Page 327 [327]
OCR
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 antifragmentation, 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 +
