the reputation of the Court is something which occurs over the
long term and is, to a large extent, dependent on the quality and experience of the judges. The Court itself
has emphasised the importance of the quality of judges for its own authority. 27 Having as judges at the
Court persons who come from positions at a high level in the Member States obviously will have positive
repercussions for the reputation of the Court. If it were to pass, for example, that a disproportionate number
of judges were relatively young, lacking in extended experience and had not reached a prominent position
in the national judicial system or in the academic world, then acceptance of the Court’s case law may be
negatively influenced. In short, to fulfil the object and purpose of the Convention, a court should enjoy
authority and respect with national judiciaries at the highest level and in member states generally. Apart
from the importance of this for the standing and reputation of the Court as such, it also promotes a
respectful dialogue between the Court and the highest national courts. This is important for the
enforcement of Convention rights at national level in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court
which, in turn, would contribute to a reduction in the volume of cases coming before the Court.
Although the Panel has continued to reflect and examine the criteria envisaged by Article 21(1) ECHR
from different perspectives in the light of its actual experience in evaluating a large number of candidates
over the last two years, the fundamentals of the criteria to be applied, as explained in the First Activity
Report, remain essentially the same. In the broadest terms these include professional experience of long
27 See Advisory opinion on certain legal questions concerning the lists of candidates submitted with a view
to the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights (12 February 2008).

16 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
duration at a high level. The Panel endeavours to obtain a comprehensive picture of the candidates and
carries out a global assessment of all the qualities of a candidate, whatever his or her professional career
path, with a view to determining whether a candidate has an aptitude for exercising the judicial function at
a high level which is appropriate for a constitutional or international court (of which knowledge of human
rights law is only one, albeit important, component).
“Qualifications for appointment to high judicial office”: Judges of the Court can issue judgments which in
effect depart from or even implicitly overrule judgments of the highest national courts. Those courts may
nonetheless be obliged, in accordance with national laws implementing the Convention, to respect and
follow the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. The Panel has of course to base its views on
the wording of Article 21(1) ECHR, i.e. on the expression “high judicial office” (rather than “highest”).
This expression would seem to include judges who have held office in national supreme and constitutional
courts, whereas it would seem to exclude judges of lower national first-instance courts unless they
otherwise qualify as jurisconsults. The provision must be given a substantive interpretation consistent with
its purpose and not a purely formal one. Accordingly, even in the case of candidates holding office in a
highest national Court, the Panel’s view is that such persons would not, for that reason alone, be
automatically considered qualified to be candidates for election to the Court. Nonetheless, actual service
for a significant number of years on a Supreme Court should mean that a judge is qualified. The
publication of important books or articles may also be an important factor when considering a candidate’s
qualifications, in addition to long experience as a professional lawyer or significant length of judicial
service at a high level.
In this context it should be borne in mind that national judicial structures vary considerably. For example,
in some countries a person may be nominated to a Supreme Court (often consisting of many members) at a
relatively young age because of his or her innate ability, but nonetheless with limited judicial experience.
This limited experience can be accommodated in various ways in a national structure and over time the
judge will acquire standing within the national court as his or her judicial skills and experience will mature.
On the other hand, some national systems require experience as a judge of at least ten to fifteen years
minimum before being eligible for appointment to the highest court. Consistent with the global
appreciation of a candidate’s qualities, account is obviously taken of the entire judicial career of a
candidate, including whether he or she sat on a court concerned with, directly or indirectly, enforcing
human rights or complex interpretive issues of law.
The European Court of Human Rights, by its nature, status and pan-European role assumes that its
members already have, on election, all the fully developed judicial qualities that come from long
experience. It would appear unlikely to find such qualities in a candidate of a relatively young age.
However, many countries find it difficult to attract three candidates of an equally long professional
experience. 28 It is, therefore, even more important that the High Contracting Parties widely advertise calls
for candidatures at national level 29 in order to ensure to have the highest number of qualified candidates
possible.
Long professional experience is also of particular importance in an international court where its members
are elected for one fixed term of just nine years. Moreover, it takes significant time for even the most
experienced judge to induct him or herself into the practices and day to day functions of a judicial
institution such as the Court.
For present purposes the foregoing considerations have been necessarily expressed in the most general
terms, but they do indicate that High Contracting Parties when presenting a list of candidates, and the
PACE when deciding which candidate to elect as a member of the Court, should acknowledge that their
28 Another subsidiary, but nonetheless important consideration is the implications which the election of
relatively young judges to the Court of Human Rights may potentially have for judicial independence,
since he or she may, in some cases, be dependent on the national authorities of his country for the
continuation of his or her judicial career when they are still at a relatively young age at the completion of
their nine-year term at the Court.
29 See the Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers on the selection of candidates at national level.

17
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
decisions in this regard are of quite a momentous importance requiring thorough consideration so as to
ensure that candidates proposed are of mature professional experience and unquestionable qualifications
for the exercise of a high judicial function.
The Panel reiterates its concern about the low number of candidates with substantial judicial experience,
particularly in the highest courts. While the Panel has considered many excellent candidates contained in
the various lists, it continues to be disappointed at the relatively low number of candidates with long
judicial experience at a high, and in particular highest, court at national level. Obviously, those who are
judges and those who are jurisconsults play an equally important role as members of a court such as the
Court of Human Rights. It is a question of achieving a balance of background and experience. It is
convenient to explain at this point that many, if not most, of the candidates which the Panel have found not
to meet the criteria of Article 21(1) ECHR were excellent experts in the law and, no doubt, in good
standing with their professional peers but nonetheless, being at a fairly early stage of their careers, had not
yet the length or breadth of experience from which it could be said they had acquired all the judicial
qualities necessary for election. Article 21(1) ECHR is concerned with the election of persons as judges,
not simply the search for good experts. The Panel is of the view that the High Contracting Parties should
take every reasonable step possible to encourage a greater number of very experienced judges from the
highest courts to make themselves available as candidates for election to the Court
Article 21(1) ECHR also looks for “Jurisconsults of recognised competence”: In his letter to the Ministers’
Deputies, then President Jean-Paul Costa wrote: “To be a ‘jurisconsult of recognised competence’ requires
extensive experience in the practice and/or teaching of law, the latter generally entailing publication of
important academic works. One objective indication of this requirement would be the length of occupation
of a professorial chair”. Experience of working in teams at international level would be an important asset,
as judges need to be able to work in a collective body such as a court in an international environment
representing different legal traditions.
Once again, inherent in these observations, is the importance of electing to the Court persons of mature
professional experience. In accepting the description of the former President of the Court the Panel would
consider that the level of “recognised competence” of a jurist is normally reached when a person has been a
professor at a university of standing for many years and has published important works, including work
relating to the protection of human rights and the relationship between those rights and the constitutional
functions of States. Thus, being a ‘jurisconsult’ means more than just having good qualities and expertise
as a lawyer at a certain level. One may have acquired good knowledge of human rights and the Convention
by attending courses on the subject and listening to lectures. However, without long academic or other
professional experience and important publications a lawyer may fail to qualify as a “jurisconsult of
recognised competence”, notwithstanding a solid knowledge of Convention law. Very many post-graduates
of ability with modest experience would have a solid knowledge of such law. Similarly, a professor in a
relevant field of law could not be said to automatically meet the criteria of Article 21(1) ECHR if his or her
appointment was of recent origin and professional experience was limited. It would also be relevant to
identify whether such jurists have any experience in advising or appearing in cases involving the protection
of such rights or other constitutional cases before national or international tribunals.
While the experience of a jurisconsult in the field of Convention law, or fields of law relevant to it, are
highly material factors to be taken into account, it must be kept in mind that the essential qualifications to
judge Convention issues can be acquired in a number of ways other than working with such issues on a
day-to-day basis. It may be said that a professor of European and/or public international law might
normally be regarded as having competence in the field covered by the jurisdiction of the Court, even if he
or she has not specialised in human or fundamental rights and the same would be true for professors of
constitutional law. Professors in these and other fields, however, should show some real engagement
during their career with questions of human rights related to their field of law, e.g. a professor of criminal
law may have dealt with the right to freedom, rule of law, fair trial, and so forth. The selection of persons
other than professors, such as advocates, legal professionals in the public (including political) or private
domains, particularly where they have, through long experience, professional intimacy with the functioning
of courts, is also possible as long as those persons by virtue of a mature professional experience qualify as
“jurisconsults of recognised competence”.

18 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
It is also the case that a judge who may not meet the criteria of Article 21(1) ECHR as someone qualified
“for appointment to high judicial office”, may, because of a parallel academic career with important
publications in relevant fields of law, meet the criteria of jurisconsult “of recognised competence”.”
The requirement to present a list of three candidates
Challenges
41. The difficulty to present a list of three candidates of “the highest possible
quality”, mainly as regards small member States, was noted during the first discussion of
the DH-SYSC-I. The Plenary Committee decided that the question of the number of
candidates deserved further examination not only in light of the abovementioned
difficulty but in view of the examination of the system of selection and election as a
whole.
Possible responses outside the framework of the existing structures
42. The question of a one-candidate list was never discussed in the course of the
current work. The discussion of the 3 rd meeting could consider the proposal by David
Kosař 30 arguing that switching to one candidate would make the selection process easier.
He noted that the responsibilities of the relevant players would be clearer and States
could no longer blame PACE for not choosing the first best candidate. He also argued
that switching to one candidate would put pressure on the nominating government to
submit the best possible candidates and increase the chances that the top candidates
would be willing to join the contest. In addition to the necessity to amend the
Convention, this question needs to be considered not only in relation to the current
system but also in relation to alternative models regarding the election procedure (see
below § 90 onwards). As far as the current system of selection and election is concerned,
it would be necessary to consider whether the above proposal constitutes or not an
encouraging factor for candidates. Wouldn’t this option include or appear to include the
risk of privileging the preferred governmental candidate? It could be recalled that, in the
context of the current procedure, the Parliamentary Assembly attempted to respond to
such risks through the introduction of the requirement of submission of lists in an
alphabetical order, even if this is not always followed by the Gouvernement. 31
43. The introduction of the one-candidate model would change profoundly the role of
PACE 32 and would also render the examination of the quality of the national selection
30 David Kosař, “Selecting Strasbourg Judges: A Critique” in Electing Europe’s Judges, A Critical Review
of the Appointment Procedures to the European Courts, ed. Michal Bobek, Oxford University Press, 2015,
p.160.
31 Parliamentary Assembly Recommendations 1429 (1999) and 1649 (2004) and the Appendix to
Resolution 1432 (2005).
32 David Kosař, see footnote 30: “It would no longer have a real choice. It would become a veto gate”.

19
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
procedure a crucial element of the process and a precondition of the decision to be taken
on the candidate. 33
44. The two-candidate model was discussed for the first time during the DH-SYSC
meeting. Certain experts noted that this model could overcome the difficulty to find three
qualified candidates, raise the level of competition and allow the presentation of the most
qualified ones. On the other hand, it was argued that the pluralistic element of the twocandidate
model list would, in fact, be artificial in light of the gender requirement. The
list would in fact be a list of two sexes, unless the possibility to derogate from this rule in
the presence of exceptional circumstances would apply also in this instance.
45. The introduction of one of the above models would require an amendment of the
Convention. It could be recalled that the current model of three candidates, had initially
found support in the Drafting Group. 34 During the discussions, it was noted that the
model constitutes a guarantee for the independence of the list. The discussion on the
various models could also take into consideration the possibility without changing the
Convention, to present a list < 3 when a member State advances exceptional
circumstances rendering impossible to present three sufficiently qualified candidates (see
also below under the election process). The possibility that the Drafting Group seeks the
advice of the Directorate of Legal Advice and Public International Law on the modalities
of this option and the necessity to amend the Convention could be considered.
C. The role of the Advisory Panel in the selection and election process
Challenges
46. On 10 November 2010, the Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
CM/Res(2010)26 on the establishment of an Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates
for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Advisory Panel”). 35
Referring to “the responsibility of the High Contracting Parties to the Convention to
33 See mutatis mutandis, the report by Christopher Chope (United-Kingdom, EKG): “Nomination of
candidates and election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights”, Doc. 11767, 01 December
2008, § 28: “When the Sub-Committee on the Election of Judges interviews candidates, it does so in
alphabetical order, without taking into account the reasons (if provided) for the order of preference. In my
view, it may be useful for the Sub-Committee to take cognisance of the national preference, in particular if
the national selection procedure has been open and fair, and if it has been carried out objectively by an
independent body. Under these conditions, the Assembly’s task could become easier, as it might indeed be
inclined to follow the proposal of the government concerned. To sum up, member states should be able,
when submitting their lists of candidates to the Assembly, to indicate their preference and describe the
national selection procedure followed; provided the Sub-Committee is satisfied that this procedure is fair
and transparent, it should be able to take the national preference into account when formulating its
recommendations”.
34 See report of the 2 nd meeting, doc. DH-SYSC (2016)R2, Appendix III, I. 3 iv).
35 The panel is composed of seven personalities. The current members are: Mr John Murray –
Chairperson (Ireland); Ms Nina Vajic – Vice-chairperson (Croatia); Mr Matti Pellonpää (Finland); Mr
Jean-Paul Costa (France);Mr Christoph Grabenwarter (Austria); Ms Lene Pagter Kristensen (Denmark);
Ms Maria Gintowt-Jankowicz (Poland).

20 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
ensure a fair and transparent national selection procedure”, the Committee of Ministers
stated its conviction that “the establishment of a Panel of Experts mandated to advise on
the suitability of candidates that the member States intend to put forward for office as
judges of the Court would constitute an adequate mechanism in this regard”. This
underlines the fact that the principal role of the Advisory Panel is to provide advice to
States Parties during the process of selection of candidates. According to the Resolution,
the Advisory Panel’s mandate is confidentially to advise the States Parties whether
candidates for election as judges to the Court meet the criteria stipulated in Article 21 of
the Convention.
47. The CDDH’s 2013 report on the review of the functioning of the Advisory Panel
notably addressed procedural questions, the interaction between the various stakeholders
involved in the process, the reasons for the Panel’s opinions and the confidentiality of the
process. There was a general agreement that the work of the Advisory Panel is a useful
additional safeguard to guarantee that proposed candidates for the post of judge at the
Court are of the highest standards. 36 The report was commented upon by the Court. 37
Following the submission of the report, the Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
CM/Res(2014)44 amending Resolution CM/Res(2010)26 to take account of some of the
recommendations made by the CDDH. 38 It also amended the Guidelines, specifying that
the High Contracting Parties should submit their list of candidates to the Parliamentary
Assembly after having obtained the Advisory Panel’s opinion on the candidates’
suitability to fulfil the requirements under the Convention.
48. The Advisory Panel adopted its first activity report for the period 2010–2013 on
11 December 2013. 39 The second Activity Report for the period 2014–2015 of 25
February 2016 was made public on 24 June 2016. 40
49. From the practical experience deriving from the second activity report as well
from the views brought forward in the context of the drafting of the CDDH report on the
longer-term future of the Convention system, 41 it appears that the Panel is facing
challenges regarding its role in the selection procedure.
‣ The opinions are not always followed: among the 17 lists examined by the Panel
in 2014-2015, in six cases, the candidates were maintained in the list despite a
negative opinion by the Panel;
36 Document CDDH(2013)R79, Addendum II, § 55.
37 Document DD(2014)513, 16/04/2014.
38 Explicit mention to the Committee of Ministers’ Guidelines on the selection of candidates for the post of
judge at the European Court of Human Rights and recommendation to submit the lists of candidates to the
Advisory Panel at least three months before the time-limit set by PACE for submission of the list of
candidates, see §§ 38 and 48 of the CDDH report on the review of the functioning of the Advisory Panel.
39 Activity Report of the Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judge to the Court
(2010–2013), Document Advisory Panel (2013)12 EN; in line also with the CDDH comments on the
perceived lack of visibility (§ 50 of the CDDH 2013 report).
40 2 nd Activity Report of the Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judge to the Court
(2014-2015), document Advisory Panel(2016)1.
41 Contribution by Mr Christoph Grabenwarter, doc. GT-GDR-F(2014)018, also reproduced in doc. DH-
SYSC-I (2016)001, pp. 2–6.

21
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
‣ The difficulty to decide on borderline cases without an interview despite the
possibility to ask for additional information. The Panel members recognised that
while an exchange of information, as well as the transmission of opinions, may
be, and is, carried out effectively in writing, a meaningful and fruitful exchange of
views can, in certain circumstances, only take place during a meeting. This has
been especially so in cases of complex matters, such as the criteria for the
assessment of candidates’ qualifications, the relationship with the other
stakeholders in the election procedure or the examination of lists of candidates
which give rise to exceptional difficulties. The Panel has not and does not propose
to organise meetings at regular intervals, but only if it is justified both in terms of
the workload and the importance of the issues to be discussed. In most cases, the
Panel members have reached their final views exclusively through written
procedure. Occasionally, conference calls have been organised, for example, to
discuss additional information provided by a government or the curricula vitae of
a replacement candidate. 42
‣ The lack of financial means for a proper functioning of the Panel; for the time
being it does not have sufficient means in case regular meetings should be held.
Budgetary appropriation for the Panel in the Council of Europe’s ordinary budget
for 2014-2015 amounted to €18,400 per year. This amount roughly covered the
costs of two meetings. The Directorate of Legal Advice and Public International
Law provides secretariat services to the Panel in addition to its statutory functions
and without any compensation. The unprecedented workload in 2014-2015 could
only be dealt with effectively thanks to additional budgetary resources provided
from the Court’s budget which allowed the short-term recruitment of a temporary
lawyer. 43
50. The work of the Advisory Panel was discussed by the Drafting Group and the
Plenary Committee. The DH-SYSC has not retained the proposal of making the opinion
delivered by the Panel binding, deeming it would go against the advisory nature of the
Panel. The DH-SYSC agreed upon the following:
(i) As regards the Panel’s intervention, all avenues should be explored. Some experts
were in favour of the position of the DH-SYSC-I for the reinforcement of the role
of the Panel in selection processes at the national level, if need be, by means of
revision of the Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers on the selection of
candidates at national level in order to specify that the consultation of the Panel is
an integral part of the selection process by national authorities before the
transmission of the list to the Parliamentary Assembly. Other experts envisaged a
different role for the Panel, which could (also) exercise its advisory function
within the Parliamentary Assembly. The Committee considered that in the
framework of the analysis to be carried out, all pros and cons of the above options
for the entire process should be examined.
42 See the 2 nd Activity Report of the Advisory Panel, § 28.
43 See the 2 nd Activity Report of the Advisory Panel, § 32.

22 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
(ii) The Committee would like to explore the possibility for the Panel to interview
candidates if this is deemed necessary. It has been however argued that it would
multiply the amount of interviews held and thereby prolong the selection process
of candidates.
51. The present document examines the role(s) of the Panel in light of this guidance,
taking into account the two contributions received by Belgium and Estonia, dealing
specifically with this role. Three responses can thus be designed for the Panel. It appears
that none of them would require an amendment to the Convention but to Resolution
CM/Res(2010)26, as amended in 2014, as well as to the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.
The specific issue of the questions asked by the Panel to Governments is addressed under
D. below.
Responses within the framework of the existing structures: enhancement of the current
procedure of the Advisory Panel
52. During the discussion at the DH-SYSC, certain experts confirmed the conclusions
reached by the CDDH in 2013 (see § 47 above), namely that that the existence of the
Advisory Panel has had a positive impact on the improvement of the national selection
procedure. The idea of a participation of the Panel in the national selection interview was
rejected during the discussion in the DH-SYSC. It was however argued that it could be
useful to explore a more enhanced interaction between the Government and the Panel
before reaching the final decision. It could also be useful to receive more information as
to the transparency of the procedure vis a vis the candidate.
53. As regards the possibility to hold interviews by the Advisory Panel, it appears a
priori that this could add an additional discouraging factor for candidates and could be
counterbalanced by its participation in the Assembly Procedure (see option b) below). As
noted by the Drafting Group at its 2 nd meeting, the possibility for the Panel to interview
candidates in exceptional circumstances could be considered as discriminatory towards
other potential candidates, or as going against the principle of respecting the
confidentiality of the process. It has also been argued that it would multiply the amount
of interviews held and thereby prolong the selection process of candidates.
54. A last but crucial question is that of Governments not submitting the list to the
Panel before its submission to the Assembly. Recent incidents have been brought to the
DH-SYSC attention whereby the lists were submitted to both instances almost
simultaneously or by completely circumventing the Advisory Panel. Those lists were
rejected by the Assembly. The above suggests that there is a need, shared by the Drafting
Group as well as by some experts in the DH-SYSC, to render the consultation of the
Panel an integral part of the selection process by national authorities before the
transmission of the list to the Parliamentary Assembly. This could be achieved by a
revision of Guideline VI.1. of the Guidelines that reads as follows: “the High Contacting
Parties should submit their list of candidates to the Parliamentary Assembly after having
obtained the Advisory Panel’s opinion on the candidates’ suitability to fulfill the
requirements under the Convention”. The amendment could indicate that without the

23
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
consultation of the Panel, the list would be automatically rejected. On the other hand,
given that the question lies within the Assembly’s competence, another option could be
that the latter consider revising its Rules of Procedure to this effect.
Possible responses outside the existing structures
a) The creation of an additional function: an advisory role to the Assembly
55. The communication with the Assembly is regulated by CM/Resolution (2010)26
which provides that “when a list of three candidates nominated by a High Contracting
Party is being considered in accordance with Article 22 of the European Convention on
Human Rights, the Panel shall make available to the Parliamentary Assembly in writing
its views as to whether the candidates meet the criteria stipulated in Article 21§1 of the
Convention. Such information shall be confidential.” From the data available in the
second activity report of the Panel, it is noted that, despite the negative views of the Panel
in six cases, the candidates were maintained on the list. The PACE rejected only one of
those lists and accepted all others. In two cases, candidates who in the Panel’s view, did
not fulfil the criteria of Article 21§1 of the Convention were recommended by the
Committee on the Election of Judges.
56. The merits of the cooperation between both instances is shared by the President of
the Advisory Panel as well as by the Secretary General of the Assembly. 44 During the
discussions in the DH-SYSC, it appeared that there was a general consensus for an
enhanced interaction between both of them. The possibility for the Advisory Panel to
explain its views on the candidates to the PACE Committee on Election of Judges would
in fact add an oral component to the existing arrangements and could contribute to a
more informed opinion by the Committee of Election, in keeping with the confidentiality
principle. 45 What needs to be defined is who (a representative of the Panel? all its
members?) and when (before the hearing? in the deliberation process?) could this take
place. In addition, should this oral report be supplemented by a more thorough written
one? As agreed upon by the DH-SYSC, “it would also be important that the eventual
strengthening of the motivation of the Panel’s decisions be explored in order to facilitate
the work of the Committee on the Election of Judges, with respect to confidentiality, in
order not to harm the reputation of candidates.”
57. In this regard, an additional element could be considered, namely the possibility
for the Committee to hear also the views of the State as well as of the Court on its needs.
58. A more developed interaction between the two instances was presented in the
contribution by Belgium. The proposal suggests that the members of the Panel are
present in the hearing of the candidates without the right to intervene and to vote. This
44 See the intervention by Mr John Murray at the 1233 rd meeting of the Minister’s Deputies, 8 July 2015,
Appendix III of the Second activity report of the Advisory Panel; see § 10 of doc. DH-SYSC (2016)008.
45 During the exchange of views with the DH-SYSC-I, Mr Sawicki noted that “there is nothing in the
existing guidelines of the Election Committee allowing it to invite people of its choice for interviews but
theoretically speaking this could be changed”, see doc. DH-SYSC-I (2016)008, § 10.

24 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
would allow the Panel to confirm or not its initial views through its presence in the
interview and also to enlighten the members of the Committee on the Election of Judges.
It would also allow the combination of the political element with the expert one, thus
reinforcing the motivation of both instances. Beyond the budgetary constraints of this
proposal, the impact on the candidates could be considered, namely whether, despite the
absence of the right to vote, the presence of the Panel could give the perception of an
instance judging twice.
b) The replacement of the existing function: integration into the Assembly’s
procedure (advisory role or full integration) 46
59. The proposal made by Estonia is based on the following challenges that it has
identified: (i) the member States and the PACE do not always observe the opinions of the
Panel and, in some cases, the member States have even decided to bypass the Panel
altogether by not sending its lists to the Panel for consideration before presenting them to
the PACE; 47 (ii) the current system has created a kind of competition dynamic between
the different bodies of selection/election procedure with a risk of creating confusion and
distrust among the public as well as among the candidates to the Court. The divergence
of opinions concerning a judge potentially contributes to the undermining of the authority
of the Court; (iii) the difficulty to assess candidates properly without a possibility to
conduct interviews; (iv) the legitimacy concern. Given the impact the Panel has on the
selection procedure, including its interpretation of the selection criteria, the fact that its
work is not transparent and that the Convention itself does not mention the Panel, gives
rise to questions of legitimacy and accountability. It remains unclear according to which
rules the Panel communicates with the States, or third parties, to gather information about
a particular candidate; (v) the Panel’s participation makes the selection/election
procedure even longer than it already is. One of the recurrent themes of the discouraging
factors for the candidates has been the length of the selection/election proceedings.
60. Estonia thus suggested to integrate the Panel, i.e. the members of the Panel, into
the procedure before the Assembly. The Panel’s integration into the Assembly
Committee would mean that the Panel’s mandate is no longer giving prior advice to the
member states but either giving advice to the Committee (the Panel retains its advice
giving function) or that the members of the Panel act on equal basis with the members of
46 The former Registrar of the Court had envisaged such an integration. It is not clear to which of the two
options (a) or b)) he referred: 46 “One idea could for instance be to integrate the members of the Advisory
Panel of Judges into the procedure before the Parliamentary Assembly?” noted Erik Fribergh, the former
Registrar of the Court in “The European Convention and Court of Human Rights: our shared treasures”,
HRLJ, Vol. 35, No. 9–12, p. 313–318.
47 According to the proposal, the reasons are diverse: «They include misunderstandings and variance of
opinions concerning the criteria set for the candidates by the Convention (e.g. the States worry that the
Panel is setting standards for candidates that are not foreseen and that are oftentimes impossible to follow)
and regarding the systems of academic ranks; the Panel’s involvement might sometimes interfere with the
States’ political agendas; the Panel’s involvement is considered as interfering into domestic matters; in case
the Panel is not accepting the candidates selected by the State, it discredits the authority of the national
selection committee, etc.

25
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
the Committee (full integration). According to the proposal, different options are possible
for the integration and they should be considered carefully.
61. The possible benefits presented in the Estonian proposal can be summarised as
follows:
It would shorten the selection process.
It would simplify the procedure and reduce the possible levels of conflict between
the different bodies involved in the selection/election procedure. Instead of three
different levels of decision-making bodies, there would be two – one at a national
level and the other at an international level.
The Panel’s contribution would become more effective and transparent since they
could actively take part in interviewing the candidates and probing their
qualifications and professional merit. Simultaneously, the PACE Committee
would benefit from the expertise of the Panel members while conducting the
interviews.
The integration would potentially help to diminish the concerns regarding the
procedure before the PACE being too politicised. The inclusion of expert
members to the work of the PACE sub-committee would balance the risk of the
Committee’s politically charged opinions. On the other hand, again, the members
of the Committee would balance the impact of the experts’ role in interpreting the
criteria and requirements as set for the candidates and judges by the Convention
and respective guidelines.
Integrating the Panel with the Committee might have the effect of disciplining the
election process in the Assembly. Including expert members to the work of the
Committee will make the latter’s opinion potentially more authoritative and
harder to ignore for the PACE. This, again, might have the effect of reducing the
election of politically suitable candidates.
62. The proposal and the underlying challenges need to be weighed against the
advantages of the original role of the Advisory Panel, which are not affected but only
supplemented under option a) in the form being presented in §56. Integrating the Panel,
i.e. the members of the Panel into the procedures before the PACE would run counter the
initial purpose of the Panel of giving confidential advice to States Parties, which, as
highlighted by certain experts had an impact on the quality of the national selection
process. This would mean that a system of “check and balances” would be completely
missing in the national selection process before the submission of the list to PACE. In
addition, other experts mentioned that a merger would have a discouraging impact on
candidates or that it would be inappropriate to merge bodies that have different
perspectives.
63. The original idea was that the Advisory Panel would most likely be more
effective if the attention of governments was drawn confidentially to unqualified
candidates, so that a government could change the list before it was officially submitted
to the Parliamentary Assembly. It is recalled that in its 2013 report on the review of the
functioning of the Advisory Panel, the CDDH was in favour of the approach according to
which “the Advisory Panel is likely to be more effective if it remains the confidential

26 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
advisor of Governments in an early stage of the proceedings (in which a list has not been
officially submitted to the Parliamentary Assembly), which would seem to imply keeping
the current confidentiality rules” (see CDDH(2013)R79 Addendum II, § 59).
64. An additional question that needs to be considered is the actual impact of the
Estonian proposal on the duration of the whole process, if the candidates are deemed
unfit by the PACE/Panel. This situation would require the rejection of the list and the
repetition of the entire national process.
65. As regards the means allocated to the Advisory Panel, the DH-SYSC has agreed
that the Panel should be allocated the resources necessary to achieve its task. This
question depends upon the conclusions that will be taken on the role of the Panel as
discussed above (see § 49 regarding its budgetary situation in light of its Second Activity
Report).
D. The interpretation of the criteria
Challenges
66. Certain elements regarding the interpretation of the criteria of Article 21 have
been compiled in the Committee of Ministers’ Guidelines on the selection of candidates
for the post of judge at the European Court of Human Rights taking into account the
practice developed by the Parliamentary Assembly. Since then, all actors concerned have
developed their interpretation, not least the Advisory Panel (see above § 40 and
Appendix II to the present document).
67. As regards the interpretation of the criteria, the DH-SYSC considered that the
Guidelines should be the text of reference for all actors in the process with a view to their
application, while respecting the diversities of national systems. The risk of diverging
interpretations of the criteria by the different actors of the process has been raised. The
Committee considered that it would be useful that the Secretariat obtains more elements
concerning notably the substance of the complementary information solicited by the
Panel to the member States. The contribution received by the Secretariat of the Advisory
Panel demonstrates that the additional questions asked by the Panel concern the
verification of factual elements mainly related to the professional experience of the
candidate. 48 It is also noted that as far as additional, unsolicited sources of information
received by the Panel are concerned, they have never constituted the basis of rejection of
a candidate but only means for further verification. The Panel’s final assessment of a
candidate’s suitability is only based on material supplied by the Government concerned. 49
48 See doc. DH-SYSC-I (2017)009, p. 12 and 13.
49 See the Second activity report of the Advisory Panel, 25 February 2016, doc. Advisory Panel (2016)1,
§ 26.

27
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
Possible responses within the framework of the existing structures
68. While the DH-SYSC had emphasized that the Guidelines should be the text of
reference for all actors concerned, it appears that a further examination of the necessity
for a codification of the interpretation of the criteria with a view to securing, as far as
possible, their homogenous interpretation and application by all actors concerned in the
selection and election process, deserves to be conducted. The following arguments seem
to call for such an approach:
- It is argued by the actors concerned that certain criteria are complex to interpret: 50
while certain criteria are objectively measurable, despite inevitable variations in
the designation/election processes of judges, certain others, such as “the second
part of paragraph 1 (“jurisconsults of recognised competence”) represents an
amorphous category in need of further objective guidelines”. 51 The same applies
to other criteria that are nuanced, such as the determination as to whether a person
is of “high moral character”. The difficulty to measure the latter has already been
discussed by the Drafting Group;
- A non-homogenous interpretation of the criteria by all actors concerned may
create the perception of a lack of transparency and misunderstandings both for the
member States and the candidates. This could address certain concerns put
forward by Estonia (see § 59 above and footnote 47);
- Such a codification with a possible up-date of good practices could also facilitate
the work of the States Parties in the selection process (see the table prepared by
the Secretariat in Appendix I to this document);
- The question of the codification of the interpretation of the criteria could also be
necessary in view of the decisions to be taken regarding the formalization of the
importance of certain requirements regarding the candidates (see above, § 40).
69. Possible follow-up work could lead to a revision of the explanatory memorandum
of the 2012 Guidelines. It could serve as a roadmap, facilitating, to the extent possible, a
homogenous interpretation and application of the criteria. The work of the EU Panel may
also be considered to this effect. 52 The latter takes for instance into consideration the
aptitude of applicants to work in an international environment.
50 See exchange of views with Mr Wojciech Sawicki, doc. DH-SYSC-I (2016)008, § 5; see also the Second
activity report of the Advisory Panel referred to in footnote 49.
51 Andrew Drzemczewski, former Head of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Department of PACE,
“The Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human
Rights”, HRLJ, Vol. 35, No. 1–8, 2015, pp. 269–274, sp. 271–272.
52 First report of 17 February 2011; second activity report of 22 January 2013 and third report of 13
December 2013. All three reports are available on line: http://curia.europa.eu. The first and second reports
are published at 33 HRLJ, pp.459–464 and pp. 465–470(2013); the third activity report is published at 34
HRLJ, pp. 197–203 (2014).

28 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
II.
THE ELECTION PROCESS
A. The procedure
70. The travaux préparatoires of the adoption of the Convention indicate that the
issue of how the nominations procedure would be conducted was not even discussed. It
was originally envisaged that judges would be elected by a simple majority of the votes
cast in both the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers, with each body
voting independently. While subsequent drafts of the Convention suggested an absolute
majority of votes, they too envisaged that both organs would elect judges. With no
explanation, the draft that was ultimately adopted omitted reference to the Committee of
Ministers and consolidated the role in the Parliamentary Assembly. 53
71. The procedure has been developed over the years. 54 The Assembly’s latitude
(“certain autonomy”) when it comes to establishing the procedure for the election of
judges has been also acknowledged by the Court. 55 The creation of the new general
Committee on the Election of Judges of the European Court of Human Rights in January
2015 56 was considered an important step in the process. By transforming it into a fullfledged
committee and by attaching more visibility to the outcome of the committee’s
work, as the report on the candidates is now published before the election, the Assembly
gave a more prominent role to this body.
72. The procedure can be described as follows: 57
“The Assembly invites its Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of
Human Rights (AS/Cdh) to make recommendations based on personal interviews with all
the candidates and assessments of their curricula vitae. Upon receipt of these
53 Report presented by P.H. Teitgen to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe (1949) in
Collected Edition of the “Travaux Préparatoires” of the European Convention on Human Rights, Martinus
Nijhoff, the Hague, 1977), Volume I, p. 210; Volume IV, p. 72.
54 See doc. Procedure for electing judges to the European Court of Human Rights – Information document
prepared by the Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly – Committee on the election of judges to the
Court, AS/CdH/(2017) 01 rev 2.
55 See Advisory opinion on certain legal questions concerning the list of candidates submitted with a view
to the election of judges at the European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, 12 February 2008, § 45;
see Advisory opinion (No. 2) on certain legal questions concerning the list of candidates submitted with a
view to the election of judges at the European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, 22 February 2010,
§ 39: “The third fundamental principle in this sphere is the balance and division of powers between the
High Contracting Parties and the Parliamentary Assembly under Article 22 of the Convention. By virtue of
that provision, each High Contracting Party must nominate candidates who each satisfy all the criteria laid
down in Article 21 § 1; the Assembly, meanwhile, has the task of electing a judge from among them. The
system thereby established seeks to ensure that the entities involved – the State concerned and the
Assembly – enjoy a certain autonomy, within the limits of their respective powers, allowing them to
determine how the procedural rules laid down in Article 22 are to be applied (see the first advisory opinion
[…] §§ 43-44).”
56 See Parliamentary Assembly Resolution (2002)2014.
57 The description of the procedure in §§ 72-78 is based on an Article by Andrew Drzemczewski, former
Head of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Department of PACE, “The Parliamentary Assembly’s
Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights”, HRLJ, Vol. 35, No. 1–8,
2015, pp. 269–274.

29
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
recommendations, the Assembly proceeds to the election of judges for a single term of
office of nine years. The Committee is composed of 20 titular members and 20 alternates
appointed by the Bureau of the Assembly on the basis of proposals by the Assembly’s
five political groups according to the D’Hondt system (subject to ratification by the
Assembly). 58 In order to assess the skills and knowledge of candidates, members of the
Committee must, as specified in paragraph 5 of its term of reference, have the necessary
level of competence and experience in the legal field […]. The meetings of the
Committee are held in camera and interpretation is provided in the two official languages
of the Council of Europe, English and French. The chairpersons of the Assembly’s
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee on Equality and Non-
Discrimination are ex officio members of this Committee.”
73. Article 22 of the Convention specifies that “[t]he judges shall be elected by the
Parliamentary Assembly [of the Council of Europe] with respect to each High contracting
Party by a majority of votes cast from a list of three candidates nominated by the High
Contracting Party.” It does so on the basis of the recommendations it receives from its
Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights.
74. The Committee – specially constituted by the Assembly’s Bureau on the basis of
proposals by the political groups – is mandated by the plenary Assembly to interview
each of the three candidates in person, scrutinize their CVs and make specific
recommendations to the Assembly concerning the qualifications of these candidates. 59
75. Prior to the interview session in respect of each list of three candidates, the
Committee holds a briefing session during which a number of issues are discussed,
including the ‘position’ taken by the advisory Panel of international experts which has
had confidential consultations with States Parties prior to the transmission of the lists to
the Assembly. 60 Then each candidate is interviewed for 30 minutes, with the first five
minutes of the interview being allotted for a short self-presentation, if the candidate so
wishes. The candidate is informed of the possibility of making such a presentation by the
Secretary General of the Assembly in the letter convening him or her for interview.
Members (then) pose questions, in English or in French, and the candidate responds in
either or both languages: simultaneous interpretation is provided. The Chairperson
ensures that both questions and answers remain short so that as many issues as possible
58 This is a mathematical formula, named after a Belgian mathematician, which ensures that representation
is fairly distributed in proportion to the number of seats held in the Assembly as a whole. It requires the
number of seats for each political group to be divided successively by a series of divisors (1, 2, 3, 4), with
seats on committees allocated successively to political groups to secure the highest resulting quotient or
average.
59 The AS/Cdh may also propose to the Assembly, the rejection of lists: see paragraph 4 of the AS/Cdh’s
terms of reference, in Appendix 1, below at p. 272, and “Candidates for the European Court of Human
Rights”, Resolution 1366 (2004), as modified by Resolutions 1426 (2005), 1627 (2008) and 1841 (2011).
60 See Resolution CM/Res(2010)26, as amended, on the establishment of an Advisory Panel of Experts on
Candidates for Election as Judges to the ECHR. […] The views of the Panel– provided to the Committee
on a confidential basis – are “always giv[en] substantial weight when assessing the suitability of
candidates” by the Assembly’s [sub-] Committee (see Committee of Ministers (Ministers’ Deputies
decision, 1213 th meeting, 26 November 2014, item 1.5)

30 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
can be raised during the interview to enable members of the Committee to make an
informed choice on the suitability of candidates.
76. The interviews are carried out in the alphabetical order of the names of the
candidates. After all three candidates have been interviewed, the Chairperson provides
the Committee members with a brief summary of his or her impressions of the
candidates, after which general discussion ensues for approximately 15 to 20 minutes, in
the course of which members express their views on the respective candidates. A vote is
then taken – by secret ballot – after which the Chairperson announces the result of the
vote. This procedure takes place in camera and all proceedings are confidential. At the
end of each meeting, the Chairperson systematically reminds members of this.
77. The Committee’s report, containing its recommendations, addressed to the
plenary Assembly, is prepared by its Chairperson and is transmitted to the Assembly via
its Bureau. An important development of the new procedure is that the report is now
made public prior to the commencement of the election procedure.
78. The election by the Assembly is by secret ballot. An absolute majority of votes
cast by parliamentarians is required in the first round of voting when the Assembly meets
in plenary session. If this is not achieved, a second vote takes place, for which a relative
majority of votes is sufficient. Election results are announced publicly by the President of
the Assembly during the part-session and published – in the form of a press release – on
the Assembly’s website shortly afterwards.
B. Challenges
79. It is recalled that the CDDH report noted that, in light of the establishment of the
new general Parliamentary Assembly Committee on the Election of Judges, the effect of
the role of the Assembly in the process should be considered. It is further recalled that
during the elaboration of the CDDH report, a number of elements were highlighted, such
as the unforseeability of the procedure and the lack of its transparency. 61
80. From the contributions received following the 1 st meeting, it appears that the
hazards of the political process and its outcome, which may prevent the best candidate to
be elected, constitute a crucial deterring factor for potential candidates. Furthermore,
certain contributions put in question the conduct of interviews (short duration, general
nature of questions asked, lack of guidelines for the interviews; lack of sufficient
information available to candidates) as well as the voting procedure and the risks of
political influence/lobbying between the voting tours. Certain of those shortcomings
concern the period prior to the establishment of the new committee. The role of the
PACE was not considered in depth during the 1 st meeting of the DH-SYSC-I. The
Drafting Group reserved this discussion in the presence of the PACE Secretariat at the
second meeting. The main elements of this discussion appear in the summary of the
exchange of views with the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly. The
61 Contribution by Mr Christoph Grabenwarter, doc. GT-GDR-F(2014)018, also reproduced in doc. DH-
SYSC-I (2016)001, pp. 2–6.

31
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
question was further considered during the meeting of the Plenary Committee. The latter
agreed upon the following:
(i) Work should concentrate on the improvement of the current system in which the
election of judges to the Court falls under the Parliamentary Assembly, in
accordance with the Convention, as a guarantee of the democratic legitimacy of
the judges. In the framework of the exhaustive analysis which should be
conducted, alternative models should however also be explored;
(ii) The Committee considered that suggestions should be drawn up in order to feed
into the work of the Parliamentary Assembly on this issue. These reflections and
suggestions would notably relate to the composition of the Committee on the
Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights, the holding of
interviews, voting regulations and the quorum, or to the communication and the
interaction between the Panel and the Assembly or its Committee on the Election
of Judges in order to prevent, to the extent possible, the hazards of the political
process and to ensure the election of the best judge to the European Court of
Human Rights.
C. Responses within the framework of the existing structures
81. This part examines the current system in light of the above guidance by the DH-
SYSC. It does not address the interaction with the Advisory Panel, examined above
under I.C. (§ 55 onwards). If the democratic element of the process, stressed by the DH-
SYSC, was deemed to constitute one of the guarantees of the present system 62 and of the
judges’ legitimacy, 63 consideration is given to the measures that need to contain the
negative aspects of the political element. The latter have been often subject to criticism. 64
62 “I believe I can say with certainty that there are not many international procedures of designation of
judges that is more democratic than the one that concerns the judges of the Strasbourg Court […] It is a
particularly democratic process that results in the election of judges for a non-renewable mandate of nine
years. It is very crucial to point this out in this era where certain people sometimes question the legitimacy
of European judges” stated the former President of the Court, Dean Spielmann on 17 June 2015, Hearing
before the Law Committee of the French National Assembly, unofficial translation.
63 It was also argued that “the injection of political choice into the process is no bad thing. The strength of
opinion expressed highlights the fact that the values and perspectives of judges in the ECHR matter a great
deal. These judges are reaching decisions which, though legal in nature, can have a significant social and
political impact across Europe. All members of PACE are national parliamentarians and it enhances the
democratic legitimacy of the court for them to have some say in the selection of its judges and some
ownership of the process.”, Kate Malleson and Dr Patrick O’ Brien, “The merits of the judicial
appointment process to the European Court of Human Rights”, The Constitution Unit Blog:
https://constitution-unit.com/.
64 See inter alia, « Judicial Independence: Law and Practice of Appointments to the European Court of
Human Rights », Interights, May 2003. This report was the result of a group of eminent European jurists:
Professor Dr. Jutta Limbach, former President of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (Chair);
Professor Dr. Pedro Cruz Villalón, former President of the Constitutional Court of Spain; Mr. Roger
Errera, former member of the Conseil d’Etat and of the Conseil supérieure de la magistrature in France;
Mr. Rt. Hon. Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, President of INTERIGHTS; Professor Dr. Tamara
Morshchakova, former Vice President of the Constitutional High Court of the Russian Federation; The Rt.

32 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
In addition to the measures required to respond to the challenges of the selection
procedure, there would be a need to examine certain measures aimed at further
strengthening the procedure before PACE, from the submission of the list to the election.
It appears that the Committee on the Election of Judges is examining its procedure at
present. The reflections below could feed into this work. They are based on information
gathered during the exchange of views with the Secretary General of the Assembly and
on subsequent discussions held within the Plenary Committees.
82. The below considerations concern aspects such as the composition of the
Committee of Judges, the conduct of its interviews, the nature of the recommendations
given to the Plenary and the voting procedure and the Plenary’s role. It appears that if the
Assembly wishes to make certain changes in its procedure, this could be made in the
framework of the existing structures, namely the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.
The procedure before the Committee on the Election of Judges
83. In general, all questions regarding the procedure within the Committee are crucial
given that the main safeguards of the entire appointment procedure lie within the
procedure in that Committee. As far as the composition of the Committee on the Election
of Judges is concerned, certain experts raised questions as to its limited composition,
which is explained in § 72. As explained by the Secretary General of the Assembly, the
choice was made to have a smaller specialised committee with members having legal
background or experience nominated by political groups 65 instead of a larger committee
allowing for an equitable geographical distribution. These underlying reasons are indeed
crucial. However, is this limited number sufficient, in particular in the eyes of the
candidates and of their perception of the democratic legitimacy of the process?
Furthermore, certain experts in the DH-SYSC raised the question as to the
overrepresentation of certain nationalities in the Committee 66 and whether this was
justified by the argument of the legal expertise of the members.
84. As far as the interviews are concerned, three points have come out of the
discussions. The first question concerns the effective presence of members at the
meetings. 67 Even if domestic parliamentary duties are a matter of priority and justify the
Hon. Lord Justice Sedley, judge in the English Court of Appeal; and Professor Dr. Andrzej Zoll, former
President of the Constitutional High Court of Poland.
65 Among the other 8 Committees of PACE, only the members of the Monitoring Committee (they are 93
members including 8 ex officio members) and of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, Immunities and
Institutional Affairs (they are 38 including 8 ex officio members) are appointed by the 5 political groups
according to the D’Hondt system.
66 E.g. two full members from Latvia, two from Greece, three from Ukraine.
67 According to the Assembly’s Rules (in particular Rule 47.3), a committee may deliberate when one-third
of its members are present. (As indicated in footnote 5 of this Rule, if it is not possible to divide the
number of members of a committee by 3, the quorum shall be calculated on the basis of the next lower
multiple of 3). However, if so requested by one-sixth of its members before voting begins on a draft
opinion, recommendation, or resolution as a whole, or on the election of the chairperson or vicechairpersons,
the vote may be taken only if a majority of committee’s members are present.

33
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
absence of certain members, there might be room to consider how to ensure a full
participation in light of the importance of the questions examined by this Committee. 68
85. The second question concerns the duration of the interviews. In light of the
contributions received following the “open call”, but also in the discussion within the
Plenary Committee, the 30-minute interview does not appear to be sufficient in light of
the importance of the post as well as of the perception of the seriousness of the
nomination process. These concerns merit consideration, even if the prolongation of the
interviews would require taking into account practical, logistical and budgetary elements
(overnights stays, cost of interpretation, etc.). The third question concerns the conduct of
the interviews. During the exchange of views with the Secretary General of the
Assembly, the necessity for standardized rules for the interview was discussed. It was
indicated that it was not certain whether the Election Committee members would agree
on that. As noted by a member of the Drafting Group, the candidates are interviewed for
this very important function and should be able to deal with the uncertainties and
difficulties of this interview; they will be confronted to situations that are at least as
difficult when they will be serving the Court. Against this background and with a view to
ensuring an increased transparency, what could be considered is the publication of the
Committee’s guidelines for these meetings. 69
86. Finally, as regards the outcome of the procedure before the Committee, an
additional question that needs to be addressed is the situation where the Committee of
Election of Judges finds that one candidate is not suitable for election but does not wish
to reject the list in its entirety. Would it be possible to present to the Plenary a list with
less than three candidates? Here again, the possibility that the Drafting Group seeks the
advice of the Directorate of Legal Advice and Public International Law as to the specific
modalities where this could exceptionally be made possible as well as on the impact on
the current procedure could be considered (see also above, § 45).
The procedure before the Plenary
87. The election by the Plenary would deserve a careful consideration as it is at the
heart of the criticism against the appointment procedure, often characterised by lobbying.
Even if the recommendation of the Election Committee (and previously the Sub-
Committee) is often respected by the Plenary, 70 it could be useful to consider the need for
68 The presence from 2015 until January 2017 was as follows : 24 January 2017 – 15 members;
12 January 2017 – 13 members; 6 October 2016 – 12 members; 19 June 2016 – 14 members; 17 April 2016
– 13 members; 12 January 2016 – 8 members; 17 September 2015 – 11 members; 9-10 June 2015 – 13
titular members and 6 alternate members; 30-31 March 2015, 16 members and 6 alternate.
69 See doc. DH-SYSC-I (2016)008, § 7: “the Committee is guided by the rules of PACE and by its own
guidelines”.
70 Out of 23 elections in 2013-2017, the PACE followed the recommendations of the Committee on the
election of judges 20 times. So far in 2017, the PACE followed none of the Committee’s recommendations
in any of the two elections that have taken place. The PACE elected a judge despite the Committee having
recommended another candidate on the list by a large majority, and another judge despite the Committee
having recommended another candidate by a majority. In 2016, the PACE followed the Committee’s
recommendation in 4 out of 5 elections. It elected a judge despite the Committee having recommended

34 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
additional safeguards. Would a more reasoned recommendation by the Committee on the
Election of Judges contribute to the Plenary forming a more informed opinion? 71 It could
be also argued that the absence of any public debate in the Committee and in the Plenary
create the impression of a lack of transparency. For instance, could a debate within the
PACE plenary, after the chairman of the Election Committee has explained the
Committee’s recommendation be envisaged? All the above need however to be weighed
against the absolute need to protect the candidates’ reputation.
88. The question of the quorum is crucial for the legitimacy of this particular election.
There is a need to consider whether its threshold could be enhanced. 72 As noted during
the exchange of views of 19 October 2016, PACE proceeds with the votes during one full
day in order to have more people voting. When there is one single list of candidates, it
happened that there was a relatively low participation in the vote. Now there are often
160–200 votes cast for some lists, which is a good result.
89. It would be also useful to consider the question of the two voting tours in view of
the lobbying risk contained therein. It is demonstrated that the number of voting tours
and even the voting’s scheduling play a very important role in the elections of
international judges. 73 During the exchange of views on 19 October 2016, the question as
to the reasons justifying that two rounds of election are repeated according to the same
procedure was raised. It was explained that according to the rules which apply for all
elections carried out by PACE, for the first round, an absolute majority is required. For
the second round, a simple majority is sufficient. Mr Sawicki noted that, there could
theoretically be a possibility of an election in just one round with a simple majority of
votes. Indeed, this change could be envisaged with the precondition that the quorum for
the election of the judge to the Court is reinforced.
another candidate by a narrow majority. In 2013, 2014 and 2015, the PACE followed the Committee’s
recommendation in all elections (12 elections in 2015, 1 election in 2014 and 3 elections in 2013).
71 At present, the actual wording of the recommendation followed by the candidates CV is for instance:
“The Committee recommends X with a narrow majority/large majority/ over Y as the most qualified
candidate; “The Committee recommends Z with overwhelming majority as the most qualified candidate”.
72 According to Rule 42.3 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, the quorum is one third of the numbers of
representatives of the Assembly authorized to vote. As indicated in footnote 3 of this Rule, the number of
representatives of the Assembly authorized to vote shall correspond to the number of seats allocated to
each of the member States under Article 26 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, and to which
appointments were made in accordance with Article 25 of the Statute and Rules 6 to 11 of the Assembly’s
Rules of Procedure, excluding representatives, who have been deprived of their voting rights in the
Assembly or whose voting rights have been suspended under Rule 10. If the number of representatives
authorize to vote is not divisible by three, the number obtained as a result of the division is rounded down.
73 Selecting International Judges, Principle, Process and Politics, ed. Ruth Mackenzie, Kate Malleson,
Penny Martin and Philippe Sands, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 100-136.

35
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
D. Alternative models of appointment outside the existing structures
90. As requested by the Plenary Committees the final report resulting from the
Group’s work should contain a comprehensive analysis of the themes, including the
examination of alternative models. The below models are presented with a view to a
substantive discussion to this end and are based on their presentation as it appeared in the
first working document (doc. DH-SYSC-I (2016)003). They both constitute responses
outside the existing structures. In this regard, it is recalled that during the drafting of the
CDDH report, the question was raised as to whether the procedure of a list with three
candidates is the optimum. 74 The two models need to be considered not only in light of
the feasibility argument and of the possibility to depart from the present system but also
of their bearing on the system as a whole and on all the actors concerned. It is worth
bearing in mind that any comparison drawn would require to take into account the
features and the important differences of each system in light, in particular, of their
respective aim and context.
91. A first possible alternative model might be that of the European Court of
Justice, 75 where each State Party nominates only one candidate who needs the approval
by common accord of the governments of the Member States, after consultation of the
Panel provided for in Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union.
92. The panel’s mission is to “give an opinion on candidates’ suitability to perform
the duties of Judge and Advocate-General of the Court of Justice and the General Court
before the governments of the member States make the appointments referred to in
Article 253 and 254 of that Treaty”. In accordance with Article 255 TFEU, the Panel
comprises seven persons chosen from among former members of the Court of Justice and
the General Court of the European Union, members of national supreme courts and
lawyers of recognised competence, one of whom is proposed by the European
Parliament. The Panel began its work immediately after the entry into force on 1 March
2010 of the two Decisions No. 2010/124/EU and No. 2010/125/EU of 25 February 2010
whereby the Council of the European Union established the operating rules of the panel
(hereafter “the operating rules”) and appointed its members. The members are appointed
for four years and may be reappointed once.
93. Once member State governments have selected their nominee, they are to send
their proposal to the General Secretariat of the Council. The latter forwards the proposal
to the President of the Panel. The operating rules do not elaborate on the criteria that are
to be used to assess a candidate’s suitability. In order to carry out its tasks, the Panel has
74 Proposal submitted in the framework of the GT-GDR-F by Professor Grabenwarter, doc. DH-SYSC-I
(2016)001.
75 The Drafting Group decided at its 1 st meeting that inspiration could mainly be drawn from the EU
procedures which are closer to the Convention system and not from procedures in other international and
regional courts presented in doc. CDDH-SYSC-I (2016)004.

36 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
put in place a procedure that allows detailed examination of the candidatures. The
examination procedure and the assessment criteria are explained in details in its activity
reports and in particular in the third one. 76
94. The key component of the Panel is a hearing which is not public, like its opinions.
As explained by the Panel in its first activity report, provisions of EU law in the area of
protection of personal data as interpreted by the CJEU have led the Panel to the
conclusion that its opinions cannot be disclosed to the public. The transparency of the
Panel’s activities is secured through the publication of its activity reports.
95. According to the data provided in its third activity report, the Panel has issued
seven unfavorable opinions out of 67 opinions rendered in total. In light of the data
available until December 2013, the Panel’s opinions, whether favorable or otherwise, had
been followed by the governments of the member States. 77 All candidates considered
unsuitable were withdrawn and replaced. 78 According to the President of the Panel, Jean-
Marc Sauvé, 79 the procedure, as provided for by the Lisbon treaty, allowed for the control
of manifest error with respect to the choice of the members of the CJEU. Jean-Marc
Sauvé has stressed that the role of the Panel is limited. “Its task is not to replace the
member States; either with respect to the nomination of the candidates or as far as the
appointment is concerned”. 80 Regarding the absence of binding force of the opinion, he
has noted that it is offset by the mechanism of the appointment procedure, namely by a
unanimous decision of all member States. The disagreement of one single member State
suffices for there to be no appointment.
96. Certain elements of the procedure have however been subject to criticism like the
lack of democratic legitimacy, the absence of verification of the domestic selection
procedure of the candidate and the lack of transparency of the procedure. 81
76 First report of 17 February 2011; second activity report of 22 January 2013 and third report of 13
December 2013. All three reports are available on line: http://curia.europa.eu. The first and second reports
are published at 33 HRLJ, pp.459–464 and pp. 465–470(2013); the third activity report is published at 34
HRLJ, pp. 197–203 (2014).
77 Third activity report, p. 10.
78 Henri de Waele, « Not Quite the Bed that Procrustes Built – Dissecting the system for selecting judges at
the Court of Justice of the European Union », Selecting Europe’s Judges, A Critical Review of the
Appointment Procedures to the European Courts, ed. Michal Bobek, Oxford University Press, 2015, pp.
24–50.
79 Jean-Marc Sauvé, « Selecting the European Union’s Judges: the Practice of the Article 255 Panel »,
Selecting Europe’s Judges, A Critical Review of the Appointment Procedures to the European Courts, ed.
Michal Bobek, Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 78–83.
80 Ibid, p. 82.
81 See Armin von Bogdandy and Cristoph Krenn, “On the democratic legitimacy of Europe’s Judges – A
Principled and Comparative Reconstruction of the Selection Procedures”, Selecting Europe’s Judges, A
Critical Review of the Appointment Procedures to the European Courts, ed. Michal Bobek, Oxford
University Press, 2015, pp. 162–180; see AccessInfo Project on Judicial Transparecy:
http://elabeurope.eu/cjeu-judicial-transparency/

37
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
97. A second possible alternative model was proposed in the framework of the
drafting of the CDDH report on the longer term future of the Convention system: A
specific norm should be included in the new protocol to the European Convention, which
should require that: 82
1. A State proposes a list of 3 or alternatively 6 candidates who are suitable
to serve as judges of the ECHR.
2. A Commission of 7 members (2 representing general audience, 2
representing legal doctrine, 2 representing judiciary and 1 representing
the Council of Europe) shall decide on the suitability of candidates,
referred to in paragraph 1, for the Court's work.
3. The Commission shall report to the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe on 1 or alternatively 3 candidates from the list
proposed by a State.
III. CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKING
CONDITIONS AT THE COURT
A. Challenges
98. A number of factors that might discourage possible candidates are related to the
attractiveness of the post. Some of those factors had already been identified in the CDDH
report. 83 They were confirmed and complemented in the course of the discussions at the
1st meeting of the DH-SYSC-I and by the subsequent contributions received. They can
be summarised as follows:
i) the attractiveness of the post, including the conditions of employment;
ii) the difficulties of finding suitable re-employment at the end of the term of
office;
iii) the impossibility to contribute to national pension schemes;
iv) the separation from family;
v) the impossibility for the partners of the judges to find their employment upon
return to the country of origin;
vi) the lack of knowledge about the requirements of the work at the Court.
99. Some of those factors concern the conditions of employment and others the
working conditions at the Court. Hence, they should be discussed separately. The
responses to address these two challenges will need to be complemented by the
contribution awaited by the Court that may bring forward additional challenges.
Furthermore, and in line with the discussions held at the 1 st meeting, when considering
the possible responses, it would be important to check their feasibility against the nature
82 Proposal submitted in the framework of the GT-GDR-F by Justice Neshataeva, doc. DH-SYSC-
I(2016)001.
83 CDDH report on the longer-term future of the system of the European Convention on Human Rights
(doc. CDDH(2015)R84 Addendum I), §§ 107-108.

38 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
and the requirements of an international appointment, which as highlighted in
contributions received is prestigious, a high progress in one’s career and a very high
professional recognition.
B. The conditions of employment: possible responses within the framework of
the existing structures
100. The question of recognition of service as a judge is key for the attractiveness of
the post of judge at the Court. As noted by the former President of the Court 84 “it is clear
that the most qualified potential candidates, and in particular those who already hold high
judicial office in the domestic system, may be deterred by the prospect of uncertainty
after a term on the European Court”. However, certain contributions received noted that a
former judge at the Court would easily find a suitable re-employment. This issue is also
essential for the independence of the Court: “where a judge is not provided with any
guarantee regarding his or her future employment their independence can be
undermined”. 85 As noted at the 1st meeting of the DH-SYSC-I, there is a need to
guarantee that judges in office do not fear their conditions of return.
101. It is recalled that the question of recognition of service as a judge was being
discussed by the Committee of Ministers (CM/Del/Dec(2014)1195.4.3), following the
concerns voiced by the former President of the Court in his letter of 22 November 2013.
The Ministers’ Deputies have accordingly called on the States Parties to address in an
appropriate way the situation of the Court’s judges upon the expiry of their term of
office, by seeking to ensure that, to the extent possible under the applicable domestic law,
former judges have the opportunity to maintain their career prospects at a level consistent
with the office they have held. The Ministers’ Deputies invited the member States to
provide any relevant information on the follow-up given to this decision and decided to
resume consideration of this matter before 31 December 2015, especially in the light of
the information contained in the comparative survey provided by the Court 86 and any
other information that member States may provide on the issue. 87 It is noted that to date,
four States Parties have provided updated information in response to the Committee of
Minister’s invitation. 88
102. The question has also been raised in the CDDH report, 89 as to whether a national
system consisting of automatically nominating a judge of the Court whose term of office
has expired for the next vacant position at the Constitutional Court or one of the highest
84 Letter of President Spielmann of 22 November 2013, contained in Comparative survey produced by the
Court, doc. DD(2013)1321.
85 Ibid.
86 Comparative survey produced by the Court, doc. DD(2013)1321.
87 This question has also been dealt with by the Parliamentary Assembly in its work on the “Reinforcement
of the independence of the European Court of Human Rights”, which led to its Recommendation
2051(2014).
88 Andorra (doc. DD(2016)359); France and Greece (doc. DD (2016)104); Monaco (doc. DD (2016)360).
89 Doc. CDDH(2015)R84 Addendum I, para. 108.

39
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
national courts or tribunals could help increase interest among possible candidates. 90 It
was however noted that, in some States, this is constitutionally impossible. Following the
adoption of the CDDH report, it was decided by the Committee of Ministers that the
issue would be examined in the context of the follow-up that would be carried out by the
CDDH/DH-SYSC.
103. During the 1 st meeting of the DH-SYSC, it was decided to consider whether the
data in above-mentioned study of the Court are still valid and update them as appropriate
(see also the meeting report, doc. DH-SYSC-I(2016)R1, §6). With a view to assist the
DH-SYSC-I in its work on that question, the Secretariat had prepared Appendix III to the
working document for the 2 nd DH-SYSC-I meeting containing three tables 91 based on the
comparative survey DD(2013)1321 and subsequent follow-up information by member
States concerning the recognition of service as a judge of the Court. The tables are again
appended to the present document and have been up-dated. Furthermore, it was noted in
the contributions received following the call for opinions and experiences that persons
would have considered being candidates if only they could have remained in the national
pension system while serving in Strasbourg.
104. As regards conditions of employment and notably the issue of recognition of
service as a judge by States, the DH-SYSC decided that the question will be further
explored in the light of the Court’s contribution exposing the difficulties encountered up
to this day as well as the contributions of States in order to decide on the need for
possible follow-up work.
105. From the analysis of the aforementioned tables, it appears that the situation is as
follows: 32 States afford some sort of recognition of service in international courts for
holders of judicial office. But for some of these States, the legislation would not
accommodate the 9-year term at the ECHR – the number of States that do is 19.
Additionally, among the 32 States that afford some sort of recognition of service in
international courts for holders of judicial office, 26 allow the judges to return either to
their previous or equivalent post in the national judiciary. Among the 32 States that
afford some sort of recognition of service in international courts for holders of judicial
office, 23 count the years of service in an international court for career advancement
purposes. Among the 32 States that afford some sort of recognition of service in
international courts for holders of judicial office, 20 count the time worked in
international organisations as years of pensionable service.
106. 33 States afford some sort of recognition of service in international courts for
public servants, including diplomats and prosecutors. But for some of these States the
legislation would not accommodate the 9-year term at the ECHR – the number of States
90 Contribution by Mr Christoph Grabenwarter, doc. GT-GDR-F(2014)018, also reproduced in doc. DH-
SYSC-I (2016)001, pp. 2–6. In this contribution, the obligation of residence is also discussed.
91 The three tables, respectively focusing on the professions of judges, public servants, and university
professor, provide detail as to whether service as a judge of the Court is recognised for the latter 1) to
interrupt their domestic career to join the Court, 2) to have the right to regain their former post after having
served in an international organisation, as well as 3) to have their years of international service count for
the purposes of career advancement and pension rights.

40 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
that do is 21. Additionally, among the 33 States that afford some sort of recognition of
service in international courts for public servants, 28 allow the latter to return either to
their previous or equivalent post in the national judiciary. Among the 33 States that
afford some sort of recognition of service in international courts for public servants, 20
count the years of service in an international court for career advancement purposes.
Among the 33 States that afford some sort of recognition of service in international
courts for public servants, 19 count the time worked in international organisations as
years of pensionable service.
107. Finally, 14 member States afford some sort of recognition of service in
international courts for university professors. But for some of these States the legislation
would not accommodate the 9-year term at the ECHR – the number of States that do is
10. Additionally, among the 31 States that afford some sort of recognition of service in
international courts for university professors, 7 allow the latter to return either to their
previous or equivalent post in the national judiciary. Among the 15 States that afford
some sort of recognition of service in international courts for university professors, 6
count the years of service in an international court for career advancement purposes.
Among the 14 States that afford some sort of recognition of service in international
courts for university professors, 6 count the time worked in international organisations as
years of pensionable service.
108. Pending additional information as well as the decisions and discussions of the
Drafting Group, follow-up work could be considered in order to secure an appropriate
response by member States to this matter. Such a response may also address the concerns
regarding the nine-year term of office (see above §§ 35-37). Any follow-up to this
question could take place within the existing structures; possibly leading to a CM
recommendation. This work should take into account the diversity of legal, constitutional
and political systems. In this regard, it is also recalled that in his abovementioned letter,
the former President of the Court had noted: “the reintegration, or integration, of a former
judge of this Court into the national judiciary is not the only solution that can be
envisaged. The constraints surrounding senior appointments within the national judiciary
must be borne in mind, of course. Therefore, other possibilities to take advantage of the
valuable experience of former judges of the Court should be explored”.
C. Working conditions at the Court: possible responses within the framework
of the existing structures
109. The responses facilitating the swift integration of judges and their continuous
training as well as those addressing questions relating to their personal and family life
would need to be provided by the Court. It appears that they can mainly be implemented
by the latter. The DH-SYSC decided that that this question will be examined in the light
of the Court’s expected contribution.
110. What can be noted, at this juncture, is the information already provided by the
Representative of the Registry on the project of personalised judicial assistance. The
Court has just received a group of 9 trainees who will be working directly with 9 judges,

41
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
assisting them with legal research in different contexts (e.g. for opinions, lectures,
articles, etc.). This is a test scheme, making use of the trainees who come to the Court as
part of the usual intake of trainees by the Council of Europe (2 groups of trainees each
year, September-January and March-July). These are non-remunerated traineeships, with
the judges taking on the role of trainer/mentor for the duration of the stage. Other
persons, such as those coming to the Court as part of an agreement with an external body
(e.g. university), can work as a judicial assistant on the same basis. The minimum
academic requirement is to have completed at least the first years of a master’s degree in
law. Assistants are subject to the same duties as staff regarding independence, loyalty and
discretion. The programme will be evaluated after the first year.
111. With respect to the lack of knowledge about the work at the Court as a deterrent
to apply, it was suggested that one of the means to inform potential candidates without
infringing upon the independence and autonomy of the Court would be to consider
asking the former judge/judges to make themselves available to answer any questions
from those candidates on a confidential basis. This measure is already in place in some
member States on an unofficial basis.
IV.
AD HOC JUDGES
A. Challenges
112. During the 1 st meeting of DH-SYSC-I, it was agreed that a comprehensive
approach examining all parameters of the selection/election of judges could not set aside
questions related to ad hoc judges. 92 An ad hoc judge may be appointed when the elected
judge is unable to sit in the chamber, withdraws, or is exempted or if there is none. This
may occur, for instance, where a conflict of interest prevents the sitting judge from ruling
on a case brought before the Court. The need to appoint an ad hoc judge may also arise
when a sitting judge resigns or retires. 93 In such cases, the ad hoc judge covers cases until
a new judge is elected by the Assembly with respect to a given State. The procedure for
appointing an ad hoc judge that was in place before the adoption of Protocol No. 14
allowed the State Party substantial discretion in choosing the person to be appointed as ad
hoc judge for a given case after the proceedings had begun, namely, when the content of
the complaint was already known. Thus, it was argued that this procedure contradicted
the equality of arms principle and raised concerns regarding the independence and
impartiality of the ad hoc judge.
113. Protocol No. 14 remedied this situation. New Article 26 § 4 of the Convention
provides for a judge’s replacement by a person – the ad hoc judge – “… chosen by the
President of the Court from a list submitted in advance by that Party”. 94 When a State
92 The possibility for States Parties to nominate a judge of common interest (e.g. Behrami and Saramati v.
France, Germany and Norway, Nos. 71412/01 and 78166/01) did not require any specific examination.
93 See Rule 29 of the Rules of Court.
94 As specified in the amended Rules of Court, the States Parties have to submit to the Court in advance a
list containing the names of three to five persons eligible to serve as ad hoc judges for a renewable period

42 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
Party fails to appoint an ad hoc judge within thirty days or fails to provide a satisfactory
list, the Rules state that the President of the Chamber shall invite the State to indicate
within thirty days the name of the persons it wishes to appoint from among the other
elected judges.
114. The question of ad hoc judges was discussed in the 1 st meeting of DH-SYSC-I on
the basis of a report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the
Parliamentary Assembly. 95 This report noted that “the new system strengthens the
appearance of independence since a State Party will no longer play a decisive role in the
appointment of an ad hoc judge. Moreover, if ad hoc judges were to be increasingly “coopted”
from the existing bench, they would obviously enjoy the same democratic
legitimacy as regular judge. However, it was argued therein that the appointment
procedure may still give rise to a legitimacy problem in that the ad hoc judge is appointed
from a list submitted by the States Parties directly to the President of the Court, whereas
the Assembly remains excluded from the process. Furthermore, the report pointed out, in
addition to the lack of democratic legitimacy, a number of unresolved issues such as the
question of nomination of ad hoc judges by the State and the difference in the selection
procedure applicable to elected judges and ad hoc judges; the delays posed by the
appointment of ad hoc judges which can range from a few months to one or two years.
The report concluded with a number of measures that could be taken, whilst noting that it
would be premature to make specific recommendations at this juncture.
B. Responses within the framework of the existing structures
115. During the 1 st meeting of DH-SYSC-I, it was agreed that a comprehensive
approach examining all parameters of the selection/election of judges could not set aside
questions related to ad hoc judges. 96 It appeared however that the actual system worked
well due in particular to its flexibility. In order to decide if and how to pursue
consideration of this matter, certain questions had been raised for the attention of the
Registry of the Court. 97
116. In response to the question why do the Rules envisage a two-year term of office, it
was noted that the 2-year period for the list of ad hoc judges (Rule 29.1a) was a decision
reached by the Plenary Court when it discussed the issue in March 2010. Judges
considered various periods, from 2 to 5 years, before deciding on a short period. It was
not anticipated that this would be particularly burdensome for States, since the list could
be renewed with minimum formality.
of two years, from which the President of the Chamber will choose, when the need arises, to appoint an ad
hoc judge.
95 “Ad hoc judges at the European Court of Human Rights: an overview”, information report, Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Ms Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videc (the Netherlands,
doc.12827, 23 January 2012).
96 The possibility for States Parties to nominate a judge of common interest (e.g. Behrami and Saramati v.
France, Germany and Norway, Nos. 71412/01 and 78166/01) did not require any specific examination.
97 See doc. DH-SYSC-I (2016)005.

43
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
117. With regard to the question what are the aspects the President takes into account
when choosing an ad hoc judge from a list, 98 it was indicated that there are no internal
guidelines or standard criteria. It is left to the discretion of each Section President.
118. Regarding the frequency of the recourse to ad hoc judges (per country), statistics
are not systematically kept but these cases are rare. According to Hudoc, there were just
34 cases decided in 2015 (judgments and decisions) that included an ad hoc judge. Of
these, 16 were “external” judges. 18 were either current or former members of the Court.
119. Lastly, with respect to the way the Court deals with a request of a Party to ask for
recusation of a judge, it is indicated that the matter will be brought to the attention of the
presiding judge and the judge concerned. Where either of these has a doubt about the
judge taking part in the examination of the case, the procedure in Rule 28.4 of the Rules
of Court will be followed.
120. In light of the above, the Plenary Committee decided that a distinct regime for ad
hoc judges is notably justified by the rarity of the procedure’s use. It decided not to
consider this question further. It noted that the Court could envisage prolonging or
rendering more flexible the two-year period for the list of ad hoc judges. Any possible
change could be made in the Rules of Court. This is one of the matters illustrating the
relevance of an enhanced consultation of the High Contracting Parties with regard to the
development of the Rules of Court, as highlighted by the CDDH in 2014 99 and reiterated
in 2015. 100 This is now possible through the new Rule 111. 101
121. The DH-SYSC also noted that the designation procedure of the ad hoc judge from
a list previously submitted by the concerned State could be more transparent. This could
also be secured through the Court’s Rules. It could also be envisaged to also regulate
further the recusation of an ad hoc judge.
98 The report cited in note 55 stated: “Not only does the procedure therefore lack democratic legitimacy, it
is also unclear how the President of the Court will choose the ad hoc judge from the list provided by the
State” (§§ 13-14).
99 CDDH Report containing conclusions and possible proposals for action concerning the procedure for the
amendment of the Rules of Court and the possible “upgrading” of the Convention of certain provisions of
the Rules of Court (doc. CDDH(2014)R82 Addendum I); see, in particular §§10-14.
100 CDDH report on the longer-term future of the system of the European Convention on Human Rights
(doc. CDDH(2015)R84 Addendum I), § 87. The CDDH noted with interest the information (The Interlaken
process and the Court, 2015 Report, 12 October 2015, p. 7) that the Court’s Rules Committee is examining
the issue and is awaiting the outcome of such considerations.
101 According to Rule 111§2, as amended on 14 November 2016, “the Registrar shall inform the
Contracting Parties of any proposals by the Court to amend the Rules which directly concern the conduct
of proceedings before it and invite them to submit written comments on such proposals. The Registrar shall
also invite written comments from organisations with experience in representing applicants before the
Court as well as from relevant Bar associations.”

44 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
Appendix I
Selection of candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human Rights:
procedure and selection criteria in member States
MJ: Ministry of Justice
MFA: Ministry of Foreign
Affairs
ALBANIA/
ALBANIE
Information as communicated to PACE in August 2016
• “Justice system reform” on 21 July
2016 adopted by the Parliament: creation of a
special mechanism designed to propose a
check process (the vetting) of every judge
and prosecutor at any level.
• The ad-hoc consultative
Commission (the Commission) for carrying
out the election procedures is composed of
the Chairperson and 4 members who have a
significant professional experience. They are
experts of the Public International Law and
Human Rights with knowledge of the English
and French languages; a constitutionalist, a
former representative of Albania at the
Venice Commission, a former judge at the
ECHR, the President of the Constitutional
Court, the Dean of the Law Faculty (former
member of the Supreme Court) and the
Director of the Legislation Department of the
Prime Minister's Office.
• In support of the Commission, a
technical group was set up. It is composed of
a representative from the Prime Minister's
Office, a lawyer from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, a lawyer from the Ministry of
Justice.
• call for application in the Official
Announcements Bulletin of the Republic of
Albania, in the official website of the Prime
Minister's Office and reflected it in the media
• 1 st stage: Based on the criteria of the
call for application and the characteristics of
the candidates who appeared, the
• To be Albanian citizens.
• To be lawyers,
• shall be of high moral
character and must either possess
the qualifications required for
appointment to a high judicial
office or be jurisconsults of
recognised competence.
• To have the legal
knowledge and practical
experience of the national legal
system, of the public international
law, mainly in the field of human
rights.
• To master the Albanian
language, one of the official
languages of the Council of
Europe (English or French) and
have at least a basic knowledge of
the other language. Mastering both
official languages of the Council
of Europe shall be deemed an
advantage.

45
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
ANDORRA/
Commission decided to call all the candidates
to continue to the 2 nd stage of the selection
procedure, that of the interview.
• 50% in one of the official languages
of the Council of Europe (English or French).
• Each member of the Commission
assessed each candidate secretly assessing
their overall performance.
• After the interviews, the
Commission, by secret ballot, proposed a
list of 3 candidates
Information as communicated to PACE in January 2015
ANDORRE
• Announcement is published in the
Official Gazette
• Any interested individuals who met
the criteria laid down in the PACE’s
recommendations and the Convention are
required to submit their candidatures and
CVs in English and French to the MFA.
A selection commission of 5 members is set
up (the Director of Multilateral Affairs and
Co-operation, the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs (Chair), the Head of the Private
Office of the Head of Government, the
Director for the Interior, Ministry of Justice
and Interior, a lawyer in the Government’s
legal office, a lawyer and professor of
European law from the University of
Barcelona.) The commission meets twice.
• The purpose of the first meeting is to
analyse and assess the various candidatures
received, in particular to check that the
candidates’ CVs meet the requirements.
• The purpose of the second meeting
is to prepare one-hour interviews.
• Following deliberation, the selection
commission submits the national list of
three candidates to the Council of Ministers
for approval
• criteria laid down in the
Parliamentary Assembly’s
recommendations and in the
European Convention on Human
Rights
• CVs
• experience,
• reasons for applying
• language skills

46 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
ARMENIE/
ARMENIA
AUSTRIA/
AUTRICHE
Information as communicated to PACE in May 2015 and supplemented by
information communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)005)
See the detailed presentation in doc DH-
SYSC-I(2016)005
• Requirements and Documents
Consistency Verification (Eligibility
Verification) by an independent and
impartial commission
Interview : the Commission invites
the candidates who meet the requirement of
eligibility to interviews. (oral round of
selection of candidates was transparent (i.e.
it was broadcasted, journalists and other
third parties were present));
The interview of each candidate is
divided in 3 phases: (i) interview on
personal character, (ii) interview on
professional qualities, and (iii) language
skills test.
4 specialists were invited to support
the Commission for the evaluation of the
language skills (2 English language
specialists and 2 – French language)
• Comprisal of the Short List of the
Winning Candidates. The final list of
candidates to be presented to the
Parliamentary Assembly was made public at
national level.
• Submission of the Proposed List of
three Candidates to the President and its
Endorsement.
Shall be of high moral
character and possess the
qualifications required for
appointment to high judicial office
or be jurisconsults of recognized
competence.
Gender-representation
measure: the highest evaluated
representative of under-represented
gender (in this case – females) is to
be included into the list, replacing
the third evaluated candidate.
Evaluation criteria: sense
of justice, perception of and
attitude towards the fundamental
values of the Convention,
professional knowledge,
professional skills, professional
experience, professional authority,
main language skills, ability to
comprehend the meaning of a
genuine text in the second
language and describe it in
Armenian.
Information as communicated to PACE in February 2016
• A public call for candidatures is • specialized legal knowledge
issued in the specialized press
and other skills relevant for the
• Supreme Courts and universities are position of Judge at the ECtHR
informed
• skills in the two official
• Interviews with the candidates are languages of the Council of Europe.
conducted by a commission composed of
four senior officials (one of them a woman)
of the Federal Chancellery, the Federal
Ministry for Europe, Integration and
Foreign Affairs and the Federal Ministry for
Science, Research and Economy. Interview

47
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
AZERBAIDJAN
with all five candidates. Skills in the two
official languages assessed during the
interview.
• A list of three candidates is
subsequently submitted to the Austrian
Federal Government, which endorses this
list and decides to nominate these three
persons as Austrian candidates for the
position of Austrian Judge at the ECtHR
• The Austrian Parliament is informed
about this decision.
• The nomination procedure is also
reported in the Austrian media
Information as communicated to PACE in August 2016
• In March 2016 the Government
requested the Judicial and Legal Council, an
independent body of judicial self-government
to nominate the candidates to include in the
Government’s list of candidates for election
as judge.
• Notice in an independent daily legal
periodical and placed on websites of the
Judicial and Legal Council and of the MJ
• period for submission : 1 month
• the Council summoned seven out of
twelve applicants to interviews
• criteria specified in
Recommendation 1649 (2004) and
Resolution 1646 (2009) of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe and those
indicated in the Panel’s Final
Activity Report (§§ 26-31 and 34-
35).
• certain balance between the
sexes or between different
branches of the legal profession
• legal expertise
professional experience
• suitability to exercise the
role of judge
• guarantees of independence
and impartiality
• the linguistic abilities and
suitability to work as part of a
team within an international
environment
• active knowledge of one
and a passive knowledge of the
other official language of the
Council of Europe
• every list should contain
candidates of both sexes.

48 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
BELGIUM/
BELGIQUE
Information contained in CDDH-SC(2011)002Rev.2 and supplemented by
information communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)005)
• Le Bureau de l’Agent devant la Cour
procède à un appel public à candidatures
largement publié (Moniteur belge, lettre aux
Cours suprêmes, à l’Ordre des Barreaux et
aux universités). L’appel contient une
phrase invitant spécifiquement les femmes à
se porter candidates à la fonction de juge.
• Appel publié durant 1 mois (pouvant
être allongé d’un mois selon les nécessités)
• L’appel à candidature est envoyé à
toutes les universités belges, aux deux
ordres des avocats, au collège des
Procureurs généraux, à la Cour
constitutionnelle, au Conseil d’Etat ainsi
qu’aux présidents des assemblées
parlementaires fédérales.
• Aucune présélection des
candidatures n’est opérée : l’ensemble des
candidats ayant réagi à l’appel (par envoi de
CV) est soumis à l’interview.
• Le jury compte six personnes (un
magistrat, deux parlementaires, un membre
du Conseil Supérieur de la Justice et deux
membres du bureau de l’Agent du
Gouvernement devant la Cour). Il est
composé de manière à représenter tant un
équilibre politique qu’une représentation
équitable hommes-femmes.
• Chaque membre de jury note les
candidats sur les réponses données aux
diverses questions (entretien de 45 minutes
testant tant les connaissances de la
jurisprudence de la Cour que les
connaissances linguistiques (EN/FR)). La
note finale de chaque candidat résulte de
l’addition des scores attribués par chaque
membre du jury. Ainsi, l’évaluation des
qualifications et de l’expérience de chaque
candidat se fait sur un strict pied d’égalité.
considération morale mais
il n’existe pas de procédure de
vérification de ce critère.
compétence pour l’exercice
de hautes fonctions judiciaires ou
juridiques (avocat, professeur
d’université…). Lors de l’entretien
de 45 minutes, les questions
portent sur l’expérience
professionnelle des candidats.
connaissances de la
jurisprudence de la Cour
(notamment mise en perspective
de la jurisprudence de la Cour à
partir d’un arrêt spécifique et de
son impact sur le système légal
national)
faire face aux défis
(réforme, arriéré, crédibilité,
confiance du public et des
institutions nationales et
internationales à son égard)
L’entretien se déroule en
partie en français, en partie, en
anglais. Il est attendu du candidat
qu’il ait, au moins, une
connaissance active de l’une des
langues officielles du Conseil de
l’Europe et passive de l’autre.
disponibilité requise pour
une activité à plein temps et leur
disponibilité leur est demandée
lors de l’entretien.
invitant spécifiquement les
femmes à se porter candidates à la
fonction de juge. Le jury est
composé d’au moins une femme.

49
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
BOSNIA
AND
HERZEGOVINA /
BOSNIE-
HERZEGOVINE
BULGARIA/
BULGARIE
Information as communicated to PACE in March 2012 and supplemented by
information communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)005)
job posting in three leading daily
newspapers in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The authorized body (which in this
particular case is BiH MFA) announces an
open competition for this position, considers
fulfilment of administrative conditions and
deadlines of the applications received, and
submits to BiH Presidency all applications
of the candidates meeting the criteria the
Presidency of BiH makes the final selection
of three candidates
No recent information available
high moral integrity and
possess qualifications requested for
fulfilling high judicial duties, that
is, be a recognised legal expert;
be fluent in one, and have
the knowledge of the other official
language of the Council of Europe
(the English and French languages);
a judge acts in his or her
personal capacity;
During his or her mandate
the judge cannot perform duties or
jobs which are incompatible with
his or her independence,
impartiality or requests of the
permanent service.
Information as communicated to PACE in March 2012
CROATIA/
CROATIE
The Candidate Selection Committee
was established by the Decision of the
Government of the Republic of Croatia
The Decision prescribes the tasks
and composition of the Committee,
including the obligation of publishing a
public tender for the selection of candidates
when the requirements have been met. The
Decision stipulates the obligation to publish
a public tender in two daily papers, in the
Official Gazette and on the MJ website.
Committee tasks include submitting
the proposal to the Government of the
Republic of Croatia. The Decision also
prescribes that the Ministry of Justice
provides professional, administrative and
technical support to the Committee.
Committee is composed of a
Representative of the Justice Committee of
the Croatian Parliament in the capacity of
the Committee Chairperson and one
be of high moral character
possess the qualifications
required for appointment to high
judicial office or be jurisconsults
of recognized competence;
be younger than 70;
assume the obligation to
discontinue all activities which
could be incompatible with their
independence, impartiality or the
requirement of working full
time during their term, if selected.
active knowledge of one,
and a passive knowledge of the
other, official language of the
Council of Europe

50 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
CYPRUS /
CHYPRE
representative from each of the following
institutions: Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Croatia, Supreme Court of the
Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Justice
and one representative chosen from faculties
of law. Both genders are represented in the
Committee (two female and three male
members).
term of 30 days for the submission
of candidate applications
The Committee concluded there was
no need for an interview with the three
short-listed candidates since they are known
to the general public and Committee
members for their professional activities
and decided to submit the proposal on the
selection of candidates to the Government
Information as communicated to PACE in November 2015 and information
communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC(2016)002)
• Decision by the Council of Ministers
of the Republic (Decision 76.854 of 3rd July
2014)
• The call for applications is widely
available to the public by publication in the
Official Gazette of the Republic and
dissemination via the Supreme Court,
Cyprus Bar Association and Commissioner
for the Protection of Human Rights and also
dissemination via universities.
• A selection body is established
under the authority of the MFA whose
mandate is to evaluate the candidates and
recommend up to five candidates to the
Government. The selection body interviews
all serious candidates. (Members of the
selection body are drawn from the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Justice and
Public Order, Office of the Attorney
General, the judiciary, Office of the
Commissioner for the Protection of Human
Rights, the Cyprus Bar Association and
academics from the universities in Cyprus.)
candidates were selected upon
evaluation of all candidatures submitted and

51
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
CZECH
REPUBLIC /
REPUBLIQUE
TCHEQUE
DENMARK /
DANEMARK
interviews held by the competent national
committee
• The final decision of candidates to
be presented to the Parliamentary Assembly
is taken by the President of the Republic.
Information as communicated to PACE in April 2012
L’organisation de la procédure de
sélection des candidats appartient au MJ qui
fait appel à candidatures, organise les
entretiens avec les candidats, établit la liste
de candidats et la présente pour approbation
au Gouvernement.
Il peut être fait recours à une
évaluation des connaissances linguistiques
du candidat sans que cette possibilité soit
davantage précisée dans les règles
applicables à la procédure de sélection.
Un appel à candidatures tout à fait
ouvert est lancé, tenu d’assurer la publicité
la plus large possible à l’appel à
candidatures et doit notamment publier
l’appel sur ses pages web et l’annoncer aux
tribunaux, aux différentes unités du
ministère public, aux organisations
professionnelles de juristes et aux doyens
des facultés de droit des universités
publiques.
délai de présentation des candidatures : deux
mois minimum sauf si la procédure de
sélection a été relancée suite au rejet du
projet de liste par le Gouvernement.
être de nationalité tchèque
avoir un haut caractère
moral
pouvoir être nommé juge
d’une cour suprême ou de la Cour
Constitutionnelle ou être un juriste
renommé
offrir des garanties
d’indépendance et d’impartialité ;
avoir une connaissance
suffisante de la problématique de
la protection internationale des
droits de l’homme et surtout de la
jurisprudence de la Cour ;
avoir une connaissance
active de l’une des langues
officielles de la Cour au moins.
Critères complémentaires :
connaissance active de
l’autre langue officielle
ne pas entraîner la
nécessité de nommer un juge ad
hoc
le candidat devrait avoir un
âge qui lui permet d’accomplir tout
le mandat
Information communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)005 and CDDH-
SC(2011)002Rev.2)
Independent standing committee of • Moral qualities and
five members appointed by the MJ upon
nomination from the President of the
Supreme Court (nomination of the chairman
experience expected of candidates
laid down in Art.21§1 of the
Convention
of the Committee), the Presidents of the • experience in the field of
High Courts, the Council of the Danish Bar human rights
and Law Society, the Ministry of Foreign • candidates of both sexes
Affairs and the Ministry of Justice • sufficient knowledge of at

52 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
ESTONIA /
ESTONIE
respectively.
least one of the two official
The Committee proposed the best languages
candidates to the Government. MJ serves as • names of the candidates are
the secretariat of the Committee.
placed in alphabetical order
Publication of the vacancy in • As far as possible no
Djøfbladet (a biweekly periodical issues to candidate should be submitted
members working within the field of law,
business economics and political), on two
major websites for vacant positions in
whose election might result in the
necessity to appoint an ad hoc
judge.
Denmark and on websites of the MJ and
MFA.
The Committee summoned 5 out 7
applicants to interviews and proposed to the
Government three candidates
Information as communicated to PACE in June 2010 and information contained in
doc CDDH-SC(2011)002Rev.2
Legal grounds: § 9(9) of the Foreign
Relations Act of Estonia.
MFA publishes an announcement for
public competition in two daily newspapers,
in electronically published publication and
on the Internet web-pages of MFA, MJ, the
Supreme Court and web-pages of the
organisations gathering lawyers.
MFA forms a committee for review
of the submitted applications and selection
of the candidates.
Members of the Committee :
Minister of Foreign Affairs (chairman), the
Minister of Justice, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, the Chancellor of Justice
and the Secretary of State (see §9(9) of the
Foreign Relations Act above). All members
of the Committee are entitled to consult
with the institution they are representing
and ask for an expert opinion.
Public competition with a duration
up to 4 weeks
The Committee reviews the
applications that have been submitted and
selects three candidates. It has the right to
ask for additional information from the
candidates and to interview them.
The decision of the Committee
Criteria for the judges set
forth in the Convention and in the
relevant documents of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe
Selected candidates
fulfilled the criteria set forth
judges in Estonia, especially in
article 47 of the Courts Act, incl.
requirements to the education and
requirements not to be convicted
of criminal offence.

53
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
should be made by the simple majority of
the votes, all members of the Committee
must vote
The decision of the Committee
should be made by the simple majority of
the votes, all members of the Committee
must vote. The MFA and the MJ must be in
favour the decision.
The chairman of the Committee
presented the list of three selected
candidates to the Government for approval.
The Government approves the list by
its order. The Government has the right to
refuse to approve the list but there has never
been such a situation in Estonia.
FINLAND /
FINLANDE
Information as communicated to PACE in February 2015 and supplemented by
information communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)002 and DH-
SYSC-I(2016)005)
See the detailed presentation in doc DH-
SYSC-I(2016)005
Finland has, in 2010, reformed the
procedures for nominating candidates for
judges or members of international courts
and tribunals and the Court of Justice of
European Union, by amending the Act on
Judicial Appointments (amendment No. 741
/ 2010).
• The MFA initiates the procedure by
notifying the Expert Advisory Board of the
vacancy and advertising it in major national
newspapers, on the website of the MFA,
sent by e-mail to the Supreme Court, the
Supreme Administrative Court, all Courts of
Appeal, the Association of Finnish Lawyers,
the Finnish Bar Association, and to all
universities having a faculty of law
• The Board examines the applications
in the light of the criteria.
• It may interview eligible candidates.
• The Board may also test the
applicants' language skills and take into
account other relevant matters, such as their
communication skills.
• The criteria set forth in the
ECHR and by the Council of
Europe (including the non-binding
Guidelines on the selection for the
post of judge at the European
Court of Human Rights and their
Explanatory Memorandum) are
expressed in the announcement of
the MFA.
• Specific consideration to
the recommendation of the
Parliamentary Assembly to present
candidates of both sexes is given.
• Proficiency in at least one
of the official languages of the
CoE is required.

54 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
presents the list of three candidates
recommended by the Board and the
Government appoints the list of candidates
in its plenary session.
Information as provided to PACE in February 2011
FRANCE
• Un appel public à candidatures a été
publié sur le site internet du ministère des
Affaires Etrangères, sur celui du ministère
de la Justice et également été signalé dans
plusieurs revues juridiques
• l'examen des candidatures a été
confié au Groupe national français de la
Cour permanente d'arbitrage (présidé par un
ancien directeur des affaires juridiques au
ministère des affaires étrangères et ancien
juge à la Cour internationale de justice, et
composé d’un professeur émérite de droit
public, un ancien directeur des affaires
juridiques au ministère des affaires
étrangères, un ancien juge à la Cour de
justice des communautés européennes et
d’un ancien directeur des affaires juridiques
au ministère des affaires étrangères,
secrétaire général de l'organisation pour la
sécurité et la coopération en Europe).
• auditionne les candidats dont la
candidature lui semble correspondre le
mieux aux fonctions postulées
• le Groupe national a retenu une liste
de cinq noms en signalant à l'attention du
Gouvernement les noms de deux candidats
lui paraissant particulièrement dignes d'être
proposés. Pour compléter la liste de ces deux
noms, le Gouvernement a choisi un
troisième candidat dont la candidature
n'avait pas été retenue par le Groupe
national mais dont le profil a été jugé
complémentaire de celui des autres
candidats proposés.

55
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
GEORGIA /
GÉORGIE
Information as communicated to PACE in August 2016 and supplemented by
information communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)005)
See the detailed presentation in doc DH-
SYSC-I(2016)005
Commission was chaired by the MJ
and was comprised of 5 female and 6 male
members.
At the first stage, candidates’ CVs
and supporting documents were verified.
At the next stage, the State
Commission contracted the British Council
office in Georgia and the French Institute in
Georgia, where candidates took free
language tests (APTIS) respectively.
Commission gathered at the Justice
Training Center facility to interview the
successful 12 candidates. Media
representatives had the right to attend the
interviews and/or take comments from
those candidates who had previously agreed
to speak to media.
Each member of the State
Commission evaluated each of the
candidates separately.
After interviewing all the candidates,
the State Commission shall approve 2 lists
of candidates according to their gender, on
the basis of the average scores in decreasing
order.
The Government of Georgia
examined the files of the 5 shortlisted
candidates, heard the Chair of the State
Commission and chose the 3 candidates for
nomination.
shall be a citizen of
Georgia of legal capacity, between
the age of 30-65 years
has perfect command of the
state language;
has good command of one
of the official languages of the
Council of Europe (English or
French);
has perfect knowledge of
the European Convention on
Human Rights, relevant case law
and has working experience in this
field;
has perfect knowledge of
the principles of public
international law and the
legislation of Georgia;
meets the requirements
established by the legislation of
Georgia for occupying high
judicial positions, or is a law
specialist of recognised
competence;
has at least five years of
professional experience;
is of a high moral character
and professional reputation
An average command of
the second official language of the
Council of Europe shall be
considered an advantage for the
candidate

56 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
GERMANY/
ALLEMAGNE
GREECE /
GRÈCE
Information as communicated to PACE in April 2010 and information
communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)002)
• public call: announcements are
placed in the newspapers Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutsche
Zeitung, as well as in Neue Juristische
Wochenschrift, a specialized law journal.
• A press release calling for
expressions of interested was released by
the Federal MF and the notice was also
placed on the Justice Ministry’s website.
• All federal courts, the Federal
Prosecutor General, the German Judges
Association, the German Bar Association
(Deutscher Anwaltverein), the German
Federal Bar (Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer),
and the German Institute for Human Rights
were informed that interested persons
should be invited to apply or that their
names should be submitted to the Ministry.
• The Federal Government selects the
three most suitable candidates from among
the candidates who contacted the Federal
Ministry of Justice or who were
recommended by third parties.
Information as communicated to PACE in June 2010
• MJ et MAE font un appel public qui
est publié sur le site web du MAE
• L'appel à manifestation d'intérêt a
été transmis aux présidents des Cours
suprêmes de la Grèce (Cour suprême civile
et pénale, Conseil d'Etat, Cour des comptes)
ainsi qu'aux doyens des facultés de droit
grecques en vue d'une plus large diffusion
auprès de tous les membres du corps
judiciaire et des facultés de droit. Cet appel
a été aussi publié dans des journaux à gros
tirage.
• Une commission composée de trois
membres, à savoir le Secrétaire Général du
MAE, le Secrétaire Général du ministère de
la Justice, de la Transparence et des Droits
de l'homme et le président du Conseil
• The list of candidates meets
the recommendations of the
Committee of Ministers and fulfils
all requirements of the
Parliamentary Assembly.
• critères relatifs à l'élection
des juges près la Cour européenne
des droits de l'homme, tels qu'ils
sont énoncés à la fois dans la
Convention européenne des droits
de l'homme et les résolutions
applicables de l'Assemblée
parlementaire, notamment la
Résolution 1646(2009)

57
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
HUNGARY/
HONGRIE
juridique de l'Etat, a examiné attentivement
les candidatures et adressé des
recommandations au ministre des Affaires
étrangères et au ministre de la Justice, de la
Transparence et des Droits de l'homme.
• Le MAE et le MJ ont choisi les trois
candidats à inscrire sur la liste
Information as communicated to PACE in August 2016
The Minister of Justice is
responsible for the ECHR matters within
the structure of the Government
The minister discusses with various
competent experts concerning the
nomination. He also discusses with the
potential candidates in order to receive
information about the depth and breadth of
the professional knowledge and experience
of the candidates.
Upon the proposal of the minister,
the Government takes the decision
concerning the list of candidates. After the
decision of the Government, the minister
requests the Ambassador to transmit the
necessary documents to the Advisory Panel
and later to the Parliamentary Assembly.
submits their names in alphabetical
order
have been named after a wide range
of consultations with various experts,
having taken carefully into consideration
not only the professional background of the
candidates, but also their linguistic
capacities as well as how they would
qualify as judges.
the depth and breadth of
the professional experience of the
candidates is of a sufficiently high
level for the position to exercise
judicial functions in the ECHR,
they are considered a jurisconsult
of standing or a person entitled to
be appointed to high judicial office
within the meaning of Article 21
(1) of the Convention.
• taken carefully into
consideration not only the
professional background of the
candidates, but also their linguistic
capacities as well as how they
would qualify as judges.

58 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
ICELAND/
ISLANDE
Information as communicated to PACE in March 2013
• Notice placed on the website of the
Ministry of the Interior, and on the public
advertisement site of the Government
Offices, in the Legal Gazette and in the jobs
sections of the two most widely circulated
newspapers in Iceland
• A separate notice was sent to all law
schools in Iceland, all the courts of law, the
Bar Association and the Lawyers'
Association
• discussed in mainstream and Internet
news media.
• Committee of five members
appointed, three women and two men (a
Professor at the Reykjavik University
School of Law and ad hoc judge at the
European Court of Human Rights, an
attorney to the Supreme Court, a Supreme
Court Judge, the Chief Judge, and the
ambassador, nominated by the Ministry for
Foreign Affair). The Ministry appointed the
chairman of the committee ex officio.
• Interviews all candidates
• In the event that the candidate do not
meet the level of language proficiency
required for the post of judge in an official
language [the second], s/he has to confirm
his intention to follow intensive language
classes of the language concerned prior to,
and if need be also at the beginning of, the
term of duty, if elected a judge on the
Court.
• eligibility requirements for
nomination in accordance with
Article 21 of the ECHR and the
qualifications to accept the office in
accordance with the Guidelines of
the Council of Europe CM(2012)40
of 29 March 2012.
• sign a declaration, with
reference to Article 21 of the Act on
the ECHR, to the effect that they
had not said, done or written
anything which might harm the
reputation of the Court, that they
would not engage in any activity
which is incompatible with the
independence of judges at the
European Court of Human Rights,
their impartiality or the
requirements made with regard to a
full-time office as a judge at the
Court and that they would not
foreseeably be disqualified in
general from hearing cases brought
before the Court.

59
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
IRELAND /
IRLANDE
Information as communicated to PACE in February 2015 and information
communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc CDDH-SC(2011)002Rev.2)
advertisement in Irish and English
posted in the national newspapers,
circulated to appropriate persons in the
legal community, posted on the Department
of FA and Trade website and on the Public
Appointments Service website.
• applications are considered by a
Selection Panel convened by the Attorney
General to advise on persons qualified to
act as a judge of the ECHR.
• The Selection Panel was composed
of: the Director General of the Office of the
Attorney General, an Established Professor
of Law and Head of the School of Law at
NUI Galway, part-time Commissioner of
the Law Reform Commission and a retired
Supreme Court Judge.
• A short list of nine candidates was
drawn up and those persons were
interviewed by the Selection Panel.
• The Selection Panel recommended
three of the interviewees be put forward as
candidates for election and the Government
accepted this recommendation.
• The advertisement makes it
clear that only candidates of a high
standard with an established
reputation and meeting the
requirements of Article 21 of the
Convention and the requirements
contained in the relevant
recommendations and resolutions
of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe should
apply
• Refer to a high level of
achievement in the areas of law in
which they have been engaged and
experience relevant to the post of
judge of the European Court of
Human Rights,
• Have the capacity to learn
and understand other legal,
constitutional and political
systems,
• Have the ability to
communicate effectively orally
and in writing particularly in the
role of judge rapporteur, and to
work well in a chamber of
international judges,
• Have a good knowledge of
the European Convention on
Human Rights and the case-law of
the Court,
• Have an operational
working knowledge of French.
ITALY/
ITALIE
No recent information provided

60 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
Information as communicated to PACE in April 2015
LATVIA/
LETTONIE
LIECHTENSTEIN
public and open call (official edition eligibility requirements for
Latvijas Vēstnesis (“Latvian Herald”) and
widely disseminated among the official
websites of the Cabinet of Ministers, the
MFA, the MJ and the domestic courts,
enclosing model CV)
the position as Judge at the
European Court of Human Rights in
accordance with Article 21 of the
European Convention on Human
Rights
establishment of a Selection
linguistic competences
Committee
The Selection Committee assesses
whether all applicants meet the eligibility
requirements.
The Selection Committee invites the
remaining applicants to one-hour interviews
in Latvian and in English.
The Selection Committee through
secret ballot, chooses three candidates for
inclusion on the list of candidates
The list of three candidates and the
English versions of the curriculum vitae is
transmitted to the Advisory Panel of Experts
on Candidates in order to obtain its view.
The opinion of the Advisory Panel is
discussed in the meeting of the Selection
Committee which unanimously decided to
submit the list of three candidates for the
approval by the Cabinet of Ministers.
The Cabinet of Ministers has to
approve the list of candidates as proposed
by the Selection Committee, and submits it
to PACE.
Information as communicated to PACE in January 2015 and information
communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)002)
The Government establishes a
selection body to submit a list of three
candidates.
Five experts are nominated to this
body: the Director of the Office for FA
(Chair), the Director of the Office of
Justice, the Deputy Director of the Office of
Human Resources and Organisation, the
President of the Constitutional Court and a
Swiss University Professor.
Takes into account the relevant
criteria, e.g. the Committee of
Ministers' Guidelines on the
selection of candidates for the
post of judge at the ECtHR.

61
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
LITHUANIA /
LITUANIE
A public call for applications is
published
After the selection body had
carefully assessed the written applications,
11 applicants were invited for interviews,
including an assessment of applicants’
linguistic abilities.
The selection body decided
unanimously on a list of three candidates
and the Government approved this decision.
Information as communicated to PACE in April 2013 and information
communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc CDDH-SC(2011)002Rev.2)
Pursuant to Article 77 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,
the ECHR partially amended by the
Protocol No. 11 and No. 14 and taking into
consideration the proposal submitted by the
Prime Minister.
A working group composed of the
Minister of Justice (chairperson of the
group), MFA, the Chairperson of the
Parliamentary Committee on Human
Rights, the Chairperson of the
Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs,
the Chancellor of the Prime Minister, the
Senior Advisor to the President of the
Republic, and the Chairperson of the
Judicial Council was formed by the Prime
Minister and entrusted with the task of preselection
of candidates.
Call for candidatures in the Official
Gazette (its supplement for information
notes) and two biggest dailies (“Lietuvos
rytas” and “Respublika”) and on the MJ’s
website.
The call is brought to the attention of
Lithuanian lawyers' associations and law
faculties of Lithuanian universities.
The working group publicly
announces the names of the selected
candidates and brings it as a
recommendation to the attention of the
Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister, having assessed
Requirements set out in the
ECHR and in the Parliamentary
Assembly resolution No. 1646
(2009)

62 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
the recommendation from the working
group regarding the choice of candidates,
proposes the list of three candidates to the
President of the Republic.
The President of the Republic,
having assessed the proposal from the
Prime Minister and the recommendation
from the working group, finalizes the list of
candidates by issuing the decree.
The MFA then informs the Council
of Europe of the outcome of the selection
procedure.
The draft law envisages a procedure
involving the participation of the
Government, the President of the Republic
and the Parliament. The Parliament has not
yet examined it in 2011.
LUXEMBOURG Information as communicated to PACE in February 2015
L’appel à candidature est publié dans
les principaux quotidiens et hebdomadaires
du Luxembourg (le Luxemburger Wort, le
Tageblatt. Je Journal et le Letzebuerger
Land.) ; et sur le site Internet MJ et au
Journal officiel du Luxembourg, et diffusé
par voie électronique aux barreaux du
Luxembourg et à la magistrature.
Toutes les candidatures reçues dans le
délai sont soumises à l'examen de l'organe
de sélection constitué de manière ad hoc
créé par le ministre de la Justice.
Ce dernier s’est adressé par voie de
courrier officiel aux personnes ou instances
qu’il voulait voir siéger au sein d'un comité
de sélection national du juge
luxembourgeois à la CEDH.
Le comité de sélection national s'est
réuni à plusieurs reprises, afin de discuter
des modalités pratiques des entretiens,
d'examiner et valider les demandes de
candidatures entrées au ministère de la
Justice, puis effectuer les entretiens des
candidats qui remplissent les conditions
requises, en partie menés en langue
anglaise, d’une durée de 45 minutes chacun.
• Etre des juristes jouissant
de la plus haute considération
morale et réunissant les conditions
requises pour l’exercice de hautes
fonctions judiciaires du pays ou
possédant une compétence
notoire;
• Avoir une expérience
juridique pratique et des
connaissances du système légal
luxembourgeois et en droit
international public notamment
dans le domaine des droits de
l’Homme;
• Maîtriser la langue
nationale et l’une des langues
officielles du Conseil de l’Europe
et avoir au moins une
connaissance passive de l’autre
langue. La maîtrise des deux
langues du Conseil de l’Europe
sera considérée comme un
avantage.
• Le Gouvernement
luxembourgeois accorde une
importance particulière à pouvoir

63
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
MALTA /
MALTE
REPLUBLIC OF
MOLDOVA/
REPUBLIQUE
DE MOLDOVA
• Les membres du panel délibèrent ensuite
puis votent par bulletin secret, chacun ayant
la possibilité d'y écrire le nom de trois
candidats.
• Cette liste ainsi que les noms des autres
candidats est remise au ministre de la
Justice qui la fait sienne.
• La liste est rendue publique par voie de
communiqué de presse et sur le site Internet
du MJ, et l’information est largement
reprise par tous les médias nationaux.
présenter une liste mixte.
• Les candidat(e)s ne
peuvent exercer aucune activité
incompatible avec les exigences
d’indépendance, d’impartialité ou
de disponibilité requises par un
exercice à temps plein du mandat
de juge.
Information as communicated to PACE in April 2010 and information
communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)002)
• The Government of Malta published • Specific reference to Art.21
a call for applications in English and of the ECHR and the relative
Maltese languages, in the four Maltese Parliamentary Assembly
languages, in the four Maltese daily
newspapers.
resolutions on the election of
judges.
• Of the three candidates to be • Malta is aware of its
selected at least one would be female. obligation to ensure that the Court
is composed of the highest quality
judges and consequently has
always sought to ensure that
candidates of the highest standard
are nominated for election as
Judges of the Court.
Information as communicated to PACE in August 2012
• process was conditioned inter alia
by the adoption by the Committee of
Ministers of the Guidelines
• The Regulations and the
Commission’s composition were largely
disseminated through the Official Gazette
and official web-database of the Ministry of
Justice. Civil society has also been involved
in the decision making process.
• The Commission consisted of 17
notorious persons, representing all
competent national authorities and
institutions, academic staff, civil society (5
out 17 members were women)
• all members of the Commission
were equal in their opinion and votes to be
• Criteria under Article 21 of
the Convention.
• Candidates declared that
they do not have any pending
applications before the European
Court, neither as an applicant nor
as a representative.

64 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
casted, each of them having had the right to
a dissenting opinion.
• The selection procedure
encompassed three stages: (i) call for
candidates, (ii) shortlisting, (iii) written test
and interview.
• candidates were called to submit
their applications during one month time
• The public call was largely
disseminated via the Official Gazette, massmedia,
official web-sites of the Moldovan
diplomatic missions and the official webpage
of the MJ.
• Nine candidates applied for the
selection, all of them being shortlisted for
the next stage which included written test
and interview.
• The first meeting of the Commission
was video recorded and broadcasted.
Consequently, the press was allowed to
reflect the following stages of the selection
procedure.
• two by two interpreters from English
and French languages (two university
professors and two licensed interpreters)
were present during the interview. They
tested the candidates’ language proficiency
in both official languages of the Council of
Europe.
• The national selection procedure was
won by the first three candidates who
obtained the highest grades.
MONACO Information as communicated to PACE in May 2015
• Liste présentée par le Gouvernement
de la Principauté de Monaco.
• L’instance nationale de sélection des
candidats au poste de juge à la CEDH est
chargée d’émettre un avis au Gouvernement
Princier sur les candidatures.
• Commission issue d’une décision
administrative qui prend en considération
les lignes directrices du Comité des
Ministres s’agissant des règles de
désignation et de composition de ladite
• critères prescrits tant par la
Convention européenne des droits
de l’Homme (articles 21 à 23) que
par les textes pertinents de
l’Assemblée Parlementaire du
Conseil de l’Europe en la matière.

65
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
MONTENEGRO
instance
• organe composé du : Président du
Haut Conseil de la Magistrature, Président
du Tribunal Suprême, Premier Président de
la Cour de Révision, Conseiller de
Gouvernement pour les Relations
Extérieures et la Coopération et le Délégué
aux Affaires Juridiques
• Les autorités monégasques saisissent
ensuite le Panel consultatif d’experts
Information communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)005)
• Commission formed in 2007
• national procedure published on the
website of the Government
• Commission consisted of: President of the
Supreme Court of Montenegro, MJ,
Minister for Human and Minority Rights
Protection, Dean of the Faculty of Law,
Secretary of the Secretariat for Legislation
and President of the Committee on
International Relations and European
Integration. President of the Commission
is the MJ
• Every person who applied to the public
notice had to be interviewed for the
checking of their language skills. 2
committees (1 english/1 french) are
formed to conduct the interview.
• Then, the Commission sent to the
Government the proposal list with 3
candidates for further procedure.
• of high moral character
• possess the qualifications
required for appointment to high
judicial office or be jurisconsults
of recognized competence.
• required to possess the full
knowledge of one or both official
languages of the Court (English or
French).

66 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
NETHERLANDS
/ PAYS-BAS
Information as communicated to PACE in April 2012 and supplemented by
information communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)005 and DH-
SYSC-I(2016)002)
the vacancy is announced in relevant
law journals and newspapers and on
relevant websites.
The vacancy includes an invitation to
third parties to suggest in writing
candidates whom they consider suitable.
All candidates, including those who do
not apply themselves but are invited later
for an interview at the suggestion of a
ability to express oneself
third party, must complete the entire effectively in spoken and
application procedure
written French or English.
For each vacancy, a recommending Relevant international
committee is composed (the President of experience and the ability to
the Supreme Court, the Vice-President of take account of differences in
the Council of State or the President of legal culture among the
the Administrative Jurisdiction Division countries of the Countries of
of the Council of State and a third Europe.
member with ample knowledge of and
experience in international and/or
European law and the Council of Europe
or a comparable international
organisation).
The MFA and the Minister of Security
and Justice may only deviate from the
recommendation made by the committee
on substantiated grounds.
This recommending committee will on
the basis of the received applications and
interviews with a number of candidates
draw up a recommendation - a shortlist
of at least three candidates - for the MFA
and MJ
After consultation between these two
Ministers, the list will be submitted to
the Council of Ministers, who will after
consultation forward it to the PACE.
high moral character
possess the qualification
required for appointment to high
judicial office or be
jurisconsults of recognised
competence.
judicial experience, thorough
knowledge of the Convention

67
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
NORWAY /
NORVÈGE
Information as communicated to PACE in January 2011 and information
communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH--SYSC-I(2016)002)
• new procedure established in 2009.
• The MJ issues an open call for
applications on the Government website
and in specialist journals.
• The Ministry informs certain relevant
institutions about the call for
applications and ask them to inform
their contacts/members, for example by
publishing information on their own
websites.
• informs Norway's delegation to the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe and the current Norwegian
judge.
• The Ministry of Justice appoints a
selection committee consisting of five
members. The committee will be chaired
by the chair of the Judicial
Appointments Board (subject to this
person's agreement). The other members
are appointed on the basis of proposals
from the Supreme Court, the Office of
the Attorney General of Civil Affairs,
the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights
and the Norwegian Bar Association.
Each of these bodies is encouraged to
put forward the names of one woman
and one man.
• The committee is to submit its proposal
for three candidates, with reasons for
selecting the candidates, to the MJ.
• The MJ takes the decision on Norway's
nomination of three named candidates
after the names have been submitted to
the ministers concerned and to the
Office of the Prime Minister.
• The MFA submits the list of candidates
to the Parliamentary Assembly.
• The list of candidates is made public.
• high moral character
• law degree (Master's degree or
equivalent) and relevant legal
experience.
• thorough knowledge of the
Norwegian legal system and of
the human rights field.
• professional competence,
personal aptitude, language
skills and the requirement of
high moral character of article
21 of the Convention.
• good command of written and
spoken English or French and
as a minimum be able to read
and understand the other
language.
• The selection committee may
seek advice from relevant
external actors, and may use
external expertise to evaluate
the language proficiency of
relevant applicants.
• As far as possible, at least one
of the candidates should be of
the sex which is underrepresented
at the Court.

68 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
POLAND /
POLOGNE
Information as communicated to PACE in April 2012 and Information
communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)002)
•Legal basis: Ordonance of the MFA dated
13 January 2012 on appointment of the
• knowledge of issues related to
human rights;
Panel responsible for selection of candidates
•call for candidatures published in at least
• knowledge of the law, in
particular Polish law
two national newspapers and on the website • experience related to its
of the MFA
practical application;
•applications are examined by a Panel • academic achievements.
composed of: an Undersecretary of State at • declaration stating their
the MFA responsible for Legal and Treaty intention to cease any activity
affairs (the Panel's Chairperson); that could not be reconciled
representative of the Minister of Justice in with
independence,
the rank of at least an undersecretary of impartiality and the
state; directors of the Legal and Treaty requirements of full­ time
Department and of the Department of the service as judge of the Court.
United Nations and Human Rights at the • declare that nothing in their
Ministry of Foreign Affairs; President of the hitherto activity, if made
State Treasury Solicitor's Office; a person
indicated by the Head of the Chancellery of
public, would compromise the
reputation of the Court.
the Prime Minister. The Government Agent • list of candidates should
acts as a secretary to the Panel and sits on include representatives of each
the Panel without the right to vote.
sex, unless in view of
•In the first stage of the procedure, the Panel
verifies whether the applications fulfil
exceptional circumstances it
would not be possible.
formal requirements specified in the call. In
case of doubt, the Panel requests the
candidate to submit clarifications or missing
documents within 14 days otherwise his/her
candidature will be dropped.
•The Panel interviews those candidates who
have fulfilled formal requirements (in
English or in French).
•When taking decisions, the Panel seeks to
decide by consensus, although a majority
vote can be held if necessary. If there is an
even number of votes, the Chairperson has
the casting vote.
•The Panel draws a list of three candidates
and two reserve candidates. Final list is
made public on the MFA website

69
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
PORTUGAL Information as communicated to PACE in January 2011
• The principles of freedom of
candidature, publicity, transparency and
non-discrimination
• Consideration was given to a more
balanced representation of women and men
in drawing up the list of candidates.
• The Minister of Justice therefore
organised a nationwide call for
candidatures, accompanied by the rules
governing the selection procedure, by
publishing advertisements in three national
newspapers, placing an official
announcement in the Official Gazette, and
including a news item on the website
“Portal da Justiça” and by further
circulating these notices to the Higher
Council of the Judiciary and the General
Council of the Bar Association.
• The Minister of Justice set up an
independent commission with four
members appointed by the Higher Council
of the Judiciary, the Higher Council of the
Administrative and Fiscal Courts, the
Procuradoria-Geral da República (Public
Prosecutor's Office) and the General
Council of the Portuguese Bar Association.
• admissibility of the candidatures
using the CV assessment method.
• The commission played an advisory
role in the process
Information as communicated to PACE in September 2013
• preconditions of Article 21
of the European Convention on
Human Rights.
ROUMANIA/
ROUMANIE
• Cadre légal : ordonnance du 27 mars
2013
• Le MJ convoque le comité de
sélection, composé: du MJ; du MAE; de
l’agent du gouvernement auprès de la Cour
européenne des droits de l’homme; de la
directrice de la Direction des affaires
européennes et des droits de l’homme au
ministère de la Justice; d’un membre du
Conseil supérieur de la magistrature,
désigné en réunion plénière de celui-ci;
• conditions requises pour
ces fonctions par le droit national,
par la Convention de sauvegarde
des droits de l’homme et des
libertés fondamentales et par les
instruments juridiques adoptés au
niveau du Conseil de l’Europe qui
sont pertinents dans ce domaine;
• répartition équilibrée des
sexes sur la liste de candidats
• maîtrise d’au moins une

70 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
RUSSIAN
FEDERATION /
FEDERATION
DE RUSSIE
d’un juge à la Haute cour de justice et de des langues officielles du Conseil.
cassation, désigné par le conseil
d’administration de celle-ci; du médiateur;
de deux universitaires des facultés de droit
d’universités.
• Annonce publiée en même temps sur
les sites internet du MJ, du ministère des
Affaires étrangères, de la Haute cour de
justice et de cassation et du Conseil
supérieur de la magistrature, et elle a été
distribuée aux médias et aux organisations
professionnelles de juristes et communiquée
à un site juridique spécialisé
• modèle de CV exigé par l’APCE
traduit en roumain et indiquant les liens
vers la version française et la version
anglaise du CV obligatoires
• le comité de sélection a vérifié les
connaissances par les candidats des langues
officielles
• délai dans lequel les candidatures
devaient être présentées : deux semaines
• La liste de propositions et la liste de
réserves sont transmises au gouvernement
puis publiée sur le site du MJ.
les commissions des questions juridiques et
des droits de l’homme interrogent les
candidats et donnent un avis consultatif.
A l’issue d’un vote au scrutin secret,
l’avis consultatif est transmis au
gouvernement qui adopte la liste définitive.
Information as communicated to PACE in April 2012
• A public call for candidatures was
made on 1 July 2011 through the
specialized press, the daily federal
newspaper and the relevant information
materials were simultaneously published on
the website of the MJ
• The initial examination of the
candidates’ applications was entrusted to
the Competition commission composed of 9
members: 4 representatives from the
Russian MJ, 3 representatives from the
MFA, 1 representative of the All-Russian
requirements set out by the
Convention and the relevant
Parliamentary Assembly resolutions
and recommendations

71
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
Non-Commercial Organization
“Association of Lawyers of Russia” and 1
professor of the European Studies Institute
at the Moscow State Institute of Foreign
Relations, i.e. the officials and independent
experts with relevant proficiency in
international law and human rights.
• The Comission short-listed 10 of
them and assigned the date of its second
meeting when personal interviews, also
including language assessment. The
Commission was also assisted by 2
professional translators from the Russian
Diplomatic Academy
• shortlist containing 6 candidates
was then approved by the Interdepartmental
Commission and then forwarded to the
President of the Russian Federation, who
chose the final 3 among them
SAN MARINO/
No recent information provided
SAINT MARIN
Information as communicated to PACE in November 2014
SERBIA /
SERBIE
The Minister of Justice established a
Commission to supervise an open
competition to nominate candidates
The Commission consisted of the
President of Supreme Cassation Court, as
Chairman, the Deputy Prosecutor of the
Republic of Serbia, the Attorney of the
Republic of Serbia, a Judge of SC Court,
the State Secretary in the MJ and State
Administration.
A Public Call was published in the
Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia,
in the daily newspaper “Politika”,
distributed in the entire territory of the
Republic of Serbia and on the official site
of the MJ and State Administration.
written language tests, in English
and in French
Interviews with candidates who had
The Commission examined
registration forms of candidates
who had passed the language test,
their biography, professional
experience and all submitted
evidence on possessing theoretical
and practice knowledge proving
experience with recognized
competence in the field of the
National Legal System,
International Public Law or
European Protection of Human
Rights.

72 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
SLOVAK
REPUBLIC /
RÉPUBLIQUE
SLOVAQUE
successfully completed the requirements
The Commission adopts the list
Publication of the list on the site of
the MJ and State Administration List.
Information as communicated to PACE in August 2015
Legal basis : Article 141a § 4 d) of
the Constitution : it is under the authority of
the Judicial Council to submit to the
Government proposals of candidates for
judges. The Judicial Council is the
judiciary's highest body, independent from
the legislative and executive power. This
body is consists of 18 members, almost all
of them are serving judges.
Judicial Council performed its duties
in accordance with national procedure (Act
185/2002 Coll)
candidate for the position of a judge
can be submitted to the Judicial Council by:
a member of the Judicial Council, the MJ,
professional organisation of judges, other
professional organisation of lawyers.
For the nomination to be approved it
has to obtain majority of votes of all
Judicial Council members in secret ballot.
The Judicial Council submitted
nominations for a judge of the ECHR to the
Government, which endorsed the proposed
list of candidates
acquired legal education by
completion of a MA course at the
law faculty of a university in the
Slovak Republic, or possesses
recognised or nostrified document
of law education obtained by
completion of studies of the same
level at foreign university,
• is of integrity; is probably a
credible personality in the field of
law and his/her moral qualities
give a guarantee that he/she will
dully perform his/her mandate.
• has permanent residence in
the territory of the Slovak
Republic,
has full legal capacity and
health conditions which allow
him/her to perform the judicial
mandate,
• passed the judicial
professional exam, prosecutor’s
exam, bar exam or notary exam
and has at least 5 years of legal
practice.

73
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
SLOVENIA /
SLOVÉNIE
SPAIN/
ESPAGNE
Information as communicated to PACE in January 2016 and supplemented by
information to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYC-I(2016)005)
Legal basis: Act on the Nomination of
Candidates from the Republic of
Slovenia to Judges at International
Courts
MJ publishes a call for applications
(Official Gazette and on the official
website of the MJ)
Official letter is sent to the Slovenian
Supreme Court, the Constitutional
Court, the Ombudsman and all relevant
law faculties in Slovenia informing them
of the call for applications.
Period for submission: 40 days
CV in one of the official languages of
the Court.
MJ delivers the submitted applications
to the President of the Republic of
Slovenia.
When obtaining written opinions on the
candidates from the Slovenian
Government and the Judicial Council,
the President submitted his shortlist of
four candidates to the National
Assembly (the Parliament).
Three candidates for international court
judge are elected by the National
Assembly in a secret ballot by a
majority of all deputies.
The nomination procedure has been
reported in the Slovenian media on
several occasions.
Must comply with the
condition of active knowledge of
at least one of the official
languages used at the
international court.
He/ she fulfills the
conditions for a Supreme Court
judge or a Constitutional Court
judge (see the detailed
presentation in doc DH-SYSC-
I(2016)005).
Information communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)002)
La mise en œuvre des critères des lignes directrices adoptées par le Comité des
Ministres est actuellement en étude.

74 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
SWEDEN /
SUÈDE
SWITZERLAND /
SUISSE
Information as communicated to PACE in April 2012 and information
communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)002)
An Advisory Committee to be • criteria laid down in the
consulted on the suitability of candidates for
election as judge to the ECHR was set up by
a decision of MFA in March 2011. The
Advisory Committee is composed of former
members of the Supreme Court, the
Convention and the requirements
established by the Parliamentary
Assembly, which were to form
the basis of the selection of
suitable candidates.
Supreme Administrative Court, the courts of
appeal and administrative courts of appeal,
as well as the Swedish Prosecution
Authority and the Swedish Bar Association.
The procedure is the same as for the
appointment of judges to the highest judicial
offices at the national courts, with the
difference that the Advisory Committee is to
be enlarged with a person with specific
knowledge of the work of the Court.
The MFA drew up a list of the
candidates to be presented to the Advisory
Committee.
The listed candidates were presented
to the Advisory Committee. The
consultation resulted in a list of persons who
were considered to fulfil the necessary
requirements and were ranked according to
their suitability to hold the office of judge
On this basis the Government
adopted the decision
Information as communicated to PACE in February 2011 and information
communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)002)
• Appel à candidature dans l'édition
électronique et dans l'édition papier d'un
quotidien de chacune des trois régions
linguistiques du pays ainsi que sur plusieurs
bourses d'emploi sur Internet.
• L'offre d'emploi est portée à
l'attention des présidents et présidentes du
Tribunal fédéral et des tribunaux supérieurs
des cantons.
• Les dossiers des six personnes
présélectionnées (de même que les noms
des six autres candidats) furent transmis à la
• Qualifications
• le sexe (2 femmes, 4
hommes), l'aire linguistique (2
candidats de la Suisse romande, 4
de la Suisse alémanique)
• type de profession
juridique
représentée
(représentants des domaines
judiciaires et universitaires et du
barreau).

75
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
“THE FORMER
REPUBLIC OF
MACEDONIA”/
“L’EX-
REPUBLIQUE
YOUGOSLAVE
DE
MACEDOINE”
Délégation parlementaire suisse auprès du
Conseil de l'Europe (DCE) et à la
Commission judiciaire (CJ) de l'Assemblée
fédérale.
• Ces six personnes ont passé une
audition devant la DCE et la CJ réunies.
• Ces dernières, dans un vote secret,
ont établi un classement, que le président de
la DCE a communiqué au Conseil fédéral
avec une évaluation des auditions.
Information as communicated to PACE in September 2016
• Law on 23 February 2016: the
Government of the Republic of Macedonia
establishes a Commission for selection of
candidates, which carries out the procedure
for selection of candidates for the position
of Judge in the ECHR.
• Commission was composed of MFA
(Chairman), a Judge of the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Macedonia, a
member of the Judicial Council of the
Republic of Macedonia, member of the
Council of Public Prosecutors of the
Republic of Macedonia, the State Secretary
at the Ministry of Justice, a professor at the
Faculty of Law at University of Tetovo.
• public call in the Official Gazette
and daily newspapers, as well as on the
websites of the MFA, MJ, Supreme Court
of the Republic of Macedonia,
Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Macedonia, Public Prosecutor’s Office of
the Republic of Macedonia and the Judicial
Council of the Republic of Macedonia.
• The public call lasted 15 days since
its publication date
• CV in the Macedonian language and
also in one of the two official languages
(English or French). A model CV was also
attached to the public call
• The Commission adopted a decision
for candidates who passed the initial
administrative selection to be invited to an
interview.
• high moral reputation
• Must either possess the
qualifications required for
appointment to high judicial office
or be jurisconsults of recognised
competence (minimum of 12 years
of adequate experience);
• Must be less than 65 years
of age;
• Must have experience in
the field of human rights;
• Must have active
knowledge of one, and passive
knowledge of the other official
language of the Council of Europe
(English and French);

76 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
TURQUIE/
• A segment of the interview, was
carried out in English.
• The evaluation of candidates was
carried out individually and anonymously.
Each member of the Commission evaluated
candidates with scores from 1 to 10, and
subsequently a list of the candidates was
drafted with their scores, with candidates
with highest score average topping the list.
• The Government, based on the
proposal of the Commission, approved the
list
Information communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)005)
TURKEY
• The election procedure is initiated with a
public announcement for candidatures
posted simultaneously on the websites
of the MFA and the MJ.
• The public announcement remains on
these websites for 30 days
• Interview Committee composed of:
Senior representative of the Prime
Ministry (Chairperson of the
Committee), Senior representative of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Senior
representative of the Ministry of Justice,
Secretary General of the Constitutional
Court, a member of the Court of
Cassation, a member of the Council of
State, a member of the Council of
Higher Education.
• Following the interviews, the Interview
Committee agrees on a short list of six
candidates and these names are
submitted to the Council of Ministers of
Turkey in order to make the final
decision. During the interviews,
questions about the Court’s case-law
and its functioning are asked to all
candidates both in Turkish and in their
language of fluency.
• The applicants are expected to
meet the criteria of the
Resolution 1646 (2009) of the
Parliamentary Assembly
• the representation of both
sexes is observed.
• In addition, the applicants are
also expected to have one of
the following qualifications:
hold at least the academic
title of associate professor
for academic candidates,
be of first class (highest
level of seniority) under the
Law no. 2802 and to have
spent three years as first
class judge or prosecutor for
judge or prosecutor
candidates,
be a member of a High
Court
be in possession of a
document that he / she has
effectively worked in his /
her profession for at least 15
years for attorneys
for the remaining
candidates; public officials
shall have worked for at
least 15 years in public
institutions and those who

77
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
UKRAINE
are not public officials shall
have at least 15 years of
effective professional
experience
Information communicated to DH-SYSC-I (doc DH-SYSC-I(2016)002)
The work on this issue is on-going, however the Guidelines were not implemented
in the national legislation yet.
UNITED
KINGDOM/
ROYAUME-UNI
Information as communicated to PACE in April 2016
• The Lord Chancellor tasked the
Judicial Appointments Commission of
England and Wales (JAC) with the
administration of the recruitment campaign.
• The JAC’s online application form
was adapted to include all the information
needed for the Council of Europe’s model
curriculum vitae. The published application
materials also included a complete
description of the process and the selection
criteria used.
• The JAC advertised the opening of
the campaign, having trailed this for some
weeks on its website.
• The former President of the
International Court, was appointed to chair
the selection panel. The Master of the Rolls
and Lord Reed, a Justice of the Supreme
Court and former judge in the Court of
Session (Scotland) also served on the
selection panel, bringing considerable legal
and judicial expertise and experience. The
panel also included Permanent Secretary of
the MJ, a legal academic, the chair of the
Equality and Human Rights Commission,
and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Legal Adviser.
• The selection panel met in February
2016 to sift applications received and
reconvened at the end of February 2016 to
conduct interviews.
• The candidates shortlisted for
interview were tested for French language
competence by the Institut Français.
• High moral character and
either possess the qualifications
required for appointment to high
judicial office or be jurisconsults
(for example academic lawyers
and practitioners) of recognised
competence.
• passive knowledge of
French, or a commitment to
acquire such knowledge in due
course, so as to be able to play a
full part in the work of the Court
and able to understand case
documents in both languages.
• Have a proven and
consistently high level of
expertise, with at least seven
years’ experience in the areas of
law in which they have been
engaged. Candidates will normally
be expected to have experience in
criminal or civil fields, with
demonstrable knowledge of the
UK’s national legal systems,
public international law, public
law, Strasbourg law and human
rights.
• Possess the interpersonal
and communication skills
necessary to exert his or her
influence within the Court.

78 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
Appendix II
Excerpt from the 2 nd Activity Report of the Advisory Panel of experts on candidates
for election as judge to the European Court of Human Rights (February 2016)
8) Criteria for the evaluation of the qualifications of the candidates
33. According to Article 21(1) ECHR, the judges “shall be of high moral character and must
either possess the qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office or to be
jurisconsults of recognised competence”. The Panel has continuously reviewed the
application of this provision in the light of its experiences. It also takes due regard to the
Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers on the selection of candidates for the post of
judge at the European Court of Human Rights. 102 As can be seen, the provision reflects the
notion that a person may achieve the level of competence or experience envisaged by
Article 21(1) ECHR through two main career avenues:
(i) Judicial experience and
(ii) Recognition as a jurisconsult
34. Before referring further to these two dimensions of qualification for the position of judge
on the Court, it is appropriate at this point to briefly mention the requirement of “high
moral character” as referred to in Article 21(1) ECHR. It seems that this criterion has
rarely arisen as an issue. In this connection a reference can be made to the First Activity
Report (December, 2013) of the Advisory Panel where it stated, at paragraph 28 that “in
the Panel’s discussions, qualities such as integrity, a high sense of responsibility, courage,
dignity, diligence, honesty, discretion, respect for others and the absence of convictions
for crimes were mentioned as key components of this requirement, as well as (obviously)
independence and impartiality”. 103 Of course the Panel must assume that a judge or jurist
presented as a candidate by a government is of high moral character, absent any objective
element, such as a record of a disciplinary or criminal offence, in the material provided to
it. As the Panel also observed in its last report, it is not expressly empowered to convene
candidates for interviews and it is in those circumstances in any event difficult to make
judgments concerning the character of candidates unless it is otherwise manifestly
apparent.
35. The criteria provided for in Article 21(1) ECHR, although very general in its terms, fall
to be understood and applied in the context of the Convention as a whole. The object and
purpose of the Convention, as an instrument intended to guarantee rights which are
practical and effective rather than theoretical and illusory, should accordingly be taken
into account in its interpretation. The effectiveness of the Convention is influenced by the
willingness of national authorities to follow the judgments of the Court. They would
readily do so if the quality of the reasoning is high and if the reputation of the Court is
beyond question. The process of establishing and maintaining the reputation of the Court
is something which occurs over the long term and is, to a large extent, dependent on the
quality and experience of the judges. The Court itself has emphasised the importance of
102 CM(2012)408
103 The Panel also made reference to the resolution on judicial ethics adopted by the Plenary of the
European Court of Human Rights in 2008.

79
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
the quality of judges for its own authority. 104 Having as judges at the Court persons who
come from positions at a high level in the Member States obviously will have positive
repercussions for the reputation of the Court. If it were to pass, for example, that a
disproportionate number of judges were relatively young, lacking in extended experience
and had not reached a prominent position in the national judicial system or in the
academic world, then acceptance of the Court’s case law may be negatively influenced. In
short, to fulfil the object and purpose of the Convention, a court should enjoy authority
and respect with national judiciaries at the highest level and in member states generally.
Apart from the importance of this for the standing and reputation of the Court as such, it
also promotes a respectful dialogue between the Court and the highest national courts.
This is important for the enforcement of Convention rights at national level in accordance
with the jurisprudence of the Court which, in turn, would contribute to a reduction in the
volume of cases coming before the Court.
36. Although the Panel has continued to reflect and examine the criteria envisaged by Article
21(1) ECHR from different perspectives in the light of its actual experience in evaluating
a large number of candidates over the last two years, the fundamentals of the criteria to be
applied, as explained in the First Activity Report, remain essentially the same. In the
broadest terms these include professional experience of long duration at a high level. The
Panel endeavours to obtain a comprehensive picture of the candidates and carries out a
global assessment of all the qualities of a candidate, whatever his or her professional
career path, with a view to determining whether a candidate has an aptitude for exercising
the judicial function at a high level which is appropriate for a constitutional or
international court (of which knowledge of human rights law is only one, albeit important,
component).
37. “Qualifications for appointment to high judicial office”: Judges of the Court can issue
judgments which in effect depart from or even implicitly overrule judgments of the
highest national courts. Those courts may nonetheless be obliged, in accordance with
national laws implementing the Convention, to respect and follow the decision of the
European Court of Human Rights. The Panel has of course to base its views on the
wording of Article 21(1) ECHR, i.e. on the expression “high judicial office” (rather than
“highest”). This expression would seem to include judges who have held office in national
supreme and constitutional courts, whereas it would seem to exclude judges of lower
national first-instance courts unless they otherwise qualify as jurisconsults. The provision
must be given a substantive interpretation consistent with its purpose and not a purely
formal one. Accordingly, even in the case of candidates holding office in a highest
national Court, the Panel’s view is that such persons would not, for that reason alone, be
automatically considered qualified to be candidates for election to the Court. Nonetheless,
actual service for a significant number of years on a Supreme Court should mean that a
judge is qualified. The publication of important books or articles may also be an important
factor when considering a candidate’s qualifications, in addition to long experience as a
professional lawyer or significant length of judicial service at a high level.
38. In this context it should be borne in mind that national judicial structures vary
considerably. For example, in some countries a person may be nominated to a Supreme
104 See Advisory opinion on certain legal questions concerning the lists of candidates submitted with a view
to the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights (12 February 2008).

80 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
Court (often consisting of many members) at a relatively young age because of his or her
innate ability, but nonetheless with limited judicial experience. This limited experience
can be accommodated in various ways in a national structure and over time the judge will
acquire standing within the national court as his or her judicial skills and experience will
mature. On the other hand, some national systems require experience as a judge of at least
ten to fifteen years minimum before being eligible for appointment to the highest court.
Consistent with the global appreciation of a candidate’s qualities, account is obviously
taken of the entire judicial career of a candidate, including whether he or she sat on a court
concerned with, directly or indirectly, enforcing human rights or complex interpretive
issues of law.
39. The European Court of Human Rights, by its nature, status and pan-European role
assumes that its members already have, on election, all the fully developed judicial
qualities that come from long experience. It would appear unlikely to find such qualities
in a candidate of a relatively young age. However, many countries find it difficult to
attract three candidates of an equally long professional experience. 105 It is, therefore, even
more important that the High Contracting Parties widely advertise calls for candidatures at
national level 106 in order to ensure to have the highest number of qualified candidates
possible.
40. Long professional experience is also of particular importance in an international court
where its members are elected for one fixed term of just nine years. Moreover, it takes
significant time for even the most experienced judge to induct him or herself into the
practices and day to day functions of a judicial institution such as the Court.
41. For present purposes the foregoing considerations have been necessarily expressed in the
most general terms, but they do indicate that High Contracting Parties when presenting a
list of candidates, and the PACE when deciding which candidate to elect as a member of
the Court, should acknowledge that their decisions in this regard are of quite a momentous
importance requiring thorough consideration so as to ensure that candidates proposed are
of mature professional experience and unquestionable qualifications for the exercise of a
high judicial function.
42. The Panel reiterates its concern about the low number of candidates with substantial
judicial experience, particularly in the highest courts. While the Panel has considered
many excellent candidates contained in the various lists, it continues to be disappointed at
the relatively low number of candidates with long judicial experience at a high, and in
particular highest, court at national level. Obviously, those who are judges and those who
are jurisconsults play an equally important role as members of a court such as the Court of
Human Rights. It is a question of achieving a balance of background and experience. It is
convenient to explain at this point that many, if not most, of the candidates which the
Panel have found not to meet the criteria of Article 21(1) ECHR were excellent experts in
105 Another subsidiary, but nonetheless important consideration is the implications which the election of
relatively young judges to the Court of Human Rights may potentially have for judicial independence,
since he or she may, in some cases, be dependent on the national authorities of his country for the
continuation of his or her judicial career when they are still at a relatively young age at the completion of
their nine-year term at the Court.
106 See the Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers on the selection of candidates at national level.

81
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
the law and, no doubt, in good standing with their professional peers but nonetheless,
being at a fairly early stage of their careers, had not yet the length or breadth of experience
from which it could be said they had acquired all the judicial qualities necessary for
election. Article 21(1) ECHR is concerned with the election of persons as judges, not
simply the search for good experts. The Panel is of the view that the High Contracting
Parties should take every reasonable step possible to encourage a greater number of very
experienced judges from the highest courts to make themselves available as candidates for
election to the Court
43. Article 21(1) ECHR also looks for “Jurisconsults of recognised competence”: In his letter
to the Ministers’ Deputies, then President Jean-Paul Costa wrote: “To be a ‘jurisconsult of
recognised competence’ requires extensive experience in the practice and/or teaching of
law, the latter generally entailing publication of important academic works. One objective
indication of this requirement would be the length of occupation of a professorial chair”.
Experience of working in teams at international level would be an important asset, as
judges need to be able to work in a collective body such as a court in an international
environment representing different legal traditions.
44. Once again, inherent in these observations, is the importance of electing to the Court
persons of mature professional experience. In accepting the description of the former
President of the Court the Panel would consider that the level of “recognised competence”
of a jurist is normally reached when a person has been a professor at a university of
standing for many years and has published important works, including work relating to
the protection of human rights and the relationship between those rights and the
constitutional functions of States. Thus, being a ‘jurisconsult’ means more than just
having good qualities and expertise as a lawyer at a certain level. One may have acquired
good knowledge of human rights and the Convention by attending courses on the subject
and listening to lectures. However, without long academic or other professional
experience and important publications a lawyer may fail to qualify as a “jurisconsult of
recognised competence”, notwithstanding a solid knowledge of Convention law. Very
many post-graduates of ability with modest experience would have a solid knowledge of
such law. Similarly, a professor in a relevant field of law could not be said to
automatically meet the criteria of Article 21(1) ECHR if his or her appointment was of
recent origin and professional experience was limited. It would also be relevant to identify
whether such jurists have any experience in advising or appearing in cases involving the
protection of such rights or other constitutional cases before national or international
tribunals.
45. While the experience of a jurisconsult in the field of Convention law, or fields of law
relevant to it, are highly material factors to be taken into account, it must be kept in mind
that the essential qualifications to judge Convention issues can be acquired in a number of
ways other than working with such issues on a day-to-day basis. It may be said that a
professor of European and/or public international law might normally be regarded as
having competence in the field covered by the jurisdiction of the Court, even if he or she
has not specialised in human or fundamental rights and the same would be true for
professors of constitutional law. Professors in these and other fields, however, should
show some real engagement during their career with questions of human rights related to
their field of law, e.g. a professor of criminal law may have dealt with the right to

82 DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
freedom, rule of law, fair trial, and so forth. The selection of persons other than
professors, such as advocates, legal professionals in the public (including political) or
private domains, particularly where they have, through long experience, professional
intimacy with the functioning of courts, is also possible as long as those persons by virtue
of a mature professional experience qualify as “jurisconsults of recognised competence”.
46. It is also the case that a judge who may not meet the criteria of Article 21(1) ECHR as
someone qualified “for appointment to high judicial office”, may, because of a parallel
academic career with important publications in relevant fields of law, meet the criteria of
jurisconsult “of recognised competence”.
47. The Panel also has regard to the requirement as to gender balance, although the High
Contracting Parties have invariably respected this by including at least one male and one
female in their lists.

83
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
Appendix III
Tables on the recognition of service as a judge of the Court
This Appendix contains tables based on the comparative survey DD(2013)1321 issued in
December 2013 and subsequent follow-up information by member States (Andorra, doc.
DD(2016)359); France and Greece, doc. DD (2016)104); Monaco, doc. DD(2016)360)
concerning the recognition of service as a judge of the Court. Three tables respectively
focusing on the professions of judges, public servants, and university professors provide
detail as to whether service as a judge of the Court is recognised for the latter 1) to
interrupt their domestic career to join the Court, 2) to have the right to regain their former
post after having served in an international organisation, as well as 3) to have their years
of international service count for the purposes of career advancement and pension rights.
The abovementioned comparative survey did not contain information as regards Armenia
San Marino. Armenia provided information before the DH-SYSC-I 3 rd meeting (doc.
DH-SYSC-I(2017)009).

Judges
Albania
Recognition of
service in
international
courts
Total: 32
Special
leave /
Unpaid
leave
Suspension of
the mandate
to work for
international
organisation
(1)
Secondment by
domestic
government
(2)
Resignation to
work for
international
organisation
(3)
Right to regain
former post
after service in
international
organisation
Service in
international
organisations
counts for
career
advancement
purposes
Andorra
X X X
Armenia
Service in
international
organisations
counts for
pension rights
(4)
Austria
X X X X
Azerbaijan
Belgium
X X X X X X
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bulgaria
X X X
X if
seconded
Croatia
X X X X X if contribution
Cyprus
Czech Republic
X X X
Denmark
X X X X X if no CoE pension
Estonia
X X X X X
Finland
X X X
France
X X X X X X X
Georgia
Germany
Greece
X X X
X X X X
Hungary
X X X X X X X X
Iceland
X X X
Ireland
Italy
X
X
X
X if
contribution
X if
contribution
X if
contribution
No Specific
provisions
concerning
service in
international
courts (5)
Total: 13
X
X
X
X
X
X

Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Judges
Recognition of
service in
international
courts
X X organisation
(3)
organisation X career X
Total: 32
Special
leave /
Unpaid
leave
Suspension of
the mandate
to work for
international
(1)
Secondment
by domestic
government
(2)
85
Resignation to
work for
international
organisation
Right to regain
former post after
service in
international
Service in
international
organisations
counts for
advancement
purposes
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
Service in
international
organisations
counts for
pension
X
rights
if
(4)
contribution
Luxembourg Republic of Moldova X X X X X X X X if contribution
No Specific
provisions
concerning X
service in
international
courts (5)
Total: 13
Malta Monaco X X X X X X X if contribution
Montenegro X X X X
Netherlands
X
Norway X X
Poland X X X X X
Portugal X X X X X X if contribution
Romania X X X
Russian Federation
Serbia X X X
Slovakia X X X X
Slovenia X X X
Spain X X X X X
Sweden
Switzerland X X X X X if contribution
“The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia”
X X X
Turkey X X X X
Ukraine
United Kingdom X X X if contribution
X
X
X
X
(1) Judges may be temporarily released from their office when assigned to the Court and their domestic services are suspended.
(2) Judges may be transferred by their domestic government on temporary mission to an international court or body.
(3) Judges are required to terminate their current working relationship at the domestic level in order to join the Court.
(4) Judges have their years of service spent in international organisations counted as pensionable service in their domestic pension scheme, sometimes
provided they keep contributing to the latter during their period of international civil service (X if contribution) or do not already benefit from the pension
scheme of an international organisation (X if no CoE pension).
(5) No specific recognition of international service for judges concerning their possibility to interrupt their domestic career, their right to regain their
former post, their career advancement, and their domestic pension rights.

Public
Servants
Albania
Recognition of
service in
international
courts
Total: 33
Special
leave /
Unpaid
leave
Suspension of
the mandate to
work for
international
organisation
(1)
Secondment
by domestic
government
(2)
Resignation to
work for
international
organisation
(3)
Right to regain
former post
after service in
international
organisation
Service in
international
organisations
counts for career
advancement
purposes
Andorra X X X
Armenia
Service in
international
organisations
counts for
pension rights
(4)
Austria X X X X
Azerbaijan
Belgium X X X X X
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bulgaria
X X X
X if
seconded
Croatia X X X X X if contribution
Cyprus X X X
Czech Republic X X X
Denmark X X X X Xif no coe pension
Estonia
Finland X X X
France X X X X X X X
Georgia
Germany
X X X
X if
contribution
Greece X X X X X if contribution
Hungary X X X X X
Iceland
Ireland X X X
Italy
Latvia
X
X
X if
contribution
No Specific
provisions
concerning
service in
international
courts (5)
Total: 12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Public
Servants
Liechtenstein
Recognition
of service in
international
courts
Special
leave /
Unpaid
leave
Suspension of
the mandate to
work for
international
organisation
X X X X
87
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
Service in
international
organisations X if
counts contribution for
pension rights (4)
Lithuania X X X X X
(1)
Secondment
by domestic
government
(2)
Resignation to
work for
international
organisation
(3)
Right to regain
former post
after service in
international
organisation
Service in
international
organisations
counts for
career
advancement
Luxembourg Total: X 33 X X purposes X X if contribution
Malta Republic of Moldova
X X if
X
X X if contribution
vacancies
Monaco X X X X if contribution
(1) Public servants are temporarily released from their office when assigned to the Court and their domestic services are suspended.
(2) Public servants may be transferred by their domestic government on temporary mission to an international court or body.
(3) Public servants are required to terminate their current working relationship at the domestic level in order to join the Court.
(4) Public servants have their years of service spent in international organisations counted as pensionable service in their domestic pension scheme,
sometimes provided they keep contributing to the latter during their period of international civil service (X if contribution) or do not already benefit from
the pension scheme of an international organisation (X if no CoE pension).
(5) No specific recognition of international service for public servants concerning their possibility to interrupt their domestic career, their right to regain
their former post, their career advancement, and their domestic pension rights.
No Specific
provisions
concerning
service in
international
courts (5)
Total: 12
Montenegro X X X X if contribution
Netherlands
X
Norway X X
Poland
X
Portugal X X X X X
Romania X X X X
Russian Federation X X X X X
Serbia X X
Slovakia X X X X
Slovenia X X X
Spain X X X X X
Sweden X X
Switzerland X X X X X if contribution
“The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia”
X X X
Turkey X X X X
Ukraine
United Kingdom
X
X

University
Professors
Albania
Andorra
Armenia
Recognition
of service in
international
courts
Total: 14
Special
leave /
Unpaid
leave
Suspension of the
mandate to work
for international
organisation
(1)
Secondment
by domestic
government
(2)
Resignation to
work for
international
organisation
(3)
Right to regain
former post
after service in
international
organisation
Service in
international
organisations
counts for
career
advancement
purposes
Service in
international
organisations
counts for
pension rights
(4)
Austria X X X X
Azerbaijan
Belgium X X
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia X X
Cyprus X X
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Greece X X X X X if contribution
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy X X X X
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg X X X X X if contribution
No Specific
provisions
concerning
service in
international
courts (5)
Total: 31
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

University
Professors
Recognition of
service in
Malta international X X
Republic of Moldova
Monaco
courts
Total: 14
Special
leave /
Unpaid
leave
Suspension of
the mandate
to work for
international
organisation
(1)
Secondment
by domestic
government
(2)
89
Resignation to
work for
international
organisation
(3)
Right to regain
former post after
service in
international
organisation
Service in
international
organisations
counts for
career
advancement
purposes
DH-SYSC-I (2017)010
Service in
international
organisations
counts for
pension rights
(4)
Montenegro X X X if contribution
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania X X X X
Russian Federation X X
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia X X
Spain X X X X X
Sweden
Switzerland
“The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia”
Turkey X X X X X
Ukraine
United Kingdom
No Specific
provisions
concerning
service in
international
courts (5)
Total: 31
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(1) University professors are temporarily released from their chair when assigned to the Court and their domestic services are suspended.
(2) University professors may be transferred by their domestic government on temporary mission to an international court or body.
(3) University professors are required to terminate their current working relationship at the domestic level in order to join the Court.
(4) University professors have their years of service spent in international organisations counted as pensionable service in their domestic pension scheme,
sometimes provided they keep contributing to the latter during their period of international civil service (X if contribution) or do not already benefit from
the pension scheme of an international organisation (X if no CoE pension).
(5) No specific recognition of international service for university professors concerning their possibility to interrupt their domestic career, their right to
regain their former post, their career advancement, and their domestic pension rights.