Vol. 508 No. 1
85 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the reason there is a backlog of 60,000 cases before the European Court of Human Rights; and the action, if any, he is taking to ensure that the court is provided with the resources to clear this backlog. [17296/99]
In recent years, there has been a steady increase in the number of applications to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In part, this reflects the enlargement of the Council of Europe to 41 member states, all of whom are parties to the European Convention for Human Rights.
According to the information provided by the court, there are currently in the region of 10,000 applications pending of which approximately one third are considered as backlog. In addition, there are over 47,000 provisional files, around one third of which can be expected to become registered applications.
In order to respond to the increase in applications and the considerably enlarged jurisdiction of the court, Protocol 11 amended the European Convention for Human Rights. The intention of the Protocol was to revise the monitoring and control mechanisms of the Convention to make its system of human rights protection quicker and more efficient. Protocol 11 established a new and permanent Court of Human Rights which was inaugurated on 1 November 1998.
As the new court is less than a year in operation it is difficult to be conclusive at this stage as to what additional measures may be necessary to cope with its increasing workload. The matter is presently the subject of a detailed examination by a working group established by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
It has already been decided to reallocate financial resources to the court in the year 2000 to deal with the backlog. As incoming Presidency of the Council of Europe, Ireland will have a key role in ensuring that the court secures the necessary resources to function effectively. The Irish permanent representative in Strasbourg chairs the special committee dealing with the financial reallocation required for the year 2000.
As regards the longer term, I agree with the views expressed recently by the President of the new court regarding the need for an increased political commitment by all States parties to the convention. If the workload of the court is to be reduced, full respect at the national level for the provisions and mechanisms of the convention is essential.
