Britain plans reform of the European court of human rights The European court of human rights in Strasbourg will be the subject of a debate in April. Photograph: Johanna Leguerre/AFP/Getty Images Further British judicial powers should be wrestled back from Strasbourg and courts given enhanced latitude in interpreting decisions, according to a leaked draft of the British plan for reforming the European court of human rights. The 12-page document circulated to the other 46 member states of the Council of Europe is intended to cut the backlog of cases waiting to be heard at Strasbourg and empower national courts. Britain currently holds the council's chair and has embarked on a diplomatic offensive to galvanise support for far-reaching reform of the court. The government hopes in future to be able to finesse such politically embarrassing judgments as the court's refusal to allow the UK to deport the radical Islamist cleric, Abu Qatada. The paper, titled High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, will be debated at an international conference in Brighton in April at the end of the UK's six-month term of office.Some details have not been finalised and alternative options are included in certain sections. It has not been released to parliament but follows along broad lines set out by David Cameron. The content may nonetheless alarm civil liberties groups who fear that international standards could be diluted in favour of allowing individual states greater leeway on sensitive human rights issues. The document argues for expanding what is known as the "margin of appreciation," the way in which states may choose how to implement the different articles of the European convention on human rights. It states: "The principles of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation should be enhanced by their express inclusion in the convention." It suggests that the "necessary amending instrument" should be endorsed within a year. It also declares: "National authorities are in principle best placed to apply the convention rights in the national context ... The role of the [court] is to review decisions taken by national authorities to ensure that they are within the margin of appreciation." The plan accepts that individuals who fear their rights have been violated should be able to bring their cases to the court, describing it as a "cornerstone of the convention system." But to ensure that "unnecessary pressure" is not imposed on the court's workload, the document suggests a significantly shorter time limit of two to four months for new cases to be registered with the court. There has been media criticism of the abilities of the judges in Strasbourg, who are nominated by their countries. The British draft suggests judges must be under 65 when their appointment commences. It also envisages the court giving more "advisory opinions" on specific points of legal interpretation but that it should then leave "it to the national court to apply this to the facts of the case." The Council of Europe's committee of ministers should have a greater role in ensuring "effective oversight of the execution of judgments," the paper proposes. Fines could be imposed on countries that repeatedly failed to implement judgments. Commenting on the leaked draft, James Goldston, director of the Open Society Initiative, said: "States should refrain for now from further reform of the convention and rather enable, with additional resources as necessary, the registry and the committee of ministers to implement reforms already underway ... [They] should improve the national execution of court judgments and implementation of the convention more generally. Finally, states should enhance the quality and transparency of the processes for national nomination of judicial candidates to serve on the court. We believe these are the essential questions which Brighton should consider.