The Effect of the Judgments of the ECtHR before the National Courts – A Nordic Approach?
The article examines the status of the principle of res interpretata in Denmark, Norway and Iceland and whether a common approach can be identified. Common to these countries is the dualist approach under which a binding erga omnes effect of the judgments is rejected. The right to autonomous interpr...
| Published in: | Nordic Journal of International Law |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
Brill
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718107-08504004 https://brill.com/view/journals/nord/85/4/article-p303_4.xml https://data.brill.com/files/journals/15718107_085_04_S004_text.pdf |
| Summary: | The article examines the status of the principle of res interpretata in Denmark, Norway and Iceland and whether a common approach can be identified. Common to these countries is the dualist approach under which a binding erga omnes effect of the judgments is rejected. The right to autonomous interpretation of the echr is reserved, as well as autonomous interpretation of human rights provisions of the national constitutions, regardless of ECtHR case law. The echr has been incorporated in all countries as statutory law and does not take primacy over national constitutions. Moreover, in order to override a national law, the reservation is made that the Convention and the case law of the ECtHR must be clear and consistent. Despite these reservations, national courts in all three countries regularly (although inconsistently) consult ECtHR case law, not as binding per se, but within the framework of res interpretata and the rule of presumption. |
|---|