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

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.