Michael Reiertsen

Background

Michael Reiertsen holds a master's degree in law (cand.jur.) from the University of Tromsø 2004 and an LL.M. in inteternational trade law and human rights law from Europa-Institut Saarbrücken 2005. He has formerly worked as legal trainee in the Financial Mechanism Office (EFTA-Secretariat, Brussels) (2005/2006), researcher at Europa-Institut Saarbrücken (2006), associate judge (dommerfullmektig) and constituted judge (konst. tingrettsdommer) at Hammerfest County Court (2006-2007), and adviser in the Legislation Department of the Norwegian Ministy of Justice (2008-2012). As from 1. January 2012 he is employed as PhD-scholar at the Department of Public and International Law. 

In the Norwegian Ministry of Justice Reiertsen worked extensively with public and international law, in particular international human rights law and the law of administrative sanctions. He was the Norwegian representative in the Council of Europe Committee of Experts for the improvement of procedures of the protection of human rights (DH-PR) and participated actively in the process of the the reform of the European Court of Human Rights.  

Field of Research

Reiertsen is writing a PhD-thesis with the working title "Subsdidiarity and the European Convention on Human Rights Article 13". The thesis aims at giving a fundamental presentation of the content and scope of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 13 and at the same time asess how the Article could and should be used by both the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) and national courts as a means to achieve subsidiarity in the protection of human rights. With subsidiarity it is understood that the primary responsibility for the protection human rights lies with the contracting parties. The role of the Court and other Convention organs is subsidiary.

Even if the European Court of Human Rights has dealt with the ECHR Article 13 in a number of cases, the content and scope of the obligation arising from the ECHR Article 13 remains uncertain. In particular the margin of appreciation that the European Court of Human Rights accords states when deciding if national domstic remedies are effective, remains uncertain. Moreover, in the practice of the Court there is a clear trend towards reinforcing the scope of the ECHR Article 13.

Specific and concrete demands from courts on what and how domestic remedies have to be forged could have significant consequences for both the existence and shape of domestic legal institutions, procedural law and substantive law. On the other hand, through concrete obligations on how to forge domestic remedies courts could contribute significantly to improving the national protection of human rights.