Tokens: 86
.
Bearing
in
mind
the
true
meaning
of
Article
53
of
the
Convention
,
the
relationship
between
the
Court
and
supreme
and
constitutional
courts
must
respect
the
following
bright
,
red
line
.
Domestic
courts
may
go
beyond
the
degree
of
Convention
protection
afforded
to
the
applicant
,
but
they
can
not
lag
behind
,
not
even
in
view
of
an
alleged
systemic
consideration
of
other
constitutional
interests
involved
.
Figuratively
,
the
Convention
protection
is
a
“
floor
”
,
but
not
a
“
ceiling”[222
]
.
As
a
result
,
constitutional
and
supreme
courts
are
indeed
called
upon
to
interpret
the
Court
’s
judgments
and
confront
them
with
the
domestic
constitutional
environment
in
which
they
will
be
implemented
.
But
domestic
courts
can
not
“
redo
”
the
Court
’s
judgment
;
in
other
words
,
they
can
not
retry
the
case
in
the
light
of
“
other
constitutional
interests
”
and
find
against
an
applicant
who
has
already
won
the
case
in
Strasbourg
.
Supreme
and
constitutional
courts
should
not
act
as
an
appeal
instance
for
the
Government
against
Strasbourg
judgments
finding
for
the
applicant
.
Supreme
and
constitutional
courts
should
not
provide
a
second[223
]
or
third[224
]
chance
for
the
Government
to
rediscuss
a
case
after
having
lost
it
in
Strasbourg
.
This
would
be
an
abstruse
distortion
of
the
Convention
system
.
As
Lord
Rodger
so
brilliantly
put
it
,
Argentoratum
locutum
,
iudicium
finitum
–
“
Strasbourg
has
spoken
,
the
case
is
closed”[225
]
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O