Born in South Africa, attended school in Mozambique, studied in Austria, became a Doctor of law and Professor at the University of Zurich in Swtzerland. Mark Villiger is Swiss citizen, Liechtenstein resident and undoubtedly an international person. After nine years, on the 1 st of September 2015 expired the term of Mark Villiger´s office of the European court of human rights judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. He also chaired the V. Section of ECHR in which jurisdiction is The Czech Republic. „It is very difficult to reply without breaching the secrecy of deliberations,“ he noted after giving an interview.
Could you, please, make a very short review or short sight on your presidency of the ECHR´s 5th Section? What important issues happened during your presidency according to your meaning? As a judge, which moments you liked and which not?
I was President of Section V for nearly three years, my colleagues in Plenary having elected me to this post in a secret ballot. The colleagues in this Section were sitting in respect of the Czech Republic, Sweden, France, Malta, Ukraine, Slovenia, Germany and (myself) Liechtenstein. The Court’s President was also a member, but he only sat in cases directed against Luxembourg. During my Presidency, I aimed at ensuring four principles:
– high professionalism
– high efficiency
– respect and
– friendliness.
Mohlo by vás zajímat
It is difficult to say whether there were any important cases during this time. You see, when I am asked what is/was my most important case, I always reply: the one I am dealing with now! Still, I might mention the (only) hearing which we had in this time, namely on the case of Dubská and Krejzová v. Czech Republic (concerning the situation of midwives in the Czech Republic). Whilst our Section delivered a judgment in this case, it has meanwhile been referred to the Grand Chamber which will conduct a further hearing on it. There were no particular moments which I liked or disliked. Of course, as in any Court, there are cases before the Judges which lead to little debate, others where Judges may have completely different views and long discussions may ensue.
Concern the law, did the atitude to the human rights develop during the time? In different times the European Convention of Human rights and Freedoms was understood differently. Is the human rights concept still developing concern the ECHR´s decisions? If yes, in which direction? Negatively? Positively?
I do not think that in these three years the human rights law developed positively or negatively into any particular direction. It is the Grand Chamber which is called upon to resolve new issues arising under the Convention – or to resolve contradictions in the case-law of the Sections. The Sections themselves are very much bound by the Court’s case-law which often goes back many years or even decades. In this respect, it is difficult to say that the direction of the Sections’ case-law was negative or positive.
Not all law professionals consider the ECHR´s case law essential and important: some law professionals even can not see the logic of case law and its impact on peoples lives. Do you have any message for them?
The relevance of the Court’s case-law for members of the legal profession depends very much on the different branches of law. A tax lawyer may find few cases which are of interest to her or him! Even for advocates, who deal with a wide range of issues, the Court’s case-law, which deals with individual issues, may not always concern them. It is precisely the function of a Court to examine an individual issue – rather than laying down the law in general. Still, I would suggest that the Court’s case-law is relevant for three reasons. a) the judgments demonstrate what the European Court thinks about a particular matter in a Member State; b) surely it is always interesting to follow as a member of the legal profession the reasoning of the highest Court in Europe; and c) we are not talking here of scientific research, we are talking of judgments which are binding on the Member States. Finally, since the Court deals with human rights, of course, all its judgments concern all human beings.
On the other hand, some people and organisations use human rights in very incorrect way, misleading and misusing the term „human rights“ which might lead to the devaluation of the Human Rights Convention. Do you have any message for them?
Article 17 (on the prohibition of the abuse of rights) is quite clear in this respect. It prohibits any abuse or destruction of any of the rights of the Convention. While this provision is directed primarily at the Member States, clearly it concerns indirectly also all European society.
What would you say about Russia and Ukraine lodging futher and futher complaints on each other? Is it possible to decide those complaints as a judge without being a politician? And what would you say about the fact that Russia made a progress in human rights according to the ECHR Annual Report? Is there any role of ECHR´s decisions in it?
The Convention envisages in Article 33 the possibility of one Member State filing an application against another. Indeed, this provision was the core of the Convention as it was created in 1950, after the atrocities of the Nazi-regime – intended to preserve among the European Member States an area of human rights. Since then, a number of inter-State complaints have been filed by one Member State against another, clearly not as numerous as individual applications. Still, they demonstrate, that the Convention requests its Member States to ensure, in last resort, human rights in Europe. Of course, it is possible to decide these cases without being a politician. There may well be political connotations behind each case. As a Judge, one is professional; one is able to concentrate on the legal dimensions. I was a Judge in the case of Georgia v. Russia (no. 1), and at no time did it occur to me in the slightest that I would be deciding as a politician. As regards Russia’s progress in human rights according to the ECHR Annual Report: I have not read this report, but I am delighted about this result. Similarly, I cannot state if ECHR decisions play a role here, but I would happy it this was the case.
What would you report on the Czech Government: cooperation, quality of its materials and statements made at the Court?
I can only say that with the Czech Government, as with all other Member States, we have had a very satisfactory cooperation.
What would you say about the Czech Republic elected judge Mr. Ales Pejchal? What is his contribution to the Court and to the Section? Having been his colleague, did you reveal anything special concern his law philosophy? What would say about his work?
I am good friends with all members of Section V, not least with JUDr. Aleš Pejchal. He was a very successful and well known advocate in the Czech Republic and was President of the Private Law Section of the Czech Bar Association as well as Vice-President of the Czech Bar Association. Therefore, it will not surprise that he has, among many other things, considerable experience and an excellent knowledge as to the role of advocates in, and for, the Convention.
Who is Prof. Dr. iur. Mark E. Villiger:
Born in South Africa in 1950. He attended primary school in Mozambique, studied in Austria. He was awarded the title Doctor of Laws and Professor at the Univirsity of Zurich in Switzerland where he has been teaching international law, humanitarian law and human rights or constitutional law.
He lectured at universities and to judges, parliamentary commissions, bar associations, police and prison officers on human rights, public international law and national public law in: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Poland, Romania, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and USA. He published three books on human rights and on international, European and Swiss law.
In 1997 he became First Registrar of the Human Rights Chamber in Sarajevo. In the years 1991-2002 he was Head of Division in the European Court of Human Rights Registry; previously in the European Commission of Human Rights Secretariat. Since 2002 he worked as Deputy Registrar in the III. Section of the European Court of Human Rights. He was elected European Court of Human Rights judge in respect of Liechtenstein in 2006 for nine years. He also chaired the V. Section of ECHR in which jurisdiction is The Czech Republic. His term expired on the 1st of September 2015.
Irena Válová
