Proceeding contribution from David Lidington (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 27 October 2011. It occurred during Debate on Council of Europe (UK Chairmanship).
Council of Europe (UK Chairmanship)
I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. The second reason also explains why the backlog has been allowed to develop. The Court has at times been too ready to substitute its own judgment for that of national courts and Parliaments. The European Court of Human Rights was never intended by its founders to be an additional tier of appeal for routine domestic judgments. No court could ever hope to offer redress on all matters to 800 million people. National courts are best placed to understand national problems and traditions of human rights. Enforcing rights in situations where the drafters of the convention never intended them to be is the wrong direction of travel for the Court, and that situation is getting worse and is undermining the Court's authority and efficiency.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 534 c508
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Cyprus Democracy Homosexuality Human rights European Convention on Human Rights Gender European Union Internet Discrimination Freedom of expression European Court of Human Rights Parliament Sovereignty Reform Rule of law Turkey Council of Europe FIFA
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 13:46:31 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_778869
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_778869
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_778869