The Exchange

The 2009 UCL ECHR Moot semi-final and final rounds took place in Strasbourg on the 3rd of April with no less than their Excellencies, European Court of Human Rights judges Christos Rozakis, Françoise Tulkens and Dean Spielman adjudicating. The competition, which is set to be an annual event on the UCL SHRP calendar, started in December 2008 with 64 mooters and 4 preliminary rounds held at UCL. The problems that the moots team drafted for these rounds involved hot human rights issues such as privacy, the right to life, and immigration law and torture. All of this culminated in the finalists and the moots team making our spectacular trip to Strasbourg. 

Though the final rounds were scheduled to take place in the Grand Chamber of the courts itself, the unfortunate circumstance of the NATO Summit in Strasbourg at the same time meant the Courts were blocked off as part of a security zone. The finals were held instead at the Council of Europe’s Agora building directly opposite the Courts, which though disappointing, was still beyond anything we could have dreamed of. [As a side note the NATO and G20 Summits have plagued the moots team to no end in terms of organisation, and though we managed to make it to Strasbourg on time and in one piece through all the protests, demonstrations, violent clashes and security, to the group it will always be remembered as the week that Obama ‘stalked’ us from London to Baden-Baden and finally to Strasbourg!]

The problem for the semi-final and final rounds was (naturally) on issues of national security, terrorism and the intricacies of Article 5 of the ECHR. The two semi-final rounds took place one after the other in the morning and we were all then treated to a lavish lunch reception before the finals. This was a great opportunity to interact with the judges and pick their brains, so to speak, and I think what really struck all of us was their wonderful spirit. They were not only friendly and down-to-earth (being the senior and much respected figures that they are), but also quite genuinely interested in (as Judge Tulkens called us) ‘the baby lawyers’. As the mooters relaxed, having gotten over the first hurdle, we discussed some of the major differences between the European Court of Human Rights’ style of adjudication and the traditional English style. The judges preferred a very much non-interventionist approach to adjudication, coming in with their hard-hitting questions only after all the submissions had been made to them (interestingly, the judges said that they never interrupt when submissions are being made as it would seem rude!). They were also intrigued by the formality of the moots, and encouraged the mooters to be less formal and to properly get into their submissions. This led to a rather interesting discussion on the different styles of various jurisdictions and the value (if any) of formalities and codes of practice. Overall, the judges were rather glad to see that we were, as law students, organising and taking part in such competitions, as mooting is not common among students elsewhere in Europe. Quite flatteringly, they ventured that this may contribute to the reason why English lawyers are so good.

I am ashamed to say that I was somewhat dreading the final, having heard the submissions on the same moot problem twice already during the two semi-final rounds (we learnt later that the judges were dreading the prospect of a repeat as well!). The finalists however simply out-did themselves, somehow managing to make all four positions and arguments fresh, different and even more sharp, much to the delight of the judges and the rest of us. (Here we learnt also that perhaps flattery can get you somewhere as Justin Leslie charmed the judges with his suggestion, in response to a question from judge Spielman, that the court is the true independent and impartial observer.) As the competition drew to a close at 5.30pm, we were all gratified that the judges had humoured us and spent quite literally the whole day on the competition. 

What was perhaps the best treat of all for the group however was the cocktail reception hosted by his Excellency Dean Spielman at his home that evening. It was a surreal experience to be sure, as we found ourselves chatting with the guests that had been invited in our honour (a mix of barristers, lawyers and other professionals who were themselves in complete awe at being invited to the reception) and writing in his guest book! Also, Judge Tulkens had brought feedback sheets with her and made it a point to take most of the mooters aside and explain to them how where they could do better, which was very special coming from her. In between discussions ranging from Michelle Obama’s fashion and code of behaviour (read: certain hugs) to abortion (is aborting a foetus the same as not conceiving at all?!) and Lord Hoffmann, we were spoilt with champagne and wine from Luxemburg and gorgeous canapés (yes you should be jealous!)- it was the perfect end to the perfect day. 

Our heartfelt gratitude and thanks go out to the wonderful judges for the kindness and generosity they showered on us, and for the brilliant opportunity to not only practice our skills but also to learn from the best. Our hearty congratulations also go out to the winners, Justin Leslie, Ronnie Dennis, Andrea Baildon and Rupert Stanning, as well as the semi-finalists Shahrzad Sadjadi, Niroshini Dahanayake and Neha Srivastava, and all the other mooters who participated. As Dr. Letsas and their Excellencies put it, the quality of our mooters was truly exceptional, and the competition as a whole has been inspiring—the competitors showed true passion for human rights and the issues that surround them, and put up a fierce competition.

For photos of the moot finals please check here