European Court of Human Right, IV Section, February 16, 2021, V.C.L. a. A.N. v. UK
The consultative mechanism provided for by Protocol n. 16 ECHR is applied for the third time
This paper critically analyses the relationship between the ECtHR balance in implementing a right based on the ECHR and the ECHR-driven interpretation by the domestic judge in applying defenses. While ECHR-driven interpretation is kept within the boundaries of the wording of the law, the balance is per se integrative-additive, so it goes by definition beyond such boundaries. Consequently, the ‘case by case’ approach at a domestic level could be more difficult and this would require to involve the Constitutional Court.
The increasing relevance of case-law in criminal trials through art. 7 ECHR put several issues in civil law systems, that are primally founded on statutory laws according to their constitutional traditions. Notwithstanding the influence of European Court of Human Rights did not equate statutory law with judge-made law in such systems of law, relevance of case-law in criminal trials cannot be denied. Otherwise, irretroactivity and lex mitior retroactivity principles would be thwarted. As a result, judge-made law and statutory lawstill remain unequated when case-law is not well-established, but they should be considered equal in extraordinary cases, such as absolutely unforeseeable overruling in malam partem and overruling in bonam partem by united chambers of Supreme Court of Cassation