A Political Decision Disguised as Legal Argument? Opinion 2/13 and European Union Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights

• Main Author: Graham Butler
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Ubiquity Press 2015
• Subjects: European Union law; Court of Justice of the European Union; Human rights law; European Convention on Human Rights; European Court of Human Rights; droit; scipo; Iceland
• Online Access: https://doaj.org/article/b3346e3868fa4ffcafa8a620bb43b5ae

David Thór Björgvinsson was a judge of the European Court of Human Rights between 2004 and 2013. During this period, he was involved in many important judgments, including 'Scoppola v Italy (No. 3)',[1] Eweida and others v United Kingdom,[2] and 'Al-Jedda v the United Kingdom';a title="" href="#_ftn3">[3] amongst others, and went on to serve as Vice-President of the Fourth Section. He has degrees from the University of Iceland, Duke University School of Law, and the University of Strasbourg, and is currently a Professor of Law at the Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts) at the Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. In this interview, carried out in June 2015 for the Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, David Thór Björgvinsson outlined his views to Graham Butler on Opinion 2/13 from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights,[4] the workings of the European Court of Human Rights, and what the future may have in store for this Court.[1] Scoppola v Italy (No. 3) (2013) 56 EHRR 19.[2] Eweida and others v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8.[3] Al-Jedda v the United Kingdom (2011) 53 EHRR 23.[4] Opinion 2/13 (2014) Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, (not yet reported).