The reference to judicial architecture in the title is not to the buildings in which judges sit and decide cases – although if that is your interest, there is a European group for people who share your hobby. There is a European group to cater for nearly every taste.Instead, the phrase ‘judicial architecture’ is a piece of Euro-speak, meaning the structure of the court system. (Once you start talking in Euro-speak, you forget the proper words in your own language.) I shall be describing how a simple idea, contained in a simple sentence in a treaty - article 6 (2) of the Treaty of the European Union, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty – can cause a series of tricky problems, which are now absorbing some politicians in Brussels.

The treaty article in question provides for the EU to sign up to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). You probably thought that that had happened years ago, but the Lisbon Treaty has just given the EU legal personality, allowing it to undertake exercises like this. Here are some of the complicated consequences.

The ECHR is the creation of the Council of Europe, a body different to the EU and with more members (47), including Russia. All the individual member states of the EU are already members of the Council of Europe, and subject to the ECHR. The EU will not join the Council of Europe as a member, but will join the member states in being subject to the ECHR.

The enforcement of the ECHR takes place through the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It is the normal practice for each member state of the Council of Europe to appoint a judge to the court. But how does the EU appoint such a judge? There is no procedure for it, unlike in the member states where the appointment of judges is an everyday occurrence. And judges to the Strasbourg court are appointed by the bodies of the Council of Europe – where the EU itself will not be a member. In a current opinion being discussed in the European Parliament, the EU will appoint three judge-candidates, and participate only in those Council of Europe bodies which oversee the work of the court, including the election of judges.

Then there is the relationship between the highest court in the EU, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, and the European Court of Human Rights. Which governs? The same parliamentary opinion thinks that there should be no formal preliminary ruling procedure nor the creation of a body or panel to make decisions when one of the two courts intends to rule on the ECHR in a way different to that already adopted by the other court; there is an existing dialogue between the courts, and that should merely be strengthened. But there will nevertheless be two high-level courts, operating under different systems, pronouncing on the same convention (because the Luxembourg court will interpret the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has rights equivalent to the ECHR and which should be interpreted in accordance with the ECHR). I hope that you are following all this …

The Strasbourg court is already over-burdened with casework, to the extent that the system functions at a scandalous snail’s pace. Although the recent introduction of Protocol 14 – after a long delay caused by Russia’s delay in ratifying it – should ease the burden, the question is whether there will now be a rush of cases against the EU based on EU directives. It has been suggested that the EU's directive on working time, and the rights of EU citizens living in other member states, could give rise to cases. Adding a whole new sector of law to an already staggering court is not a recipe for efficiency.

Given these problems, you might wonder why the institutions are going ahead with the initiative. The parliament report lists a number of advantages: it sends a strong signal of solidarity between the EU and wider Europe, and gives credibility to the EU when calling on its neighbours to adhere to the ECHR; it will give citizens of the EU the same protection against actions of the EU as we have against those of the member states, which is all the more important given that substantial powers have been moving towards the EU in recent years; and accession will lead to more harmonious development of the case-law on human rights between the Luxembourg and Strasbourg courts.

Council of Europe officials expect the negotiations with the EU to last into 2011. That will give you enough time to familiarise yourself with the bewildering array of institutional relationships that will form this new court structure. I think I might set up a special group for those with a weakness for discussing this particular meaning of ‘judicial architecture’.

Jonathan Goldsmith is the secretary general of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, which represents around a million European lawyers through its member bars and law societies