The newest issue of the European Human Rights Law Review
contains several ECHR-related articles. The first is authored by Paul Mahoney and entitled 'A European Judicial Training Institute on Human Rights'. His plea for a new training instiute for jduges attached to the European Court is all the more noteworthy, since Mahoney was the registrar of the Court for a great number of years - a (former) insider's view on the need for it. Here is the abstract:
This article argues in favour of the institutionalisation of judicial training relating to the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 through the establishment of a European Judicial Training Institute on Human Rights attached to the European Court of Human Rights. Examines the reasoning behind the need for judicial training on the Convention and assesses whether such training should be dispensed at national or European level. Discusses the potential status, structure, and organisation of a Judicial Training Institute on Human Rights.
Secondly, an article by Marton Varju on 'Transition as a Concept of European Human Rights Law'. This is the abstract:
This article discusses, with reference to case law, the transition of the Central and Eastern European accession states, focusing on how the European Court of Human Rights has been able to accommodate the fact that many Contracting States required a complete transformation of their legal and political systems. Examines the distinction between rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 that allow a margin of appreciation and those that prohibit such moves, including political rights, proprietary rights, and the application of arts 3, 6, 7, and 8 of the Convention.
Finally, Matthew Smith has written on 'The Adjudicatory Fact-finding Tools of the European Court of Human Rights':
This article discusses the adjudicative fact-finding techniques employed by the European Court of Human Rights. Examines: (1) the relevant jurisdictional framework, commenting on the reasonable deference to national findings of fact and the lack of strict rules of evidence; (2) the burden and standard of proof in proceedings under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950; (3) inferences and presumptions of fact as adjudicatory tools for fact-finding; (4) limits on the use of inferences and presumptions of fact in human rights adjudication; and (5) the implications of the findings of procedural violation of the Convention.
The articles can be found on Westlaw