Oldal 327 [327]
REVISITING THE EUROPEAN CONSENSUS IN LIGHT OF THE VCLT
applied by the Court — except for the doctrine of the margin of appreciation” —
have basis in or may be derived from the Vienna rules. The ECtHR unequivocally
endorsed Articles 31-33 of the VCLT in Golder v. the United Kingdom as “in essence
generally accepted principles of international law” five years before it entered into
force,'® and it continues to serve as a guiding framework for interpretation ever
since.” The practical consequences of this commitment are well summarized in
Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary: first, as a starting point, “the Court is
required to ascertain the ordinary meaning to be given to the words in their
context and in the light of the object and purpose of the provision from which
they are drawn”.”! Second, in order to tailor the Vienna rules to the ECHR, the
Court noted: “the context of the provision is a treaty for the effective protection
of individual human rights and that the Convention must be read as a whole, and
interpreted in such way as to promote internal consistency and harmony between
its various provisions”.” Effectiveness is further mandated by the ‘object and
purpose’ of the ECHR that “requires that its provisions must be interpreted and
applied in a manner which renders its rights practical and effective, not theoretical
and illusory”.”?
Third, it follows from identifying the Convention as an international treaty
that due regard has to be accorded to its broader environment: it “cannot be
interpreted in a vacuum and should so far as possible be interpreted in harmony
with other rules of international law of which it forms part”.”* This frequently
invoked statement of the Court not only indicates an aspiration towards anti¬
fragmentation, but also opens the door to systemic integration as contained in
Article 31 (3) c) of the VCLT.” Finally, the Court — in line with its supplementary
nature — emphasized the limited role the travaux préparatoires may play: on the
basis of the jurisprudence they “are not delimiting for the question whether a
right may be considered to fall within the scope of an Article of the Convention if
As Ulfstein correctly notes, the margin of appreciation does not instruct the Court how the
ECHR ought to be interpreted, it only distributes “the interpretational competence between
the ECtHR and national organs”. Geir Ulfstein, Interpretation of the ECHR in light of the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, The International Journal of Human Rights 7
(2020), 917-934.
8 Golder v. the United Kingdom 4451/70 (21/02/1975), A18, para 29.
See for example: Mihalache v. Romania [GC] 54012/10 (08/07/2019), para 90; or Hirsii
Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC] 27765/09 (23/02/2012), ECHR 2012-II 97, para 170.
2 Magyar Helsinki Bizottsäg v. Hungary [GC] 18030/11 (08/11/2016).
2° Ibid, para 119.
2 [bid, para 120.
23 Ibid, para 121.
4 Ibid, para 123.
> Ibid.
+ 325 +