Dictionary of European actors

Pour toute information sur nos fonds et nos nouveautés dans votre domaine de spécialisation, consultez nos sites web via www.larciergroup.com.

© Groupe Larcier s.a., 2015

Éditions Larcier

Espace Jacqmotte

Rue Haute, 139 - Loft 6 - 1000 Bruxelles

EAN : 9782804481711

Cette version numérique de l’ouvrage a été réalisée par Nord Compo pour le Groupe Larcier. Nous vous remercions de respecter la propriété littéraire et artistique. Le « photoco-pillage » menace l’avenir du livre.

Les Dictionnaires Larcier représentent de nouveaux outils de référence, synthétiques, pratiques et maniables. Ils s’adressent à un large public allant des praticiens aux étudiants qui grâce à la clé de classement alphabétique des concepts, trouveront rapidement un état concis et documenté du point de droit sur lequel ils se questionnent.

Parus dans la collection :

Degryse, Ch., Dictionnaire de l’Union européenne, 2011, 1152 p.

Collart Dutilleul, Fr. (dir.) et Bugnicourt, J.-Ph. (coord.), Dictionnaire juridique de la sécurité alimentaire dans le monde, 2013, 700 p.

Collart Dutilleul, Fr. (dir.) et Bugnicourt, J.-Ph. (coord.), Legal Dictionary of Food Security in the World, 2013, 438 p.

Foreword

Amidst the proliferation of research and scholarly resources on institutional Europe, this Dictionary of European Actors showcases an approach which is innovative in two important areas.

First, we have attached a central importance to actors, understood broadly as professionals and social groups engaged in European institutions. All too often neglected in studies on Europe, which tend to focus on institutions and great men, the actors considered here embody the concrete reality of the European project. We therefore considered it important to fill this gap by offering an unprecedented synthesis of actor-centred research on Europe. In our view, to understand the evolution and the workings of the European political and legal systems, it is necessary to focus attention on those who participate in the institutions, make them work on a daily basis through their professional or associative activities, and accordingly are essential in understanding change. Instead of concentrating on the institutions defined by the Treaties (European Commission, Parliament, Council, Court…) and their formal rules, we put the spotlight on those who make the rules, implement them and give them consistency: the Commissioners, civil servants, ministers, parliamentarians, parliamentary assistants, lobbyists, judges, Registry staff in the Courts… The actors studied in this dictionary are not primarily the heroes and leading figures of the official narrative of European integration; they are also and more importantly those in the name of whom Europe is built (citizens, voters, workers, employers, litigants….) and whose interactions exert forces changing, preventing or furthering the European project. This European political sociology approach has developed considerably in France over the past fifteen years, following landmark publications by researchers of the Centre for European Political Sociology (GSPE) of the Institute of Political Sciences of Strasbourg. ¹ Within the discipline of European studies, this approach is clearly identified and its contribution has been recognised: research on the field of Eurocracy, ² the field of power ³ or on more specific sectors like internal security ⁴ or European justice ⁵ shed light on important, yet rarely studied forms of functioning and construction of Europe by placing the citizens and societies ⁶ in which the European project is rooted at the centre of their analyses.

Secondly, this Dictionary makes the distinctive choice of combining the study of the European Union (EU) and of the Europe of Human Rights. The institutional approach has contributed to separating the two European projects, but history shows that they have common roots and that groups of actors have been invested in both. As the accession of the EU to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) nears, it appears particularly necessary to investigate the links between these two projects and systems, and more specifically to consider the relations between the two Courts. Studying both sets of actors jointly requires examining the role of the institutional environment on these professional groups and identifying elements of convergence and specificities in the sociological backgrounds and dynamics of the actors invested in the production, diffusion or contestation of the European projects. The ambition of this Dictionary is to present the place and role of a wide array of actors within the greater Europe, including both the 28 EU Member States and the 47 Council of Europe member states, by adopting a critical multidisciplinary, comparative and historical approach. Depending on the entry, comparison emphasises the differences and likenesses between the two European systems or between the actors themselves.

While the vast majority of entries in this Dictionary address various European actors, a few examine transversal concepts related to these actors, covering overarching trends of European integration (Agencification, Managerialisation, Regionalisation, for example), tools used by the actors (Statistical Description, Evaluation) or essential regulatory principles (Subsidiarity, Gender Equality) and the processes specifically affecting the actors at the European level (Socialisation, Europeanisation). In order to achieve the goal of a multidisciplinary perspective, several entries were jointly written by authors representing more than one discipline, ⁷ in order to overcome the disciplinary and thematic (over-) specialisation in European studies. Conversely, in rare cases, the type of actors or the issue required that entries were centred either on the EU or the Council of Europe (CoE) due to the specificities of the two European integration processes.

Also published in French in 2014, this Dictionary is by no means comprehensive and there are inevitably a few blind spots. However, 118 entries provide as complete an overview as can be found in one source on the actors who make, unmake or remake Europe. Some readers may regret the absence of certain organisations or groups of actors; the most important gaps will be filled by the subsequent editions. Still, this first edition, used together with other dictionaries, should give the reader a better sense of Europe, of its diversity, its complexity and its evolutions. Without oversimplifying, an effort has been made to make a wide range of scholarship accessible to students, researchers, academics, practitioners and actors of Europe. It is our hope that anyone interested in Europe will find food for thought and useful information in these pages.

In putting together this volume, great lengths were taken to reflect the diversity of opinions and the complexity of the phenomena studied; controversies and unresolved questions are left to the reader’s appreciation. Each entry includes a definition, an overview of the context and an analysis of the most fundamental or current developments, according to each author’s interpretation; the text is followed by references to key bibliographic sources, textual sources and websites for those seeking further documentation. Entries are cross-referenced by using lists of related entries, concepts (index rerum) and names. In this sense, this Dictionary, like others before it and those that will undoubtedly follow, was conceived as a working tool and a reference tool on contemporary questions addressed in a broad cross-disciplinary social science perspective.

This book is also a showcase of research in European political sociology conducted at the University of Strasbourg within the framework of the Strasbourg School of European Studies, ⁸ led by the Societies, Actors and Government in Europe research centre (SAGE), which replaced the Centre for European Political Sociology in early 2013. ⁹ It is also the fruit of longstanding or newer collaborations that have been developed over the past fifteen years in France and beyond; in this sense, this Dictionary confirms and reinforces the international recognition of this distinctive French approach to European studies. ¹⁰ It is also intended as a springboard for further collaborations and a fruitful interdisciplinary dialogue.

Our warmest thanks go to the 85 contributors to this Dictionary for their time and commitment. We also thank those who were unfortunately unable to participate but encouraged us during the making of the book. We are furthermore deeply grateful to all our collaborators, most particularly Léa Maulet, a doctoral researcher at the University of Strasbourg, who oversaw the editorial co-ordination of the book, Jean-Yves Bart, who painstakingly translated 103 entries, Estelle Czerny, a research engineer in the SAGE laboratory, for her work on the manuscript, and Amanda Height, who worked on the indexes during her spring 2014 internship in Strasbourg. Lastly, the publication of this Dictionary would not have been possible without the financial support of the Institut Universitaire de France to Hélène Michel, of the Excellence Initiative of the University of Strasbourg, funded by the French government’s future investments programme, and of the SAGE laboratory.

We hope that this Dictionary of European Actors will contribute to the discussions between specialists of the European political and legal systems and open new avenues of research on the ever evolving and increasingly contentious process of European integration. We wish you a stimulating read.

24 September 2014

Elisabeth LAMBERT ABDELGAWAD

CNRS Research Director in Law

(SAGE, CNRS-University of Strasbourg)

Hélène MICHEL

Professor of Political Science,

Institute of Political Studies

(SAGE, CNRS-University of Strasbourg)

1. For a presentation of this approach, see D. GEORGAKAKIS, The historical and political sociology of the European Union: A uniquely French methodological approach?, French Politics, 7, 2009, pp. 437-455.

2. D. GEORGAKAKIS and J. ROWELL (eds), The Field of Eurocracy: Mapping EU actors and professionals, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

3. N. KAUPPI and M.R. MADSEN (eds), Transnational Power Elites. The New Professionals of Governance, Law and Security, Routledge, 2013.

4. D. BiGO (ed.), The Field of the EU Internal Security Agencies, Paris, Centre d’études sur les conflits, L’Harmattan, 2007.

5. A. COHEN and A. VAUCHEZ, « Sociologie politique de l’Europe du droit », Revue française de science politique, 60, no 2, 2010, pp. 223-226.

6. A. FAVELL and V. GUIRAUDON, The Sociology of the European Union, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2010.

7. For entries written by several authors, authors are listed in alphabetical order.

8. University of Strasbourg Project of Excellence: Strasbourg School of European Studies, coordinated by Jay Rowell. See the website http://projexeurope.misha.fr/

9. See the laboratory’s website: sage.unistra.fr

10. D. GEORGAKAKIS and J. WEISBEIN, From above and from below: A political sociology of European actors, Comparative European Politics, 8, 2010, pp. 93-109.

List of Contributors

ALDRIN, Philippe

Professor of Political Science, CHERPA (EA 4261), Sciences Po Aix

ALFREDSSON, Gudmundur

Professor of Law, University of Akureyri

ANDREONE, Fabrice*

Doctoral researcher, Administrateur principal, Policy officer, European Commission, DG RTD

BALLATORE, Magali

FNRS Researcher, GIRSEF, University of Louvain

BARBIER-GAUCHARD, Amélie

Senior lecturer in Economics, BETA (UMR 7522), University of Strasbourg

BARDELEBEN VON, Eleonore*

Administrative Judge (premier conseiller de Tribunal administratif et de Cour administrative d’appel), Legal Secretary at the General Court

BEAUVALLET, Willy

Senior lecturer in Political Science, University Lumière of Lyon, researcher in the laboratory Triangle (CNRS UMR 5206)

BORELLI, Silvia

Researcher in Labour Law at the University of Ferrara

BORJA, Simon

Doctoral researcher in Political Science

BORONSKA-HRYNIEWIECKA, Karolina

Assistant professor of Political Science, Institute of Political Science, Université de Wrocław

BOUILLAUD, Christophe

Professor of Political Science, PACTE (UMR 5094), University of Grenoble

BURGORGUE-LARSEN, Laurence

Professor of Public Law, University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

CALLIGARO, Oriane

Lecturer in European studies, Department of History, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University

CANTENS, Thomas*

Technical officer at the World Customs Organization, anthropologist and member of the Centre Norbert Elias (UMR8562 EHESS/CNRS)

CARLIER, Jean-Yves

Professor of Law at the universities of Louvain and Liège, lawyer

CASELLA-COLOMBEAU, Sara

Doctor of Political Science, Post-Doc researcher, International Centre for Comparative Sociology, University of Montréal

CHATZISTAVROU, Filippa

Research fellow, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy and external collaborator, University of Athens

CHEYNIS, Eric

Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Université de Haute Alsace, SAGE (UMR 7363)

CICCHELLI, Vincenzo

Senior Lecturer in Sociology, GEMASS, University Paris Descartes

CIRSTOCEA, Ioana

CNRS researcher, SAGE (UMR 7363)

CLIQUENNOIS, Gaëtan

CNRS researcher, SAGE (UMR 7363)

COHEN, Antonin

Professor of Political Science, CRAPE (UMR 6051), University of Rennes 1

COURTY, Guillaume

Professor of Political Science, CERAPS – Lille 2

DAKOWSKA, Dorota

Senior Lecturer in Political Science, SAGE (UMR 7363), University of Strasbourg

DALOZ, Jean-Pascal

CNRS Research Director, SAGE (UMR 7363)

DE LASSALLE, Marine

Senior Lecturer in Political Science, SAGE (UMR 7363), Sciences Po Strasbourg

DESMOULIN, Gil

Senior Lecturer in Public Law, Sciences Po Rennes, CIAPHS, Rennes

DOURNEAU-JOSETTE, Pascal*

Head of Division at the European Court of Human Rights Registry, Associate professor at the University of Strasbourg

DUDOUET, François-Xavier

CNRS Researcher, IRISSO – University of Paris Dauphine

DUFRESNE, Anne

FRS-FNRS Researcher, CRIDES, Université Catholique de Louvain

EGEBERG, Morten

Professor of Administration and Public Policy, Department of Political Science, ARENA – Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo

EL QADIM, Nora

Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Namur, Tocqueville Chair

EPSTEIN, Anne

Associate Researcher, SAGE (UMR 7363), University of Strasbourg

FAVREAU, Bertrand

Founding president of the European Lawyers Union (UAE)

FERTIKH, Karim

Post-Doc researcher, PRAG teacher, SAGE (UMR 7363), Sciences Po Strasbourg

FORET, François

Professor of Political Science, Université Libre de Bruxelles

GASPARINI, William

Professor of Sport Sciences/Sociology, E3S (EA 1342) and USIAS, University of Strasbourg

GEORGAKAKIS, Didier

Professor of Political Science, University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, European Centre for Sociology and Political Science (Paris 1, EHESS, CNRS)

GILBERT, Jérémie

Reader, University of East London

HADJIISKY, Magdalena

Senior Lecturer in Political Science, University of Strasbourg, SAGE (UMR7363)

HAMMAN, Philippe

Professor of Sociology, SAGE (UMR 7363), University of Strasbourg

HARMSEN, Robert

Professor of Political Science, University of Luxembourg

HEURTIN, Jean-Philippe

Professor of Political Science, SAGE (UMR 7363), University of Strasbourg

HRABANSKI, Marie

Researcher in Sociology, ARTDEV (UMR 5281), CIRAD

HUBÉ, Nicolas

Senior Lecturer in Political Science, CESSP (UMR 8209)/CMB (USR 3130), University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

JEAN, Jean-Paul

President of the Chamber at the French Court of Cassation, Associate Professor at the University of Poitiers

JEANPIERRE, Laurent

Professor of Political Science, Labtop-CRESPPA (CNRS UMR 7217), University of Paris 8-Saint-Denis

JOFFRE, Patrick*

Technical officer at the World Customs Organization

JULIEN-LAFERRIÈRE, François

Professor Emeritus of Public Law

KAUPPI, Niilo

CNRS Research Director, ECPR Vice-President

LAMBERT ABDELGAWAD, Elisabeth

CNRS Research Director, SAGE (UMR 7363)

LAVALLÉE, Chantal

Invited researcher, European Union Centre of Excellence, University of Montreal

Le BRIS, Catherine

CNRS Researcher, UMR de droit comparé de Paris, University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

LEACH, Philip

Professor of Human Rights Law, Middlesex University

LEBARON, Frederic

Professor of Sociology, Laboratoire Printemps (UMR 8085), University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines

LEBOEUF, Luc

Doctoral researcher in Law, Université catholique de Louvain

LEMERCIER, Claire

CNRS Research Professor, CSO (UMR 7116) Sciences Po

LEMOINE, Benjamin

CNRS Researcher, IRISSO (UMR 7170), University Paris Dauphine

LOZAC’H, Valérie

Senior Lecturer in Political Science, SAGE (UMR 7363), University of Strasbourg

MANGENOT, Michel

Professor of Political Science, University of Lorraine, Nancy, IRENEE

MARTIN, Annie

CNRS Researcher, SAGE (UMR 7363)

MICHEL, Hélène

Professor of Political Science, University of Strasbourg, Institut Universitaire de France, Director of SAGE (UMR 7363)

MICHON, Sébastien

CNRS Researcher, SAGE (UMR 7363)

NEVILLE, Mark*

Head of the Private Office of the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

NIVARD, Carole

Senior Lecturer in Public Law, CUREJ EA4703, University of Rouen

OLLION, Etienne

CNRS Researcher, SAGE (UMR 7363)

PARIS, Sidonie

Doctoral researcher in Political Science, University of Luxembourg

PINGEL, Isabelle

Professor of Law, IREDIES (EA 4536), Sorbonne Law School, University of Paris 1

RAMADIER, Thierry

CNRS Research Director in Psychology, SAGE (UMR 7363)

RENOU, Gildas

Post-Doc researcher, SAGE (UMR 7363), University of Strasbourg

REUNGOAT, Emmanuelle

Senior Lecturer in Political Science, University of Montpellier I

ROBERT Cécile

Senior Lecturer in Political Science, Triangle (UMR 5206), Sciences Po Lyon

RODIER, Claire

Lawyer with GISTI (Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigré.e.s), Vice-President of Migreurop

ROGINSKY, Sandrine

Professor of Communication, LASCO, Université catholique de Louvain

ROWELL, Jay

CNRS Research Director, SAGE (UMR 7363), University of Strasbourg

SANSOTTA, Sergio*

Registrar of the Administrative Tribunal of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg

SURREL, Hélène

Professor of Public Law, Sciences Po Lyon, IDEDH EA 3976

THIBAULT, Adrien

Doctoral researcher in Political Science, SAGE (UMR 7363), University of Strasbourg

TRONDAL, Jarle

Professor of Political Science, University of Agder, ARENA – Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, University of Copenhagen

UTARD, Jean-Michel

Professor Emeritus in Information and Communication Science, SAGE (UMR 6373), University of Strasbourg

VASSALOS, Georgios

Doctoral researcher in Political Science, SAGE (UMR 7363), University of Strasbourg

VAUCHEZ, Antoine

CNRS Research Director

VION, Antoine

Senior Lecturer, LEST, Université de la Méditerranée

WAGNER, Anne-Catherine

Professor of Sociology, UMR 8209 – CESSP, University of Paris 1

WEBER, Anne*

Adviser, Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe

WEBER, Louis

Editorial coordinator for the journal Savoir/Agir

* The points of view expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily those of the institution to which he/she belongs.

DICTIONARY OF EUROPEAN ACTORS

A

*ACTIVISTS

S

OCIAL MOVEMENTS AND PROTEST IN 

B

RUSSELS

At first glance, activists and European institutions seem to be worlds apart. Distant from the member countries, governed by complex and inscrutable rules, the latter do not seem to constitute a welcoming site for the former. Of all locations, Brussels appears to best epitomise this discrepancy. For the layperson, its sprawling net of organisations and offices resemble a bureaucratic maze, in which both decision-processes and decision-makers are hard to spot. Similarly, the forms of action favoured by the European institutions do not square well with the ones activists are often identified with. Formal meetings, painstaking negotiations and endless writing of reports or amendments do not match the perceived modes of action of social movements.

Home to the corporate lobbyists, Brussels would hardly be a place for activists. The rare scholarship on the topic tend to confirm this idea. In their now decade-old study of social movements in Europe, Imig and Tarrow showed that protest around European institutions was scarce (2001). Public protests, the oft-depicted gold-standard of activism, rarely took place in Brussels. Along with the absence of an explicit target, the cost of setting up such protests protected the Belgian capital from demonstrations. In a more recent overview on the topic, two researchers (Della Porta & Caiani, 2009) both nuanced and confirmed this view altogether. While the European Union has been at the centre of heated debates in the last two decades, while European Social Forums were routinely held every year since 2002, and while the discourse about Europe in social movements has grown exponentially, European institutions are not central to the actions of many a protest group. Rather, most of the actions taking aim at European institutions take place at home.

However, the thesis of an intermittent and limited social protest in Brussels holds only insofar as one retains a restricted definition of activism. This position is largely called into question by the continuous presence of certain groups – some undeniably identified with social movements and activism – in Brussels. To name just a few, organisations like Greenpeace, along with labour unions, have long established residence in the city. In 2014, several of their staff members had immediate access to the European Parliament. Far from being extraordinary, this situation was common to many a group. This same year, 26% of the persons listed on the Transparency register were affiliated with an NGO. This figure has been going up since the 1990s, leading to a lessened presence gap between corporate interest groups and NGOs in Brussels. At the Council of Europe, third-sector organisations (among which several groups often described as social movements) are given pride of institutional place. They feed expertise into the decision-process, they are consulted on a regular basis (for instance the bi-annual meeting of the Conference of INGOs), and have been recognised as one of the main pillars of the Council.

A flurry of works on interest groups illustrate this well. Berny (2008) details the involvement of four environmental groups with European institutions over the last two decades. Several authors in the volume edited by Michel (2005) analyse the establishment and actions of a variety of groups in Brussels. Environmental groups studied by Christopher Rootes underwent a process of Europeanisation. He recalls how these groups progressively invested the European sphere, and redirected some of their actions towards the Commission during the 1990s (2002). Collective action hence happens at the European level, and not only in a metaphorical way: Brussels, and to a lesser extent Strasbourg and other sites, have been largely invested by activists.

There is nonetheless one reason why most people do not think of European institutions as a place for activism. Not only do the requested forms of action significantly differ from the perceived activities of social movement (public protest, massive demonstrations, banners and media-oriented actions, etc). But the claims are also often adapted to the situation. And in many an occasion, they are tuned down. Proximity with decision-makers, along with self-selection within the organisations (members in charge of this inside lobbying are often different from the rest of the group in terms of education, political commitment, and careers), lead these activists in suit and tie to promote strategies that appear more moderate. In other words, one can find activists in Brussels, but they are likely to be of a certain type.

Thus, activism and European institutions are not orthogonal. Whether explicit or discreet, collective action undertaken by social movements takes place in and around European institutions. Two remarks are in order though. The first one is that language is deceptive here, for conventional terminology tends to distinguish what is, in practice, seamlessly integrated. The oft-evoked distinctions (between social movements and NGOs, between activism and advocacy) do not actually capture the political activity of these groups in Brussels. Whatever they are called (and call themselves), groups cannot be easily assigned into one of these categories. They rather straddle the line between them so regularly that their only common trait is to defend an interest. Just like thousands operating just around them, they are interest groups – whose identity, claims and sometimes methods can vary.

The second remark furthers and nuances the first. No matter what they are called (social movements, advocacy organisations, or more broadly interest groups), these groups have to adapt when they work at the European level. Hence, while the European Commission’s attempt to include more broadly civil society organisations (Michel 2007) into the decision-making process has been met with success, one can wonder about the consequences of this growing inclusion. Within the organisations themselves, since differences between Brussels advocacy officers and the base in the home country often give way to tensions about the strategy. For the relations between groups also, since the new enmeshment of part of the sector with their targets lead to a growing chasm between those actively cooperating and the others. For the tone and the content of the social critique altogether, finally. While there is no direct connection between the form (of collective action) and the substance (of protest), one might surmise that inclusion, professionalisation and growing distance between the base and the mandated experts will lead to a softening of their critical capacity.

Étienne OLLION

R

EFERENCES

BERNY, N., « Le lobbying des ONG internationales d’environnement à Bruxelles. Les ressources de réseau et d’information, conditions et facteurs de changement de l’action collective », Revue Française de Science Politique, 2008, pp. 97-121.

DELLA PORTA, D. and CAIANI, M., Social Movements and Europeanization, Oxford University Press, 2009.

IMIG, D., and TARROW, S., Contentious Europeans. Protest and Politics in an Emerging Polity, Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.

MICHEL, H. (ed.), Lobbying et Lobbyistes de l’Union Européenne. Trajectoires, formations et pratiques des représentants d’intérêts, Strasbourg, PUS, 2005.

MICHEL, H., « La société civile dans la gouvernance européenne, Éléments pour une sociologie d’une catégorie politique », Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 2007, pp. 30-37.

OFFERLÉ, M., « Groupes d’intérêt et action collective », in Soulet, M.-H. (ed.), Agir en société, Academic Press, Fribourg, 2004.

OLLION, E. and SIMEANT, J., « Les politiques du plaidoyer », Special thematic issue of Critique internationale, 2015.

W

EBSITE

EU Transparency Register: http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/info/homePage.do?locale=en#en

 Lobbyists, NGOs, Protests

Civil society, Social movements

*AGENCIFICATION

Agencification has, partly due to the New Public Management (NPM) wave, been high on the agenda of administrative policy-makers for two decades. NPM reforms have made the agencification phenomenon highly topical and attracted considerable scholarly attention. Students have focused on the causes of agencification as well as its consequences. One noticeable bias in this literature is that the vast majority of the agencification scholarship is geared towards administrative history, reform and change and less on the effects of agencification.

W

HAT IS AGENCIFICATION?

Historically, ministerial portfolios have been arranged either as integrated ministries, meaning that a ministerial portfolio constitutes a unitary organisation, or as a vertically specialised structure, meaning that a portfolio is split into a ministerial, or cabinet-level, department on the one hand and one or more separate agencies on the other. Over time, agencies seem to have been moved out of and into ministerial departments, often in a cyclical manner. By an agency we mean an administrative body which is formally separated from a ministerial, or cabinet-level, department, and which carries out public tasks at a national level on a permanent basis, is staffed by public servants, is financed mainly by the state budget and is subject to public legal procedures. Agencies are supposed to enjoy some autonomy from their respective ministerial departments as regards decision-making (Verhoest et al. 2012). However, the respective ministers normally keep the political responsibility for agencies’ activities. Agencification thus signifies a transfer of government activities to bodies vertically specialised outside ministerial departments. Related to the NPM movement, governments across continents have established agencies at arm’s length from ministerial departments in order to take care of certain regulatory and administrative tasks.

During the last couple of decades, agencification has also been observed in international organisations and in the European Union (EU), with more than 40 EU agencies currently active. EU agencies cover multiple policy areas, have various legal standings and formal powers, staffing and funding provisions, and engage in a web of relations with external institutions. EU agencies have been considered weak in most terms. However, the quantitative leap of EU agencification is increasingly gaining a qualitative shift in terms of the establishment of EU agencies with ever more regulatory power and within policy domains of core-state powers. Studies show that agencification at EU level is in many cases basically about transferring action capacity from the constituent states to the EU level. For example, EU agencies seem to establish relatively stronger relationships towards the European Commission (Commission) than towards Member State governments (see below). Agencification at EU-level thus seems to contribute to a consolidation of executive power of the Commission, although at arm’s length distance from political oversight by Commissioners (Egeberg and Trondal 2011b).

W

HAT EXPLAINS AGENCIFICATION?

Agencification has been accounted for by (i) organisational, (ii) functional, (iii) contingency, and (iv) institutional (myth) approaches. (i) According to an organisational/institutional approach agencies come about through power struggles and compromises conditioned by pre-existing organisational structures. Organisational change is framed by the heritage of structures and new agencies are seen as embedded within existing organisational architectures. (ii) Agencification is secondly seen a response to collective action problems. The principal-agent model is often the analytical expression of this functional logic, together with the notion of transaction costs. The benefits of agencies lie in the reduction of political transaction costs, by providing solutions to collective-action problems that prevent efficient political exchange (Tallberg 2003: 26). (iii) Contingent events may help explaining institutional change and the timing of organisational birth. Decisions to create agencies have been motivated by needs to respond to particular circumstances of the moment. Finally, (iv) the creation of agencies can also be seen as a trend in public policy and as a fashionable idea within the realms of public management. Meyer and Rowan (1977: 73) emphasise the importance of cultural rules within wider institutional environments which take the form of rationalised myths. Delegating tasks to independent agencies was increasingly popular in domestic politics across the OECD area in the late 1980s and was therefore likely to appeal to many national governments.

I

MPLICATIONS OF AGENCIFICATION

Implications of agencification are noticeable with respect to (i) political steering and autonomy, and (ii) the rise of multilevel administration. Essentially, however, the sheer number of agencies across countries should not in itself matter with regard to the effects of agencification. These effects are arguably conditioned by particular organisational forms, not by the statistical distribution of these forms.

A recent study (Egeberg and Trondal 2009) shows that agency officials pay significantly less attention to signals from executive politicians than their counterparts in ministerial departments. The relationship is a robust one: it holds when controlling for type of tasks, the amount of public debate and contestation and officials’ rank. Last, but not least, the findings are highly consistent across time. At the agency level, the more modest attention to political signals from above seems partly compensated for by more emphasis on user and client interests (see Henry in this volume). Thus, the autonomous institution is seldom found; more autonomy gained in one relationship may be followed by more dependence in another relationship. Officials routinely have to cope with what might become competing expectations. However, since it is often assumed that the relationship between formal structure and actual behaviour is relatively weak in this respect, it might be expected that changing administrative doctrines made a difference as regards agency decision-making. This is, however, not the case: the proportion of agency personnel emphasising political signals is not smaller in 1996 (the NPM era) than it was in 1986 (the pre-NPM period) (Egeberg and Trondal 2009). However, the more organisational capacity available in the respective ministerial departments, the more agency personnel tend to assign weight to signals from their respective ministers.

Studies of the effects of agencification have primarily focused on organisational structure and procedures as independent variables. One neglected variable is agency location. Even though geographical relocation fairly often seems to have accompanied agencification, the potential effect of agency location has thus far escaped scholarly attention. A recent large-scale survey (Egeberg and Trondal 2011a) documents that agency site doesn’t make a significant difference for agency autonomy, agency influence and inter-institutional coordination. This study focused on already semi-detached, often highly specialised, agencies whose need for being steered, influenced or coordinated with others is relatively modest. It may thus still be possible that organisational location makes a difference if research focus is directed towards bodies that are in general relatively more involved in the policy-making process. Given that many decision processes are often hectic and intertwined, to be on the spot means that many actors and arenas can be reached in a relatively short time. Thus, under such circumstances, geographical proximity might be convenient. Hence, the impact of site might be conditioned by policy stage and the temporal dimensions of decision-making. Notwithstanding missing effects of agency location on administrative behaviour, agency locus might indeed also have symbolic effects of importance.

A second important implication of agencification might be the emergence of multilevel administration. National agencies organised at arm’s length from their parent ministerial departments and which also in practice are partly de-coupled from direct steering from these departments constitute an administrative infrastructure for agency capture. Essentially, national agencies may become building blocks of a multilevel EU administration. The main EU executive body, the Commission, lacks its own agencies at the national level for the implementation of EU policies. In order to generate uniform implementation across the Union the Commission in co-operation with EU agencies establish partnerships with national agencies, partly circumventing ministerial departments. National agencies are thus becoming double-hatted, serving both national ministries and EU-level bodies (Egeberg and Trondal 2011b). Agency de-coupling (from ministerial departments) at the national level makes agency re-coupling across levels of governance possible. Integrated ministries would not have been conducive to such a development. Thus, re-coupling (de-agencification) at the national level would seriously challenge administrative integration across levels of governance.

Morten EGEBERG and Jarle TRONDAL

R

EFERENCES

EGEBERG, M. and TRONDAL, J., Political leadership and bureaucratic autonomy. Effects of agencification, Governance 22 (4), 2009, pp. 673-688.

EGEBERG, M. and TRONDAL, J., Agencification and location: Does agency site matter?, Public Organization Review 11 (2), 2011a, pp. 97-108.

EGEBERG, M. and TRONDAL, J., EU-level agencies: New executive centre formation or vehicles for national control?, Journal of European Public Policy 8 (6), 2011b, pp. 868-887.

MEYER, J. W. and ROWAN, B., Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology 83 (2), 1977, pp. 340-346.

TALLBERG, J., Delegation to supranational institutions, in Thatcher, M. and Stone Sweet, A. (eds), The Politics of Delegation. London, Frank Cass, 2003.

VERHOEST, K., THIEL, S.V., BOUCKAERT, G. and LAEGREID, P. (eds), Government Agencies, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

W

EBSITES

EU agencies: http://europa.eu/about-eu/agencies/index_en.htm

 Civil Servants, Credit Rating

Governance, Multilevel administration

ALTER-GLOBALISTS

The alter-globalisation movement burst on the world stage with the mass demonstrations organised in Seattle during the 1999 WTO summit to protest the acceleration of free-trade policies. It has since endured, and alter-globalists meet on such occasions as the World Social Forums (Pleyers 2004), the first of which was held in Porto Alegre (Brazil). These forums bring together a very broad spectrum of movements from all around the world in meetings intended to be participatory. These movements have in common their opposition to the global neo-liberal order, which according to them has two main features: the free-trade policies that pin workers against each other in an unequal competition and the fiscal, social (labour laws) and environmental legislations that impoverish populations, particularly small peasant communities striving for self-sufficiency; the budgetary austerity policies imposed by international institutions, leading to the dismantling of national welfare, education and health policies and causing poverty to worsen across the world. In France, this movement is chiefly represented by ATTAC, having been launched by the more radical Peoples Global Action movement, which was structured globally on the model of the Zapatista rebellion of Chiapas (Mexico).

The association ATTAC (Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and Citizens’ Action) is the main network of European citizens that expresses openly alter-globalist political views, in opposition to neo-liberalism. It appeared in France in 1998 on the occasion of an initiative in favour of a tax on financial transactions (the so-called Tobin tax, named after the economist James Tobin who came up with the idea). The movement spread to most Western European countries (Germany, Austria, Denmark, Spain) and beyond, in countries such as Hungary (Ancelovici 2002). Once they have been recognised and authorised to use the organisation’s name, national ATTAC associations are autonomous. There is currently no existing integrated structure at the European level.

ATTAC brings together two sets of activists who had little contact before the foundation of the network: on the one hand, politically active researchers and academics, and on the other, activists in associations and trade unions with a long history of protest against the deregulation of public services. Among the bodies of ATTAC-France, the scientific board, which includes critical economists (Dominique Plihon, Jean-Marie Harribey and Thomas Coutrot), plays a considerable part in the elaboration of the association’s political arguments. Numerous organisations (associations, unions, papers) are active members of ATTAC. It is worth noting the active participation of the farmers’ union Confédération paysanne, along with FUGEA (Belgium) and Uniterre (Switzerland), and of some twenty movements of sixteen different countries from the network La Via Campesina, which brings together most organisations defending small-scale farmers to ensure their independence from the multinational corporations of the food processing industry and global markets and achieve food sovereignty. Since 2008, the European Coordination Via Campesina has regrouped European farmers’ organisations around the objective of adopting more solidary and more sustainable agricultural policies in the EU and beyond (Turkey, Norway…).

In the 2000s, ATTAC expanded the scope of its actions to combat neo-liberal globalisation in general, by highlighting the importance of tax havens, including in Europe (Jersey, Switzerland, Luxembourg), in the tax evasion financial flows of the very wealthy and of industrial, banking and business groups. ATTAC has also forcefully criticised the free-trade policies promoted by the WTO and the IMF at the global level and by the EU at the regional level, showing that they have the effect of worsening social inequalities.

Often considered to be among the critics of the functioning of European institutions, ATTAC has spoken up against the European Constitutional Treaty of 2005. As it has no office in Brussels, ATTAC is not very involved in the European negotiation process, except indirectly (for instance via ALTER-EU of which it is a member). Yet, its activists have proposed European-scale projects to overcome the current social, economic, political and institutional crises. The first project is a pan-European wealth tax aimed at the homogenisation of fiscal policies across Europe, in order to prevent unfair strategies of social and environmental dumping, irresponsible fiscal behaviour from the wealthiest citizens and corporations, and to curb financial speculation on national debts, which impoverishes States and undermines welfare policies (to reimburse the lenders). The more recent second project is to combat the economic and fiscal union, which according to ATTAC consists in putting relations between Member States and the Commission on a contractual basis, following the Greek and Portuguese models, by forcing States to implement structural policies and having a monetary commissioner with a veto right oversee national budgets. ATTAC criticises this both on account of the denial of democracy involved (signalling the end of national budgetary autonomy) and of the social and economic consequences (worsening the social impact of the crisis).

ATTAC’s ambitions clearly differ from those of ALTER-EU (monitoring EU corporate lobbying) and Transparency International (overseeing corruption among public actors). The association more fundamentally criticises the EU’s institutional architecture and its political and economic objectives. This critique relies on two distinct lines of argument: one that is based on the citizens’ share of political sovereignty, and one that is legitimated by scholarship, particularly in political economics. The demand for increased transparency in the EU’s political process is only one facet of a political approach that is deliberately more ambitious as well as more critical.

In its critique of the EU’s liberal austerity policies, generally formulated at Member State level, ATTAC concurs with other very unequally structured alter-globalist movements. This is particularly the case of the Indignados (the outraged) movement, which rose to prominence spectacularly quickly after the demonstrations and occupations of public places launched on 15 May 2011 in Spain. Mass grassroots movements of this kind, which benefit from the organisational flexibility introduced by the new online social networks, are purposefully not highly institutionalised. The spokespersons of the Indignados speak and act in the name of pacifism and real democracy; they have developed a critique of the confiscation of power by the elites of the two main Spanish parties (PSOE and PP). They accuse this elite of implementing the severe austerity policy demanded by the EU and financial investors without giving any consideration to the people, from the workers who lose their jobs to the pensioners without a pension. Several of these movements have been gathered within the platform Democracia Real Ya!, intended to give a voice to the citizens by promoting demanding democratic practices such as consensus-deliberation process. In the European election of 2014, a new political party called Podemos (we can), presented as the extension of this movement, gained 8% of votes and five Members of European Parliament.

At the other – more institutional, less grassroots – end of the spectrum of the European alter-globalisation movement, it is important to mention a small NGO that describes itself as a progressive think tank focused on the critique of neo-liberal globalisation: the Transnational Institute (TNI). Founded in Amsterdam in 1974 by researchers from another think tank – the Washington DC-based Institute for Policy Studies – the Transnational Institute had at the time participated in a campaign aimed at undermining the international supporters of General Pinochet’s dictatorship in Chili. It has retained a distinctive position within the field of European alter-globalisation – discreet but central in terms of intellectual influence for the English-speaking public. The TNI is primarily an organisation that brings together scholar activists to provide citizens with information and scholarly analysis on international politics. It regularly opposes certain EU policy orientations, especially through the voice of its founder and now president Susan George (also honorary president of ATTAC). Since the early 2010s, two main issues have elicited particularly harsh criticism: the social and economic impact of the national austerity policies promoted by EU actors (poverty, etc.) and the inability of the European institutions to impose structural reforms to banks and financial market investors liable to curb the appropriation of collective wealth by private interests. According to Susan George, only these reforms would create the conditions of possibility of a European growth model – an alternative to the Chinese and US models that would be less destructive in terms of human and environmental resources alike.

Gildas RENOU

R

EFERENCES

AGRIKOLIANSKY, E. and SOMMIER, I (eds), Radiographie du mouvement altermondialiste : Le second Forum social européen, La Dispute, 2005.

ANCELOVICI, M., Organizing against Globalization: The case of ATTAC in France, Politics & Society, Vol. 30 (3), pp. 427-463, 2002.

FÉRON, E., The Anti-globalization Movement and the European Agenda, in Giorgi, L., Homeyer, I. v. and Parsons, W. (eds), Democracy in the European Union: Towards the Emergence of a Public Sphere, Routledge, 2006.

GEORGE, S., We the People of Europe, Pluto Press, 2006 / GEORGE, S., Nous, peuples d’Europe, Fayard, 2005 (pour le texte en français).

PLEYERS, G., Les Forums sociaux comme modèle idéal de convergence, Revue internationale des sciences sociales, 182, pp. 569-579, 2004.

PLEYERS G., Alter-Globalization. Becoming Actors in the Global Age, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2010.

W

EBSITES

ATTAC: http://www.attac.org/

European Coordination Via Campesina: http://www.eurovia.org/

Transnational Institute: http://www.tni.org/

Article by Susan George on the devastation caused by austerity policies in Europe: http://www.tni.org/article/debt-austerity-devastation

Collaborative websites of the Spanish Indignados movement (or Movement 15M): http://somos15m.org/, http://tomalaplaza.net/

Podemos party: http://podemos.info/

 Activists, Protests, Radical Left, Transparency (Movements for)

Austerity policies, Globalisation, Social critique

COUTROT Thomas, GEORGE Susan, HARRIBEY Jean-Marie, PLIHON Dominique, TOBIN James

AMICUS CURIAE (ECTHR)

There is not a single occurrence of the Latin phrase amicus curiae in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This absence may be surprising, but the spirit of the concept – namely the ability for various entities to assist a Court by offering information relevant to the case at hand – is in effect a key feature of proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Instead of opting for a literal translation (friend of the court), the authors of the Convention (article 36) settled for the classical term of third party intervention. Article 36 concerns three distinct cases and makes a distinction between three types of intervening parties. The first paragraph is a remnant of diplomatic protection, giving a High Contracting Party one of whose nationals is an applicant […] the right to submit written comments and take part in the hearings. The second paragraph is the one that takes up the original underlying philosophy of the amicus curiae procedure, stating that The President of the Court may, in the interest of the proper administration of justice, invite any High Contracting Party which is not a party to the proceedings or any person concerned who is not the applicant to submit written comments or take part in hearings. The discerning reader will have noticed that while the right to intervene is fully recognised for States (article 36§1), it is only offered as an option for the other categories of third parties (article 36§2). In practice, the third parties are the ones who request to intervene, and the invitation of the President of the Court in question is more of an authorisation. The same goes for the third category of intervening parties mentioned in the third paragraph of article 36, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, whose duties concern the promotion of human rights and the prevention of human rights violations (Resolution 99(50) of 7 May 1999). The Commissioner, if he asks to, may also submit written comments and take part in hearings.

The case law suggests that some states still do not hesitate to activate the mechanism of article 36§1: when a case affects an essential feature of policy, they often support the applicants of their nationality. For instance, in Perincek v. Switzerland (17 December 2013), the state of Turkey backed the applicant’s claims concerning the inexistence of an Armenian genocide in 1915. What was at stake was the negation not of the massacres that occurred at the time, but of their legal characterisation as genocide. While such interventions ultimately remain rare cases, article 36§2 of the Convention has been invoked very often, because the ECtHR has developed a comprehensive interpretation of the notion of person concerned (including both the notion of person and that of concern) (ECtHR, Karner v. Austria, 24 July 2003, § 6). Thus, in addition to individuals and groups of individuals, the most frequent third party interveners are NGOs. These organisations mainly come from the English-speaking world (European Network against Racism, Interights, Liberty, Minority Rights Group International, Roma Human Rights Centre); some of them are based on the other side of the Atlantic (such as Cejil and the Centro por la justicia y el derecho internacional), and others are globally recognised actors (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch). Their interventions have had a major impact in some cases, to the extent that they have resulted in inflections or transformations of the case law, as was the case regarding discrimination towards the Roma ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia, 8 July 2004). In some cases, we may observe that other actors also took the step of integrating this interventionist strategy into their culture, including some European bars, lawyers’ training institutes – such as the Institut de formation aux droits de l’homme of the Paris bar – as well as some NGOs based in mainland Europe like the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH). These forays have so far admittedly been few and far between.

This technique of intervention has indisputably enriched the standard procedure. First, it has allowed the Court to receive input on the case law of other international and/or national courts by generalising the recourse to comparative law. Most significantly, it can also play a critical role when the third parties alert the judge on the general human rights situation in certain countries, whether or not they are party to the Convention. This is undoubtedly becoming increasingly important because of the new European geopolitical context and of the fact that protocol no 14 expressly mentions the Commissioner for Human Rights among the third party interveners (article 36§3). The enshrinement of the Commissioner’s role as amicus curiae is a logical step, in the sense that he was already a part of the European human rights litigation, as the Court took its reports into consideration both in the fact-finding process in the presentation of the relevant international law (ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia, 8 July 2004, § 18; ECtHR, Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, 7 January 2010, § 91-100). While the Commissioner has so far used his right to intervene sparingly, he has always done so in key cases. The first intervention concerned the situation in the Republic of Abkhazia (Mamasakhlisi v. Georgia and Russia). The second was in relation to a group of fourteen applications – Ahmed Ali and Others – regarding the transfer of asylum seekers from the Netherlands to Greece under the EC regulation known as Dublin II. The third intervention was in line with the second, as it reaffirmed and updated previously submitted observations, this time directed against Belgium and Greece. The Grand Chamber issued a final ruling on the case M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece on 21 January 2011. The latest intervention to date actually concerned the ability of third parties (such as associations or NGOs) to represent direct victims before the Court (The Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania). If the observations of the Commissioner for Human Rights were to be taken seriously by the Court, the European procedure would align with the long-standing one used in the inter-American human rights system (article 44 of the American Convention).

Laurence BURGORGUE-LARSEN

R

EFERENCES

BURGORGUE-LARSEN, L., Les interventions éclairées devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme ou le rôle stratégique des amici curiae, La conscience des droits. Mélanges en l’honneur de Jean-Paul Costa, Paris, Dalloz, 2011, pp. 67-82.

DE SCHUTTER, O., Sur l’émergence de la société civile en droit international : le rôle des associations devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, EJIL, vol. 7, no 3, 1996, pp. 372-410.

HENNEBEL, L., Le rôle des amici curiae devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, RTDH, 2007, pp. 641-668.

HITOSHI MAYER L., NGO Standing and Influence in Regional Human Rights Courts and Commission, Brook. J. Int.’L. L., 2011, pp. 911-946.

LAMBERT, P., « La pratique de la tierce intervention devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme : l’expérience de l’intervention des barreaux », RTDH, 2006, pp. 331-336.

SICILIANOS, A., « La tierce intervention devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme », in Ruiz Fabri H. and Sorel J.-M. (eds), Le tiers à l’instance devant les juridictions internationales, Pedone, 2005, pp. 123-150.

R

EGULATION

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (article 36)

European Court of Human Rights: Rules of Court (1 January 2014 edition) (article 44)

ECtHR, Karner v. Austria, 24 July 2003.

ECtHR, Perincek v. Switzerland, 17 December 2013.

ECtHR (Grand Chamber), D.H. v. Czech Republic, 13 November 2007.

ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia, 8 July 2004.

ECtHR, Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, 7 January 2010.

ECtHR, M.S.S v. Belgium and Greece, 21 January 2011.

 Applicants (ECtHR), Commissioner for Human Rights (CoE), Discrimination, NGOs, Roma and Travellers

Collective interest, Diplomatic protection

*APPLICANTS (ECTHR)

Anyone who considers themselves to be a victim of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), by any of the 47 State parties to the Council of Europe, may petition the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – as an applicant to the Court.

The ECHR came into force in 1953 and was primarily intended to protect civil and political rights. Over the years, additional rights have subsequently been added by way of protocols to the ECHR.

For many years there has been a substantial backlog of cases pending at the Court, which necessarily impacts upon the time taken to adjudicate on them. In 2013 there were 65,900 new applications submitted to the Court. As at the end of February 2014, there were 101,100 pending applications before the Court.

The ECHR allows any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals to petition the Court – but they must claim to be victims themselves of violations of one or more of the rights in the ECHR (or its protocols). Thus, as well as individuals, all kinds of organisations can be applicants, including, for example, companies, trusts, trade unions, political parties and religious organisations. The system does not allow representative actions – for example, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) may not act as an applicant on behalf of others who claim to be the direct victims of a violation of ECHR rights. Nor are "actio popularis" claims permitted – abstract or hypothetical challenges to the law, where there is no victim of a violation of ECHR rights. However, an NGO can of course be an applicant to the Court if the NGO itself can claim to be a victim. Other factors such as nationality or place of residence are irrelevant – the sole requirement is that the applicant can claim to be a victim of a Convention violation. This condition does include potential applicants, such as individuals against whom deportation proceedings have been instigated (but who have not yet been deported) and people who are at risk of criminal prosecution. For people claiming to be potential victims, the test applied by the Court is whether there is a real personal risk of being directly affected by the violations at issue.

Within national legal systems, there are often rules about legal capacity or standing – as to whether individuals may apply to national courts. These may restrict, for example, children from making applications in their own right or prevent people who lack legal capacity because of their mental state from applying to the courts. These rules do not apply to the ECtHR, which makes its own decisions about such questions. In general, it has a less restrictive or formalistic approach – for example, there have been many applications to the ECtHR brought by children, and the Court may allow a person who lacks legal capacity under domestic law to conduct ECHR proceedings in their own right.

If a case relates to the death of a person, an application to the ECtHR can be brought on the victim’s behalf by a close relative. If an applicant dies while their case is pending before the ECtHR, the case may be continued by a close relative, provided that the person is considered to have a legitimate interest in the case, or if the Court is satisfied that the complaint is of general interest.

The procedure for applying to the ECtHR is closely regulated by the Court Rules and by its practice directions. In order to launch a case, applicants must fully complete and submit the Court’s application form (which was revised with effect from 1 January 2014). Detailed information about the process, and the application form, can be found on the website of the ECtHR: http://www.echr.coe.int/.

Applicants may of course be (and often are) represented by a lawyer, however this is not mandatory in order to lodge an initial application. No court fee is payable in order to lodge an application. A limited form of legal aid is available for applicants bringing proceedings before the ECtHR. Legal aid can only be applied for if a case is referred to the Government in question to respond – it cannot be applied for when lodging the case. The ECtHR is not bound by domestic legal aid rules – it applies its own eligibility rules. Applicants are required to provide information about their financial status. If legal aid is granted, it will rarely in practice be sufficient to cover all of the lawyer’s costs – but can be considered as a contribution towards the costs. In many Council of Europe states, there are expert non-governmental organisations (NGOs) whose lawyers frequently represent applicants before the ECtHR.

There are a series of legal rules (known as