WHAT ARE PRECEDENTS AND HOW SHOULD JUDGES HANDLE THEM? CONSIDERATIONS BASED ON THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Practice Statement of the House of Lords of 1966 posed the principle for the use of precedent in English law. The European Court of Human Rights developed its own stance on the authority of precedent in various judgments. The positions of the two jurisdictions on the issue are substantially the same. The precedents are to be followed and their authority is binding for the courts.


INTRODUCTION
"Our legal system belongs to the continental law and we do not follow precedents." The author of this text has on many occasions been in the position to hear such a phrase, or a similar one, either in his home country -Serbia, or elsewhere in Europe.Although the statement may seem logical at first glance the question is, what the phrase actually means?
Let us imagine that a "type N" case comes before a judge and the judge rules in favour of the plaintiff.What happens when the same "type N" case comes before the judge at the same court of law next time?Is the judge entitled to rule for the defendant?The answer is definitely in the negative, provided there is identity of the two cases.
The answer that has just been given is based on two main considerations.Deciding differently in a subsequent case of the same type is some-thing that contradicts our elementary sense of justice.This can be proven at any time by interrogating on the subject a layman who has no formation in law.Moreover it contradicts a philosophical precept of fairness, which demands that the equal should be treated equally and the unequal unequally.
At this stage the concept from the title of this paper appears to be unavoidable.Precedents are not to be regarded as a concept belonging exclusively to the Common Law treasury.They always play a role when the administration of justice takes place.Precedents are to be followed not because there is a certain provision in written law, which prescribes judges to follow them.They are to be followed because such a practice originates in the essential commands of justice.

CONTENTS OF A JUDGMENT -RATIO DECIDENDI AND OBITER DICTA
A judgment of any court of law always contains an element, which appears to be the most important.The Common Law has given the name of ratio decidendi to that particular element.It represents the grounds of the court's decision, and it is defined as the "propositions of law, which are necessary for the disposal of the case on the facts". 1 The ratio decidendi is considered to be binding.It is to be noted that a judge giving a judgment in the system of Common Law usually does not state what the ratio decidendi is.That element is to be found among the reasoning in a judgment by a judge, coming next to the one who rendered the decision and using the previous judgment as authority. 2However, it is exactly that part of a judgment, which is to be followed.In other words, it is binding on "the decision-making of a subsequent court". 3part from the decisive element of a judgment there are still other important items in a court's reasoning.They are called obiter dicta.The obiter dicta are not binding, but they may have persuasive authority. 4

IDENTITY OF CASES AND THE PROBLEM OF DISTINGUISHING
A sitting judge, although recognising the previous authorities will always face a problem, which consists in a preliminary question.The ques- tion is whether the case that a judge has to try is identical to a previous one or not?If the two cases are identical the sitting judge in a subsequent case has to follow the authority of the previous one.If the cases are not identical the sitting judge will distinguish them.The whole art of rendering judgments is on many occasions focused in distinguishing.It must be stressed that the distinguishing of cases needs ample reasoning.A judge is not allowed merely to state that the two cases are to be distinguished.He must supply convincing arguments for the preliminary decision to distinguish the cases. 5he main outcome of the distinguishing is to discard the binding force of a previous authority.If the case a judge has to try is different from the previous one the judge is not bound by the precedent.

EARLIER STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT
Although the Common Law countries form one and the same family and the lawyers trained in Common Law use the same legal method, there are nevertheless slight differences in the approach to the binding force of precedent from one country to the other.This paper will treat the role of precedent in English law.
The binding force of precedent is sometimes understood as a consequence of the doctrine of stare decisis.The origin of the doctrine remains unclear and remote in the past.
In the old times it was accepted in English law that judges were allowed not to repeat wrong decisions.Therefore if a judge found a previous decision to be wrong he was entitled to hold otherwise in an identical case.From that ancient stage the courts' practice in England developed a firm stance on the binding force of precedent.The rules derived from precedents were to be applied "for the sake of uniformity and consistency even if they were 'not as convenient and reasonable as we ourselves could have devised'". 6he doctrine of stare decisis "was elevated into inflexible dogma" only in the early 19 th century. 7It was followed in the first half of the 20 th cen- tury, when the highest court in England (the House of Lords at that time) "was absolutely bound by the doctrine of stare decisis". 8However, the rigidity that marked the doctrine on the binding force of precedent led to the question whether the highest court in England was bound by its own previous judgments.It was in 1966 that the question was entrenched.

PRACTICE STATEMENT OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
The way of settling the important issue of the binding force of precedent on the judgments of the highest court in England was somewhat peculiar.It was done in a Practice Statement of the House of Lords in 1966.
The text of the statement was the following: "Their Lordships nevertheless recognise that too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case and also unduly restrict the proper development of the law.They propose, therefore, to modify their present practice and, while treating former decisions of this House as normally binding, to depart from a previous decision when it appears right to do so." 9 The stance expressed in the Practice Note has been maintained ever since.Their Lordships have not changed their attitude towards the binding force of precedent.In brief, the principle position is that precedents are to be adhered to, because they are binding, but the judges are nevertheless allowed to depart from them for the sake of justice in a particular case.

. Precedent in the Jurisprudence
of the European Court of Human Rights

FOLLOWING OR OVERRULING A PREVIOUS JUDGMENT -THE BINDING FORCE OF PRECEDENT
The European Court of Human Rights had to face the same issue as the English courts of law once upon a time. 10There was no written rule on the force of precedent.No legal text either in the European Convention on Human Rights or in its additional protocols could provide guidance to judges whether they should be bound by their own previous 8 Lord Denning, 1979 rulings.11Therefore, the developments, which took place in the Court's jurisprudence, were processes that may be labelled as the natural evolution of law.
The issue of the binding force of precedent clearly appeared before Strasbourg judges in the cases in which they had to decide whether to overrule a previous judgment.The whole set of ideas of binding force of precedent, following a precedent or distinguishing cases from previous ones was displayed before the Court.The Court's judgments given in several outstanding cases can furnish examples of the attitudes of judges towards precedents and the developments of the case law.

THE CASE OF COSSEY -FOLLOWING REES
In the case of Rees v. United Kingdom the applicant who was a transsexual complained under articles 8 and 12 of the Convention. 12The applicant stated that the domestic law did not "confer on him a legal status corresponding to his actual condition". 13His birth certificate mentioned only his sex at the time of birth and besides he could not marry a woman. 14he Court found no violation of the Convention provisions in this case.As to the Article 8 complaint the Court held that there was no positive obligation, which would extend so far as to include the duty of a member-state to make an entry into the public register after a gender assignment. 15As regards Article 12 complaint the Court held that under that provision the opposite biological sex of the partners was required to lawfully conclude a marriage. 16he same issues reappeared in Cossey v. United Kingdom. 17The applicant was a male to female transsexual.Her complaints were the same as those in the Rees case.She complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the non-recognition of her status, as regards the birth certificate.She also complained under Article 12 she was unable to marry. 18otably, as far as the latter complaint is concerned, the applicant celebrated a marriage ceremony in a synagogue, but her marriage was subse-quently pronounced void on the grounds that the two partners were not male and female. 19he Court posed two essential questions as foundations of its reasoning in the judgment.The first was: Is the present case distinguishable on its facts from the Rees case?And the second: Should the Court depart from its Rees judgment?
As to the first question it was observed that the applicant in Cossey indeed had a partner and even celebrated a ceremony, which had not been the case in Rees.However, the Court held the difference to be irrelevant and found the case at hand "not materially distinguishable" from the Rees case. 20o respond to the second question mentioned above the Court posed a rule to which we shall return further on in this text.Its essential element consists in the Court's stance that it should depart from a previous ruling only if "there were cogent reasons for doing so". 21The majority of judges held that the Court should not depart from the Court's previous ruling in Rees.
The majority reasoning in Cossey reproduced the Court's conclusions in Rees.There was no positive obligation of the respondent state to alter its system of the registration of births; therefore no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. 22As regards Article 12 complaint a reference was made to the paragraphs 49 and 50 of the Rees judgment; opposite biological sex was required for concluding marriage and there was no violation of the Convention. 23ne of the dissenters in this case was judge Martens.His stance was that the case of Rees should have been decided differently, both under Articles 8 and 12. 24 Besides, the dissenting judge held that there were cogent reasons for departing from the ruling in Rees.In his opinion "the Rees judgment was wrong", or at least "the present day conditions warranted a different decision".In general, the most important circumstance he relied on was the "ever-growing awareness of the essential importance of everyone's identity". 25The dissenting judge expressed the view that the judgment in Cossey should have overruled Rees.The judgment in Cossey thus followed the previous ruling in Rees, mostly on the grounds that the distinguishing was discarded.The judges in Strasbourg felt bound by the previous ruling in an identical case.That is evident from the wording of the judgment.The binding force of precedent was clearly confirmed, which was also evident from the dissent.The latter was in the line with the doctrine of precedent, because the dissenter had tried to find the way to overruling a precedent, which was regularly binding.

THE AFTERMATH TO REES AND COSSEY -CHRISTINE GOODWIN CASE
The case law concerning gender assignment had a turning point more than a decade after the judgment in Cossey was given.The leading case was Christine Goodwin v. United Kingdom. 26The applicant had a gender assignment; she was a postoperative male to female, complaining under both Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention.
The Court abandoned its previous stance and ruled for the applicant, finding violations of both provisions.As to the Article 8 complaint the Court referred to the judgments in Rees and Cossey, and reproduced the rule posed in the latter judgment.The Court held that the matter of birth register could no more be considered to fall within the margin of appreciation of the respondent state. 27he Court did the same in respect of Article 12 complaint.The rulings in Rees and Cossey were invoked and the Court held that the gender re-assignment in general did not fall within the margin of appreciation of a member-state to the Convention any more.The Court reasoned that there was "no justification for barring the transsexual from enjoying the right to marry under any circumstances". 28n Christine Goodwin the Court applied a technique, which is specific for its own practice and jurisprudence.It altered the attitude towards the scope of the margin of appreciation in a class of cases.In substance however, the Court overruled its previous judgments given in the two cases that have been subject to attention in this paper.

THE BORGERS CASE -OVERRULING DELCOURT
Historically speaking the overruling of the Court's previous stance, which occurred in Christine Goodwin was a consequence of the social evolution in Europe.The attitude of the public at large towards an issue had been changed before the Court joined it and its decision only mirrored the social developments.
If we were to trace our topic, i.e. the binding force of precedent in the Court's case law, we should return to the last decades of the 20 th century.A pair of cases against Belgium can display the Court's attitude towards the problem. 29he first of the two cases was Delcourt v. Belgium. 30The applicant was a person that had been charged with criminal offences, tried and convicted to prison in Belgium.His complaint under Article 6 of the Convention was based on the fact that the state official in charge of prosecution partici pated in the deliberations of the Cassation Court.That was prescribed by the Belgian procedural law, which relied on traditions of the country and was more than 150 years old.The applicant claimed lack of impartiality of the Cassation Court and alleged there was a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.The Court found Article 6 applicable to the case, but ruled that there had been no violation of that provision. 31he Court revisited the issue in Borgers v. Belgium. 32The applicant in that case was a lawyer charged with forgery and using forged documents. 33His complaint under Article 6 of the Convention was the same as the one the Court had to deal with in Delcourt.
The sitting judges of the Court were fully aware of the binding force of precedent.It is most likely that such an awareness made them put a special paragraph in the reasoning of the judgment.Its purpose was to determine the Court's stance towards a previous ruling that appeared to be the leading case.
The Court stated that "findings in the Delcourt judgment on the question of the independence and impartiality of the Court of Cassation and its procureur general's department remain entirely valid". 34That was indeed the crucial matter in the precedent, which the judges considered binding.However, the Court ruled differently from the previous case and found a 29 For more information see: Popović violation of Article 6 of the Convention.To find reasons for such a verdict the Court relied on the rights of defence, the principle of the equality of arms and the role of appearances. 35he Court concluded that the state official present at the deliberations of the Cassation Court could not be considered neutral.Further on, the applicant could not reply to his submissions and eventually the deliberations in the presence of the state official could give the latter an opportunity to promote his submissions, without contradiction from the applicant. 36he judges were not unanimous to reach the verdict in Borgers.Some of the arguments of the dissenters can display the sentiments they had concerning the binding force of precedent.
Judge Cremona expressed the view that the previous judgment in Delcourt was overruled.He was against the overruling and preferred to stick to the previous stance. 37udge Thor Vilhjalmsson declared himself bound by the previous precedent, from which he was not ready to depart. 38Judges Pinheiro Farinha and Morenilla disagreed with the majority statement that the findings in Delcourt were still valid.They agreed with the operative provisions of the judgment in Borgers, but on the other hand rejected the majority statement in the first sentence of paragraph 24 of the judgment. 39udge Martens invoked the ruling in Cossey.He was a dissenter in Cossey on the grounds that he had found cogent reasons to depart from the previous ruling in Rees.There were no such reasons in the case at hand, so he was against the overruling.The dissenting judge declared he shared the "analysis and the assessment" of the previous judgment and saw no reasons for overruling.He felt bound by the precedent. 40he judgment in Borgers overruled a precedent.Nevertheless, the whole set of arguments presented by the majority and the dissenters clearly shows that precedent had a binding force for the Court, as early as at the beginning of 1990s.

THE CASE OF HUBER -OVERRULING SCHIESSER
In two cases against Switzerland the problem was the same.It concerned the binding force of precedent and the question was whether the Court should stick to its previous ruling or not?
In the case of Schiesser v. Switzerland the applicant was a person who had been detained following an order of a District Attorney. 41The latter is indeed an organ of prosecution.Therefore the applicant filed a complaint under Article 5 of the Convention.The Court found no violation in the case, stating that the District Attorney in Swiss law offered sufficient guarantees of independence.In the Court's view he could qualify as "officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power", as provided in Article 5.3 of the Convention. 42n Huber v. Switzerland it was again a District Attorney who had signed a detention order to detain the applicant. 43Ms Huber alleged a violation of Article 5.3 of the Convention. 44he Court's reasoning in this case was peculiar, which makes it ambiguous whether Huber should be considered as following or overruling previous jurisprudence.In any case it supplies evidence on the binding force of precedent.Namely, there was a clear precedent in Schiesser speaking against finding a violation of Article 5.3 of the Convention.District Attorney under Swiss law could qualify as an officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.
The Court nevertheless referred to its rulings in three judgments rendered against the Netherlands, posterior to the Court's ruling in Schiesser.They were all about detention of military personnel following orders of the officer called auditeur-militar in Dutch law.That officer had a prosecuting role and could not be independent of the parties.That is what made the Court rule in favour of the applicants in all cases mentioned. 45he Court overruled its stance in Schiesser on the grounds of reference to the Dutch precedents.The District Attorney in Swiss law also had a prosecution role, and the Court found

THE WORDING OF THE RULE ON THE BINDING FORCE OF PRECEDENT
The Court's stance on the binding force of precedent appeared in clear-cut wording in Cossey.The Court stated as follows: "The Court is not bound by its previous judgments.However, it usually follows and applies its own precedents, such a course being in the interests of legal certainty and the orderly development of the Convention case law.Nevertheless, this would not prevent the Court from departing from an earlier decision if it was persuaded that there were cogent reasons for doing so." 47 The formula was used in judgments given after 1990.It was subject to slight modifications in some judgments, but its substance was completely preserved.Thus in Beard v. United Kingdom and in Chapman v. United Kingdom the text was slightly altered.It read: "The Court considers that while it is not formally bound to follow any of its previous judgments, it is in the interests of legal certainty, foreseeability and equality before the law that it should not depart, without good reason, from precedents laid down in previous cases." 48 In both judgments the Court referred to the paragraph 35 in Cossey, which spelt out the formula for the first time.The cases of Beard and Chapman concerned Roma population in England on caravan sites.The Court found no violation in either of the two and followed its previous jurisprudence in Buckley, a case given judgment in 1996. 49he wordings used in Cossey on one hand and in Beard and in Chapman on the other are very much alike.The principal stance is the same in both texts.The precedents are not binding for the Court, but it nevertheless follows them.The reasons for such a practice were not put in the same wording in the two formulas mentioned.
In Cossey the reasons for following precedents were the legal certainty and the orderly development of the Convention case law.In Beard and in Chapman the reasons were legal certainty, foreseeability and equality before the law.In the closing parts of the statements there is also a slight difference, although they are basically the same.The Court is allowed to depart from a previous precedent.The entitlement to depart is laid down on "cogent reasons" in Cossey and on "good reason" in Beard and in Chapman.
In Christine Goodwin the formula was reproduced.The text of the judgment referred to Chapman, where the text was taken from without alterations. 50he Court used the same formula on the binding force of precedent in its judgment in the Stafford case. 51The formula in Stafford was the combination of those in Cossey and in Chapman in the sense that it stated "legal certainty, foreseeability and equality before the law" as reasons for following precedents and "cogent reason" for departing.The former expression was from Chapman; the latter was from Cossey, but it was put in plural, instead of the singular in the original.
In the judgment of the case of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey the Court made reference to both Chapman and Christine Goodwin and returned to the wording in the former judgment for the most part.The reasons for following precedents were legal certainty and foreseeability.The equality before the law was omitted in the formula.Departing from a precedent could not apply "without good reason". 52lthough there were slight alterations in the wording of the rule on precedent in the Court's jurisprudence the formula stemming from the judgment in Cossey was substantially maintained.It says: (a) that the Court is not formally bound by its own previous rulings; (b) that the Court follows the precedents for the sake of some important interests, among which legal certainty; (c) that the Court is allowed to depart from its previous judgments if good/cogent reasons so advise.

. Conclusions
The Court's stance on the binding force of precedent, as distilled here, should be compared to the Practice Statement of the Law Lords of England.Their starting points are different.The Law Lords wanted to avoid too rigid adherence to precedent.The Court on the other hand declared that precedents were not formally binding.However, the Court also stated it would adhere to precedents for the sake of legal certainty and some other interests.That is what led to the substantial equality of the positions of the English and the European judges on the issue.They both follow precedents.Their practices indeed rely on the "overarching principles and values of law". 53oth English and European jurisdictions agree that it may be justified to depart from precedent in a certain case.The grounds for this are however not the same for both.When doing so, the English will stick to justice and the Europeans to a good or cogent reason.
Having examined the positions of the two jurisdictions it is essential to underline that following precedents appears to be indispensable, no matter what arguments may serve as grounds for such a practice.
It has been remarked among academics that "there is no profound difference between the working of Common Law and contemporary European continental law: all tribunals employ the same method of approach to a case law". 54Were the judges to perform their task otherwise, justice would not be properly served.Bibliography
, The Discipline of Law, London, p. 287.The author of the book sat as a justice of the House of Lords between 1957 and 1962.
Buckley v. United Kingdom, no.20348/92 (1996); cf.paragraph 103 in Beard and paragraph 96 in Chapman, where the ruling in Buckley was followed.