Overview of Rule 9 Submissions in view of the Committee of Ministers' Deputies Human Rights Meeting in March 2025

/

📅 From the 4th to the 6th of March 2025, the Committee of Ministers will meet for their quarterly Human Rights Meeting. During the meeting, the Committee of Ministers will examine 48 leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that are pending implementation.

📚 EIN members and partners, other civil society actors, lawyers and applicants have made 49 Rule 9 submissions in 28 leading cases under consideration. The list below sets out an overview of these submissions related to cases on the current agenda.

 

Overview of Submissions

 
 

Mammadli v. Azerbaijan group 

Violation(s): Arrest and pre-trial detention to punish the applicants for his activities in the area of electoral monitoring or for their active social and political engagement in breach of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5. 

Latest Examination: December 2024 - [CM/Del/Dec(2024)1514/H46-7] 

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Free Voices Collective (FVC), the Independent Lawyers Network (ILN) and the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC)) (15/01/2025) in the Mammadli group of cases v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 47145/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)89]

 

Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina group 

Violation(s): Ethnic-based discrimination on account of the ineligibility of persons not affiliated with one of the “constituent peoples” (Bosniaks, Croats or Serbs) to stand for election to the House of Peoples and the Presidency. 

Latest Examination: June 2024 - [CM/Del/Dec(2024)1501/H46-7] 

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs ((Human Rights Watch, Minority Rights Group) (14/01/2025) in the SEJDIC AND FINCI group of cases v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (Application No. 27996/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)83] 

 
 

United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria group 

Violation(s): Unjustified refusals by the courts to register an association aiming at achieving “the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria”. 

Latest Examination: September 2024 - [CM/Del/Dec(2024)1507/H46-7] 

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) (14/01/2025) in the group of cases UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria (Application No. 59491/00) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)80]

 

Y. and Others v. Bulgaria & A.E. v. Bulgaria 

Violation(s): Failure to protect a woman's life in the context of repeated incidents of domestic violence. 

Failure to provide adequate protection to a minor victim of domestic violence; discrimination on account of the authorities' failure to adequately address domestic violence against women. 

Latest Examination: First examination 

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from NGOs (Bulgarian Fund for Women, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and PULSE Foundation) (31/01/2025) in the cases of A.E. and Y and Others v. Bulgaria (Applications No. 53891/20, 9077/18) (Y and Others group) and reply from the authorities (13/02/2025) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)155-rev] 

 

Khan v. France 

Violation(s): Lack of care and protection of an unaccompanied foreign minor given his living conditions in the Calais “lande” and the non-enforcement of the order of the juvenile judge aimed at protecting him. 

Latest Examination: December 2022 - [CM/Del/Dec(2022)1451/H46-12] 

Latest Submission(s): 1521e réunion (mars 2025) (DH) - Règle 9.2 - Communication d'ONG (ECPAT France, GISTI, Médecins du Monde, Médecins Sans Frontières, Safe Passage International France et Utopia 56) (20/12/2024) dans l’affaire Kahn c. France (requête n° 12267/16) [French only] [DH-DD(2025)22] 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Locascia and Others v. Italy 

Violation(s): Prolonged inability to ensure the proper functioning of the waste collection, treatment and disposal service in Campania, lack of an effective remedy in this respect and interference with the applicants' personal well-being due to the pollution caused by a landfill site. 

Latest Examination: First examination 

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (17/02/2025) in the case of Locascia and Others v. Italy (Application No. 35648/10) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)200] 

 
 
 

Tysiąc v. Poland, R.R. v. Poland, P. and S. v. Poland & M.L. v. Poland 

Violation(s): Absence of an adequate legal framework for the exercise of the right to therapeutic abortion in the event of disagreement between the patient and the specialist doctor (Tysiąc v. Poland) and lack of access to prenatal test enabling to take an informed decision on whether to seek an abortion (R.R. v. Poland) 

Failure to provide effective access to reliable information on the conditions and procedures to be followed to access lawful abortion lawful abortion (P. and S. v. Poland) 

Impossibility to perform lawful abortion in Poland due to foetal abnormalities in consequence of a Constitutional Court’s judgment of October 2020, adopted in a composition not complying with the rule of law requirements and in circumstances disclosing the lack of foreseeability (M.L. v. Poland) 

Latest Examination: March 2024 - [CM/Del/Dec(2024)1492/H46-25] / First examination of M.L. v. Poland

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Foundation for Women and Family Planning (FEDERA) and Center for Reproductive Rights) (22/01/2025) in the cases of TYSIAC, R.R., P. and S. and M.L. v. Poland (Applications No. 5410/03, 27617/04, 57375/08, 40119/21) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)118] 

 

C. v. Romania 

Violation(s): Failure to protect the applicant’s personal integrity due to significant flaws in the criminal investigation concerning alleged sexual harassment at the workplace. 

Latest Examination: First examination  

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Association for Liberty and Equality of Gender (A.L.E.G.) and supported by 21 national NGOs and trade unions) (14/01/2025) in the case of C. v. Romania (Application No. 47358/20) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)96] 

 

Catan and Others v. Russia group 

Violation(s): Violation of the right to education of children and parents using Latin-script schools in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova. 

Latest Examination: March 2024 - [CM/Del/Dec(2024)1492/H46-29] 

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Promo-Lex) (20/01/2025) in the CATAN AND OTHERS group of cases v. Russia (Application No. 43370/04) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)128] 

 
 

Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) 

Violation(s): Multiple violations of the Convention regarding events in Crimea, starting on 27/02/2014 and until 16/09/2022, when Russia ceased to be a contracting Party to the Convention. Violations concern: right to life, prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, right to liberty and security, right to a fair trial, no punishment without law, right to respect for private and family life, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, prohibition of discrimination, limitation on use of restrictions on rights, protection of property, right to education, freedom of movement. 

Latest Examination: First examination.  

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Center for Civil Liberties, Regional Center for Human Rights, and Kharkiv Human Rights Protection group) (10/02/2025) in the case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (Application No. 20958/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)189] 

1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Protection for Prisoners of Ukraine, Russland hinter Gittern e.V. and European Prison Litigation Network) (03/02/2025) in the case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (Application No. 20958/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)179] 

1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO ((Memorial Human Rights Defence Centre) (28/01/2025) in the case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (Application No. 20958/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)138] 

 

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland 

Violation(s): Authorities' failure to mitigate climate change and in particular the effects of global warming. 

Latest Examination: First examination.  

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Our Children’s Trust, Oxfam International and Centre for Child Law, University of Pretoria) (13/02/2025) in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (Application No. 53600/20) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)236] 

1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Verein KlimaSeniorinnen) (10/02/2025) in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (Application No. 53600/20) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)201] 

1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Greenpeace International and Climate Litigation Network) (17/01/2025) in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (Application No. 53600/20) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)101] 

1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Verein KlimaSeniorinnen) (17/01/2025) in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (Application No. 53600/20) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)100] 

1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (L’Institution suisse des droits humains) (17/01/2025) in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (Application No. 53600/20) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)102] 

 
 
 

Selahattin Demirtas No. 2 v. Türkiye group 

Violation(s): Unjustified detention of the applicants without reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence, with the ulterior purpose of stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate. Unforeseeable lifting of the parliamentary immunity and subsequent criminal proceedings to penalise the applicants for their political speeches. (General and individual measures) 

Latest Examination: December 2024 - [CM/Del/Dec(2024)1514/H46-38] 

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch) (17/01/2025) in the cases of Selahattin Demirtas (No. 2) v. Turkey and Yuksekdag Senoglu and Others v. Türkiye (Applications No. 14305/17, 14332/17) (Selahattin Demirtas (No. 2) group) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)97] 

 
 
 

EIN Civil Society Briefing February 2025 - Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Romania & France

/

On February 21st, 2025, EIN held its latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, the second of a series of two briefings ahead of the 1521st Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting which will be held between 4th – 6th March 2025. The briefing focused on the following cases:

  • Bălșan v. Romania case, presented by Andreea Bragă, Legal Coordinator, Centrul FILIA, member organisation of the Rețeaua pentru prevenirea și combaterea violenței împotriva femeilor (Network for Preventing and Combating Violence against Women)

  • Khan v. France case, presented by Aurélia Lamiroy, Legal Coordinator, Plateforme des Soutiens aux Migrant.e.s (PSM)

 

This group of cases concerns discrimination in electoral eligibility for the Presidency and House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which prevents individuals from running unless they belong to one of the three ‘constituent peoples’ (Bosnians, Croats, or Serbs), or meet specific ethnic and residency requirements (violations of Art. 1 of Prot. No. 12 and, in most cases, of Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 3 of Prot. No. 1). The Court acknowledged that these provisions were originally intended to stabilise the post-war context, but ruled that, more than eighteen years later, such restrictions were no longer justified, calling for democratic reforms to ensure equal political rights for all citizens.

As highlighted by Stefania Carrer, the implementation of the Sejdić and Finci judgment remains stagnant, with discriminatory provisions in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Constitution and electoral law still barring non-constituent minorities from key political roles. Four general elections under this framework later and despite five interim resolutions by the Committee of Ministers, no substantive reforms have been made over the past 15 years. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has warned that by favoring only the three constituent peoples, the system undermines equality and fuels ethnic tensions undermining stability. Although high-level discussions and meetings have taken place, confirming deliberations on amending the Constitution and Election Law, concrete actions to implement these changes remain elusive. Furthermore, the lack of meaningful consultations with non-constituent minorities and plaintiffs continues to hinder progress toward a more inclusive political system, and this is reflected in the increasing number of cases highlighting unaddressed structural discrimination.

Recommendations for the implementation Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina group of cases:

Minority Rights Group and Human Rights Watch ask the Committee of Ministers to:

  1. Appeal to Member State to request action to ensure implementation with judgments with strict approach on deadlines;

  2. Request the Member State to provide detailed reports of institutional meetings discussing implementation (as per its last Communication);

  3. Provide safe space for meaningful consultations of plaintiffs and national minorities in the implementation process;

  4. Issue an Interim Resolution stipulating that process of amending the Electoral Law and Constitution must be participatory and involve robust consultation of non-constituent minorities.

 

This group of cases concerns the unjustified refusals of the courts to register associations the aim of which is to achieve the recognition of and protect the interests of "the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria” (violation of Art. 11). The refusals were based on considerations of national security, protection of public order and the rights of others (goals aiming at “the recognition of the Macedonian minority” and alleged separatist ideas) and on the constitutional prohibition on associations pursuing political goals, as well as failure to meet formal legal requirements.

As highlighted by Krassimir Kanev, the progress in Umo Ilinden and Others remains stalled. Since 2006, Bulgarian authorities have persistently refused to register associations representing ethnic Macedonians, with 20 new applications submitted as recently as February 2024. Kanev explains that the state’s refusals rest on two grounds: concerns over national security, public order, and constitutional limits on political aims; and technical deficiencies in founding documents, such as missing details on the assembly’s timing and ambiguous membership rules. Under the Non-Profit Legal Entities Act and the Trade and Non-Profit Associations Register Act, applications undergo a multi-tiered review, yet conflicting legal interpretations and administrative overreach have led to inconsistent decisions.

Recommendation for the implementation Umo Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria group of cases

The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC) observes that the Government considers that it has fulfilled its obligations for execution of the judgments in this group and does not plan any further measures. The positions of the Committee of Ministers and the Bulgarian authorities seem therefore to be irreconcilable. Considering this situation, BHC considers that the only option appears to be an infringement procedure.

 

This case concerns the failure of Romanian authorities to protect the applicant from repeated domestic violence by her then-spouse. The ECtHR found a violation of Art. 3, as the authorities dismissed her complaints, attributing the violence to provocation, lack of seriousness, or insufficient evidence, and denying her a court-appointed lawyer and protective measures. The Court found that she had been the victim of gender-based discrimination, highlighting systemic passivity in addressing domestic violence in Romania, where impunity for aggressors and judicial inaction persisted despite legal reforms (violation of Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 3).

As highlighted by Andreea Braga, the implementation of the Bălșan judgment remains partial. Although the Revised Action Plan 2025 introduced an electronic monitoring system, only one in ten aggressors has been fitted with an electronic bracelet due to limited resources, insufficient victim awareness, and a shortage of devices. Furthermore, the network of social services falls short of Istanbul Convention standards—with shelter capacities 34% below requirements and chronic underfunding—and the criminal justice system struggles with restrictive legal definitions that rely on victim-initiated complaints. Enhanced resources, training, and legal reforms are urgently needed to fully protect domestic violence victims.

Recommendations for the implementation Bălșan v. Romania case

The Network for Preventing and Combating Violence against Women asks the Committee of Ministers to call on the Romanian authorities to implement the following general measures:

  1. Modify the definition of ”family member” in the Criminal Code in order to be in accordance with the Istanbul Convention;

  2. Introduce mandatory risk assessments for judges called to decide on domestic violence cases, either in civil or criminal procedures;

  3. Allow victims to introduce criminal complaints for all offences of domestic violence without any time limitation;

  4. Modify the criminal law in order to set an obligation for prosecutors and judges to take into consideration the domestic context of the violence either as a distinct offence or as an aggravating circumstance;

  5. Set up legal rules and time limits to allow prompt and coordinated investigation and prosecution of all criminal offenses involving forms of domestic violence;

  6. Introduce initial training modules of professionals on gender based violence and intersectionality;

  7. Ensure public and continuous funding services for victims of domestic violence (emergency centers, shelters, information centers, rape crises centers) in accordance with provisions of the Istanbul Convention;

  8. Collect and publish regularly disaggregated data on domestic violence, number of requests for legal assistance, number of orders breached and the consequences of such breaches, both in terms of violence suffered by the women and sanctions imposed on the perpetrators.

 

This case concerns the degrading treatment of a 12-year-old unaccompanied minor in transit to the UK due to the French authorities’ failure to provide him with care and protection. From September 2015 to March 2016, he lived in unsafe, unsanitary conditions in the Calais "Jungle" camp, with authorities failing to identify or protect him. The ECtHR found a violation of Art. 3, ruling that the State had failed in its duty to safeguard one of society’s most vulnerable individuals.

As highlighted by Aurélia Lamiroy, the implementation of the Khan judgment remains critically insufficient. Despite recommendations from the Committee of Ministers and the adoption of new laws and guidelines, practical measures to protect unaccompanied minors at the border have not met expectations. In Calais and Dunkerque, under-resourced identification systems and delays in emergency housing procedures have led to high refusal rates and prolonged waiting times, leaving vulnerable minors without timely support. Furthermore, the state’s reliance on non-mandated associations—without adequate financial backing for organisations like the Red Cross and Utopia 56—exacerbates these shortcomings. Persistent issues, such as inconsistent age assessments and inadequate outreach efforts, continue to deny minors essential care and information. Without decisive reforms and improved resource allocation, the structural failures in the system will continue to jeopardise the safety and rights of unaccompanied minors.

Recommendations for the implementation Khan v. France case

The NGOs, represented by the Platforme des Soutiens aux Migrant.e.s (PSM), ask the Committee of Ministers to call on the French authorities to implement the following general measures:

  1. Improve the identification system of minors by strengthening the outreach systems & creating a daytime center;

  2. Improve access to emergency housing & to stop refusing minors’ request for emergency housing;

  3. Improve the shelter system;

  4. Increase resources, tools and skills for the identification and protection of minors who are victims of trafficking.

 

EIN Civil Society Briefing January 2025

/

On January 29th, 2025, EIN held its latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, the first of a series of two briefings ahead of the 1521st Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting which will be held between 4th – 6th March 2025. The briefing focused on the following cases: 

 

Kavala v. Türkiye group of cases 

The Kavala v. Türkiye case concerns Osman Kavala, a businessperson and human rights defender, arrested in 2017 for allegedly attempting to overthrow the government during the 2013 Gezi Park protests and the constitutional order after the 2016 coup attempt. In 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled his detention unlawful, finding no reasonable suspicion for the charges and determining that it aimed to silence him, violating Articles 5 and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court ordered his immediate release, emphasising that continued detention would further violate his rights. 

Despite this ruling, Türkiye did not release Mr. Kavala. Instead, he was convicted in 2022 and sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment based on the same accusations. The Committee of Ministers referred the case to the ECtHR, which, in its Grand Chamber judgment, found Türkiye in breach of its obligations under Article 46§4. The Court concluded that Türkiye acted in bad faith, undermining Mr. Kavala’s rights and violating the Convention’s principles, raising serious concerns about human rights and judicial independence. 

Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) provided insightful updates concerning the status of implementation of the Kavala v. Türkiye group of cases, highlighting that Kavala’s conviction and aggravated life sentence were upheld by Turkish courts in September 2023, cementing his continued detention in violation of the Convention. Since 2019, Turkish authorities have used various tactics to avoid compliance with the Kavala judgment, illustrating a deliberate effort to prolong his detention for political purposes, undermining the rule of law and intimidating other human rights defenders. These systemic delays and resistance from the authorities continue to obstruct progress, despite the Committee of Ministers repeatedly condemning these violations. 

As highlighted by civil society, the Kavala case now symbolises broader structural failings within Türkiye’s judiciary. The Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP), tasked with ensuring judicial independence, remains dominated by political appointees loyal to the ruling coalition. This control compromises the impartiality of judicial processes and facilitates politically charged decisions. Judicial interference extends beyond the Kavala case, impacting the broader protection of human rights and democratic standards in Türkiye. Government officials have systematically stifled political debate and dissent, weaponising criminal proceedings against human rights defenders and critics. Legitimate human rights advocacy is increasingly criminalised, reinforcing a climate of fear and repression. 

Recommendations for the implementation of the Kavala v. Türkiye group of cases 

Concerning general measures, the NGOs  jointly request the CM to: 

  • Urge the authorities to ensure judicial independence by:

    • Reforming the CJP in line with the Venice Commission’s recommendations and international standards;

    • Requiring all decisions concerning judicial careers to adhere to objective, transparent, and lawful criteria, subject to review by an independent judicial body;

    • Ensuring that recruitment of judges and prosecutors is independent from the executive, following a merit-based, transparent, and fair process;

    • Reducing the President’s role in appointments to the Constitutional Court;

  • Call on the authorities to secure an enabling environment for political debate and pluralism through comprehensive measures to address systemic failures in safeguarding Convention rights, by refraining from political interference in judicial proceedings, and by amending problematic national security legislation.

Concerning individual measures, Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists request the Committee of Ministers (CM) to: 

  • Call for the immediate release of Osman Kavala and exhaust all actions that can be taken within the remit of the Committee's and individual member States' competences to ensure his immediate release;

  • Stress that the ECtHR’s two judgments clearly apply to Mr. Kavala’s conviction and aggravated life sentence;

  • Strongly condemn Türkiye’s ongoing failure to implement these judgments, stressing that Mr. Kavala’s prolonged detention, conviction and life sentence are fundamentally incompatible with the values of the Convention;

  • Call for the quashing of Osman Kavala’s conviction and sentence in line with the ECtHR’s judgments;

  • Intensify efforts to ensure that CoE institutions and member and observer states continue to engage with this case. 

 

Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) v. Türkiye group of cases and Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and Others v. Türkiye case 

The Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) v. Türkiye group of cases concerns the politically motivated prosecution and prolonged pre-trial detention of opposition politicians from the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) following the 2016 constitutional amendment that lifted parliamentary immunity. 

Demirtaş, an HDP leader and member of the National Assembly, was arrested in 2016 on terrorism-related charges based on his political statements, particularly regarding the 2014 Kobani protests. Similarly, Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and 12 other HDP MPs faced detention and prosecution for their political actions. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found multiple violations, ruling that their detention lacked reasonable suspicion, aimed to stifle political pluralism, and resulted from an unforeseeable removal of parliamentary immunity.  

The latest developments in these cases show continued non-compliance by Turkish authorities with ECtHR judgments. Despite the Court’s findings that the detention of the applicants violated their rights and was politically motivated, both remain incarcerated—Demirtaş facing a 42-year sentence and Şenoğlu over 30 years. The Turkish government has resisted full implementation of the ruling, using shifting legal justifications and judicial tactics to delay proceedings, such as sham release orders followed by re-detention and initiating multiple overlapping criminal cases. Cooperation with the CoE has been procedural rather than substantive, with submissions failing to address the core violations. The Committee of Ministers has repeatedly called for their release, and the case remains under enhanced supervision. Concerns persist over judicial independence, parliamentary immunity, and broader repression of opposition politicians. 

Recommendation for the implementation of the Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) v. Türkiye group of cases and Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and Others v. Türkiye case 

The NGOs also request the Committee of Ministers (CM) to urge the Turkish authorities to implement the following general measures: 

  • Ensure the annulment of criminal proceedings based on the arbitrary lifting of MPs’ parliamentary immunity by the constitutional amendment of May 2016 or by judicial authorities;

  • End the widespread judicial practice of issuing requests to Parliament to lift parliamentarians’ inviolability based on their exercise of Convention rights;

  • Ensure that judicial authorities genuinely and effectively apply constitutional and Convention safeguards protecting opposition politicians’ freedom of expression, including by implementing the Committee’s and Venice Commission’s recommendations on anti-terrorism laws and other laws used to stifle freedom of expression of politicians;

  • Provide adequate remedies and safeguards, including through access to the investigation file to challenge pre-trial detention, respect for fair trial rights, and implementation of Constitutional Court case-law on parliamentary immunity;

  • Address obstacles to opposition politicians’ exercise of their elected mandates in a free and safe environment, such as the “trustee” system of local governance, abusive proceedings against the HDP, administrative parliamentary sanctions for legitimate expression, and attacks on politicians representing the opposition and Kurdish and other minority rights.

Concerning individual measures, Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and the International Federation for Human Rights request the Committee of Ministers (CM) to:  

  • Call once more for the immediate release of Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu;

  • Condemn Türkiye’s ongoing attempts to avoid executing the judgments;

  • Highlight that sustained failure to implement the Court’s judgments, the arbitrary detention of Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu for over eight years, and their convictions and sentences are contrary to the values of pluralism and freedom of political debate underpinning the Convention;

  • Use all available tools to ensure their immediate release, including the initiation of infringement proceedings against Türkiye under Article 46(4) of the Convention; 

  • Call for the speedy examination of their appeal of their convictions and sentences, as well as their applications to the Constitutional Court;

  • Call for a Convention-compliant decision concerning their appeal and their immediate acquittal in line with the ECtHR’s judgments;

  • Emphasise that restitutio in integrum requires the ceasing of the judicial harassment of the applicants based on the same or a similar context as examined by the Court;

 

 Taner Kılıç (Nº 2) v. Türkiye case

The Taner Kılıç (Nº 2) v. Türkiye case is a repetitive case under Nedim Sener v. Türkiye group of cases which concerns unjustified and disproportionate interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression on account of criminal proceedings for having expressed opinions that did not incite hatred or violence, and the consequent chilling effect on society as a whole. Taner Kılıç, a human rights lawyer and former Chair of Amnesty International Türkiye, was arrested in June 2017 on unfounded charges of “membership in a terrorist organisation.” He remained in pre-trial detention until August 2018. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in October 2022 that his detention was unlawful, violating Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. The Court found that the charges were based solely on Kılıç’s peaceful human rights work, with no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. His detention was deemed an arbitrary interference with his right to liberty and freedom of expression, underscoring the risks faced by human rights defenders in Türkiye and the broader issue of judicial manipulation. 

The Turkish Government requested the closure of the Committee of Ministers' supervision, citing the payment of compensation as fulfillment of its obligations. However, civil society the case argue that compliance with the ECtHR's findings cannot be limited to compensation, and that Türkiye must take concrete actions to restore Kılıç's situation to what it was before his unlawful detention.  

Recommendation for the implementation of the Taner Kılıç (Nº 2) v. Türkiye case

Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists and Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project kindly ask the Committee of Ministers to:  

  • Examine the Taner Kılıç (Nº 2) v. Turkey judgment under enhanced supervision and as a leading case pursuant to the Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)11;

  • Reject the government request for the closure of the supervision of individual measures and request that the Turkish authorities take concrete measures to ensure the conclusion of domestic proceedings against Taner Kılıç in a manner consistent with the spirit and findings of the Court’s judgment;

  • Strengthen the protection and promotion of the space for civil society in line with the Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec (2018)11; 

  • Provide information to the Committee on measures taken to address the chilling effect identified by the Court;

  • Prevent violations of the rights of human rights defenders;

  • Ensure the independent and effective investigation of threats and attacks against human rights defenders and civil society organisations;

  • Drop abusive criminal prosecutions and release human rights defenders who have been imprisoned simply for exercising their rights. 

 

Pişkin v. Türkiye case

The Pişkin v. Türkiye case concerns inadequate judicial review of the dismissal of Mr. Pişkin, a public employee under Türkiye's emergency legislative decree, citing alleged links to a terrorist organisation. The ECtHR found that Legislative Decree No. 667 allowed dismissals without adversarial proceedings or procedural safeguards, requiring only vague claims of affiliation with ‘illegal structures.’ The Court held that domestic courts failed to thoroughly examine the appeal, disregard evidence, and provide valid reasons for dismissing the applicant's arguments. This lack of proper judicial review violated Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (right to respect for private life), as the applicant was not protected against arbitrary action and the dismissal did not meet the strict standards required during a state of emergency. 

Following the Pişkin judgment, significant developments have highlighted ongoing challenges in addressing the mass dismissals under the state of emergency. Türkiye has continuously failed to provide effective reparation to dismissed workers, and the applicant has not been reinstated. The Inquiry Commission’s systemic issues, such as its lack of independence, vague standards, and weak evidence, remain unaddressed. Additionally, domestic courts continue to reject most dismissal challenges, with thousands of cases still unresolved, reflecting inefficiency in providing redress. The Constitutional Court has not yet reviewed any dismissal cases, despite the considerable time passed. NGOs emphasise the urgent need for judicial reforms to ensure timely, fair, and effective remedies, including clear procedures, consistent interpretations of the law, and guarantees of non-repetition. Furthermore, they urge the government to provide comprehensive data on dismissed workers and address the long-standing delays in the judicial process. 

Recommendation for the implementation of the Pişkin v. Türkiye case

  • Urge Türkiye to ensure administrative and labour courts adopt consistent interpretations aligned with the principles of legality, foreseeability and non-arbitrariness in dismissal cases, as required by the ECtHR’s judgment;   

  • Request Türkiye to revise its Action Report and clearly define steps to ensure independence and impartiality of labour courts, administrative courts and other domestic administrative and judicial avenues, ensuring an effective judicial review of dismissal cases; 

  • Outline how the domestic avenues, including the Constitutional Court, provide for effective remedies for the breaches of the rights of those dismissed under the state of emergency; 

  • Invite Türkiye to incorporate in its revised action plan the issues raised by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights in her February 2020 report and by the NGOs in this submission and their previous two submissions; 

  • Urge Türkiye to adopt a clear and binding time-limit within which the domestic authorities must conclude fair and effective determinations of challenges to the dismissal decisions, taking into account the lapse of some eight years since the first dismissals took place; and  

  • Ensure that Mr. Pişkin and the other dismissed public sector workers who obtained decisions recognising violations or reinstatement are provided with full reparation, including restitution and appropriate compensation, and guarantees of non-repetition. 

Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project and Amnesty International ask the Committee of Ministers to call on the Turkish authorities to implement the following individual and general measures: 

Regarding individual measures, the NGOs urge the Committee of Ministers to: 

  • Request Türkiye to confirm whether the applicant has been reinstated to their former position, addressing the lack of clarity despite the references to the labour court’s decision in the Government’s submissions;

  • Call for transparency regarding the implementation of the Labour Court's decision, including specific information about the actual reinstatement or compensation provided, ensuring that reparation is meaningful and effective;

  • Urge Türkiye to address the discretion employers have under Article 21 of the Turkish Labour Code, which allows them to refuse reinstatement despite a labour court ruling the dismissal invalid, ensuring that this discretion does not undermine restitution (restitutio in integrum);

  • Demand that Türkiye take steps to ensure that the labour court’s decision leads to genuine restitution (restitutio in integrum), providing either reinstatement or appropriate compensation in line with the principles of reparation. 

Regarding general measures to address and implement the ECtHR’s findings (Articles 6 and 8), the NGOs urge the Committee of Ministers to: 

  • Emphasise the need for robust legislative and judicial reforms to align domestic law with the Convention, preventing further violations of fair trial rights and the right to respect for private life of public sector workers dismissed under the state of emergency; 

  • Request Türkiye to provide comprehensive factual information, including: 

    • The exact number of public sector workers dismissed under the state of emergency; 

    • Procedures and criteria used for dismissals; 

    • Institutions from which public sector workers were dismissed;  

    • The number of cases successfully challenged before labour courts, the Inquiry Commission, administrative courts, or other domestic tribunals; 

    • Actions taken following decisions in favour of the applicants, including reinstatement or other remedies; 

    • The number of public sector workers reinstated, reassigned, or whose challenges were rejected; 

    • The number of those who were placed in different positions or workplaces;  

    • The number of public sector workers whose appeals are still pending before the domestic courts; 

 

Overview of Rule 9 Submissions in view of the Committee of Ministers' Deputies Human Rights Meeting in December 2024

/

📅 From the 3rd to the 5th of December 2024, the Committee of Ministers will meet for their quarterly Human Rights Meeting. During this meeting, the Committee of Ministers will examine 55 leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that are pending implementation. 

📚 EIN members and partners, other civil society actors, lawyers and applicants have made 38 Rule 9 submissions in 28 leading cases under consideration. The list below sets out an overview of these submissions related to cases on the current agenda.

 

Overview of Submissions

 

X and Others v. Albania 

Violation: Failure to implement swift and comprehensive desegregation measures in an elementary school attended almost exclusively by Roma and Egyptian children. 

Last examination: First examination 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (The European Roma Rights Centre) (21/10/2024) concerning the case of X and Others v. Albania (Application No. 73548/17) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1252] 

 

Oganezova v. Armenia 

Violation: Lack of protection against homophobic attacks and hate speech; failure to carry out effective investigation; absence of effective domestic criminal-law mechanism for investigating discrimination complaints. 

Last examination: June 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/H46-1 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from NGOs (Pink Armenia, EHRAC, ILGA Europe) (21/10/2024) concerning the case of Oganezova v. Armenia (Application No. 71367/12) and reply from the authorities (29/10/2024) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1244]

 

Mammadli group v. Azerbaijan 

Violation: Arrest and pre-trial detention to punish the applicants for his activities in the area of electoral monitoring or for their active social and political engagement in breach of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5. 

Last examination: September 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1507/H46-4 

Latest submission(s): 1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Free Voices Collective (FVC), Independent Lawyers Network (ILN), European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) and International Partnership of Human Rights (IPHR)) (08/08/2024) concerning the group of cases Mammadli v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 47145/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)941]

 

Namat Aliyev group v. Azerbaijan 

Violation: Various irregularities in the context of the 2005 and 2010 parliamentary elections and lack of safeguards against arbitrariness. 

Last examination: March 2020 - CM/Del/Dec(2020)1369/H46-4 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Free Voices Collective) (17/10/2024) concerning the NAMAT ALIYEV group of cases v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 18705/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1240]

 
 

Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan 

Violation: Impossibility for persons displaced during the active military phase (1992-1994) of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to gain access to their homes and properties in the region; lack of effective remedies. 

Last examination: September 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1507/H46-5 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (22/10/2024) concerning the case of SARGSYAN v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 40167/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1220]

 
 
 
 
 

Basu v. Germany 

Violation: Lack of independent effective investigation into arguable allegations of racial profiling by the police during identity check on a train. 

Last examination: First examination 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NHRI (German Institute for Human Rights) (09/10/2024) in the case of Basu v. Germany (Application No. 215/19) and reply from the authorities (18/10/2024) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1202-rev]

 
 

Cordella and Others group v. Italy 

Violation: Lack of reaction on the part of the authorities to air pollution by steelworks, to the detriment of the surrounding population’s health and lack of an effective remedy to obtain decontamination of the affected areas. 

Last examination: June 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-11 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (StraLi for Strategic Litigation) (25/10/2024) concerning the group of cases Cordella and Others v. Italy (Application No. 54414/13) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1284]

 
 
 
 

Al Nashiri group v. Poland 

Violation: Various violations related to the secret detention and "extraordinary rendition” of the applicant. As a result, the applicant was exposed to a serious risk of further ill-treatment and conditions of detention in breach of Article 3 as well as of further secret detention. He faces a risk of capital punishment in a trial before a United States military commission in which, according to the European Court's judgment, evidence obtained under torture might be used. 

Last examination: September 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1475/H46-23 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Human Rights in Practice) (23/10/2024) concerning the cases of HUSAYN (ABU ZUBAYDAH) v. Poland (Application No. 7511/13) (Al Nashiri group, 28761/11) and Abu Zubaydah group v. Lithuania (Application No. 46454/11) and reply from Poland (31/10/2024). [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1309]

 
 
 
 
 

Kavala v. Türkiye 

Violation: Unjustified and extended detention of the applicant without reasonable suspicion and with the ulterior purpose of reducing him to silence. 

Last examination: September 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1507/H46-37 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (25/11/2024) concerning the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (Application No. 28749/18) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1415] 

 

Conference - Structural Problems in Prisons: Prospects for European Intervention

/

On November 18-19th, the European Prison Litigation Network, together with the European Implementation Network, are organising an international conference ‘Structural Problems in Prisons: Prospects for European Intervention’.

Since the early 2000s, increased intervention by Council of Europe (CoE) bodies has led to the definition of a legal status for prisoners, increasingly precise obligations for states to guarantee their fundamental rights, and guidance on prison and penal policy. Similarly, since 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) has considered systemic deficiencies in prison conditions as an obstacle to judicial cooperation between EU member states.

Yet European prison systems continue to suffer from structural problems: prison overcrowding remains acute in more than a quarter of CoE countries, and the average European incarceration rate rose in 2023 for the first time in a decade.

Based on these observations, the European Prison Litigation Network and its partners have conducted a study in nine countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Romania) to assess the effectiveness of European interventions in addressing systemic problems in prison systems.

  • What penological model emerges from the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights and the guidance provided by other bodies of the Council of Europe to Member States?

  • What is the impact of European intervention on national penal and prison policies?

  • Could greater synergies between the CoE and the EU offer stronger levers of reform at national level to tackle structural problems in prisons?

  • Will the control that the EU intends to exercise over prison and judicial reform in EU candidate countries such as Ukraine or Moldova strengthen the Union’s demands for Member States overall in the long term?

This conference brings together representatives of European and national institutions involved in penal and prison policy, academics, and representatives of civil society to discuss the key challenges for tackling structural problems in prisons and for the effective implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in European prisons.

With speakers from European and national institutions, academia, and civil society, including:

  • Marc Nève President of the EPLN, President of the CCSP (Belgian NPM for Prisons), former Vice-President of the CPT

  • Ioulietta Bisiouli Director of the EIN

  • Kateřina Šimáčková ECtHR Judge

  • Mykola Gnatovskyy ECtHR Judge, former President of the CPT

  • Gilberto Felici ECtHR Judge

  • Martin Mühleck European Commission, DG NEAR

  • Simon Creighton Vice-President of the EPLN, Solicitor specialising in prison law and tribunal judge with expertise in mental health issues

  • Georgiana Gheorghe Executive Director of APADOR-CH

  • Zsófia Moldova Director of the Justice Programme, Hungarian Helsinki Committee

  • Oleh Tsvilyi Former prisoner, Head of Protection for Prisoners of Ukraine

  • Annie Kensey Researcher, CESDIP

  • Sonja Snacken Professor, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

As well as many other speakers! Full programme to be announced soon.

 

In partnership with:

With the support of:

Funded by:

 
 

Independence of the Judiciary in Poland: The Venice Commission against the possibility of a blanket removal of all neo-judges 

/

On October 14th, the Venice Commission (VC) and Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law of the Council of Europe (“DGI”) issued a landmark joint Opinion on European standards regulating the status of judges, on the basis of four questions raised by the Minister of Justice of Poland on the issue of neo-judges in Poland. This issue stems from the appointment of over 2,500 judges through a politicised National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), reconstituted in 2017 in the context of far-reaching judicial reforms introduced by the then ruling Law and Justice party (PiS), which had been found by the VC, in a 2017 Opinion, to “enable the legislative and executive powers to interfere in a severe and extensive manner in the administration of justice, and thereby pose a grave threat to the judicial independence as a key element of the rule of law”. In the same vein, European and Polish courts had continued addressing fundamental concerns raised about judicial independence in Poland, ruling on multiple occasions that neo-judges do not meet independence standards.

In July 2024, the Polish Minister of Justice, Adam Bodnar seized the Venice Commission with four questions linked to two models to address the issue of neo-judges, with a view to reducing the risk that the chosen solution may conflict with the ECHR and EU law. Without assessing directly the models proposed, the assessment of the Venice Commission concludes that a wholesale invalidation ex tunc of all the appointment decisions of the Polish NCJ (and thus a blanket return of all neo-judges to their previous positions) does not fit into the rule of law concept, as it would among others fail the proportionality test and the principle of separation of powers. Instead, the VC recommends adopting a case-by-case approach (which does not necessarily mean an individual approach, but can also involve considering grouped categories (“cohorts”) of similar appointments, in any event on the basis of pre-established criteria), giving the right to affected judges to seek judicial review against the invalidation of their nomination or promotion in case the decisions on invalidation are not taken by a judicial body.

While reaffirming the importance of legal certainty, the Opinion acknowledges that there may be circumstances in which the reassignment of a judge to another position (including the possibility of delegating judges to the courts where they served prior to the enactment of the impugned law) is unavoidable. Yet, transitional arrangements that may be needed have to be surrounded by adequate guarantees. The Opinion finally concludes that a number of safeguards should be put in place to guarantee an adequate balance between the principles of court established by law as element of fair trial and res judicata as element of legal certainty. These include, inter alia, the provision of a mechanism that would be suitable for a fairly rapid settlement of the issue and would introduce time limits to the cases that can be challenged.

Relevance of the VC Opinion for the implementation of ECtHR cases related to the independence of the Polish judiciary

During the EIN Rule of Law Conference which took place in The Hague last June, the issue of the independence of the Polish Judiciary was discussed alongside the role that the VC could play in Poland carrying out the judicial reform in accordance with European standards. Dr. Bodnar had discussed the status of reforms and measures required for the implementation of European Court judgments concerning the independence of the Polish judiciary, as well as the important challenges that need to be overcome along the way.

He notably stressed out the need for guidelines to shape rule of law-upholding efforts and the importance of involving all legal and political forces in this process, including civil society and international actors. In Dr. Bodnar’s view, the binding nature of the Convention standards and the Court’s case-law cannot be disregarded. It is a fundamental obligation of members states, and Poland must take into account existing jurisprudence of the ECtHR and their implementation in the context of the judicial reform. The Venice Commission echoes this position by linking its Opinion first and foremost with Poland’s obligation to execute the judgments of the ECtHR, while respecting international and constitutional standards.

Further, the Opinion of the Venice Commission reflects the thrust of the recommendations formulated by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in relation with the Reczkowicz v. Poland group of cases during the September 2024 EIN civil society briefing, in particular concerning the introduction of a fair procedure for individual verification of appointments before an independent NCJ, with a right of appeal to court. This group of cases concerns the procedurally flawed judicial appointments, undermining the independence and legality of the judicial bodies involved in deciding the applicants' cases. It is one of the most important rule of law-related cluster of Polish cases currently supervised by the Committee of Ministers (CM) of the Council of Europe. At the September 2024 CM-DH meeting, the Committee of Ministers – having called for a comprehensive reform addressing the status of deficiently appointed judges and the status of judgments adopted with their participation – noted that the authorities were seeking advice from the Venice Commission and called on them to elaborate and adopt the reform without further delay, to ensure the required urgent remedial action and address the grave underlying problems.

The Opinion of the VC is therefore of strong importance in a twofold manner: It does not only serve as a guide for the planned judicial reform in Poland, which is expected to set an important precedent, and must therefore succeed in striking a fair balance between the rule of law and legal certainty principles; it is furthermore bound to help avoid future ECtHR violations by setting a roadmap to ensure that the balance between these two principles is maintained in a Convention-compliant manner, should similar concerns arise in other jurisdictions. Importantly, the Opinion ultimately reiterates the fundamental importance of respect for the binding nature of Article 46 of the Convention, even in the face of acute legal and political dilemmas, and serves as yet another reaffirmation of the role of the Venice Commission as a highly specialised international body that can assist the member States in navigating their responsibilities deriving from the Convention in the light of the subsidiary nature of the ECtHR judgments.

 

EIN Board elects new chair and vice-chair

/

Maciej Nowicki, the Chair of the Polish Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights and Dr. Ramute Remezaite, the Senior Legal Consultant and Implementation Lead at the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, have been elected as the new chair and vice-chair of the European Implementation Network.

They replace Professor Başak Çalı and Professor Philip Leach following their hugely successful eight-year tenure as Chair and Vice-Chair of EIN.

EIN started off with 8 founding members and has grown today to encompass 41 members spanning 25 Council of Europe countries.

Under the leadership of Professors Çalı and Leach, EIN has provided capacity-building support to thousands of human rights lawyers and civil society organisations in Europe to effectively engage with human rights judgment implementation advocacy. In this period, the EIN also enabled non-implementation, deficient implementation and slow implementation of human rights judgments to be firmly placed on the agenda of Council of Europe, the European Union, national governments and national human rights institutions.

‘We are extremely proud of what we have achieved building Europe’s leading civil society network advocating for the full and effective implementations of human rights judgments as co-founders of EIN’ said Çalı and Leach.

‘I am looking forward to leading this important network on behalf of the Polish Helsinki Foundation, one of the co-founding members. EIN’s role on keeping the implementation of human rights judgments on the European and Polish agenda has been a major support for the Polish Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights’ remarked Maciej Nowicki.

Dr. Ramute Remezaite, whose role in the founding of the EIN was instrumental back in 2016 said ‘The implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have been central to my work as a human rights lawyer and academic in the past decade. It is an absolute honor for me to lead this organization in its next phase together with Maciej Nowicki.’ 

The efforts of the EIN Bureau will also be supported by Georgiana Georghe, Executive Director at Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania (APADOR-CH), who has been elected as Secretary. 

POLICY-DEBATE: (Non) Implementation of European Courts’ Judgments: A Rule of Law Priority for the New European Institutions

/

On October 15th, the European Implementation Network (EIN), jointly with Democracy Reporting International (DRI), organised a policy debate to raise awareness on the lagging implementation of relevant judgments of both the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and to explore how the new institutions in Brussels and the Council of Europe can work together to address the deteriorating rule of law situation in connection to the growing disrespect for the European Courts’ findings.

As detailed in EIN-DRI's latest report ‘Justice Delayed, Justice Denied: Non-Implementation of European Courts’ Judgments and the Rule of Law’, this pressing and sui generis rule- of- law concern affects numerous EU member States. The implementation experts, key policymakers, and civil society leaders who participated to the debate held under the Chatham House Rule had the opportunity to dive into the key findings of our report, explore the real-world impact of non-compliance or delayed compliance, and identify opportunities for improving collaboration between Brussels institutions, the Council of Europe and civil society with a view to effectively tackling implementation challenges.

This debate, which was attended by more than 70 participants, marked another significant step in EIN’s ongoing mission to ensure that human rights judgments do not remain an empty word, but that they generate their full impact and potential for much-needed reforms by being fully and timely implemented.

Rule of Law, Democracy, and Non-Implementation  

The consequences of non-implementation extend far beyond individual cases, threatening the very fabric of democratic governance and eroding public trust. As multiple speakers emphasised, failing to comply with court judgments undermines the rule of law, weakens the system of checks and balances, and contributes to a growing culture of impunity.

In the course of the discussion, attention was drawn to the broader implications of these failures, which were described as part of a deliberate attempt by some governments to undermine democracy itself. Emphasis was placed on the critical link between the rule of law and democracy, in particular on the fact that the systematic non-compliance observed in some countries reflects an intentional effort to dismantle democratic principles and to silence dissent, a trend that cannot be tolerated in the context of the EU, a landmark community of law.

Implementation-related perspectives from the Council of Europe and the relevant European Union bodies  

Image by Vincent Lefebvre

The Council of Europe’s ongoing efforts to support implementation, including scaling up cooperation projects and strengthening dialogue with national institutions, were outlined during the debate. While acknowledging the complexity of many cases, which can result in important implementation delays, certain speakers also highlighted the need for a more nuanced approach when assessing implementation progress, particularly for cases requiring structural reforms. That said, the emphasis placed by the 2023 Reykjavík declaration on the crucial role civil society organisations have to play in helping uphold the Council of Europe founding principles, including in supporting the effectiveness of the implementation mechanism, was strongly recalled.

Attention was drawn to the significance of the dual quantitative and qualitative approach adopted by the EIN-DRI report in establishing findings, which depict an overall worsening situation across all implementation indicators. Additionally, particular concern was expressed regarding judgments that remain unimplemented or partially implemented for an unjustifiably long time, undermining the authority of the Court and the broader rule of law principle. It was deemed particularly problematic that, 75 years after the establishment of the Convention system, systemic violations such as unfair trials, unlawful detention, torture, and attacks on freedom of expression persist. Aligning with our report’s recommendations for increased European Union involvement in the enforcement of ECtHR judgments, the point was made that the accountability system for failing to respond to such violations in a timely manner needs to urgently be strengthened. For it to function effectively, however, it must be supported by genuine political will from national authorities.

Image by Jai79 from Pixabay

In this regard, the essential role of law in upholding democracy was underscored, with particular attention given to the importance of tools designed to address non-compliance, such as financial penalties and rule of law conditionality mechanisms. It was observed that these measures remain underutilised and should be applied in a much more systematic manner. The lack of frequent recourse to financial sanctions under Article 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) for non-implementation of CJEU judgments was noted as a significant shortcoming, with a proposal for more automatic follow-ups in cases involving violations of EU values. Instruments such as the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation and cohesion fund provisions were highlighted, showcasing the potential to link non-compliance to access to the EU budget. Optimism was expressed regarding the impact cases currently pending before the CJEU could have in enhancing the EU’s ability to address systemic issues.

The discussion also highlighted the EU’s growing involvement in monitoring rule of law issues, citing the recent inclusion of data on the implementation of European Court of Human Rights’ judgments in the European Commission’s annual Rule of Law Report. There was, in this regard, a suggestion to broaden the scope of EIN-DRI’s reports to encompass candidate countries, thereby strengthening the norm-setting influence of both the EU and the Council of Europe. Finally, the importance of fostering synergies between EU mechanisms and the Council of Europe’s execution procedures to strengthen compliance efforts was underlined, while also warning against the risks of fragmentation between the two systems.

Civil society's crucial role in safeguarding the rule of law  

The debate further underscored the indispensable role of civil society in bridging the gap between the delivery of judgments and their implementation. Civil society organisations act not only as watchdogs but also as proactive drivers of compliance, using their expertise, networks, and advocacy skills to ensure that human rights judgments are not left unimplemented.

The detrimental effects of non-implementation on public trust in democratic institutions were highlighted, illustrating how the failure to enforce judgments diminishes trust not only among directly affected individuals but also within the broader public. This erosion of confidence undermines the legitimacy of European legal frameworks and the values they represent, and must thus be urgently halted.

Strong support was lent to the concept of implementation hubs - collaborative, multi-stakeholder platforms spearheaded by civil society but also engaging academia, national human rights institutions, and other actors - as a potential solution to the implementation challenges. These hubs, already strongly supported by EIN, were identified as mechanisms to:  

  • Track the progress of judgment implementation at national level, identifying barriers, and highlighting areas of concern;

  • Engage with national governments and international institutions to push for compliance and systemic reforms;

  • Provide training, resources, and technical support to local actors, including legal professionals and activists;

  • Formulate national-level policy recommendations based on evidence and analysis, ensuring a forward-looking approach to implementation.  

The potential for civil society to directly support government-led initiatives through expert committees was underscored, emphasising the value of diverse stakeholder participation in providing technical advice and guiding the implementation process. Integrating civil society into formal mechanisms offers governments valuable on-the-ground perspectives and fosters inclusivity and transparency in implementation efforts. At the same time, civil society faces significant challenges, particularly in countries grappling with systemic non-compliance. The dual role of advocating for judgment implementation while defending their operational space presents a complex task for CSOs. Governments resistant to implementing court judgments often target civil society with restrictive laws, funding cuts, or public smear campaigns, making their watchdog work even more difficult. The importance of recognising the essential role of civil society within the democratic ecosystem was emphasised, including the need to enable these organisations to effectively contribute to implementation processes at both national and international levels.

Synergies and prospects for future cooperation

The debate concluded with a strategic discussion on future collaborations. Representatives from the European Parliament, Council of Europe, and civil society organisations agreed that more rigorous political action and consistent monitoring of compliance are essential.

Looking ahead, EIN and its partners are committed to maintaining pressure on national governments and EU institutions alike. By promoting synergies between the EU and the Council of Europe, and by enhancing civil society’s involvement, EIN continues to actively support the effort to turn judgments into rights through effective action.

Justice Delayed and Justice Denied: Report on the Non-Implementation of European Judgments and the Rule of Law

/

The European Implementation Network (EIN) and Democracy Reporting International (DRI) are delighted to present the third edition of our flagship report “Justice Delayed and Justice Denied: Non-Implementation of European Courts’ Judgments and the Rule of Law,” a joint report on the non-implementation of European Court judgments in EU states.

The attacks on fundamental European values in recent years have continued to raise concern for European stakeholders – governments, the media, and citizens alike. The EU has introduced a series of policy measures designed to halt and reverse this phenomenon, ranging from the new annual rule of law review cycle, to targeted measures, such as withholding structural funds from countries with severe infringements of the rule of law.

In 2022, following civil society calls for the EU’s rule of law reporting to take into account the non-implementation of judgments from the two key European courts – the ECtHR and the CJEU (hereafter, “the European Courts”) – the EU Commission has included this type of data in its annual Rule of Law Report. This development allowed the EU to identify longer-term problems with the rule of law across all Member States that had previously been overlooked.

Summary of our findings

A Systemic Rule of Law Problem in the European Union

The non-implementation of European courts' rulings by EU member states, which has long been growing into a systemic problem, is now unequivocally recognised as a rule of law matter. Non-implementation undermines the authority and effectiveness of both the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The EU member states are bound by the rulings of these courts. Yet, national authorities fail to make their laws and practices consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and EU law requirements respectively.

Implementation Delays Lead to Human Rights Infringements

“Behind these statistics are numerous individual stories of people who found relief in Europe’s highest courts, only to realise that, all too often, states do not implement these decisions. Major themes of concern are conditions of detention, police ill-treatment; mental disability rights and psychiatry; LGBTIQ+ rights and discrimination; asylum and migration.”
— Justice Delayed, Justice Denied 2024 Report

Significant gains for the upholding of democratic principles and the rule of law provenly result from effectively implementing the European Courts’ rulings. That notwithstanding, governments' responses to the non-implementation crisis fall short of expectations, often ranging from sluggishness in following the European Courts’ guidance to active resistance thereto and extreme attempts to undermine these courts’ authority. These delays in implementing judgments lead to prolonged rule of law and human rights infringements and have far-reaching consequences for individuals who are denied timely justice.

State Compliance Record with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Judgments

As of January 1 2024, 624 leading ECtHR judgments were awaiting implementation across the EU, slightly up from 616 in 2022 and 602 in 2021. Each of these represents a human rights problem that has not been resolved – and which, therefore, is likely to recur.

Currently, 44% of the leading judgments from the past decade remain unimplemented, compared to 40% in 2022 and 37.5% in 2021. This means that the systemic human rights issues these judgments identify have not yet been resolved; it indicates that national authorities in Europe are not sufficiently active in dealing with a significant proportion of human rights issues identified by the ECtHR.

In 2023, the average length of time leading ECtHR judgments concerning EU states had been pending implementation for was 5 years and 2 months, compared to 5 years and 1 month in 2022 and 4 years and 4 months in 2021. Some cases require extensive reforms that can – and should – take many years to implement. It should, however, be possible to implement the majority of leading judgments in a relatively short period of time. The longer leading judgments have been pending, the greater the concern that implementation is not being carried out.

Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal and Romania have leading judgments that have not been implemented for more than five years. In Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain, over 50% of the leading judgments rendered against them in the last ten years are yet to be implemented. In Bulgaria and Romania, more than 85 leading judgments are pending implementation.

In 2023, Hungary remained the state with the highest percentage of ECtHR rulings issued in the last ten years that await implementation – 76%. But when we look at the highest absolute number of the same type of judgements, it is Romania, with 115 unimplemented rulings, that leads the count.

Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, Estonia are among the top performers in terms of implementation of ECtHR rulings, whereas Finland recorded an impressive progress in clearing its backlog of non-implemented judgments in the course of 2023.

State Compliance Record with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Rulings Related to the Rule of Law

Our analysis of state compliance reveals that some EU member states comply with the CJEU rulings only partially – they follow the CJEU guidance to some extent but fall short of achieving full compliance. A significant portion of those rulings have been pending for two years or more. We label those states as "struggling compliers". These include Romania and Hungary, which have 83.33% and 52.6% of rulings partly complied with, respectively. 50% of rulings with respect to Romania have been pending compliance for two years or more. For Hungary, that number is 66%.

For Bulgaria, in 31.8% of cases, compliance has been partial, but 25% of the rulings have not been complied with at all. This results in an overall non-compliance rate of 56.8%. 56% of those pending rulings have been awaiting compliance for two years or more. Similarly to Bulgaria, Poland has failed to fully comply with 50% of the rulings and 75% of those rulings have been pending compliance for two years or more.

We define ‘moderate compliers’ (Portugal, Croatia, Estonia among others) as those who have fully complied with somewhere between 50% and 80% of the rulings. Good compliers (Luxembourg, Germany, France, among others) have complied with over 80% of the rulings. Neither moderate nor good compliers are immune to occasional legislative delays or judicial misgivings, even though it does not occur so routinely as in struggling compliers.

Constitutional courts in ‘struggling complier’ countries have systematically challenged the CJEU's authority and hindered compliance – some openly and some more discreetly. Good complier countries (for example, German and French top courts) have also challenged the primacy of EU law and the CJEU authority, though the challenges have been isolated and non-systematic. The poor record of compliance with the CJEU's rulings related to access to justice, including judicial and prosecutorial independence, remains a major area of concern, alongside those related to asylum and migration.

Other themes involved include general and indiscriminate retention of personal data and authorities' access to such data. Similarly, access to information and the appropriateness of restricting such access invoking national security concerns, has also been an area where states failed to comply with CJEU rulings. Finally, the same is the case for rulings on civil society organisations and academic institutions.

Report recommendations

EIN and DRI set out the following recommendations to the European Commission and to EU institutions:

1. Integration of Implementation Data: The Commission should continue incorporating ECtHR judgment implementation data into its annual Rule of Law Report, and systematically analyse and prominently feature compliance with CJEU rulings.

2. Targeted Recommendations: The Commission should issue specific recommendations to states based on their implementation records of ECtHR and CJEU judgments related to the rule of law, and expand its reports to cover democracy and systemic fundamental rights violations, urging immediate action from states with recurring issues.

3. Utilisation of Enforcement Tools: The Commission should use all available tools, including infringement procedures and financial pressure, to address member states’ failures to implement CJEU judgments, leveraging related ECtHR judgments as additional evidence.

4. Enhanced Monitoring: The Commission should consider closer monitoring of the implementation of CJEU judgments, including preliminary rulings, and explore ways to support national-level mechanisms for their implementation.

5. Prioritisation in EU Discussions: EU institutions should highlight the non-implementation of ECtHR and CJEU judgments as a priority rule of law issue in discussions with member state governments and parliaments.

6. Funding for Implementation Activities: The EU should fund initiatives to enhance the implementation of ECtHR and CJEU judgments, particularly those led by civil society organisations and the Council of Europe.

For more on individual countries’ implementation records, see our implementation country map.

Work supported by: