New Report: Implementing Judgments Of The European Court of Human Rights Concerning Domestic and Gender-Based Violence

/

EIN has released a new publication titled “Implementing Judgments of The European Court of Human Rights Concerning Domestic and Gender-Based Violence” on May 17th 2022. The project was launched last year and is supported by Luxembourg’s Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs.

Domestic and gender-based violence is a common and widespread problem across the Council of Europe region and beyond. Globally, 30% of women aged 15 and older have been subjected to physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence, non-partner sexual violence, or both at least once in their lifetime.

We highlight the value of the European Court of Human Rights judgments, and the potential that pending cases have in pushing governments to carry out wide-ranging reforms to combat and prevent domestic and gender-based violence. However, the judgments are only the beginning of the road to justice – they require implementation at the national level for rights to become a reality. Implementing human rights judgments requires individual measures, providing justice for the victim, and general measures requiring reforms in law/practices that prevent similar violations from recurring. Reforms to implement general measures are essential to address the factors contributing to the perpetuation of domestic and gender-based violence.

The key to the effective implementation of ECtHR judgments concerning domestic and gender-based violence is both proactive and good faith engagement of all key stakeholders in the implementation process. If national authorities, the Council of Europe, and civil society take an active role in implementation, these judgments can turn into rights for all.

We thank Luxembourg’s Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs for their support, without which we would not be able to make this report happen.

We hope that this report will highlight the potential of ECtHR judgments in ensuring that these judgments lead to change through training and assisting civil society from across Europe. 

More information about the project via our news publication here.

Read our interview on TM and CM v Moldova with Violeta Andriuța from Women's Law Centre concerning domestic violence, which highlights the fact that VAW is a repetitive issue and incremental reform is needed to address it.

EIN Board writes to the CoE Secretary General and Committee of Ministers to call for action on the implementation of ECtHR judgments

/

The following letter was sent from the EIN Board to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the members of the Committee of Ministers.

Dear Secretary General and Ministers of the Member States of the Council of Europe,

We are writing an open letter to you in our capacity as the Board of the European Implementation Network (“EIN”). EIN is a Strasbourg-based network of 38 civil society organisations and individuals from 25 European states, dedicated to the full and timely implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”).

At the end of this week, the conference of Ministers of Council of Europe states will be held in Turin. With this in mind, we are writing because EIN is deeply concerned about the current outlook for the implementation of ECtHR judgments – and as a result, the whole system of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). This message sets out the following:

1.      There is a critical problem with the non-implementation of ECtHR judgments.

2.      The current state of non-implementation has very serious negative effects for the protection of democracy, human rights and the rule of law – threatening the existence of the ECHR system itself.

3.      The Council of Europe is failing to carry out a strategy capable of addressing the issue, apparently due to budgetary constraints.

4.      The Council of Europe should formulate an effective public strategy to address the systemic non-implementation of ECtHR judgments – and ensure it is properly resourced.

1.      There is a critical problem with the non-implementation of ECtHR judgments.

“Leading” judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are those which are classified by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe as revealing a structural and/or systemic problem with human rights in a state. For example, if the European Court of Human Rights finds a systemic/structural problem with judicial independence, freedom of expression, or torture – and this problem has not been already identified in a case pending implementation – then the judgment becomes “leading”. In order for “leading” cases to be implemented, national authorities are required to carry out steps to address the underlying systemic/structural problem.

As of 1 January 2022, there are 1300 leading judgments pending implementation. Each of these represents a distinct structural and/or systemic human rights problem. This number has been rising, meaning that the problem with non-implementation is getting worse.  

Moreover, the average time that the 1300 leading judgments have been pending implementation is over six years. Furthermore, 47% of the leading ECtHR judgments from the last ten years are still pending implementation.

The data indicates that there is a systemic problem with the implementation of leading judgments of the ECtHR and that the situation is becoming more serious every year.

 

2.      The non-implementation problem has very serious negative effects for the protection of democracy, human rights and the rule of law – threatening the existence of the ECHR system itself.

The European Convention on Human Rights was created in the aftermath of World War II, as an early-warning system to identify and halt, amongst other things, the re-emergence of totalitarianism. Under the Convention system, the ECtHR would provide an objective analysis of whether a country’s laws and policies violated fundamental values, under the Court’s interpretation of the ECHR. The collective monitoring of the execution of judgments by the Committee of Ministers was further envisaged to bring peer pressure on countries that have been found to violate the Convention.

The ECHR system is designed not only to identify violations of human rights, but also to remedy them. The non-implementation of leading ECtHR judgments means that this system is not working effectively.

It is important to note that this issue is not confined to a particular country, or a particular part of the continent. The non-implementation of ECtHR judgments is a problem that is manifest across the entire Council of Europe. According to the Council’s latest annual report on the execution of ECtHR judgments, a total of 27 states have 10 or more leading judgments pending implementation: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, North Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

In total, there are 1300 human rights problems identified by the ECtHR in leading judgments which have not been resolved. The most important aspect of the non-implementation of the 1300 pending leading judgments is that they threaten not only the protection of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, but the existence of the ECtHR itself. Failing to resolve the human rights problems identified in leading judgments means that the same violations keep happening, and more applications come to the Strasbourg Court. There are now around 70,000 applications pending examination before a judicial formation at the ECtHR. The re-occurrence of violations and the resulting avalanche of applications is directly linked to the non-implementation of judgments.

One of the many examples of this urgent problem has been the non-implementation of judgments by  Russian Federation. Russia has the highest number of unimplemented leading ECtHR judgments out of any state. 214 leading judgments against Russia have never been implemented. This includes 90% of the leading judgments against Russia from the last ten years. Leading judgments from the ECtHR have highlighted the unlawful jailing of opposition figures, systematic bans on freedom of assembly, censorship, and limitless government surveillance. However, the Russian authorities have not remedied these systemic issues. These measures have been relied upon by the Russian authorities to prevent and quash public opposition to the invasion of Ukraine.

 

3.      The Council of Europe is failing to carry out a strategy capable of addressing the issue, apparently due to budgetary constraints.

At the meeting of the Committee of Ministers in Hamburg in May 2021, the Committee endorsed the strategic framework for the Council of Europe put forward by the Secretary General, for the period 2021-2024. The number one priority in the strategic framework is the implementation of the ECHR at national level and the implementation of ECtHR judgments.

However, one year after ECtHR implementation became a top strategic priority, it is not clear that this has also resulted in the identification of means which are capable of addressing the problem (such as those we set out below in section 4).

The part of the Council of Europe which is chiefly responsible for the implementation of ECtHR judgments is the Department for the Execution of Judgments. According to the Programme and Budget for 2022-2025, the department’s budget will stay the same in real terms as compared to 2021. The fact that there is a lack of much-needed additional resourcing for the Department  is recognised in the Council of Europe’s 2021 Annual Report on the Supervision of the Execution of Judgments of the ECtHR. In the report, the Director General of the Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law, Christos Giakoumopoulos, notes that the Department for the Execution of Judgments is vital to the implementation process, and that, “For this reason, its resources, which are already extremely strained, need to be urgently strengthened” (page 32). These resources have not been strengthened and we have seen no plan to do this.

In terms of technical co-operation projects, the 2022-2025 budget identifies only one project to address the non-implementation of leading judgments (“Reducing the backlog of outstanding unexecuted leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”). This project has not received any funding from the ordinary budget and will rely on voluntary contributions (which may or may not arrive). Even if it is resourced, it will have a maximum budget of 1.3 million euros per year. This budget is too small to promote the implementation of 1300 leading judgments in 47 states. A Council of Europe project aiming to promote the implementation of just a few judgments in one state normally runs to hundreds of thousands of euros per year (see this example).

In terms of the work in standard-setting, the CDDH working group DH-SYSC V is currently preparing guidelines for states “to prevent and remedy violations of the European Convention on Human Rights” – including guidance on effectively implementing judgments of the ECtHR. They are due to be delivered before the end of 2023. These new guidelines are  welcome;  however, they will not be capable of addressing the implementation problem on their own. There have already been recommendations from the Committee of Ministers on this subject, which have not proved capable of preventing the implementation problem from worsening. For example, “Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)2 on efficient domestic capacity for rapid execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights” is named by DH-SYSCH V as one of 13 different recommendations and guidelines previously published by the Council of Europe concerning the prevention of violations of the Convention at the national level and the improvement of domestic remedies (see page 10 of the recent meeting report). Without more activities from the Council of Europe, including increased resources for the Department for the Execution of Judgments and dedicated co-operation projects, the new guidelines will remain theoretical and will not be put into practice where they are needed most.

Overall, there is an absence of a well-resourced implementation strategy that the ECHR system desperately needs. 

 

4.      The Council of Europe should formulate an effective public strategy to address the systemic non-implementation of ECtHR judgments – and ensure it is properly resourced.

If it has not already done so, the Council of Europe must formulate a strategy that is capable of addressing the systemic non-implementation of ECtHR judgments; publish this strategy; and ensure that it is adequately resourced.

EIN has drafted a series of recommendations that would promote the implementation of ECtHR judgments, which are provided in the attached document. Key proposals include:

·        Significant increases in funds for the Department for the Execution of Judgments;

·        A significant increase in technical co-operation projects focused on ECtHR implementation;

·        A special representative on the implementation of ECtHR judgments;

·        A new sanction by the Committee of Ministers for continued non-implementation;

·        Increased transparency of the implementation monitoring process and engagement with NHRIs/NGOs; and

·        Annual country-by-country assessments of the state of ECtHR implementation and national capacity in each state. 

Any credible strategy would require political will and financial resources commensurate with the scale of the problem. 

Effective implementation of the ECtHR’s judgments will reap huge benefits for the protection of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law; the preservation and strengthening of a common European legal space; and ultimately protecting European security by preventing the rise of authoritarianism. Conversely, continued systemic non-implementation presents grave challenges to Europe’s core values.

The European Court of Human Rights is often described as the “jewel in the crown” of the Council of Europe and its protections for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.

It is time for the Council of Europe to protect this jewel, if it is to be preserved for future generations.

 

Signed by the EIN Board, composed of:

Chair of EIN Professor Başak Çalı, Co-Director of the Centre for Fundamental Rights, Hertie School of Governance, Berlin

Vice-Chair of EIN Professor Philip Leach, Professor of Human Rights Law at Middlesex University, London

Treasurer of EIN Dr Krassimir Kanev, Director of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee

Secretary of EIN the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, represented by Marcin Szwed

Vice Secretary of EIN, Ramute Remezaite, Head of Implementation at the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre

Vivien Brassoi, Legal Director, European Roma Rights Centre, Hungary

Christian De Vos, Director of Research and Investigations, Physicians for Human Rights and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Political Science, Columbia University

Panayote Dimitras, Founder and Spokesperson of the Greek Helsinki Monitor

Ecaterina-Georgiana Gheorghe, Executive Director, Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania (APADOR-CH)

Judgment Watch, represented by Professor Malcolm Langford, Professor of Public Law at the University of Oslo

Kristina Todorovic, Attorney at law at the Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights (YUCOM), Serbia

 
Discover EIN’s proposals for the work of the Council of Europe on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights here.

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

/

The European Implementation Network (EIN) and Democracy Reporting International (DRI) are delighted to present “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.

Over the past few years, governments, media and citizens have become increasingly alarmed about the backsliding of fundamental European values. This has led to a series of policy measures designed to halt and reverse the trend. In 2020, the European Commission adopted a new annual rule of law review cycle - and in a separate process, structural funds have been withheld as a result of its negative rule of law assessments. 

With the rule of law becoming an issue of sanctions and hard political controversy, the situation of the rule of law in EU member states should be correctly and exhaustively understood. A missing piece in this puzzle of rule of law shortcomings is the non-implementation of judgments of two key European courts: the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. 

The non-implementation of judgments of the European Courts has become a systemic problem. 37.5% of the leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights relating to EU states from the last ten years have not been implemented. Each of these judgments represents a significant or structural problem, often with direct consequences for many citizens. And yet, authorities have not implemented them.    

At the same time, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is facing increasing contestation. Non-implementation of CJEU judgments is a recurring phenomenon with the EU Member States ignoring CJEU’s judgements since its inception. Yet, the resistance against the Luxembourg-based court has increased in recent years, with courts and governments in EU Member States openly challenging the top body of the EU’s judiciary. 

The EU’s response to the rise of democratic and rule of law backsliding is at an important stage of development. This is a key time to ensure that it is as effective as possible. We hope that this report will help put the implementation of European Courts’ judgments firmly inside the EU’s rule of law agenda, to be seen as an essential requirement of all European states. 

Joint Publication Event: Non-Implementation of European Court Judgments and the Rule of Law

/

On Tuesday, 19 April at 11 am, the European Implementation Network (EIN) and Democracy Reporting International (DRI) will publish a joint report on the Non-Implementation of European Court Judgments and the Rule of Law. We will be launching the publication with a live online panel discussion event. You can register for our launch event here.

The panel will focus on the non-implementation of European court judgements, the impact on the rule of law in the EU, and possible solutions for the problem within the EU’s rule of law review cycle. The panellists include: Mr Florian Geyer, Head of Unit, Justice policy and rule of law, European Commission, Ms Sophia in ’t Veld MEP (Renew/The Netherlands), and Mr Christophe Poirel, Director of Human Rights, Council of Europe. Mr George Stafford, Director of EIN, will present the report - and the debate will be moderated by Mr Jakub Jaraczewski, Research Coordinator Rule of Law, DRI. 

Over the last few years, the governments, media and even citizens have become aware of the backsliding of fundamental European values in various countries. The European Union (EU) has adopted a series of policy measures designed to halt and reverse the trend. In 2020, the European Commission adopted a new annual rule of law review cycle. The EU institutions also introduced targeted measures, such as withholding structural funds from countries with severe infringements of the rule of law.

While targeted measures make sense for the extreme cases where governments destroy institutions of the rule of law in a systematic manner, we believe that the annual rule of law review cycle should also capture longer-term problems with the rule of law across all Member States, such as the non-implementation of judgments of two key European courts – the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereafter, “the European Courts”).

The non-implementation of European Court judgments has become a systemic problem. 37.5% of the leading ECtHR judgments from the last ten years concerning EU countries have not been implemented. Each of these represents a significant or structural problem, often with direct consequences for many citizens. The non-implementation of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgments is also a recurring issue. In recent years, resistance against the Luxembourg-based court has increased, with courts and governments in the EU Member States openly challenging it.

The EU’s response to rule of law challenges is at a crucial moment. We hope that this report will help put the implementation of European Court judgments firmly inside the EU’s rule of law agenda.

EIN Training for Turkish Lawyers

/

Last week EIN held an in-person training session on effective advocacy for the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, for the Media and Law Studies Association, as well as senior lawyers from various Bar Associations in Turkey. This training was held at the European Youth Centre Strasbourg on 25 March.

The training allowed participants to learn more about the work of EIN, gain a deeper understanding of the implementation process, and understand how best to engage in it.

We thank MLSA and Freedom House for co-organising this training and all the participants for attending. We look forward to reading your submissions in the future. 

More Info on MLSA and their trip to Strasbourg here.

Resources:

EIN Publications: https://www.einnetwork.org/ein-publications 

EIN Handbooks: https://www.einnetwork.org/ein-handbooks 

Join EIN: https://www.einnetwork.org/partners

Be sure to email us for more information on our training: contact@einnetwork.org.

Photo Credit: EIN

Overview of EIN Civil Society Briefing March 2022

/

On the 3rd March 2022, EIN held a civil society briefing for Permanent Representatives of the Council of Europe, ahead of the Committee of Minister’s Human Rights Meeting on 8-10 March 2022.

The Briefing focused on the following cases: 

  1. M.A. v. France, presentation by Paul Chiron, in charge of legal support at La Cimade.

  2. Tsintsabadze v. Georgia, presentation by Tamar Oniani, Head of the International Litigation Team at the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) and Tamar Abazadze, Head of Analytical Department at the Public Defender Office (PDO)

  3. Ramazanova and others v. Azerbaijan, presentation by Nora Wehofsits, International Advocacy Officer, Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF), and Anar Mammadli, Co-Founder and Senior Advisor, Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Center (EMDS). The NGOs are calling, in their rule 9.2 Communications, for having it moved from the standard procedure to the enhanced procedure.

  4. Lashmankin and others v. Russia, presentation by EIN Director, George Stafford.

M.A. v France

The case concerns the enforcement on 20 February 2015 of a removal order against the applicant, an Algerian national, who was sentenced in 2006 in France to seven years’ imprisonment and to permanent exclusion from French territory for terrorism-related acts.

Overview of the Briefing

La Cimade reminded participants of the European Court of Human Rights judgments in finding the following violations :

  • Article 3, in particular with regard to the applicant’s profile, who was not merely suspected of having links with terrorism but had actually been convicted in France for serious acts of which the Algerian authorities were aware. The Court considered there was a genuine and serious risk that, if detained, he would be exposed to treatment contrary to that provision.

  • Article 34, with regard to the fact that authorities had deliberately and irreversibly reduced the level of protection of Article 3 by creating conditions making it very difficult for him to apply to the Court, and because French authorities violated interim measures.

La Cimade outlined ongoing issues:

Violation of Article 3

  • Non-suspensive procedure

    • French authorities developed a special procedure but it is non-applicable to a lot of cases with a similar profile to M.A. This non-suspensive procedure jeopardizes the necessary examination of the risks of mistreatment and torture.

  • Failure to take into account convictions on the basis of Article 3

    • There have been several ECtHR cases concerning France about the examination of risks of torture and mistreatment. However, French authorities never took real measures to avoid new similar violations.

Violation of Article 34

  • New Interim measures have been disregarded and violated:

    • Example: N. B. and other v. France (49775/20), refusal to release a family in deportation center despite the interim measure.

  • New expulsions have been organized to deliberately and irreversibly reduced the level of protection of Article 3

    • Examples:

      • M.G. v. France (48932/20), the applicant was arrested the night before his expulsion despite refugee quality and older IM

      • M.I. v. France. (24486/21), the applicant was arrested the night before his expulsion

      • D.O. v. France (58627/21), the applicant was arrested at the 9:30 and a flight was scheduled to 19:25

 La Cimade recommends to the Committee of Ministers: 

  • To continue monitoring the implementation of M.A. v. France under enhanced procedure;

  • To debate the case again before the end of 2022;

  • To ask France to implement legislative reforms to guarantee the suspensive nature of all asylum applications, as well as the suspensive nature of any appeal against decisions determining the country of return;

  • To ask France to guarantee that a reasonable period of time is given to the person to submit a request for an interim measure to the ECtHR.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Information

CM Decisions

1406e réunion (DH), 7-9 juin 2021 - H46-10 Groupe M.A. c. France (Requête n° 9373/15) [CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-10]

1362e réunion (DH) décembre 2019 - H46-7 Groupe M.A. c. France (Requête n° 9373/15) [CM/Del/Dec(2019)1362/H46-7]

1340 réunion (DH) mars 2019 - H46-6 Groupe M.A. c. France (requête n° 9373/15) [CM/Del/Dec(2019)1340/H46-6]

1331 réunion (DH) décembre 2018 - H46-38 M.A. c. France (Requête n° 9373/15) [CM/Del/Dec(2018)1331/H46-38]

1324 réunion (DH) septembre 2018 - H46-28 M.A. c. France (Requête n° 9373/15) [CM/Del/Dec(2018)1324/H46-28]

NGO/NHRI Communications

1428e réunion (mars 2022) (DH) - Règles 9.2 et 9.6 - Communication d'une ONG relative à l'affaire M.A. c. France (requête n° 9373/15) et réponse des autorités (28/01/2022) [french only] [DH-DD(2022)134]

Tsintsabadze v Georgia

This case concerns the lack of effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment or violations of the right to life; excessive use of force by the police in the course of arrest and/or while detaining suspects.

Overview of the Public Defender’s Office Briefing

The PDO outlined four important issues relevant to the execution of the case:

  1. Abolition of the State Inspector's Service

    Instead of strengthening the independence and effectiveness of the SIS, on the contrary, on 30 December 2021, the Georgian Parliament adopted a bill abolishing the Service and dismissing State Inspector and her Deputies. These recent changes to the SIS are counter to the commitments taken by the Government of Georgia before the CM.

  2. Separation of Prosecutorial and Investigative Functions

    The current proposed legislative amendments fail to ensure the independence of the State Inspector’s Service from the Prosecutor’s Office, do not grant the Service authority to make a decision on carrying out important investigative actions independently from the prosecutor, fail to respond to the aim of the reform of separating the investigative and prosecutorial functions

  3. Informal rule in penitentiary establishments and lack of investigation

    Similar to the previous years, managing penitentiary establishments by resorting to the informal rule remains a serious challenge in terms of protecting prisoners from violence. Administrations of penitentiary establishments delegate powers to informal leaders (the so-called watchers) and rule the establishments informally.

4. Deficiencies in detecting and documenting ill-treatment

The faulty practice of identifying and documenting incidents of alleged violence in Penitentiary system is still maintained despite positive developments indicated by the Government in its latest action plan.

The PDO’s Recommendations in order to effectively implement Tsintsabadze Group cases:

Taking into account a completely unprecedented case of abolition of an independent state body - the SIS -, we urge the CM to adopt an Interim Resolution and urge the Government of Georgia to introduce solid guarantees for institutional, hierarchical and practical independence of the Special Investigation Service, which became operational on 1 March, 2022. 

To the Government of Georgia:

  • With the view of addressing the problem of the criminal underworld and its informal rule in penitentiary establishments, to develop a strategy for overcoming the criminal underworld; 

  • Ensure uninterrupted audio and video recording of questioning of arrested persons in several police agencies in a pilot mode;

  • Install CCTV systems everywhere in police departments, divisions and stations where an arrested person or a person willing to give a statement has to stay.

  • Take into consideration the opinion of the State Inspector’s Service concerning the draft law related to separation of investigative and prosecutorial powers which was submitted by the Government of Georgia to the Parliament of Georgia.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Overview of the GYLA’s Briefing

GYLA reminds participants of the 3 key problems at the national level, from their communication to the CM:

  1. The abolition of the State Inspector’s Service (SIS) in December 2021;

    • On December 30, 2021, the Georgian Parliament, in a peremptory manner, without previous consultations with the SIS and/or other stakeholders, including civil society, and despite sharp criticism from local civil society organizations and Georgia’s partner states, adopted legislative amendments according to which the State Inspector’s Service is abolished in its current form and two new offices are created, which will be responsible for protecting personal data and investigating crimes against law enforcement.

  2. The strengthening of the criminal subculture in the penitentiary establishments;

    • Increased influences of the criminal subculture in penitentiary institutions endanger the physical and psychological inviolability of prisoners, and, remarkably, the prosecutor’s office usually does not respond appropriately or effectively to crimes committed by criminal subcultures and the employees of penitentiary institutions. This undermines the principle of the rule of law, and puts a group of prisoners in danger - those who are not a part of the criminal underworld.

  3. The national legislation’s failure to preclude granting an amnesty or pardon by State officials who are responsible for grave human rights violations.

    In September, the Amnesty Law was adopted with regards to June 20 cases. The application of an amnesty to state agents who have committed violations of inhuman or degrading treatment (regardless of whether they are properly qualified as crimes at the national level) is itself contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, as it will preclude the investigation into such crimes and lead to impunity of those accountable. Such an outcome makes the safeguards generated by the prohibition of ill-treatment illusory and will have a chilling effect on those individuals considering exercising their peaceful enjoyment to freedom of assembly.

GLYA’s Recommendations for the execution of general measures:

The authorities should ensure the independence of the Special Investigation Service (legal successor institution of SIS in the field of investigation). They should provide it with the mandate to eradicate:

  • The lack of jurisdiction regarding high-ranking officials and the prosecutor’s office;

  • The problems related to its investigative jurisdiction;

  • The continued control of the Prosecutor’s Office over the investigation process and its exclusive power to conduct the prosecution;

  • The lack of authority to conduct investigations into certain categories of crimes; and

  • The problems related to the unhindered access of the State Investigation Service staff to penitentiary institutions and temporary detention facilities.

  • All necessary measures should be carried out in a timely manner to reduce the level and influence of criminal underworld and tackle ‘informal governance’ in Georgian prisons, including with the engagement of civil society and other stakeholders. To that end, a plan and strategy should be developed, which will provide for detailed measures to be taken by the state. Furthermore, the number of prison employees should be increased, and they should be provided with appropriate continuing education for their professional and educational development.

  • Legislative changes should be made, which would in future preclude granting an amnesty or pardon to State officials who are held to be responsible for grave crimes committed against life and health, as well as torture, inhuman treatment, and punishment.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Information

CM Decisions

1390th meeting (1-3 December 2020) (DH) - H46-10 Tsintsabadze group v. Georgia (Application No. 35403/06) [CM/Del/Dec(2020)1390/H46-10]

1362 meeting (DH) December 2019 - H46-8 Tsintsabadze group v. Georgia (Application No. 35403/06) [CM/Del/Dec(2019)1362/H46-8]

1324 meeting (DH) September 2018 - H46-6 Tsintsabadze group v. Georgia (Application No. 35403/06) [CM/Del/Dec(2018)1324/H46-6]

NGO/NHRI Communications

1428th meeting (March 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender of Georgia) (21/01/2022) in the case of Tsintsabadze group v. Georgia (Application No. 35403/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)142]

1428th meeting (March 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) and European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC)) (21/01/2022) in the case of Tsintsabadze group v. Georgia (Application No. 35403/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)141]

1390th meeting (December 2020) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender’s Office of Georgia) (23/10/2020) in the TSINTSABADZE group of cases v. Georgia (Application No. 35403/06) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)991]

1390th meeting (December 2020) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) and European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC)) (20/10/2020) concerning the case of TSINTSABADZE GROUP v. Georgia (Application No. 35403/06) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)944]

 

This case concerns violations of the right to freedom of association on account of the failure of the authorities to apply properly the national legislation regulating the registration / the dissolution of the associations. In particular, the repeated failure, of the Ministry of Justice to take a definitive decision, or to respond within the statutory time-limits, amounted to de facto refusals to register the associations.

Overview of the Briefing

HRHF and EMDS reminded participants of the current situation and ECtHR findings:

  • Currently under standard supervision

  • 6 judgements address arbitrary prolongation of registration procedure for associations

  • No sufficient grounds to dissolve associations

  • Repeated registration refusals, problems to receive legal status or grants/financial donations

  • Domestic law on registration unclear and open to interpretation

HRHF and EMDS reminded participants of the General Measures that still need to be actioned:

  • Duty of the Government of Azerbaijan to take remedial measures for improved compliance with the time-limits imposed by the State’s own law.

    • No evidence in the relevant cases.

  • Allegedly heavy workload no excuse for infringements of procedural requirements of domestic law.

  • Domestic law must delimit precisely the circumstances in which sanctions could be applied.

  • NGO Act to provide procedural safeguards against the risk of abuse & arbitrariness.

  • Procedure for conducting inspections by the MoJ on period of time should be prescribed by law.

EMDS outlines to participants the current state of affairs in Azerbaijan:

  • Freedom of association violations <-> legislative framework of NGO operation in the country

  • Quality of the law allows state interference and misuse in implementation

  • Entirety of the laws + legislation: interdependent, unified tool for persecution

  • NGO registration + reporting requirements, power of the MoJ to supervise/monitor/control work of NGOs

  • Disintegration of financial independence & sustainability of NGOs. Limits to grant giving donors. No international civil society donor registered.

  • High fines for breach of operational requirements

  • Intimidation of NGOs - atmosphere of fear and insecurity

  • Situation aggravated by enforcement mechanisms allowing action against undesirable associations.

HRHF and EMDS made the following recommendations to the CM:

  • Move Ramazanova group of cases from standard to enhanced supervision procedure.

  • Ask Azerbaijan to amend domestic legislation regulating NGOs, international & donor organizations

  • Address continuous & systemic freedom of association violations in Azerbaijan by:

    • Abolishing current procedures for registering NGOs/grants/donations, replacing it with a simple notification procedure

    • Removing burdensome requirements for registration + operation of international donors

    • Facilitating access to funding for NGOs by removing prior approval process for international donors

    • Repealing disproportionate & punitive sanctions for violations of domestic legislation

    • Safeguarding freedom of expression & assembly of NGOs

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Information

NGO/NHRI Communications

1406th meeting (June 2021) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Human Rights House Foundation, Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Center, Legal Education Society, Women’s Association for Rational Development) (03/05/2021) in the case of RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 44363/02) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2021)507]

1406th meeting (June 2021) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (International Partnership for Human Rights) (23/04/2021) in the case of RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 44363/02) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2021)462]

Lashmankin & others v Russia

This case concerns different violations mainly related to the right to freedom of peaceful assembly (reactions to notifications of planned assemblies, reactions to peaceful assemblies, unlawful arrests).

Overview of the Briefing

EIN outlined the background of the legal situation in Russia for participants:

  • No authorisation under Russian law for spontaneous assemblies which are not pre-approved 

  • Huge restrictions on pre-approval of assemblies

  • Punishments for participation in non-approved assemblies:

  • Administrative prosecution, including arrests, detention, very high fines

  • For multiple participations, criminal liability

  • Persecution of civil society working on freedom of assembly

  • September 2021: OVD-info declared a “foreign agent” – including for work on Rule 9 submissions

  • December 2021: authorities blocked OVD-Info’s website

  • December 2021: authorities ordered liquidation of Memorial International and dissolution of HRC Memorial 

EIN provides the following recommendations from various NGO submissions:

CM to request the Russian Federation to:

  • Make spontaneous assemblies lawful

  • Abolish criminal liability for multiple unauthorised assemblies

  • Abolish administrative arrests for unauthorised assemblies; reduce fines 

  • Liberalise procedure of approval of assemblies 

  • Regularly update CM with information on a number of assemblies approved and unapproved, and consequences

  • Issue Interim Resolution 

  • Consider the case at every CM/DH meeting

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Information

 

Overview of Rule 9 Submissions in view of the Committee of Ministers' Deputies Human Rights Meeting March 2022

/

From 8-10 March 2022, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Minister’s Deputies will meet for their quarterly Human Rights Meeting. This meeting will examine several judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that are still pending implementation. The agenda consists of 43 cases from 21 members of the Council of Europe.

36 EIN members/partners, other civil society actors, lawyers and applicants have made the following submissions for 21 cases under consideration. The list below sets out an overview of these submissions related to cases on the current agenda.


Overview of Submissions

SHARXHI AND OTHERS v. Albania (Application No. 10613/16) 

Violation: Demolition of the applicants’ flats and business premises in disregard of an interim court order restraining the authorities from taking any action that could breach property rights 

Last Examination: First examination - Case under standard procedure

Submissions:

 Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (17/01/2022) in the case of Sharxhi and Others v. Albania (Application No. 10613/16)  

SEJDIC AND FINCI v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (Application No. 27996/06)  

Violation: 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.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-7 - November - December 2021

Submissions:

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Minority Rights Group International) (13/01/2022) in the case of SEJDIC AND FINCI v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (Application No. 27996/06)

United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others group v. Bulgaria (Application No. 59491/00)

Violation: Unjustified refusals by the courts to register an association aiming at achieving "the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria".

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-9 - June 2021

 Submissions:

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Bulgaria Helsinki Committee) (21/01/2022) in the UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria (Application No. 59491/00) and reply from the authorities (04/02/2022) [anglaisuniquement] [DH-DD(2022)135-rev]

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicants (10/02/2022) in the cases of UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS, Vasilev and Society of the Repressed Macedonians in Bulgaria Victims of the Communist Terror and Macedonian Club for EthnRadonov v. Bulgaria (Applications No. 59491/00, 23702/15, 67197/13) [Anglaisuniquement] [DH-DD(2022)185]

 M.A. GROUP v.  FRANCE (Application No. 9373/15)

Violation: Expulsion to Algeria in presence of a real and serious risk of ill-treatment (M.A.) and failure to comply with the Court’s interim measure (M.A. and A.S. cases). 

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-10 - June 2021

Submissions:

Règles 9.2 et 9.6 - Communication d'une ONG relative à l'affaire M.A. c. France (requête n° 9373/15) et réponse des autorités (28/01/2022)

MOUSTAHI v. FRANCE (Application No. 9347/14)

 Violation: Detention and rapid return of two foreign unaccompanied minors from Mayotte to the Comoros, without an examination of their individual situation

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-11 - June 2021 

Submissions:

Règle 9.2 - Communication d’une INDH (Défenseur des droits - République Française) (27/01/2022) relative à l'affaire Moustahi c. France (requête n° 9347/14) [French only] [DH-DD(2022)186]

Règle 9.2 - Communication d’une ONG (Groupe d'information et de soutien des immigré-e-s (GISTI)) (17/01/2022) relative à l'affaire Moustahi c. France (requête n° 9347/14) [French only] [DH-DD(2022)123]

Règle 9.2 - Communication d’une ONG (La Cimade) (17/01/2022) relative à l'affaire Moustahi c. France (requête n° 9347/14) [French only] [DH-DD(2022)122]

MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA (Application No. 72508/13)

Violation: Failure of the domestic courts to give sufficiently reasoned decisions for the continued pre-trial detention of the applicant, a former Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, and use of the pre-trial detention during this period by the Chief Public Prosecutor for the illegitimate purpose of pressuring the applicant into providing information on matters unrelated to the criminal case against him.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-13 (September 2021)

Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (20/01/2022) in the case of Merabishvili v. Georgia (Application No. 72508/13) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)137]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender of Georgia) (20/01/2022) in the case of Merabishvili v. Georgia (Application No.72508/13) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)136]

 TSINTSABADZE GROUP v. GEORGIA (Application No. 35403/06)

Violation: Lack of effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment or violations of the right to life; excessive use of force by the police in the course of arrest and/or while detaining suspects.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1390/H46-10 (December 2020)

 Submissions:

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender of Georgia) (21/01/2022) in the case of Tsintsabadze group v. Georgia (Application No. 35403/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)142]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) and European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC)) (21/01/2022) in the case of Tsintsabadze group v. Georgia (Application No. 35403/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)141]

 NISIOTIS v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08)

Violation: Prison overcrowding and other poor conditions in prison and lack of effective remedy.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1390/H46-11 - December 2020

Submissions:

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hellenic League for Human Rights) (27/01/2022) in the case of NISIOTIS v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08)

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Hellenic Action for Human Rights “Pleiades”) (31/01/2022) in the case of NISIOTIS v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08) and reply from the authorities (04/02/2022)

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Hellenic League for Human Rights) (13/01/2022) in the case of NISIOTIS v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08) and reply from the authorities (21/01/2022)

BAKA v. HUNGARY (Application No. 20261/12)

 Violation: 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.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-16 - September 2021

 Submissions:

Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Amnesty International) (28/01/2022) in the case of BAKA v. Hungary (Application No. 20261/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)158]

SZABO AND VISSY v. HUNGARY (Application No. 37138/14)

 Violation: Absence of sufficient guarantees against abuse in legislation on secret surveillance.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2017)1302/H46-14 - December 2017

Submissions:

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Civil Liberties Union) (26/01/2022) in the case of SZABO AND VISSY v. Hungary (Application No. 37138/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)157]

ABU ZUBAYDAH v. LITHUANIA (Application No. 46454/11) 

Violation: Various violations related to the secret detention and "extraordinary rendition” of the applicant. As a result, the applicant is exposed to continued arbitrary detention and ill-treatment at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-21- September 2021

 Submission:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (21/01/2022) in the case of Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania (Application No. 46454/11) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)114]

AL NASHIRI GROUP v. POLAND (Application No. 28761/11)

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: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-24 - September 2021

Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (21/01/2022) in the cases of AL NASHIRI and HUSAYN (ABU ZUBAYDAH) v. Poland (Applications No. 28761/11, 7511/13) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)113

SĂCĂLEANU GROUP[1] v. ROMANIA (Application No. 73970/01)

 Violation: Failure or substantial delay in the enforcement of final domestic judicial decisions against the State and State-owned enterprises

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-23 - March 2021

Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant in the case of Omegatech Enterprises Ltd. v. Romania (Application No. 24612/07) (judgment S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. v. Romania (No. 20752/07) (Sacaleanu group (73970/01) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)145]

LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS GROUP v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Application No. 57818/09+)

Violation: Different violations mainly related to the right to freedom of peaceful assembly (reactions to notifications of planned assemblies, reactions to peaceful assemblies, unlawful arrests).

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-29 - June 2021

 Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (18/01/2022) in the case of Razvozzhayev v. Russia and Ukraine and and Udaltsov v. Russia (Application No. 75734/12) (Lashmankin group, 57818/09) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)94]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre de la protection internationale) (24/01/2022) in the case of Lashmankin group v. Russia (Application No. 57818/09) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)138]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from 11 NGOs (18/01/2022) in the case of Lashmankin and Others v. Russian Federation (Application No. 57818/09) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)126] 

TOMOV AND OTHERS GROUP v.  RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Application No. 18255/10) 

Violation: Transport of detained in poor conditions.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-28 - March 2021

Submissions:

 Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre de la protection internationale) (24/01/2022) in the case of Tomov and Others v. Russia (Application No. 18255/10) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)139]

OAO NEFTYANAYA KOMPANIYA YUKOS v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Application No. 14902/04)

Violation: Violations concerning tax and enforcement proceedings brought against the applicant oil company, leading to its liquidation in 2007.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-33 - September 2021

 Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (25/01/2022) in the case of OAO NEFTYANAYA KOMPANIYA YUKOS v. Russian Federation (Application No. 14902/04) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)118] 

KAVALA v. TURKEY (Application No. 28749/18)

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-38 - November-December 2021

Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (27/01/2022) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)130]

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (24/01/2022) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)110]

ÖNER AND TÜRK GROUP v. TURKEY (Application No.51962/12), NEDİM ŞENER GROUP (Application No. 38270/11), ALTUĞ TANER AKÇAM GROUP (Application No. 27520/07), ARTUN AND GUVENER GROUP (Application No. 75510/01), and IŞIKIRIK GROUP (Application No. 41226/09)

Violation: 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.

Last Examination:

CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-35 - June 2021

CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-34 - June 2021

Submissions:

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Media and Law Studies Association (Medya ve Hukuk Çalışmaları Derneği - MLSA) (17/01/2022) in the Altug Taner Akcam, Nedim Sener, Isikirik, Oner and Turk and Artun and Guvener groups v. Turkey (Applications No. 27520/07, 38270/11, 41226/09, 51962/12, 75510/01) and reply from the authorities (25/01/2022) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)116-rev]

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği (İFÖD – Freedom of Expression Association)) (19/01/2022) in the case of Isikirik v. Turkey (Application No. 41226/09) and reply from the authorities (25/01/2022) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)127]

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği (İFÖD – Freedom of Expression Association)) (19/01/2022) in the case of ARTUN AND GUVENER v. Turkey (Application No. 75510/01) and reply from the authorities (25/01/2022) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)120]

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (22/12/2021) in the case of Dickinson v. Turkey (No. 25200/11) (Artun and Guvener group) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)17]

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (22/12/2021) in the case of Dickinson v. Turkey (No. 25200/11) (Artun and Guvener group, 75510/01) and reply from the authorities (03/01/2022) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)17-rev]

SELAHATTİN DEMİRTAŞ (No 2) v. TURKEY (Application No.14305/17)

Violation: Unjustified detention of the applicant without reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence, with the ulterior purpose of stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate; unforeseeable lifting of parliamentary immunity and subsequent criminal proceedings to penalise the applicant for political speech.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-39 - November-December 2021

Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (12/01/2022) in the case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey (no. 2) (No. 14305/17) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)63]

 KAVERZIN v. UKRAINE (Application No. 23893/03), AFANASYEV GROUP v. UKRAINE (Application No. 38722/02), and BELOUSOV v. UKRAINE (Application No. 4494/07) 

Violation: Ill-treatment/torture by police and lack of effective investigations.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-35 - March 2021

Submission:

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group) in the case of KAVERZIN v. Ukraine (Application No. 23893/03) and reply from the authorities (09/02/2022) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)167]

McKERR GROUP UNITED KINGDOM (Application No.28883/95)

 Violation: Actions of security forces in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s; failure to conduct Article 2 - compliant investigations.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-44 - November-December 2021

 Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (16/02/2022) in the case of KELLY AND OTHERS v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 30054/96) (MCKerr group, 28883/95) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)215]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Relatives for Justice) (04/02/2022) in the case of MCKERR group v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)217]

EIN Statement Following Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

/

EIN expresses its solidarity with our members, partners, colleagues and friends in Ukraine. Our thoughts are with them, their families, and all the people of Ukraine.

The act of aggression committed by Russia against Ukraine not only undermines the prohibition of use of force under the UN Charter, but also the object and purpose of the Council of Europe. All human rights fall victim to aggressive use of force, armed conflict and occupation.

On 25th February 2022, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe held that Russia had seriously violated the Statute of the Council of Europe through its act of aggression in Ukraine and voted to suspend Russia’s rights of representation in the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. EIN welcomes this necessary step.

The Russian Federation continues to be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and is subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. It is also still bound to implement judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that are pending implementation. In the event that the Russian Federation withdraws or is expelled from the Council of Europe, it will still be bound by existing judgments pending implementation. 

The Russian Federation should immediately cease hostilities in Ukraine and provide reparations for all unlawful acts it has committed. 

EIN Chair Professor Başak Çalı

February 2022 Training: NGOs and NHRIs on their role in supporting ECtHR implementation

/

Last week, EIN hosted a training seminar in Strasbourg on raising awareness and educating NGOs, NHRIs, and professional organisations on their role in supporting the implementation of ECHR judgments.

The training started with a presentation of the objectives of the seminar and a round table discussion between participants led by George Stafford, EIN Director.

Next, the focus shifted to NGOs and NHRIs and how they can participate in the supervisory process concerning the execution of ECtHR judgments, which contributes to protecting the rule of law in the EU. Geanina Munteanu, lawyer at the Department for the Execution of Judgments, Council of Europe, provided participants with useful insights into the supervision process of ECtHR judgments, a participatory process in which NGOs and NHRIs have their place.

The following session enabled participants to listen to testimonies by other NGOs on their respective involvement in the execution of ECtHR judgments.  Dr. Nóra Novoszádek, Senior Legal Officer, Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Hugues de Suremain, Litigation Coordinator, European Prison Litigation Network, and Dr. Krassimir Kanev, Director, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, shared their experience with their colleagues.

After lunch, attendees were divided into break out groups to discuss how to approach the process of the execution of ECHR judgments in practice. This activity was composed of real cases currently pending implementation and how participants would/could best engage with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Participants gained new insights on how to proper draft submissions and strategies to have maximum impact on the execution process of a judgment and, ultimately, to contribute to better protection of human rights in the EU.

The training concluded with a presentation by Agnès Ciccarone, Programme Manager, on mistakes NGOs should avoid when drafting their submissions.

Thank everyone who participated in the training, especially those who presented and accepted to moderate breakout sessions , and we look forward to reading your future submissions.

Photo Credit: EIN

EIN would also like to thank the city of Strasbourg for co-funding this event.