I agree, although it seems like they are denying the inevitable. Its amazing how authority doesn't like being challenged. I wonder how many requests for referrals are made by the individual states when a the ECHR rules against them? Is this just pro-forma?
I don't know up-to-date statistics for how many requests for referral are made by the respondent states compared to those made by the applicants or both.
However, the ECHR has provided some statistics for requests for referral up to October, 2011, in its publication Practice of the Grand Chamber Panel. From page 4 of that publication:
"Since the entry into force, on 1 November 1998, of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the Panel has examined 2,129 requests for referral. 40.01% of these requests (852) were made by respondent Governments, 56.50% (1,203) by applicants and 3.47% (74) by both parties.
Only 110 requests (approximately 5.16% of all requests) have been accepted so far, resulting in the case being referred to the Grand Chamber. Out of these 110 successful requests, 59 (approximately 2.77% of all requests) were made by the respondent Governments, 44 (approximately 2.06% of all requests) by the applicants and 7 (approximately 0.32% of all requests) by both parties.
These statistics show that:
(a) requests for referral are accepted in only a small percentage of cases (slightly more than 5%); indeed, only “exceptional cases” are brought before the Grand Chamber, in accordance with the text and spirit of Article 43 of the Convention;
(b) 53.63% of successful requests were made by the respondent Governments, whereas they submitted only 40.01% of the total number of requests; it can therefore be said that to date, Governments have been significantly more successful than applicants in obtaining referrals;
(c) the total number of referral requests is high (and likely to increase); the Court would therefore have a substantial amount of additional work if the Panel had an obligation to give reasons for each of its decisions of acceptance or rejection.
Finally, it may be noted that to date, the majority of cases (110, as indicated above) brought before the Grand Chamber have been the result of the referral procedure, while only 101 cases have resulted from relinquishment of jurisdiction by a Chamber.* It follows that the Grand Chamber’s caseload has originated in referral in approximately 52.13% of cases and in relinquishment in approximately 47.87% of cases."
* This is another way a case may reach the Grand Chamber - a Chamber decides that the case would be better handled by the larger body, possibly because of its complexity or the lack of existing applicable case-law.
Here's one example of a case that was judged in a state's favor by the Grand Chamber after a judgment against the state by the Chamber and subsequent acceptance by the GC Panel of the state's request for referral. The Grand Chamber judged that display of crucifixes in classrooms of schools run by the government of Italy was not a violation of the Convention, because since there was no instruction in religion in the schools or pressure on the students to follow any religion, the state was within its "margin of appreciation" to display them. Here are excerpts from the legal summaries:
LAUTSI AND OTHERS v. ITALY 30814/06 (
Grand Chamber) 18/03/2011
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
Respect for parents' philosophical convictions
Respect for parents' religious convictions
Display of crucifixes in State-school classrooms:
no violation
LAUTSI v. ITALY 30814/06 (
Chamber) 03/11/2009
Article 9
Article 9-1
Freedom of religion
Manifest religion or belief
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
Respect for parents' philosophical convictions
Respect for parents' religious convictions
Display of crucifixes in State-school classrooms:
violation
[
This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 1 March 2010]
