Last Tuesday in the House of Lords there was a debate that took place entitled “European Court of Human Rights: Rule 39 – Question“ which began with a question from Sharmishta Chakrabarti who is a Labour member. Her initial request was “To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the benefits of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, provided by Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to grant interim measures where there is imminent risk of irreparable harm to a claimant in an ongoing application.” The member of the Government who responded to the debate is Christopher Bellamy. Inevitably a number of other people did participate and one of them was the the Crossbench member Lord Anderson of of Ipswich who is David Anderson. Interestingly in the Wikipedia piece of him it refers to the fact that “His father was Sir Eric Anderson, former Headmaster of Eton College, who taught Prince Charles, Tony Blair, David Cameron and Boris Johnson.” which is very fascinating. So here is the piece he raised last Tuesday as part of the debate and the response.

David Anderson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that interpretation of a treaty is informed not just by the court that is set up to adjudicate on it, but by state practice? The member Governments of the Council of Europe, including our own, have repeatedly confirmed the binding nature of interim measures under Rule 39—in the Committee of Ministers, and in the Izmir and Brighton declarations. Is the Minister proud of the United Kingdom’s record of compliance with interim measures, particularly in comparison to some founding members of the European Union?

Christopher Bellamy On the latter point, I do not presume to cast any kind of judgment on or make any comparison between the United Kingdom and other contracting states. On the general point about acceptance in practice of the position of interim measures under the convention, there are two legal views.