EIN General Assembly 2023

/

Photo de Sigmund sur Unsplash

On 27th June, EIN organised its yearly General Assembly. This year, the event was held online.

The meeting was the opportunity to go through institutional matters and adopt the EIN 2022 accounts as well as budget for 2023 and 2024. Members were informed by EIN Treasurer Krassimir Kanev and our independent auditor about the very positive funding situation of EIN.

EIN Chair Başak Çalı gave an overview of the achievements since June 2022, and presented the new projects launched by EIN in 2023 - a project about the rule of law (follow-up to the 2021-2022 project), and a project about freedom of expression - and invited all members to take an active part in these activities.

The new Director of EIN, Ioulietta Bisiouli, who will take up her functions on 7th August, was also present to introduce herself and exchange with members.

The General Assembly concluded with a partial renewal of the EIN Board: we are very happy to announce that Anna-Katrin Speck, doctoral researcher, and Kerem Altiparmak, individual member, both joined the EIN Board. The first meeting of the new EIN Board will take place end September 2023.

EIN Civil Society Briefing May 2023: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Romania

/

On the 25th May 2023, EIN held the latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, ahead of the 1468th Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting on 7th – 9th June 2023. The event was held in person in Strasbourg, facilitated by Ioana Iliescu, EIN Law and Advocacy Officer.

The Briefing focused on the following cases:

  • The Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina case, which concerns 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. This presentation was given by Chelsea Gonzalez, Legal Project Officer, from Minority Rights Group International.

  • The Cristian Teodorescu v. România group and Parascineti v. România judgment concern: a) ill-treatment in psychiatric hospitals due to overcrowding, poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, including the absence of an individual bed, and the impossibility to spend time outdoors due to staff shortages; and b) legislative deficiencies as regards the procedure and safeguards for involuntary placement in psychiatric hospital facilities and general failure of the competent authorities to apply this procedure. This presentation was given by Georgiana Pascu, Program Manager from the Centre for Legal Resources.

  • The N. v. România and R.D. and I.M.D. v. România cases concern: a) unlawful psychiatric confinement as security measures and deficiencies in the judicial review proceedings and b) the absence of a legal basis for compulsory administration of treatment to such patients. This presentation was given by Georgiana Pascu, Program Manager from the Centre for Legal Resources.

  • The Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Campeanu v. Romania case concerns: a) deficiencies in the legal protection and medical and social care afforded to vulnerable persons; b) the ineffectiveness of criminal investigations into deaths of persons with disabilities in mental health institutions; and c) safeguards and remedies regarding placement in residential social care facilities and psychiatric hospitals. This presentation was given by Georgiana Pascu, Program Manager from the Centre for Legal Resources.

    Elisabeta Moldovan, self-representative and Co-president of the Ceva de Spus Association, made a statement regarding her personal experience of a placement in a mental health hospital, with translation support from Alina Ursoi, psychologist and support staff member at the UnLoc Association.

Sejdic And Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina case concerns discrimination against the applicants on account of their ineligibility to stand for election to the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina due to their lack of affiliation with a constituent people (i.e. Bosniaks, Croats or Serbs) or due to their failure to meet a combination of the requirements of ethnic origin and place of residence (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12).

Minority Rights Group International provided participants with explanations regarding the Dayton Accords and Electoral Quotas, explaining the effects of the quota system, which disenfranchises minorities, discriminates against constituent peoples living in ‘wrong’ entity and facilitates the trickling down of discrimination to local level.

Minority Rights Group International discussed the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Rule 9 Submission from April 2023, setting out the Commissioner’s primary concerns regarding the recent developments at national level:

  • “[N]o clarity as to what [the changes to the Constitution and electoral legislation] entail”.

  • Legislative reform discussions: “legitimate representation of constituent people”.

  • Special rights for constituent peoples, excluding minorities.

  • “Even if this only means preserving the existing situation, this implies that being just a citizen is considered to be of a lower status, as opposed to being a member of one constituent people, which would be contrary to the principle of non-discrimination.”

    The CoE Commissioner argues that the failure to execute these judgments is leading to a deterioration of situation in BiH, and to amplified ethnic tensions. The system based on ethnic discrimination leads to increased threats to stability; the rise of hate speech; the glorification of war criminals; and genocidal denial. Furthermore, she argues that:

  • “[F]ull elimination of ethnic discrimination from both the Constitution and the electoral legislation”.

  • “It is imperative that the authorities place focus on building a state based on the equality of citizens, rather than on further embedding ethnic discrimination in the Constitution and the electoral legislation.”

Minority Rights Group International outlined to participants the case’s current status of implementation:

  • There has been no progress in 14 years.

  • The discriminatory provisions remain in Constitution and electoral legislation.

  • There have been 4 general elections under discriminatory framework and 4 Interim Resolutions by CoM.

  • There has been no outreach to non-constituent minorities or the plaintiffs, and recent legislative reforms do not address implementation.

Minority Rights Group International set out their their current concerns regarding the case to participants:

  • The lack of outreach to non-constituent minorities to ensure changes from implementation

  • 2021 Interim Resolution (CoM), March decision (CoM) and BiH authorities do not reference participation of non-constituent minorities in legislative reform

  • Ongoing exclusion of minorities from bodies tasked with enacting reforms

Minority Rights Group International provided their recommendations, asking the Committee of Ministers to:

  • Appeal to Member States to request action to ensure implementation with judgments.

  • 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, which should address the Constitutional, Electoral Law amendments, judgment implementation, requesting:

    • Timeline for implementation with time for meaningful consultation of minorities

    • Representatives from minority groups named to any oversight body

    • Meaningful consultation of plaintiffs in Sejdić and Finci group of cases

    • Specific mechanisms to ensure minority and CSO participation

    • BiH to share draft amendments with CoM prior to adoption.


      Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

The Parascineti v. România concerns the ill-treatment suffered by the applicant during his involuntary placement in the psychiatric unit of the Sighetu Marmaţiei Hospital between 5 and 13 July 2005, due to overcrowding, poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, including the absence of an individual bed, and the impossibility to spend time outdoors due to staff shortages (violation of Article 3).

Centre for Legal Resources România outlined the conditions in psychiatric hospitals in Romania to participants:

  • 16,073 psychiatric beds nationwide

  • 4 security (forensic) psychiatric hospitals

  • Chronic wards accommodate more than 8000 patients

Centre for Legal Resources România reminded participants of their findings of their visit to the institutions in 2019 & 202:

  • 8 residents locked in 6 cages

  • Tied with shirts and strips of cloth

  • Lack of specialized staff and significant underfunding

  • Situations with a high risk of injury, self-harm and aggression

Centre for Legal Resources România explained to participants the lack of adequate health care services and staff and Inefficient investigations of the causes of deaths in Botoșani:

  • 24 March 2023: An 87-year-old patient died in the hallway of the medical unit without anyone jumping to his aid.

    • On Thursday morning, around 5am, a nurse found him dead in the main hallway on the ground floor. Three hours earlier, a nurse had administered the treatment in a ward on the third floor - in the "Medical" section.

    • What happened to the patient in the meantime, no one in the hospital knows. The manager shrugs when asked when the old man left the ward

  • 24 May 2023: A man aged just 47, brought in to withdraw, died before doctors' eyes. They called an ambulance, but it was too late. The man was in ethanolic withdrawal at the psychiatric ward - acute ward.

  • 28 Nov. 22: patient died after choking on food

  • 15 June 2022: an 18-year-old patient stabbed himself in the chest with a knife. He had several admissions to psychiatrists. The ambulance with emergency doctors could not save him

Cristian Teodorescu v. România

The Cristian Teodorescu v. România case concerns the unlawful placement of the applicants in psychiatric hospitals, or in one case (Ulisei Grosu) the applicant’s arrest by police with a view to such placement, without compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Mental Health Act and without any justification relating to their mental health condition (violations of Article 5 § 1(e)).

CLR reminded participants of the main issues in the case:

  • Failure to comply with Mental Health Act procedure and placement without justification relating to mental health condition.

  • Failure to comply with the legal requirement to obtain consent for medical treatment.

  • Inconsistent knowledge among healthcare professionals about the relevant procedures.

The NGO provided an overview of the unlawful involuntary placements in psychiatric hospitals:

  • There is no mental health department within the Ministry of Health.

  • The Ministry of Health has not requested EU budget for the mental health community services (Cohesion Policy budget)

  • The latest communication (March 2023) from authorities does not refer to the living conditions and rights of persons in psychiatric hospitals.

  • No public data on involuntary placements in psychiatric hospitals and the transfers between social and psychiatric system

  • In 2018, CLR collected some data from several psychiatric hospitals through freedom of information requests (only some hospitals responded):

    • Out of 524 involuntary admissions, only 112 were referred to the courts for judicial review.

    • There was not even a single case in which court overturned the decision of involuntary placement.

    • 206 people involuntarily placed in psychiatric hospitals came from residential centers for people with disabilities.

    • There were 2139 "social cases”.

  • There is a lack of progress at national level.

  • The lack of community-based mental health and social care services leads to involuntary placements and to de facto involuntary placements, which are being used as measure of “first resort” instead of a measure of last resort (as Article 5 of the European Convention requires). This leads to an overload of the system of mental health hospitals and to overcrowding and low compliance with procedural guarantees.

  • There is no independent body with monitoring, control and sanctioning powers.

  • CLR’s cooperation protocol with the Ministry of Labour and Social Solidarity was recently rescinded due to reports and criminal complaints filed by CLR following abuses in social care private homes financed with local authority money.

CLR provided their recommendations, asking the Committee of Ministers to:

  • Urge the national authorities to provide a concrete action plan for the implementation of these judgments.

  • Increase the frequency of examination of these cases.

  • Instruct the Secretariat to prepare an interim resolution.

  • Request data on the number of patients with mental disabilities treated in emergency wards of county hospitals

  • Request the authorities to equip psychiatric wards with equipment for emergency medical interventions.

  • Request the authorities to:

    • Provide recent disaggregated statistics on non-voluntary admission procedures in psychiatric hospitals and units since 2018.

    • Adopt a concrete legislative framework on access to justice of non-voluntary hospitalizations and investigate the causes of deaths.

    • Urgently allocate of a concrete budget plan for the community psychiatry system.

    • Appoint a coordinator at government level for the execution of the obligations arising from the judgments of the ECtHR against Romania in the field of psychiatry and mental health.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

NGO Communications

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre for Legal Resources) (21/04/2023) in the cases of CRISTIAN TEODORESCU and PARASCINETI v. Romania (Applications No. 22883/05, 32060/05) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)539]

CM Decisions

1377 meeting (DH) June 2020 - H46-28 Parascineti and Cristian Teodorescu group v. Romania (Applications Nos. 32060/05 and 22883/05) [CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377/H46-28]

1362 meeting (DH) December 2019 - H46-18 Parascineti and Cristian Teodorescu group v. Romania (Applications Nos. 32060/05 and 22883/05) [CM/Del/Dec(2019)1362/H46-18]

1265 meeting (September 2016) - H46-22 Parascineti group v. Romania (Application No. 32060/05) and group Cristian Teodorescu (Application No. 22883/05) / 1265e réunion (septembre 2016) - Parascineti c. Roumanie (Requête n° 32060/05) et groupe Cristian Teodorescu (Requête n° 2883/05) [CM/Del/Dec(2016)1265/H46-22]

N. v. Romania and R.D. and I.M.D. v. Romania

The N. v. Romania case concerns the psychiatric confinement of the applicant, who has been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. Although the detention was first imposed in 2001 as a security measure during criminal investigations, the Court only examined the situation, as the complaints about the earlier period were out of time.

The R.D. and I.M.D. v. Romania case concerns the non-voluntary confinement of the applicants in a psychiatric hospital for the purpose of compelling them to undergo medical treatment and about the obligation to undergo that medical treatment.

CLR provided an overview of the main issues in the N v. Romania case:

  • Unlawful psychiatric confinement as a security measure for the purpose of compelling them to undergo medical treatment.

  • Measure imposed following criminal proceedings condemning the applicants to compulsory psychiatric treatment, based on medical reports of expertise dated 3 years before the date of confinement in the psychiatric hospital without proper examination by the domestic courts of the degree of social danger justifying the safety measure or of the degree of social danger of the criminal offense.

  • Absence of a legal framework concerning the obligation to undergo medical treatment: Criminal Code does not offer to people diagnosed with a psychiatric condition sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness as concerns the administration of medical treatment.

The NGO outlined the challenges of non-voluntary psychiatric confinement:

  • No legislative provisions to set clear limits on when and under what conditions a non-voluntary psychiatric confinement (as security measure) can be taken.

  • Many involuntary placement measures which are not legal, are arbitrary and unjustified.

  • Lack of safeguards: persons with mental health conditions who commit criminal acts without discernment and are placed in forensic psychiatric hospitals receive a “life sentence”.

  • On June 2020, 1,424 persons were admitted to psychiatric and security measures hospitals. Approximately 14% had a disability certificate (the majority having mental disabilities). 80% of the people admitted were reported as having a mental disability. However, without disability certificates they cannot receive procedural adaptations.

  • Inconsistencies between the relevant legislative provisions and the factual situation

    • Provisions of the Criminal Code in force (art. 109 and 110) stipulate that both the obligation to medical treatment and hospitalization are taken "until recovery or until an improvement is obtained that removes the state of danger" - in this situation the Romanian authorities have not yet identified a solution that is applicable to persons with intellectual disabilities.

    • Persons with intellectual or psycho-social disabilities under involuntary confinement security measures risk being detained for life. 

  • Medical confinement: there is no clear procedure applicable for the re-examination or changing of measures for medical confinement, as regards the periodicity of medical examinations. There is no legislative framework to ensure legal aid in this area.

  • No dedicated spaces and services for the needs of persons with mental health conditions who are currently detained in forensic psychiatric hospitals, and whose detention review would lead to their release.

CLR provided their recommendations, asking the Committee of Ministers to request the Romanian authorities to:

  • Adopt of a legislative framework to regulate in concrete terms the situation of persons subjected to security measures (involuntary confinements in forensic psychiatric hospitals and medical confinements) and the need for periodic reassessments, in order to ensure that they do not remain in psychiatric hospitals indefinitely.   

  • Enact a clear legislative framework to regulate the situation of persons subjected to security measures and to ensure legal assistance for persons with mental health conditions subjected to security measures (and all mental health institutions). 

  • Amend the Criminal Code to identify a solution applicable to persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities, for whom "the full recovery" is not possible, and to provide them with sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness in the administration of medical treatment. 

  • Carry out regular monitoring visits to forensic psychiatric hospitals and communicate the conclusions of the monitoring visits to the Committee of Ministers in order to have a close observation of the developments on the ground. 


Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

NGO Communications

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre for Legal Resources) (21/04/2023) in the cases of R.D. and I.M.D., and N. v. Romania (Applications No. 35402/14, 59152/08) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)538]

CM Decisions in N. v. România:

1428th meeting (DH), March 2022 - H46-23 N. v. Romania (Application No. 59152/08) [CM/Del/Dec(2022)1428/H46-23]

1411th meeting (DH), 14-16 September 2021 - H46-27 N. v. Romania (Application No. 59152/08) [CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-27]

1331 meeting (DH) December 2018 - H46-22 N. v. Romania (Application No. 59152/08) [CM/Del/Dec(2018)1331/H46-22]

The Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Campeanu v. Romania case concerns the authorities’ failure to protect the right to life of Mr Câmpeanu, a young man of Roma origin, orphaned, HIV-positive and with “severe intellectual disability” (substantial violation of Article 2).

CLR outlines to participants the several human rights violations of the case:

  1. Authorities’ failure to protect the right to life of a young man, orphaned, HIV-positive and with “severe intellectual disability”.

  2. Ineffectiveness of the investigation and the court proceedings into his death 

  3. Lack in domestic law of a legal framework suited to the specific needs of people with mental disabilities and allowing for the examination of the allegations concerning the violation of Mr Câmpeanu’s right to life by an independent authority. The Court stated that Romania must adopt measures to ensure that “persons with mental disabilities in a situation comparable to that of Mr Câmpeanu are afforded independent representation, enabling them to have Convention complaints relating to their health and treatment examined before a court or other independent body”.

CLR provided information on recent developments on legal protections for vulnerable adults:

  • Law no. 140/2022 which regulates the protection measures for people with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities was enacted, but there are important concerns regarding its' implementation.

  • There are approx. 90.000 cases involving the judicial protection of ”incapable” adults, for which this law will be applied.

  • Concerns regarding the implementation Law no. 140/2022 :

    • Lack of training of the professionals working with persons with disabilities.

    • Methodology is hindering the process: high costs and expenses are not supported from the national health fund.

    • Lack of concrete and clear information regarding the mechanism for conducting medical and psychosocial evaluation reports.

    • The norm which states that the institution of the personal representative will be regulated by a special law has still not been drafted, thus persons in situations comparable with Valentin Campeanu remain without protection.

CLR discussed data on the effectiveness of criminal investigations into deaths in mental health institutions:

  • Data provided by the authorities refers to the number of suspicious death case files but not the number of deaths in institutions.

  • There is no information on the number of convictions

  • CLR provided data on deaths in mental health institutions in 2019:

    • 336 deaths in 67 psychiatric units with 8064 beds; out of which only 215 notification of deaths (54 of them to the Monitoring Council, 183 to Police and Prosecutors, 15 to other institutions).

    • Causes of death: Lung disease (73); Asphyxia (17); Heart disease (175); Tumors (7); Suicide (4); Other causes (60).

    • In 2022, there were 1029 reported deaths in social care homes.

  • Examples of ongoing similar cases: young woman with mental disabilities with broken femur for months at Zătreni social care home.

The NGO outlined challenges to the safeguards and remedies regarding placement in residential social care facilities and psychiatric hospitals:

  • The manner and extent to which its decisions can be appealed, the so-called “grey area of consent”

  • Non-transparent procedure of transfers between social homes to psychiatric units – social homes and back.

  • Lack of informed consent.

  • The Monitoring Council is still not fully operational (Law no. 8/2016).

CLR provided their recommendations, asking the Committee of Ministers to request the national authorities to:

  • Elaborate the law that regulates the institution of the personal representative and the provision of the necessary funds so that this can effectively contribute to access to justice for vulnerable persons and to the deinstitutionalization process;

  • Allocate the necessary budget for carrying out psychiatric and psychological assessments of persons in need of supported-decision measures (which are mandatory requested by the national courts).

  • Ensure, through the institutions responsible for the ongoing training of magistrates and lawyers, at least one training course per year in the field of adequate communication with persons with intellectual disabilities /or psychosocial disabilities. 

  • Allocate adequate resources for staff and logistics of the Monitoring Council so that the institution can ensure the effective representation of persons with disabilities in the defense of their fundamental rights and freedoms and ensure their access to justice.  

  • Establish proper collaboration with the human rights NGOs and self-representatives and allow unrestricted access to public and private residential social centers and hospitals or psychiatric wards so that the objective monitoring of the respect for the rights of persons with disabilities can be carried out.

  • Regulate and develop social services in the community and community psychiatry in order to effectively prevent the medical and social neglect of vulnerable patients in psychiatric hospitals and social care homes and to achieve the deinstitutionalization indicator foreseen in Law 7/2023, and ensure that sufficient funding is allocated to communities and local authorities to support these services and the implementation of Law no. 7/2023.  

  • Systematically collect and publish data on cases involving persons with disabilities by the responsible authorities (the National Union of Romanian Bar Associations, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Courts of Appeal, the Monitoring Council, psychiatric hospitals and residential social care centres).

  • Develop concrete and standard complaint mechanisms accessible to people with disabilities institutionalized.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

EIN Civil Society Briefing February 2023: Turkey, Hungary, and Bulgaria

/

On the 27th February 2023, EIN held the latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, ahead of the 1459th Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting on 7th – 9th March 2023. The event was held in person in Strasbourg.

The Briefing focused on the following cases:

  1. The Oya Ataman v Turkey case concerns the violation of the right to freedom of assembly, ill treatment of applicants as a result of excessive force used during demonstrations. This presentation was given by Mümtaz Murat Kök, Project Coordinator and Editor at Media and Law Studies Association and Beril Onder, Project Lawyer at the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project.

  2. Baka v Hungary case concerns lack of access to a court as regards the premature termination of the applicant’s mandate as President of the Supreme Court which also led to a violation of his right to freedom of expression. This presentation was given by Erika Farkas, Legal Officer at the Hungarian Helsinki Committee.

  3. The Stanev v Bulgaria case concerns the applicant’s unlawful placement in a social care home for persons with mental disabilities; lack of judicial review and poor living conditions and the impossibility to request the restoration of his legal capacity. This presentation was given by Simona Florescu, Litigation Manager at Validity, and Aneta Mircheva, Lawyer at the Network of Independent Experts.

  4. The freedom of expression cases (Öner and Türk v Turkey/ Nedim Sener group/Altug Tanar Akcam group/Artun and Guvener group/ Isikirik Group) which specifically concerns the unjustified interferences with freedom of expression, in particular through criminal proceedings, including defamation, and the consequent chilling effect. Unforeseeable conviction of membership of an illegal organisation for the mere fact of attending a public meeting and expressing views there. This presentation was given by Mümtaz Murat Kök, Project Coordinator and Editor at the Media and Law Studies Association.

Oya Ataman v Turkey

The Oya Ataman v Turkey case concerns violations of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, including the prosecution of participants and/or the use of excessive force to disperse peaceful demonstrations. Certain cases also concern unjustified detention orders against the participants, failure to carry out effective investigations into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment or lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Articles 2, 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention).

Media and Law Studies Association and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project provided participants with an update on legislative developments that they included in their Rule 9 Submissions:

Law No.2911 on Demonstrations and Public Meetings

  • Law No. 2911 allows local authorities to: 

    • impose unwarranted restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly;

    • impose blanket bans on all demonstrations and events; 

    • enforce dispersal and impose criminal and administrative sanctions against those who attempt to exercise their right to peaceful assembly.

  • Lack of any comprehensive legislative measures in fully aligning Law 2911 with Convention standards.

  • The amendments made between 2014-2018 to Law No. 2911 have already been examined by the CM in its previous meetings: they are not Convention-compliant.

    Additional restrictions in the aftermath of state of emergency

  • After the attempted coup d’état of 15 July 2016, under the state of emergency, Article 11 of Law No. 2935 on the state of emergency granted broad powers to governors, restricting the freedom of assembly and movement along with other freedoms, which significantly affected civil society activities.

  • Severe restrictions such as blanket bans on peaceful assemblies were frequently imposed.

  • Although the State of emergency formally ended on 18 July 2018, serious restrictions placed under the emergency regime were incorporated into permanent legislation.

  • On 25 July 2018, Law No. 7145 (an ‘omnibus law’) introduced emergency-type restrictive measures into several ordinary laws.

    • Amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of Law no. 2911

    • An amendment to Article 11 (C) of Law No. 5442 on Provincial Administration allows (allowing provincial governors to ban the entry or exit of individuals to their provinces for fifteen days).

Media and Law Studies Association and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project gave participants an update on recent developments concerning the authorities application and interpretation of domestic law:

Blanket and specific bans on demonstrations and events

    • Under Law No. 2911 and Law No. 5442, provincial governors have regularly imposed bans on demonstrations and events in many provinces

    • Some governors automatically extended an existing ban by imposing another ban at the end of the previous one, creating an uninterrupted ban for a period much longer than 30 days.

    • In the Eastern city of Van, a general ban on all public gatherings and events was first imposed on November 21, 2016, and with the additional bans introduced by the authorities, all public gatherings and events were banned uninterruptedly until 27 June 2022.

Police interventions with excessive use of force

  • The examination of Turkish law enforcement officials’ practices during assemblies reveals, in particular, the following:

    • The police systematically enforce the dispersal of assemblies despite their peaceful nature.

    • While dispersing the crowd, the police persistently use excessive force on protestors, which could result in ill-treatment or torture, and mass arrest.

    • The authorities have failed to set up a functioning system for an ex post facto review to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of use of force on protestors.

Criminalisation of peaceful protestors

  • The widespread and systematic use of Law no. 2911 and 5442 against peaceful protestors

    • Criminal sanctions under Law no 2911

    • Misdemeanour fines under Law no. 5326.

    • Large number of criminal investigations and prosecutions under Law no. 2911

  • Peaceful protestors may also easily face other charges under criminal law

    • Article 265 § 1  of the Criminal Code for obstructing the security forces in the execution of their duties by way of resistance together with other persons

    • Article 299 of the Criminal Code for insulting the President of the Republic because of the slogans chanted during assemblies

    • Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713

Media and Law Studies Association also provided trial monitoring data and information on criminal proceedings in the context of freedom of assembly. Between 1 September 2021 and 20 June 2022, at least 800 people stood trial for “defying the Law no. 2911 on Demonstrations and Assemblies” in 39 different trials, as recorded through trial monitoring by MLSA.

The majority of these people stood trial for “attending illegal demonstrations and marches and failing to disperse despite being warned and despite the use of force (Article 32/1 of the Law no. 2911).”

They set out examples of repressed assemblies in the Istanbul and Eskişehir Pride Marches, as well as the Saturday Mothers protests.

Media and Law Studies Association and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project provided their recommendations on general measures, asking the Committee of Ministers to:

  • Continue the supervision on the execution of the Oya Ataman group of cases under the enhanced procedure and at more frequent intervals;

  • Urge Türkiye to revise its Action Plan and address in full the structural problems arising from the domestic legislative framework identified by the ECtHR in the Oya Ataman group; 

  • Call on Türkiye to amend Law No. 2911 to ensure that its provisions are fully in line with the principles set  out in the case law of the ECtHR; 

  • Call on Türkiye to amend Law No. 5442 to ensure that its provisions are fully in line with the principles set  out in the case law of the ECtHR; in particular, amend Article 11(C) which grants broad  powers to governors to ban both peaceful public assemblies and indoor human rights  events;

  • Call on Türkiye to review the 2016 Directive on the use of tear gas and other crowd control weapons to  ensure that it complies in all respects with international standards in relation to the use  of crowd control weapons;

  • Call on Türkiye to put in place an effective ex post facto review mechanism to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of any use of excessive force by law enforcement  officials;

  • Call on Türkiye to stop the criminalization of the members of civil society who exercise their right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

The Baka v Hungary case concerns the premature termination of the applicant’s term of office as President of the Supreme Court, which was found to have violated his right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 because of the absence of judicial review. The Court found that these measures had been prompted by the views and criticisms expressed by the applicant on issues of public interest (planned major reform of the judicial system) and had violated Article 10 as they had not pursued any legitimate aim linked to the judicial reform at issue, nor had the measures been necessary in a democratic society.

Hungarian Helsinki Committee reminded participants of the key violations found by the ECtHR:

  • Violation of Article 6 ~ undue and premature termination of Judge Baka’s mandate as President of the Supreme Court through ad hominem legislative acts of constitutional rank and therefore beyond judicial control.

  • Violation of Article 10 ~ prompted by views and criticisms he expressed on reforms affecting the judiciary.

  • Exerting a ’chilling effect’ on other judges discouraging them from participating in public debate on legislative reforms affecting the judiciary and on issues concerning the independence of the judiciary.

Hungarian Helsinki Committee provided participants with further developments of this pending case by highlighting it’s impacts on authorities’ systemic undermining and the chilling effect of silencing the judiciary. In 2022, two massive smear campaigns were targeted against individual judges as members of the National Judicial Council:

  • Against Judge Vasvári (spokesperson of the NJC), following a public statement in ‘The Guardian’ stating that „we have been witnessing external and internal influence attempts” and that „we just want a transparent and meritocratic system”. Following these statements, a defamatory campaign in the governmental propaganda media ran for one week describing him as „blood judge”; „judge of terror”, and depicting the NJC as „a putty club”.

  • Against Judge Vasvári (spokesperson of the NJC) & judge Matusik (international rep.)

  • massive smear campaign for over a month & more than 450 publications

  • consciously built up and boosted

    • launched in an anonymous blog of the right-wing media

    • joined by pro-government think tanks

    • discrediting members of the NJC as judges

    • questioning their independence 

Hungarian Helsinki Committee provided recommendations to the CM for Hungarian authorities, who should:

  • evaluate domestic legislation with respect to guarantees and safeguards protecting judges from undue interference

  • address the issue of judicial independence holistically and comprehensively

  • refrain from and condemn any public harassment, intimidation or retaliation against judges, and provide effective protection from personal attacks against judges

  • abstain from any public critique, recommendation, suggestion or solicitation regarding court decisions that may constitute direct or indirect influence on pending court proceedings or otherwise undermine the independence of individual judges in their decision-making

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

The Stanev v Bulgaria case concerns the unlawful placement of the applicant, suffering from a mental health disorder, in a social care home (violation of Article 5 § 1(e)). The Court found that the placement, considered a social assistance measure, did not comply with the requirements of the domestic legislation because the authorities had not requested the consent of the applicant. The placement also did not comply with the conditions set in the case law of the Court regarding the detention of persons suffering from mental health disorders.

Validity outlined the ECtHR judgment and the implementation process of the case to participants, in addition, they highlighted the need for alternatives to residential care.

The NGOs argued that small group homes and family-type homes perpetuate institutionalization, by ensuring the repetition of the same patterns of violence, neglect and deprivation of rights for persons with disabilities, and by maintaining the same features of institutions.

The NGOs provided an example of violence in a family-type home: https://novini.bg/bylgariya/obshtestvo/465247

They argue that the CM is empowered to monitor small group homes (relevant for both Article 3 and Article 5) and that, under the Stanev judgment, the state should provide for viable alternatives to residential care. This is the only path forward for implementing the Stanev judgment in a manner that is human rights compliant, and does not perpetuate institutionalization.

The current situation in Bulgaria

  • Around 9 000 people with disabilities still living in big institutions (159 big institutions still are operating).

  • 271 small group homes

  • Waiting list – 1 580 people with disabilities are in the waiting list for placement in the residential care, because of lack of another possibility to receive care in the community.

  • The group homes are small institutions. The regime there becomes more and more restrictive.

The NGOs argue that it is imperative that the Committee continues to monitor the implementation of the judgment. They set out recommendations to the Committee of Ministers to request the Bulgarian authorities to:

  1. Develop and implement strategies to ensure that persons with disabilities in family-type homes have a path to live in the community; they have access to a complaint procedure and review of their placement;

  2. Provide data on the number of persons with disabilities having left residential care to live in the community;

  3. Make procedural accommodations to ensure that persons with disabilities participate in court proceedings;

  4. Ensure that procedural accommodations and information are provided before and at signing the contracts for placement in family-type homes.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

NGO Communications

1459th meeting (March 2023) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from 8 NGOs (23/01/2023) in the case of STANEV v. Bulgaria (Application No. 36760/06) and reply from the authorities (03/02/2023) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)139-rev]

1436th meeting (June 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Validity Foundation – Mental Disability Advocacy Centre, KERA Foundation, Network of Independent Experts, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and Bulgarian Lawyers for Human Rights) (10/05/2022) in the case of STANEV v. Bulgaria (Application No. 36760/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)547]

1436th meeting (June 2022) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from NGOs (Validity Foundation – Mental Disability Advocacy Centre, KERA Foundation, Network of Independent Experts, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and Bulgarian Lawyers for Human Rights) (10/05/2022) in the case of STANEV v. Bulgaria (Application No. 36760/06) and reply from the authorities (25/05/2022) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)547-rev]

1436th meeting (June 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Validity Foundation - Mental Disability Advocacy Centre, KERA Foundation, Network of Independent Experts, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and Bulgarian Lawyers for Human Rights) (02/05/2022) in the case of STANEV v. Bulgaria (Application No. 36760/06) & reply from the authorities (12/05/2022) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)531]

1436th meeting (June 2022) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from NGOs (Validity Foundation Mental Disability Advocacy Centre, KERA Foundation, Network of Independent Experts, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee & Bulgarian Lawyers for Human Rights) (25/04/2022) in the case of STANEV v. Bulgaria (Application No. 36760/06) & reply from the authorities (04/05/2022) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)495-rev]

Öner and Türk v Turkey group/ Nedim Sener group/ Altug Tanar Akcam group/ Artun and Guvener group/ Isikirik Group

The freedom of expression groups of cases (Öner and Türk v Turkey group/ Nedim Sener group/ Altug Tanar Akcam group/ Artun and Guvener group/ Isikirik Group) concern 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 (violations of Article 10).

Media and Law Studies Association updated the participants with recent developments of each case within the group of cases:

1.     Öner and Türk Group of Cases

The Öner and Türk group concerns unjustified convictions of the applicants mainly based on Article 6 § 2 (printing of statements made by a terrorist organisation) and Article 7 § 2 (propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation) of the Anti-Terrorism Law; Article 215 (praising an offence or an offender) and Article 216 (provoking the public to hatred, hostility, denigrating a section of the public on grounds of social class, race, religion, sect, gender or regional differences) of the Criminal Code (violations of Article 10).

Article 6/2 of Anti-Terror Law : Printing or publishing declarations or announcements of terrorist organizations:

  • In its entirety, Article 6 of Anti-Terror Law continues to be a source of violations. 

  • Despite the claims of the authorities, the trials based on Article 6/2 of Anti-Terror Law continue and they constituted 1,7% of the charges during the monitoring period.

  • Prolonged trials and violations of the right to fair trial

    Article 6/1 of Anti-Terror Law:  Disclosing or publishing the identity of officials on anti-terrorist duties, or identifying such persons as targets

  • The ambiguous wording of Article 6/1 makes it possible for any public official (even retired ones) to be defined as “an official on anti-terrorist duties.”

    Article 7/2 of Anti- Terror Law: Propaganda in favor of an illegal organization)

  • Amended in 2013 → «the interpretation has been narrowed down the act of making propaganda for a terrorist organization by justifying, praising or inciting its methods, is not recognized as an offense if it does not contain violence, force or threat.»

  • A sentence added in 2019 → «expressions of opinion constituting criticism or not exceeding the limits of reporting, will not constitute a crime.»

  • Article7/2 charges, which were among the charges leveled against individuals in 62 cases, constituted 54% of the terrorism-related charges in this period. In 46 of these trials, journalists were the defendants.

  • Amendments and especially the 2019 addition to the article in no way protect the freedom of criticism or the press.

    Article 215 of the Turkish Penal Code: Praising an offense or an offender

  • The 2013 amendment to the Article 215 of the Turkish Penal Code has not solved the problems with the article and most importantly the problem of “unforeseeability” the Court had found in the case Yasin Özdemir v. Turkey. Individuals can still be charged and sentenced for their expressions which do not pose “an imminent and clear danger to public order.”

  • The lawsuit brought against journalist Cengiz Çandar and activist Kemal Işıktaş proves this point.

  • Indictment filed in 2020 cited social media posts shared in 2017 as evidence for the charges.

Article 216 of the Turkish Penal Code: Provoking the public to hatred, hostility, denigrating a section of the public

  • In their latest action plan, the authorities failed to inform the Committee about the progress or more appropriately the lack of progress regarding Article 216 of the Turkish Penal Code.

  • The article, however, is used more and more to stifle freedom of expression.

  • Examples of popstar Gülşen and journalist Mehmet Güleş demonstrate such tendency.

2.     Nedim Şener Group of Cases

The Nedim Şener group of cases concerns pre-trial detention of journalists on serious charges (offenses against the constitutional order and its functioning and establishing organizations for the purpose of committing crimes) and as per Article 100 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

  • There has been no amendment, no progress

  • Currently at least 61 journalists in prison. 26 out of 61 are in pre-trial detention.

  • Over the past 9 months, 26 journalists have been arrested over the suspicion of «membership in a terrorist organization (Article 314 of TPC and Article 7-1 of ATL)

    • On 16 June 2022, 16 journalists arrested in Diyarbakır

    • On 29 October 2022, 9 journalists arrested in Ankara

    • On 10 January 2023, journalist Sezgin Kartal arrested in Istanbul 

3.     Altuğ Taner Akçam Group of Cases

The Altuğ Taner Akçam group deals with prosecutions under Article 301 of the Criminal Code (publicly denigrating the Turkish nation or the organs and institutions of the state, including the judiciary and the army), which the Court found not to meet the “quality of law” requirement in view of its “unacceptably broad terms” (violations of Article 10).

Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code

  • Contrary to the claims of the authorities, the 2008 amendment to the Article 301 has not solved the problems and thus the article continues to be a source of further violations.

  • During the monitoring period 25 people, including lawyers, journalists and politicians stood trial on this charge.

  • Continuous legal harassment of the Diyarbakır Bar Association

4.     Artun and Güvener Group of Cases

The Artun and Güvener group concerns unjustified interferences with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression on account of their criminal convictions for insulting public institutions, officials and the President under Articles 125 and 299 of the Criminal Code (the President, the Republic, police officers, tax inspectors etc.) (violations of Article 10). In the case of Vedat Sorli, the Court also indicated under Article 46 that bringing the relevant domestic law into line with the Convention would be an appropriate form of redress that would put an end to the violation found.

a.     Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code: insulting

  • No amendment

  • 2005 amendment amended two clauses of the article : (4-openly insulting) and (5- insulting public officials working as a committee). Both increase the stipulated prison sentence.

  • There is no “Convention compliant attitude” when it comes to the application of Article 125.

  • 73 people, including journalists, lawyers, activists and politicians stood trial on these charges. The majority of the insult charges were “insulting a public official. (Article 125/3a)”

  • 2 years and 7 months prison sentence imposed upon the Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu for “insulting public officials who work as part of a committee because of their duties. (Article 125/5).”

b.     Article 299 of the Turkish Penal Code: insulting the president

  • No amendment → The authorities claim that the requirement of the Ministry of Justice authorization for prosecution (NOT investigation) («filtering mechanism») has «eliminated the concerns.». However, the 2005 amendment amended the second clause of the article (2- openly) and increased the stipulated prison sentence.

  • Contrary to the claims of the authorities that all the concerns regarding Article 299 have been eliminated through a “filtering measure” and Convention compliant case law, the article is applied in absolute defiance of the Vedat Şorli judgment of the court to punish criticism and stifle freedom of expression.

  • Furthermore, Article 299 of the Turkish Penal Code increasingly gives way to Article 5 violations as it can be seen in the examples of journalist Sedef Kabaş ; a 70 years old man who shared her remarks and Cihan Kolivar, the president of the Turkish Union of Bread Producers.

5.     Işıkırık Group of Cases

The Işıkırık group concerns Article 220 §§ 6 and 7 of the Criminal Code, which provide that anyone who commits a crime on behalf of an illegal organisation or who knowingly and willingly aids and abets an illegal organisation shall be sentenced as a member of that organisation. Based on these provisions, most of the applicants in this group of cases were sentenced to several years of imprisonment for membership of an illegal organisation for having, for example, peacefully participated in a demonstration called for by an illegal organisation, or expressed a positive opinion about such an organisation, without the prosecution having to prove the elements of actual membership. The Court criticised in particular the wording of the provisions and their extensive interpretation by domestic courts which did not provide sufficient protection against arbitrary interferences by the public authorities (§67) and therefore lacked foreseeability and had a chilling effect (violations of Articles 10 and 11).

a.     Article 220/6 of the Turkish Penal Code: Committing an offense on behalf of an organization without being a member

  • The sentence added to the Article 220/6 in 2013 has not narrowed down the interpretation and application of the article.

  • Furthermore, the article continues to be a source violation with regards to Article 11 and also criminalizes both peaceful demonstrations and journalists covering those demonstrations.

b.     Article 220/7 of the Turkish Penal Code: Aiding and abetting an organization willingly and knowingly without belonging to its structure

  •  Contrary to the claims of the authorities, the problems with Article 220/7 have not been eliminated and the article continues to be a source of violations.

  • During the monitoring period, 58 activists, 38 journalists and 13 politicians were tried on Article 220/7 charges.

  • Furthermore, 5 journalists and a media employee were sentenced for “aiding and abetting an organization willingly and knowingly without belonging to its structure.”

Media and Law Studies Association provided recommendations to the Committee of Ministers to:

  • Re-examine these groups of cases more frequently.

  • Request the authorities to revise their action plan so that they address structural problems arising from the legislative frameworks as identified by the ECtHR in these groups of cases.

  • Reiterate demands for amendments to Article 125 and 301 of the Turkish Penal Code and the abolition of Articles 220/6, 220/7 and 299 of the Turkish Penal Code. 

  • Urge the authorities to consider amending Article 6 of Anti-Terror Law so that it cannot be employed to intimidate investigative journalism.

  • Persistently request the authorities to provide up-to-date and detailed statistics on criminal investigations and prosecutions related to freedom of expression and the press, and to provide comments on these statistics.

  • Reiterate calls for strong high-level political messages from the authorities. 

  • Considering the absence of progress in the implementation of these groups of cases, as well as the repeated and extensive use of these legal provisions in order to target journalists, media employees and other persons exercising freedom of speech, the Chair of the Committee should send a letter to the Minister of Justice of Turkey regarding the non-implementation of these groups of cases.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

EIN Seminar: How can NGOs and NHRIs participate effectively in the execution process of the ECtHR Judgments?

/

On November 30, 2022, EIN organised a Seminar in French on “How can NGOs and NHRIs participate effectively in the execution process of the European Court of Human Rights Judgments?” 

Since 2006, the rules of procedure of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, the body which supervises the execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), gave the possibility to NGOs/NHRIs and other professional organizations to submit written communications to support the execution of the judgments of the Court.

The seminar brought together French-speaking representatives of NGOs, NHRIs and lawyers in the human rights sector who are interested in participating in the execution of the ECtHR judgments.

This seminar highlighted the vital role they can play in the implementation process. These organisations have immense knowledge of human rights issues in their respective country and can relay this information to the Committee of Ministers through the Rule 9 Submission mechanism.

The seminar began with a general discussion on the day's objectives by Agnès Ciccarone, EIN, Project Manager, and participants shared their motivation to be involved in the execution of ECtHR judgments and how they can do so.

Prune Missoffe, Head of Analysis and Advocacy, and Nicolas Ferran, Head of Litigation, Observatoire International Des Prisons, shared their experience in participating in the execution process of the JMB v France judgment. 

The final discussion of the seminar focused on how NGOs could increase the impact with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which allowed participants to gain more insight into their role in the implementation process and discuss the best way to promote the implementation of ECtHR judgments.

We thank Observatoire International Des Prisons for sharing their experiences with the execution process and La Cimade for providing the location for the seminar. We would alo like to thank lawyer Flor Tercero and her NGO, ADDE, for her support in making this event possible.

Relevant Resources:

EIN and NHC Event - Time for Action: Human Rights, Democracy, and the Implementation of Judgments of the European Court

/

Yesterday, on the 20th of October, EIN co-hosted a briefing with colleagues from the Netherlands Helsinki Committee on the non-implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), with a particular focus on judgments concerning political persecution. The advocacy event took place in Berlin and was also supported by the Hertie School’s Centre for Fundamental Rights.

This briefing highlighted the critical problem with the non-implementation of ECtHR judgments. As of 1 January 2022, there are 1300 leading judgments pending implementation, which concern issues notably related to structural and/or systemic human rights problems. In addition, this number is rising, meaning that the problem is worsening and threatens democracy, human rights and the rule of law – and, as a result, the overall existence of the ECHR system itself.

The briefing set the scene for the non-implementation of ECtHR judgments across Europe and addressed cases involving victims of political persecution, such as the cases of Osman Kavala, Turkish philanthropist and human rights defender, and Intigam Aliyev, Azerbaijani human rights defender and lawyer. It also included a direct account of what it is like to be a political prisoner, despite having a judgment from the European Court in one’s favour, from Azerbaijani investigative journalist and former political prisoner Khadija Ismayilova. The briefing provided participants with the opportunity to gain more information on these crucial issues and discuss the best way to promote the implementation of ECtHR judgments.

The briefing was chaired by Dr. Hans-Jörg Behrens, Agent of the German Federal Ministry of Justice before the European Court of Human Rights and included interventions by Ramute Remezaite, EIN Board member, Implementation Lead at the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), Khadija Ismayilova, Azerbaijani investigative journalist, former political prisoner, and Prof. Dr. Başak Çalı, EIN Chair, Professor of International Law, Co-Director of the Centre for Fundamental Rights, Hertie School, Berlin’s University of Governance.

We thank the Netherlands Helsinki Committee for co-hosting with us and the Hertie School’s Centre for Fundamental Rights for hosting the event space and everyone who was able to join us in person and online. 

For those that missed the event, you can watch the live stream here: https://www.facebook.com/NetherlandsHelsinkiCommittee/videos/5959728040706274

Overview: EIN June Conference 2022

/

Conference on Systemic Non-Implementation of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – What Can Civil Society Do?

This conference took place on the 22 and 23 of June 2022 and focused on identifying common solutions to promote ECtHR implementation and sharing the solutions across European civil society. It included presentations from leading members of the civil society movement to promote ECtHR implementation, as well as high-level speakers from academia and national governments. More than 70 participants gathered in Strasbourg for this Conference.

Session 1: Structures at the national level to systematically promote the implementation of ECtHR judgments

The first session of the conference addressed the issue of national-level structures aimed to systematically promote the implementation of ECtHR judgments. This session, chaired by the Director of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee Dr Krassimir Kanev, gave the floor to experts from four countries: the Czech Republic, Slovenia, the Republic of Moldova and the UK, who shared with us their experiences.

An effective structure to promote the implementation of judgments in the Czech Republic

The first expert, Mgr Petr Konůpka, Deputy Agent of the Government of the Czech Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, discussed the creation and functioning of a collective mechanism for ECtHR implementation in the Czech Republic, which has been active since 2015 under the form of a Committee of Experts, including representatives from all branches of government, as well as from civil society and academia. The system is effective, inter alia, because it ensures there are regular meetings where governing officials must report progress to each other. Mgr Konůpka also addressed the role of the Government Agent in the improvement of cooperation and the challenges encountered in the process. He recommended that civil society advocate for the creation of similar collective structures, as creating such a structure would bring together more expertise and knowledge on the implementation process, improve visibility and transparency, and enable the effectiveness of the implementation process.

The working group to implement judgments in Slovenia

The second speaker, Dr. Simona Drenik Bavdek, Counsellor to the Ombudsman of Slovenia and Assistant Head of the Center for Human Rights, discussed about the working group set up in Slovenia. In the context of Slovenia’s improved ECtHR implementation record, she set out the two key elements to improve implementation: a strong political will and administrative capacity, explaining how there was an evolution from a political will to implement single cases to a general approach to implementation. The Intergovernmental working group set up in 2015 in Slovenia is a core coordinating body led by the Ministry of Justice – inter alia, it carries out legal analysis of each ECtHR judgment and the need for individual and general measures, coordinating with other ministries and other actors, and cooperating with the Department of Execution of Judgements. Since the system has been set up, it has enabled Slovenia to enforce ECtHR judgments more effectively. Dr. Drenik Bavdek advised civil society and NHRIs to work towards creating political will for a national systematic approach to implementation, pushing for governments to understand that implementation is their commitment and their responsibility.

Advocating for the creation of a parliamentary monitoring mechanism in Moldova

The third speaker, Ilie Chirtoaca, Legal Officer at the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova, talked about the creation of a parliamentary monitoring mechanism in Moldova. Mr. Chirtoaca discussed the efforts of Moldovan civil society which led to the creation of a Parliamentary oversight mechanism for the implementation of ECtHR judgments, under the form of a Parliamentary Sub-Committee. He discussed the key factors which made the establishing of this mechanism possible, such as the support of the legal and civil society community, the media campaign and media coverage, and the hard facts and figures used to raise awareness about the amounts of compensation paid by Moldova. Finally, Mr. Chirtoaca also spoke about the lessons learnt from the experience, emphasizing, inter alia, the need to establish good relations with the authorities, the need to be concise and convincing by ensuring that data is relied on by hard facts and figures, the importance of explaining the benefits that institutions will gain from human rights reforms and of creating alliances with other NGOs.

Parliamentary monitoring mechanisms: opportunities, challenges, and lessons-learnt

Dr. Alice Donald, Associate Professor of Human Rights Law at Middlesex University, held a presentation about Parliamentary monitoring mechanisms. Dr. Donald discussed the potential benefits of Parliamentary mechanisms, such as the possibility of holding the executive to account for action or inaction, creating space for civil society engagement, and creating a legislative framework or framework of expectations. She explains that the interdependence between different structures and institutional actions requires working with Parliamentary monitoring mechanisms. She set out key functions and principles which such bodies should have, as well as limitations of working with Parliaments. Her recommendations to civil society focused on educating Parliamentarians about their role and obligations, cultivating allies in Parliament, informing them about specific cases and non-implementation in general, intervening selectively and being persistent, with a long-term view.

Session 2: The work of European institutions in the implementation of ECtHR judgments - what should civil society advocate for?

The second session, chaired by Dr. Ramute Remezaite, EIN Board member and Implementation Lead at the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, focused on what could be done to improve the speed and effectiveness of the implementation process.

Practical steps to improve the speed and effectiveness of the execution of judgments of the ECtHR

The first speaker, Piers Gardner, Barrister and Chair of the Permanent Delegation of The Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CBBE) to the European Court of Human Rights, discussed proposals on the work of the Committee of Ministers for practical steps to improve the ECtHR implementation process.

These proposals include increasing the capacity of the CMDH by 25% by adding an extra day to their meeting; increasing the transparency of the case allocation and how the system operates; and recognizing awards of just satisfaction under national law as debts.

After Russia: reinvigorating the Convention system

The second speaker, John Dalhuisen, Senior Fellow at the European Stability Initiative, discussed the need for a shift in the perception and practice of the role of the European Court of Human Rights. Mr. Dalhuisen discussed the different functions of the ECtHR: the “watch dog” function, intended to preserve democracies, by sounding the alarm for the most serious violations; the “rescue dog” role, meant to ensure an individual justice function; the “sheep dog” function, meant to ensure the majority is heading in the right direction; and “guide dog” function, meant to serve for democratic transformation and evolution of new norms. Mr. Dalhusien argues that, today, the ECtHR is failing in these functions. The Court was intended to be a club of democracies, which relies on a culture of compliance. However, non-compliance is contagious; without a culture of compliance, the system will unravel and collapse, and the Court will lose its credibility. He discussed procedural implications of this phenomenon: the excessively long time for suspending a state as a CoE member, the impossibility of remaining a ‘club of democracies’ and insisting on making decisions through consensus, when some states are not democratic; protracted rounds of negotiation aimed at appeasing Russia. Mr. Dalhuisien proposes a new way of thinking about the Convention system, by returning to the Court’s original function as “watch-dog”.

The activities of the Council of Europe relating to the implementation of ECtHR judgments

The third speaker, Professor Dr. Başak Çalı, Chair of the European Implementation Network and Co-Director of the Centre for Fundamental Rights at the Hertie School of Governance, presented a series of proposals which have been set forward by the EIN Board to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers in May 2022. The first proposal concerns the need for increased transparency of the implementation monitoring process and engagement with civil society, inter alia, by making CM/DH hearings entirely public in exceptional cases; allowing NHRIs and NGOs to attend CM/DH hearings; communicating information about important developments in the implementation process (such as the classification of cases, or the submission of government Action Plans and Reports) to relevant litigants, NGOs and NHRIs; making the indicative timetable for when cases will be considered by the Committee of Ministers public at the earliest opportunity; establishing a practice of exchange with civil society during country visits and informing civil society in advance about which cases will be discussed during country visits. The second issue addressed was the need for increased funding for Council of Europe activities, in particular technical co-operation projects focused on the implementation of particular ECtHR judgments and also on national structural solutions to promote the implementation of judgments overall, including funding for civil society activities in this area. Other proposals concerned the creation of a special representative on the implementation of ECtHR judgments, the need for annual country-by-country assessments of the state of ECtHR implementation and national capacity in each state, and the introduction of a new sanction by the Committee of Ministers for continued non-implementation, between interim resolutions and infringement proceedings.

Involving the EU in the implementation of ECtHR judgments

EIN’s Director George Stafford set out the argument that an analysis of ECtHR non-implementation should be included into the EU annual rule of law review. He argues that non-implementation of certain ECtHR judgments is a rule of law issue (due to the nature of individual judgment), while, at the same time, overall ECtHR implementation is also a rule of law issue (due to the challenge it raises to the Courts). Furthermore, the budget conditionality mechanism would allow the EU institutions to link their assessment to real world consequences – something that the Council of Europe cannot do.

Both EU Rule of Law reporting and ECtHR implementation would be strengthened by this inclusion. EIN has been advocating for ECtHR implementation to be included in the EU rule of law review -  and calls on civil society to keep this work going, encouraging NGOs to make contributions to the EU rule of law process highlighting ECtHR non-implementation in their country.

Session 3: Strategies for promoting judgment implementation

The third session, chaired by Simon Papuashvili, Programme Director at the International Partnership for Human Rights Strategies, focused on strategies for promoting judgment implementation.

How to Nudge States Towards Implementing ECtHR Judgments

Ula Aleksandra Kos and Aysel Eybil Kucuksu, PhD fellows at the University of Copenhagen, discussed their research results on the compliance and implementation of ECtHR judgments, with a comparative focus on Slovenia, Denmark and Hungary. They drew out four “key nudges” for states to engage in ECtHR implementation: making Rule 9 submissions to the Committee of Ministers; maintaining an informal dialogue with the Committee of Ministers; carrying out a dialogue with the European Union; and carrying out mass strategic litigation. They also discussed the need to have a genuine dialogue in Strasbourg, as sometimes the Action Plans and Reports do not reflect genuine engagement on the part of the state, advising civil society actors to contextualize the measures proposed by states, to offer pragmatic solutions and to request escalations of procedure, when needed. Ms. Kos and Ms. Kucuksu also provided a comparative view of how certain “nudges” work in Slovenia and Hungary: for example, their research indicates that Slovenia is more sensitive to monetary incentives, as the higher the just satisfaction awarded is, the faster it will be paid.

Implementing Judgments Concerning Grievous Human Rights Violations During the Troubles

The second presentation of the session was held by Daniel Holder, Deputy Director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice. He discussed the advocacy efforts behind the implementation of the McKerr v. the United Kingdom judgment, which concern investigations into the deaths of the applicants’ next-of-kin in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s, either during security force operations or in circumstances giving rise to suspicion of collusion in their deaths by security force personnel; the case has been pending implementation for over 20 years. Mr. Holder discussed the constant running battle between the civil society lawyers and the state, in the context of UK’s change of direction with implementation (as in 2014, UK had unilaterally abandoned the 1998 Good Friday agreement, which had begun to bring results).

He argued that long term supervision kept mechanisms in check, allowing for the development of a replacement set of transitional justice institutions. In parallel, civil society ensured that highly credible evidence was set forward, by engaging an academic team to produce scientific evidence and by providing detailed evidence in Rule 9 submissions, and even using resurfaced evidence from archives in order to prove that the government had lied. Furthermore, building alliances, using UN mechanisms and carrying out litigation strategies (including ECtHR-based domestic litigation and work with independent lawyers on ongoing investigations) were essential aspects of the advocacy process. While the situation is difficult at the moment, the work of civil society has succeeded in squeezing out the truth in relation to what happened, and made it untenable for the authorities to state that these violations did not take place.

Session 4: Implementation of ECtHR judgments in challenging states - Lessons-learnt from Azerbaijan, Russia and Turkey

Session 4, chaired by Prof Philip Leach, Professor of Human Rights Law at Middlesex University, focused on ECtHR implementation in challenging states, bringing together into an open discussion experts on implementation in Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia.

Anar Mammadli, human rights activist and chairman of the Baku-based Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre, discussed about the difficulty to talk about ECtHR non-implementation in Azerbaijan, especially after the crackdown on media and civil society in 2013. He emphasized the continuous need to engage with the process before the Committee of Ministers and the importance for civil society organisations to do so without political repression.

Dr. Ramute Remezaite, EIN Board member and Implementation Lead at the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, discussed the two key challenges encountered in implementation work in Azerbaijan: the deep systemic absence of general political will to abide by the European Convention, and the absolute non-existence of transparency. Dr. Remezaite also highlighted that, at individual level, some traction is possible, based on the existence of a political window popping up and consistent pressure from the Committee of Ministers. Furthermore, the international arena is the only space to engage with the authorities in order to learn what their position is and what they are willing to do.

Elba Bendo, Lawyer (International Advocacy) at the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, shared her experience with the ECtHR implementation in Russia, in the context of exploring new ways of engaging at the international level with cases concerning enforced disappearances between 1999 -2006 in Chechnya. She discussed the challenged encountered – from the complete lack of political will to implement, to the ongoing oppression and fear for civil society and relatives, as well as the difficulty in responding to government Action Plans which were sporadic in detail and inconsistent. Furthermore, the time passed since the original abduction posed practical challenges in terms of searching for the victims. The strategies engaged focused on small positive steps: the applicants were engaged in the process to allow their stories to be told; the UN Committee against Torture, as well as special procedure and more diverse international institutions were engaged too; forces were joined with actors with forensic experts to demonstrate that the scientific barriers identified by Russia were not substantiated. Furthermore, a framework was built for an ad hoc humanitarian search body, and, in the context of international workshops, discussions were held with family members as to what is possible further – with a view to long-term engagement.

Dmtriy Gurin, Senior Lawyer at the Memorial Human Rights Centre, also discussed about implementation in Russia, setting out how civil society actors have been reduced in terms of human rights protection and in terms of how domestic mechanisms can be used. The European Convention, which has previously served as restraint, is now being eradicated and discredited in the public eye. In the absence of dialogue, it is difficult to understand the official position on how ECtHR implementation can continue. The judiciary does not have a consolidated position on what is currently happening - there has been a sporadic reception of ECtHR case law over the years in lower courts, but these decisions were otherwise quashed by appeal instances. Given the circumstances, the current task of civil society is to record human rights abuses and the decay of legal values in Russia. The accessibility of the Russian system is used for this purpose – as trials can serve as a platform to continue to raise uncomfortable questions before domestic courts, who are obligated to come up with arguments in response. The litigation is no longer aimed at winning and obtaining justice, but on obtaining new decisions about how the new legal order functions in their view. Mr. Gurin also argues that the lack of an external court for Russia should be addressed through a solution, and that the experience of civil society in Russia should not be in vain but should be regarded as important in other countries.

Finally, the last expert, Kerem Altiparmak, Turkey Legal Advisor at the International Commission of Jurists, addressed the issue of ECtHR implementation in Turkey. Mr. Altiparmark discussed the different strategies adopted by the government, and the investment of the authorities to give the impression that they are ECtHR complaint, for example, by submitting Action Plans and Reports very often. He argued that the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC) is at the heart of this strategy; despite the apparent consensus on the independence of the TCC and the fact that the ECtHR requires the exhaustion of this remedy, the TCC is blocking the way to Strasbourg and blocking ECtHR implementation. Most of its’ members are appointed by the president, and it ignores the entire ECtHR jurisprudence on insulting heads of state. There are currently 100 000 cases pending before the TCC, which creates a challenge for human rights defenders and lawyers.

Session 5: Workshop on communication strategies to promote structural solutions for ECtHR judgment implementation

The second day started with a workshop help by Gesine Schmidt-Schmiedbauer and Philip Doyle, Communication experts at One Step Beyond Communications. The workshop focused on making effective communication about ECtHR implementation essential, in particular by telling stories of hope, opportunity and solutions and tailoring approaches to different types of audiences. The workshop focused on concepts of “the heroine’s journey” and “hope-based communications”.





Looking forward: what can civil society do? 

The final session, chaired by Prof. Dr. Başak Çalı., brought together four keynote listeners, who had collected feedback from the audience about what civil society can do in the future to promote implementation at the national level, at horizontal level, and at international level. 

Nóra Novoszádek, Senior legal officer at the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, set forward the need for both inward looking and outward looking steps. She addressed the need to focus more on overall implementation and to advocate for implementation structures, and to build alliances and joint strategies between NGOs to facilitate implementation domestically. In this context, she emphasized the importance of ensuring that implementation structures are effective, meaningful, transparent, and that NGOs are properly involved. Ms. Novoszádek also pointed out the importance of educating and informing members of Parliament regarding implementation, as well as the need to strive to widen scope of implementation of pending judgments, and to have a proactive approach with regard to dormant cases.

George Stafford, EIN Director, also reinforced the importance of structural mechanisms for implementation, and called on participants be proactive in engaging with this idea, encouraging civil society to present this concept to funders – both individually and collectively as a group.

Dr. Ramute Remezaite pointed out the importance of supporting each other as a network and engaging with other stakeholders as well, including the media, in order to show the benefits of ECtHR implementation; she also discussed the need to explore EU advocacy points and civil avenues with regard to Eastern partnership counties.

Finally, Prof. Philip Leach set out three main issues to think about: the need to be aware of the context of implementation difficulties; the question of being ambitious and realistic at the same time about what is feasible; and the need to consider implementation as part of the whole system. He argued for the replication (everywhere feasible) of the Committee of Experts system which has been set up in the Czech Republic, involving academia, civil society, Bar associations, etc, and ensuring transparency. He also addressed the importance of positive messaging, of presenting opportunities for MPs to normalize engagement with implementation, of creating dialogue and opening up discussions and solutions which can draw states out. In challenging cases, he argued for the process to be opened up in some way – noting the importance of political theatre. He also reflected positively on the proposals of having a special representative on ECtHR implementation, and the need for smart and credible sanctions.

EIN General Assembly June 2022

/

On 23 June, EIN members gathered in Strasbourg for a General Assembly. This event took place immediately after the Conference on Non-Implementation of ECtHR judgments, which gathered more than 70 participants over 2 days. 

It was the first in-person meeting of the Network since the hybrid event organised in November 2021. 26 members came to Strasbourg, 3 joined us online, and 3 members were represented via proxy. At the meeting, major documents for the life of the Network were discussed and adopted, such as the annual accounts, and a change in the Statutes. It was also a unique opportunity for EIN members to take stock of the work achieved by the Network on advocating for the implementation of ECtHR judgments to be higher on the agenda. 

We would like to thank all EIN members for their commitment and engagement in the Network! 

 

Picture: EIN Secretariat (note: the picture was taken after the end of the meeting, and not all members who took part are present)

Conference on Systemic Non-Implementation of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights - What Can Civil Society Do?

/

About the Conference

 A key threat facing the system of the European Convention on Human Rights is the non-implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”). Of the “leading” judgments handed down from the ECtHR in the last ten years – i.e. judgments identifying structural or systemic problems – 47% remain pending implementation.

Overall, there are 1300 leading ECtHR judgments pending execution – which have been pending for an average of 6 years and 2 months. Every one of these judgments represents a human rights problem which has not been resolved. Their systemic non-implementation represents a threat to European values and the democratic way of life.

EIN sees common barriers to effective ECtHR implementation across different states, including: a lack of political will on behalf of governments; the absence of effective structures at the national level to systematically promote implementation; negative public narratives around ECtHR judgments; and a lack of significant international pressure to implement.

The Conference, organised on 22 and 23 June in Strasbourg, triggered open discussion to highlight the main barriers to ECtHR implementation, identify common solutions, and share the solutions across European civil society. To learn more about the event, go to the Conference webpage.