Palace of Perplexity

In Strasbourg, France, last week, ribbon-cutting dignitaries opened a modest building with a grandiose name, "Palace of Human Rights." It is the first permanent home of the European Court of Human Rights, and the festivities were no sooner over than the court faced up to a judicial Everest: ruling on the language rights of northern Belgium's French-speaking minority. In the third case of its six-year history, the court's decision may also determine whether the court itself lives or dies.

The court's judicial authority flows from Europe's 1950 Convention on Human Rights, which was drawn up by 18 nations.* As a result, some Europeans, in some cases, may now appeal particular problems beyond their own countries' highest courts to the European Court of Human Rights.

Friendly Persuasion. Any such appeal confronts an elaborate screening process that sharply limits the number of cases reaching the court--and makes them all the more significant. The process starts with the 15-member Commission on Human Rights, which conducts the first investigation into whether a government has, in fact, breached the convention. Only at this level do individuals appear in person. Set up in 1955, the commission has thus far handled 2,600 complaints, about half from people in prison. By finding a complaint "admissible," as it has in 110 cases, the commission may prod the complainant's government into action. If publicity fails, the commission tries to negotiate a "friendly solution," always seeks to avoid litigation.

When litigation seems unavoidable, the commission turns to the Council of Europe's 18-member Committee of Ministers, who try their own higher-level political persuasion and generally find some solution--often by voting to quash the case. But if all else fails, the ministers reluctantly approve litigation in the Court of Human Rights.

The court has 18 judges (representing the convention's 18 original drafters) elected by the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly, but usually it hears cases with seven judges--one from the country involved, six drawn by lot. Ironically, the drawing in all three of the court's cases has resulted in the choice of Judge Rene Cassin as court president--a Frenchman, representing a country that recognizes neither the commission nor the court.

Moot but Significant. The court established its power of judicial review in 1960 in its very first case. Gerard Lawless, a suspected Irish Republican Army terrorist, whom Ireland locked up for three months without a hearing under "emergency" laws, had questioned the legality of his imprisonment. The court upheld Defendant Ireland's action as justified under the circumstances; in so doing, it also asserted its then disputed right to interpret the convention and pass upon the conduct of subscribing nations.

In 1961 the court achieved something significantly different in the case of Belgian Journalist Raymond De Becker, a wartime German collaborator who had been deprived for life of most of his civil liberties. The very fact that the court was pondering the Belgian law that authorized De Becker's fate prodded Belgium into striking it off the books--thus rendering the case moot.

Split by Language. In its third case, the court confronts something far tougher--the complaints of 324 Belgian plaintiffs who are members of the French-speaking minority that lives bitterly among the Dutch-speaking Flemings of northern Belgium. Under laws that have split the country into two language areas, the 324 plaintiffs are forced to send their French-speaking children to Dutch-speaking schools. As they see it, the laws patently violate a dozen provisions of the Human Rights Convention.

However the court decides, Belgium's hottest political conflict may wind up hotter than ever. Even worse, Belgium is already sorely divided over whether to renew its five-year agreement recognizing the court's jurisdiction. This does not affect the current case. But if Belgium withdraws, the court's nine subscribing members will be cut to eight --the minimum required by the convention to keep the court going.

* France, Malta and Switzerland balked at signing. Austria, Belgium, Britain, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Turkey and West Germany ratified the convention with reservations. Of these 15 countries, Britain, Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Turkey accept convention enforcement by the court only in interstate conflicts. Sweden totally rejects the court's authority. The full jurisdiction of the court and the rest of the convention's complex enforcement machinery are accepted by only nine countries--Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway and West Germany.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.