EIN Civil Society Briefing November 2022: France, Poland, and Turkey

/

On 28 November 2022, EIN held the latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, ahead of the 1451st Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting on 6 – 8 November 2022. The event was held in person in Strasbourg.

The Briefing focused on the following cases:

1.     The J.M.B. and others v France case concerns prison overcrowding and poor conditions of detention and lack of an effective preventive remedy. This presentation was given by Prune Missoffe, Head of Analyses and Advocacy, and Julie Fragonas, Trainee Lawyer at Observatoire International des Prisons, Section France.

2.     A. The Xero Flor W Polsce SP. Z.O.O. v Poland case concerns an infringement of the applicant company’s right to a fair hearing due to the domestic courts' failure, in the context of civil proceedings, to examine its argument that secondary legislation limiting its right to compensation was unconstitutional.

2.     B. The Reczkowicz group case concerns an infringement of the right to tribunal established by law, due to the fact that the judges of the Disciplinary Chamber in the Supreme Court that dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal against disciplinary penalty in 2019 were appointed in a deficient judicial appointment procedure involving the National Council of the Judiciary lacking independence from legislature and executive

 2.     C.  Broda and Bojara v Poland case concerns an infringement of the right to access to court on account of the premature termination of the applicants’ term of office as vice-presidents of a regional court on the basis of temporary legislation in force between 12 August 2017 and 12 February 2018, which did not allow for examination either by an ordinary court or by another body exercising judicial duties.

Marcin Szwed, Lawyer at Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, presented on these cases concerning Poland.

3.     The Opuz group v Turkey case was presented by Elif Ege, Programme Coordinator at Mor Çatı, concerning the failure of the authorities to protect women from domestic violence, despite having been reasonably informed of the real and imminent risks and threats.

Overview of the case:

The J.M.B v France case concerns the structural problem of degrading treatment suffered by 27 of the applicants, due to prison overcrowding and poor conditions in the detention centres during different periods (2006 to date). It also concerns the lack of an effective preventive domestic remedy for 31 of the applicants, where administrative interim proceedings are ineffective in practice, due to the limited scope of the judge's injunctions and the difficulties in enforcing the overcrowding and dilapidation of prisons measures. 

Observatoire International des Prisons reminded participants of the last Committee of Ministers Decisions in the case from 2021:

·      Occupancy rates in the prisons concerned demonstrate the existence of a structural problem, where the Court recommended the government to adopt general measures aimed at “guaranteeing prisoners conditions of detention that comply with Article 3, in particular by ensuring the definitive reduction of prison overcrowding”.

·      Lack of an effective domestic solution to remedy living conditions that violate human dignity, and the Court recommended the government create an effective legal remedy to put an end to the inhumanity of living conditions in prisons.

Observatoire International des Prisons provided information on recent developments concerning prison overcrowding since the Courts judgment:

o  Prison overcrowding is a worsening situation, as the occupancy rate has increased to 141.5 % since the last CM examination.

o  Degrading living conditions are exacerbated by dilapidated and unsanitary conditions

o  There is a lack of a coherent long-term strategy

o   Constructing new prisons to address prison overcrowding fails to address the structural problem.

o   Regarding the new judicial remedy: there is no assessment tool of its’ efficiency; some detainees cannot benefit from it; it is not an effective tool to remedy overcrowding;

o   Regarding the “Référé-liberté” remedy: it is not an effective remedy either, as the issues identified by the ECtHR remain: there are delays with regard to the execution of the injunctions issued and there is a failure to order sufficient measures.

Observatoire International des Prisons outlined their recommendations to participants:

  • On prison overcrowding

    • Establishing a binding prison regulation mechanism

    • Adopting a national action plan ensuring the definitive reduction of prison overcrowding

    • Discontinuing prison expansion programmes and revising budgetary priorities

  • On the new judicial remedy

    • Creating monitoring tools to assess the effectiveness of the remedy

    • Reinforcing the effectiveness of the remedy

  • On the preexisting “référé-liberté”

    • Expanding the scope of measures a judge can order

    • Reinforcing the execution procedures

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

Overview of the Case:

This case concerns an infringement of the applicant company’s right to a fair hearing due to the domestic courts' failure to examine its argument that secondary legislation limiting its right to compensation was unconstitutional. It also concerns the infringement of the applicant company’s right to a tribunal established by law due to the participation of Judge M.M. in the Constitutional Court’s panel that rejected its constitutional complaint.

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights reminded participants of the Court’s Judgment:

  • There was a violation of a right to a ‘tribunal established by law’ (Article 6 § 1 ECHR);

  • The judge was elected with a manifest breach of domestic law;

  • The violation ‘concerned a fundamental rule of the election procedure, namely the rule that a judge of the Constitutional Court was to be elected by the Sejm whose term of office covered the date on which his seat became vacant.’

  • An additional violation of Article 6: lack of justification of domestic courts for non-referring legal question to the Constitutional Tribunal

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights provided participants with recent developments in the case:

  • Unlawfully elected persons continue to participate in the Constitutional Tribunal’s panels:

    • Between 7 May 2021 and 28 November 2022 the CT issued 16 judgments (out of total 21) and 45 decisions on discontinuation of proceedings (out of total 88) in irregular panels;

    • There were 39 decisions on discontinuation of proceedings initiated by constitutional complaints issued by the CT in panels with unlawfully elected persons

  • The Constitutional Tribunal questions the legitimacy of the Court’s judgments:

    • Judgment of 24 November 2021, no. K 6/21

    • Judgment of 10 March 2022, no. K 7/21

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights outlines their recommendations for the case:

  • HFHR’s Rule 9 submission – 30 March 2022;

  • Unlawfully elected persons must be prevented from adjudication in the Constitutional Tribunal;

  • Domestic authorities must refrain from questioning the validity of the Court’s rulings;

  • The CoM should address in recommendations the problems with the status of decisions issued by irregular panels; and the prevention of external undue influence on the appointment of judges.

Relevant Documents

Overview of the Case
This case concerns an infringement of the right to access to the court on account of the premature termination of the applicants’ term of office as vice presidents of a regional court on the basis of temporary legislation in force between 12 August 2017 and 12 February 2018, which did not allow for examination either by an ordinary court or by another body exercising judicial duties

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights reminded participants of the Court’s Judgment:

  • The Court ruled that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 ECHR;

  • The applicants were completely deprived of access to court with regard to their dismissal from the office of vice presidents of courts;

  • The Minister’s decision did not contain any statement of reasons;

  • There was no available protection against arbitrary dismissals;

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights provided participants with recent developments in the case:

  • The provisions on the basis of which the applicants were dismissed are no longer in force;

  • Currently, the Minister of Justice may remove the president/vice-president of court only on specific grounds enumerated in the law:

    • gross or persistent failure to discharge the duties;

    • remaining vice-president/president in office is incompatible with the interest of administration of justice;

    • particular inefficiency of president/vice-president in exercising administrative supervision or organising works in the court or lower courts;

    • voluntary resignation of president/vice-president.

  • The Minister must consult the college of a given court and if it opposes the dismissal, the Minister must also consult the National Council of Judiciary;

  • However, the negative opinion of the NCJ is not binding on the Minister unless it was issued with 2/3 majority;

  • The Minister’s decision cannot be challenged in court.

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights outlines their recommendations for the case:

  • HFHR’s Rule 9 submission – 18 October 2022;

  • Implementation of the judgment on the general level requires the adoption of proper legislative measures;

  • There is a need for legislative change: the powers of the Minister of Justice to dismiss presidents/vice-presidents of courts must be limited in order to protect independence of the judiciary:

    • negative opinion of the NCJ should be binding on the Minister of Justice (as it was until 2017);

    • NCJ must be an independent and lawfully constituted organ;

    • limitation of the MoJ’s discretion in the appointment of court presidents will also be advisable

  • The decision of the Minister of Justice on the dismissal of presidents/vice-presidents of courts must be appealable to court;

  • Domestic authorities must refrain from questioning the validity of the Court’s rulings.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents

NGO/NHRI Communications

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (03/11/2022) following a communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR)) (18/10/2022) in the case of Broda and Bojara v. Poland (Application No. 26691/18) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)1168]

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR)) (18/10/2022) in the case of Broda and Bojara v. Poland (Application No. 26691/18) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)1139]

Reczkowicz group v Poland


Overview of the Case
This case concerns an infringement of the right to tribunal established by law, due to the fact that the judges of the Disciplinary Chamber in the Supreme Court that dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal against disciplinary penalty in 2019 were appointed in a deficient judicial appointment procedure involving the National Council of the Judiciary lacking independence from legislature and executive (violation of Article 6 of the Convention).

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights reminded participants of the Court’s judgment:

  • The Court ruled that there was a violation of a right to a ‘tribunal established by law’ (Article 6 § 1 ECHR);

  • Judges of the Disciplinary Chamber were appointed with manifest violations of domestic law;

  • Unconstitutionality of the current model of the election of judicial members of the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ);

  • NCJ is no longer an independent body;

  • The Court presented a similar approach in subsequent cases concerning unlawfully elected judges of the Supreme Court.

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights provided participants with recent developments in the case:

  • The independence of the NCJ has not been restored;

  • The Disciplinary Chamber was dissolved and replaced by the Professional Responsibility Chamber (PRC);

  • There are controversies around the PRC with regard to:

    • The procedure for the assignment of judges to the PRC;

    • 6 out of 11 judges assigned to PRC were appointed upon the request of reorganised NCJ.

  • Limited effectiveness of the procedure for verification of independence and impartiality of judges;

  • Disciplinary actions against judges who rely on the ECHR and EU standards.

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights outlines their recommendations for the case; the Committee of Ministers should call for:

  • Restoration of the NCJ independence through reform of the procedure for the election of judicial members of the NCJ.

  • Unlawfully appointed persons must not participate in adjudication of individual cases;

  • The status of judgments issued by unlawfully appointed persons must be regulated;

  • Judges who apply standards developed by the ECtHR in Reczkowicz and other judgments must not face disciplinary charges;

  • Domestic authorities must refrain from questioning validity of the Court’s rulings.

HFHR’s Rule 9 submission of 14 October 2022 is available here.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents

Overview of the Case

This group of cases concerns the failure of the authorities to protect women (the applicants or their female relatives) from domestic violence, despite having been reasonably informed of the real and imminent risks and threats (Articles 2 and 3). In the cases of Opuz, M.G. and Halime Kılıç, the Court also found that the failure to protect the women was discriminatory on grounds of gender (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3).

Mor Çatı provided an update and recommendations for individual measures in the M.G. case, after reminding participants that, in the CM’s latest decision, it had reiterated “the importance of continuing to monitor the applicants’ safety, since their former husbands are not in detention:

  • The appeal proceedings are still pending and the applicant’s ex-husband has not been detained and continues to make threats against her.

  • The national authorities should speed up the proceedings in order to ensure that the perpetrator is brought to justice effectively, and should also urgently take measures to ensure the applicant’s safety.

Mor Çatı reminded participants that, on 20 March 2021, Turkey decided to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention. In relation to the latest Action Plan, Mor Çatı stated that the existing laws are presented as general measures; however, the main issue on the ground is the lack of implementation of these laws. There are no monitoring and evaluation processes to achieve standards in the implementation of the laws and there are no any sanctions against bad practitioners.

Mor Çatı provided updated information on the following areas:

  • Barriers to justice

    • Victims hesitate to file complaints due to distrust of system, deterrent behavior of public officials, lack of information, lack of qualified free legal support, long duration of the legal procedures, lack of protection and social and psychological support during long duration of legal procedures.

  • Reasonable time to ensure that investigative procedural steps are completed

    • Taking the statement of the suspect takes up to 1 year or more.

    • The trial process: The local court proceedings takes up to 1-2 years. It can take up to 2-3 years on average to conclude appealed case decisions. It can take approximately about 2-3 more years for cases before the Court of Cassation.

  • Risk assessment

    • The Penal Code does not include a specific regulation for risk assessment in the context of domestic violence offence, these measures are only available in the Law No. 6284.

    • Prosecutor’s Offices, Criminal Courts and Family Courts fail to conduct risk assessment in respect of perpetrators who repeatedly commit violent crimes against women.

  • Implementation of arrest warrants

    • Law enforcement do not conduct an effective search to execute the arrest warrants; arrests are made if the perpetrator is found by chance.

    • Arrests for warrants are sometimes never executed and years may go by. Those who are not arrested until the statute of limitations is expired have their

      sentence repealed.

  • Non-Deterrent Effect of Sentences and de facto impunity  

    • Sentences are usually imposed at the lower limit and a discretionary mitigation (mitigation for good conduct) is applied.

    • Mitigated sentences given for the offenses of bodily harm with intent, threat and insult are usually commuted to a fine, followed by a deferment of the announcement of the verdict, as a result of which even the fine is not paid de facto.

  • Discretionary mitigation and mitigation of sentences on account of unjust provocation

    • In the case of more serious offenses where the convict has started to serve the sentence, the full term of imprisonment is not served due to the practice of conditional release; due to legal regulations such as suspension of sentence, de facto impunity takes place even when the convict has started to serve the sentence.

    • Contrary to the legal provisions, the mitigation of sentences on account of “unjust provocation” results in a significant reduction in sentences based on a

      sexist practice.

  • Grounds for impunity

    • The courts ignore less serious offenses (e.g. offense of libel) when there is more than one type of crime is inflicted by the perpetrator.

    • Court decisions are influenced by the physical appearance (e.g. well-dressed etc.) and economic class of the perpetrator.

    • It is observed that the grounds for acquittals often refer to expressions such as “defendant’s persistent denial of charges”; and the presumption of innocence is used as a legal cover-up for impunity.

Mor Çatı set out their recommendations for the implementation of the Opuz group of cases. The CM should call on the authorities to:

  • Re-become a party to Istanbul Convention.

  • Establish state-wide effective, comprehensive and coordinated policies encompassing all relevant measures to prevent and combat all forms of violence.

  • In order to ensure an effective implementation of both the Penal Code and the Law No.6284, the state should present data on the existing official complaint mechanisms, how many complaints have been filed to these mechanisms and what the results were and on monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the relevant legal framework, including the number and result of investigations towards public officers for bad practice. The statistical data should be disaggregated by gender, age, type and frequency of violence, relationship between perpetrator and survivor, geographical location and disability status.

  • Ensure that bad practices by public officials are sanctioned.

  • Facilitate for women the right to file complaints also with the police stations in their own neighborhoods rather than making mandatory referrals to specialised units such as the Bureaus of Combatting Domestic Violence and Violence Against Women.  

  • Promptly provide legal support in criminal cases to victims without administrative obstacles.  

  • Take measures to ensure that investigative procedural steps are completed within 6 months to maximum 1 year, including by taking the statement of the suspect at the investigation stage and collecting evidence or conducting an inquiry within a reasonable time if the suspect cannot be reached.

  • Provide data on the number of cases where risk assessment is conducted and detailed information on the tools used for risk assessment.

  • Provide information on how and to what extent the 2020 Circular is enforced and on sanctions for non-implementation.

  • Carry out a holistic risk assessment that includes a danger assessment, tailored specifically to cases of violence against women.

  • Take measures to ensure that arrest warrants are implemented effectively.

  • Provide data on how many arrest warrants are given, how many of them are for convicted perpetrators, how many of these warrants are executed, the mechanisms implemented to execute arrest warrants

  • Take measures (awareness-raising, training and capacity-building measures, etc.) to avoid sexist practices in the mitigation of sentences and judgments.

  • Provide information on what legislative measures are envisaged to ensure that investigations in less serious offences are initiated even in the absence of a complaint by domestic violence victim.

  • Take measures to enable effective implementation of sentences (e.g. To prevent the de facto impunity as a result of converting fines to fees.)

  • Provide data on the implementation of the recent changes in the Penal Code regarding the application of “good conduct” in cases of violence against women.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents

CoE’s High-Level Reflection Group provides Recommendations on ECtHR Implementation in its October 2022 Report

/

In October the High-Level Reflection Group of the Council of Europe published its’ report relating to the Council of Europe’s role in responding to the new realities and challenges facing Europe and the world. Among other important topics, it addresses the coherence and the effectiveness of the Council of Europe human rights protection system and the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

EIN welcomes the report, its’ prioritisation of the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the recommendations set out by the High-Level Reflection Group.

In July 2022, EIN wrote to the High Level Reflection Group to express deep concern about the current outlook for the implementation of ECtHR judgments and setting out a series of proposals to address this issue. Full details of these proposals are available in the attached document. We glad to see that many of the proposals set out by EIN are also reflected in the High-Level Reflection Group’s approach.

The High-Level Reflection group recognises that "continued efforts are needed, in particular, to address present day and future challenges" with regard to ECtHR implementation. These challenges include the increasing number of judgments delivered by the ECtHR that are pending implementation and the increasing length of time it takes for cases to be fully implemented. The report also highlights “signs of an increasing lack of compliance with the most basic human rights standards”, “which requires serious attention and more resolute action on the part of states within the collective system of the Council of Europe.”

Within this section of the High-Level Reflection Group’s Report, the Group also provide 12 recommendations on ECtHR implementation. Below, we highlight those that were contained in EIN’s call for action:

  • “Organising and maintaining a permanent dialogue with the competent national authorities, both at technical and political level and engaging, as appropriate, with independent agencies, NHRIs, legal professionals, academia or civil society.” 

    We welcome this recommendation which also falls in line with EIN’s proposal on a biennial meeting for litigators, NGOs, and NHRIs that engage in the implementation monitoring process, similar in structure to the biennial meeting organised by the European Court of Human Rights.

  • “Envisaging an increase of the Council of Europe’s co-operation and assistance capacity to support the execution of judgments of the Court, possibly by committing part of the Ordinary Budget to such activities.”

This reflects EIN’s proposal for an increase in the frequency and transparency of technical co-operation projects.

  • “Considering the issuing of graduated sanctions in cases of persistent noncompliance with a judgment by a member state.”

This approach also reflects EIN’s Recommendation to develop a procedure that lies between Interim Resolutions and the infringement procedure, which can create real and credible pressure to implement judgments.

Finally, we also appreciate the acknowledgement, in the High-Level Reflection Group’s report, that an increase of the capacities of the Department for the Execution of Judgments should be envisaged. EIN has advocated for an increase in funding for the Department for the Execution of Judgments; the problem of non-implementation is a resource issue, and adequate resources need to be allocated to this process.

We hope that the recommendations of the High-Level Reflection group can be put into action, in order to urgently address the non-implementation of ECtHR judgments.

Training Event: Implementing Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Turkey

/

On November 3rd and 4th, EIN and Netherlands Helsinki Committee co-hosted an online training event focused on Implementing Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Turkey. This two-day training aimed to equip NGOs and lawyers with knowledge of the execution process, in order to advocate for the full and effective implementation of ECtHR judgments.

The first day of the training event aimed to provide civil society organizations with an overview of NGO engagement in the ECtHR implementation process. Prof. Dr Basak Cali, EIN Chair, Professor of International law, and Director of the Centre for Fundamental Rights, Hertie School, started the event with an introduction, followed by a discussion with participants about their experiences and training expectations.

Next, the training focused on how NGOs can get involved in the ECtHR implementation process, presented by Ioana Iliescu, EIN Law and Advocacy Office and Agnes Ciccarone, EIN Programme and Finance Manager. The second presentation addressed best practices for NGO submissions, presented by Isik Batmaz, Head of the Section Department for the Execution of Judgments at the Council of Europe.

The second session, on the 4th of November, addressed (the lack of) ECtHR implementation in Turkey in the context of opportunities and challenges experienced by NGOs working on the subject in Turkey. It was introduced and moderated by Ramute Remezaite, Implementation Lead at the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre and EIN Board Member.

Ozlem Zingil, Lawyer at the Truth Justice Memory Center (Hafiza Merkezi) and Mümtaz Murat Kök, Projects and Communications Coordinator at the Media Law Studies Association (Medya ve Hukuk Çalışmaları) discussed their experiences with working on ECtHR implementation and lessons learned.

The final part focused on selected cases, with parallel breakout rooms to enable participants to discuss how to approach cases of particular interest. Participants gained new insights on how to 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. Participants then presented their findings with the rest of the group on how they would engage in the implementation process in particular cases.

We thank everyone who participated in this event and the Netherlands Helsinki Committee, who co-organised the training.

Save the Date: EIN Online Training on Implementing Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Turkey

/

The Netherlands Helsinki Committee and the European Implementation Network are pleased to announce the upcoming online training on Implementing Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Turkey. The training will take place between the 3rd and 4th of November 2022.

The online training aims to equip NGOs and lawyers so that they know how to use the Committee of Ministers judgment execution process and advocate for the full and effective implementation of ECtHR judgments. The training is structured in two working sessions each day (2.5 hours each). The first session aims to provide civil society organizations with an overview of NGO engagement in the ECtHR implementation process. The second session addresses (the lack of) ECtHR implementation in Turkey, in the context of opportunities and challenges experienced by NGOs working on the subject in Turkey. The second part of this session will focus on selected cases, with parallel breakout rooms to enable participants to discuss how to approach cases of particular interest.

Date/time

3rd of November 2022, Thursday, 15.00-17.30 TR time, and 4th of November 2022, Friday, 10.30-13.00 TR time

Registration

To apply for participation, please fill in the form HERE.

Type of Training

Webinar: Accepted participants will be provided with a link to connect to the Zoom session one week before the event

Working language

The training will be delivered in a mixture of Turkish and English language, with simultaneous interpretation.

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

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

/

On the 20th of October, EIN and the Netherlands Helsinki Committee will be hosting an event on the non-implementation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Judgments. This event is also supported by the Hertie School’s Centre for Fundamental Rights. 

The aim of the event is to highlight the critical problem with the non-implementation of ECtHR judgments. As of 1 January 2022, there are 1300 leading judgments pending implementation. Each pending case represents distinct structural/systemic human rights problems which negatively effects the protection of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. 

The event will discuss current pending cases involving political prisoners, including Alexei Navalny and Osman Kavala, and it will provide an account of what it is like to be a political prisoner despite having a judgment of ECtHR in one’s favour. The event will be an opportunity for participants to gain more information on these important issues, and to discuss the best way to promote the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

Event Details: 

Date/Time: Thursday 20th October from 17.15 to 19.00 CET (Doors at 17:00)

Location: Berlin, Germany

Chair:
Dr. Hans-Jörg Behrens, Agent of the German Federal Ministry of Justice before the European Court of Human Rights

Interventions:

The overall implementation of ECtHR judgments

Ramute Remezaite, EIN Board member, Implementation Lead at the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC)

The implementation of ECtHR cases concerning victims of political persecution:

Khadija Ismayilova, Azerbaijani investigative journalist and former political prisoner

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

The language of the event will be English.

Registration form here

The deadline to register is 12:00 CET on the 15th of October.

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

/

From 20-22 September 2022, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Minister’s Deputies will meet for their the 1443rd 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 32 cases from 19 members of the Council of Europe.

EIN members/partners, other civil society actors, lawyers and applicants have made 31 Rule 9 submissions for 17 cases under consideration. The list below sets out an overview of these submissions related to cases on the current agenda.

Overview of Submissions

Mahmudov and Agazade Group v. Azerbaijan

Violation: Violation of the right to freedom of expression, arbitrary application of the law on defamation.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-3 - 30 November - 2 December 2021

Latest Submissions:

Communication from an NGO (International Partnership for Human Rights) (19/08/2022) in the case of MAHMUDOV AND AGAZADE v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 35877/04)

Communication from an NGO (Media Rights group) (18/08/2022) in the case of MAHMUDOV AND AGAZADE v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 35877/04)

Ramazanova and others Group v. Azerbaijan

Violation: Breach of the right to freedom of association on account of the MoJ failure to respond on the applicants' requests for registration of their associations.

First examination (Standard procedure)

Latest submissions:

Communication from the applicant (08/09/2022) in the case of Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 74288/14) (Ramazanova group, 44363/02)

Communication from the applicant (17/08/2022) in the case of Abdullayev and Others v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 69466/14) (Ramazanova group, 44363/02)

Bell v. Belgium

Violation: Excessive length of civil proceedings.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-6 - June 2021

Latest Submission: Communication from an NHRI (Institut Fédéral pour la protection et la promotion des Droits Humains (IFDH)) (29/07/2022) in the case of BELL v. Belgium (Application No. 44826/05)

Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria

Violation: Eviction of persons of Roma origin on the basis of legislation not requiring adequate examination of the proportionality of the measure.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-9 - 30 November - 2 December 2021

Latest Submission: Communication from an NGO (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) (21/07/2022) in the cases of YORDANOVA AND OTHERS and IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV v. Bulgaria (Applications No. 25446/06, 46577/15)

Ilias and Ahmed Group v. Hungary

Violation: Authorities’ failure to assess the risks of ill-treatment before expelling the applicants, asylum-seekers, to a “safe third country”.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-17 - 30 November - 2 December 2021

Latest Submissions: Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Helsinki Committee) (05/08/2022) in the case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (Application No. 47287/15)

Communication from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (12/08/2022) in the Ilias and Ahmed group of cases v. Hungary (Application No. 47287/15)

László Magyar Group v. Hungary

Violation: Life sentence without parole in combination with the lack of an adequate review mechanism.

Last Examination:CM/Del/Dec(2018)1318/H46-11 - June 2018

Latest Submission: Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Helsinki Committee) (29/07/2022) in the case of LASZLO MAGYAR v. Hungary (Application No. 73593/10)

I.D. Group v. Republic of Moldova

Violation: Poor conditions of detention in facilities under the authority of the Ministries of the Interior and Justice, including lack of access to adequate medical care; absence of an effective remedy.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-19 - June 2021

Latest Submission: Communication from NGOs (Promo-LEX Association and European Prison Litigation Network (08/08/2022) in the case of I.D. v. the Republic of Moldova (Application No. 47203/06)

Tysiąc, R.R., and P. and S. v. Poland

Violation: Absence of an adequate legal framework for the exercise of the right to therapeutic abortion in the event of disagreement between the patient and the specialist doctor (Tysiac) and lack of access to prenatal test enabling to take an informed decision on whether to seek an abortion (R.R.). Failure to provide effective access to reliable information on the conditions and procedures to be followed to access lawful abortion lawful abortion (P. and S.).

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-25 - 30 November - 2 December 2021

Latest Submission: Communication from NGOs (Center for Reproductive Rights and the Foundation for Women and Family Planning) (17/08/2022) in the cases of R.R., TYSIAC and P. and S. v. Poland (Applications No. 27617/04, 5410/03, 57375/08)

Cegolea v. Romania

Violation: Discrimination related to the right to stand in parliamentary election and lack of judicial review regarding the fulfilment of an eligibility requirement that disadvantages national minority organisations not yet represented in Parliament

First Examination

Latest Submission: Communication from an NGO (Vox Mentis Foundation) (29/07/2022) in the case of Cegolea v. Romania (Application No. 25560/13)

S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. v. Romania

Violation: Non-implementation of arbitral awards ordering a State-controlled company to pay various sums to the applicant companies.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-28 - December 2021

Latest submission Communication from the applicant (12/09/2022) in the case of Omegatech Enterprises Ltd. v. Romania (Application No. 24612/07) (judgment S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. v. Romania, 20752/07) (Sacaleanu group, 73970/01)

Buntov Group v. Russian Federation

Violation: Torture inflicted in a correctional colony and lack of an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-29 - September 2021

Latest Submissions:

Communication from an NGO (European Prison Litigation Network) (22/08/2022) in the case of BUNTOV v. Russian Federation (Application No. 27026/10)

Communication from an NGO (Crew Against Torture) (01/08/2022) in the case of BUNTOV v. Russian Federation (Application No. 27026/10)

Communication from the applicant (29/08/2022) in the case of (29/08/2022) in the case of BUNTOV v. Russian Federation (Application No. 27026/10)

Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russian Federation

Violation: Criminal convictions based on an unfair trial and an arbitrary application of criminal law (violations of Articles 6 and 7).

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-26 - June 2022

Latest Submission: Communication from the applicant (02/06/2022) in the case of NAVALNYY AND OFITSEROV v. Russian Federation (Application No. 46632/13)

 Bati and Others Group v. Türkiye

Violation: Ineffectiveness of investigations against law enforcement officers in allegations of torture and ill-treatment and impunity.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-35 - September 2021

Latest Submission: Communication from NGOs (Truth Justice Memory Center, Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, and Human Rights Association) (29/07/2022)

Selahattin Demirtaş (no. 2) v. Turkey

Violation: Applicant’s arrest and pre-trial detention in the absence of reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence and for the ulterior purpose of stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate (Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5).

Last examination: CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-32 - June 2022

Latest submissions: Communication from the applicant (13/09/2022) in the case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey (No. 2) (Application No. 14305/17)

Kavala v. Türkiye

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

Last Examination:  CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-31 - June 2022

Latest Submissions: Communication from NGOs (Human Rights Watch; International Commission of Jurists; Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project) (01/09/2022) and reply from the authorities (09/09/2022) in the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (Application No. 28749/18)

Communication from the applicant (22/08/2022) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18)

Communication from the representative of the applicant (11/07/2022) in the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (Application No. 28749/18)

Xenides-Arestis Group v. Türkiye

Violation: Continuous denial of access to property in the northern part of Cyprus (individual measures and just satisfaction).

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-40 - September 2021

Latest Submissions: Communication from the applicant (29/08/2022) in the case of ORPHANIDES v. Turkey (Application No. 36705/97) (Xenides Arestis group, 46347/99)

Communication from the applicants (13/09/2022) in the cases of Demades, Diogenous and Tseriotis, Epiphaniou and Others, Evagorou Christou, Hadjiprocopiou and Others, Iordanis Iordanou, Lordos and Others, Ramon, Rock Ruby Hotels LTD, Saveriades, Skyropiia Yialias LTD and Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (Applications No. 16219/90, 16259/90, 19900/92, 18403/91, 37395/97, 43685/98, 15973/90, 29092/95, 46159/99, 16160/90, 47884/99, 46347/99)

Communication from the applicant (13/09/2022) in the case of LOIZIDOU v. Turkey (Application No. 15318/89) (Xenides Arestis group, 46347/99)

McKerr v. the United Kingdom

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(2022)1436/H46-35 - June 2022

Latest Submissions:

Communication from an NGO (Relatives for Justice) (01/09/2022) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95)

Communication from an NGO (The Malone House Group) (31/08/2022) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95)

Communication from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (16/08/2022) in the MCKERR group of cases v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95)

Communication from an NHRI (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission) (08/08/2022) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95) and reply from the authorities (22/08/2022)

Communication from an NGO (Committee on the Administration of Justice) (29/07/2022) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95)

Communication from an NGO (Relatives for Justice) (02/06/2022) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95)

EIN Civil Society Briefing September 2022: Republic of Moldova, Turkey, Hungary and Croatia

/

On 16 September 2022, EIN held the latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, ahead of the Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting on 20-22 September 2022. The event was held in person in Strasbourg.

The Briefing focused on the following cases:

1. I.D. v. the Republic of Moldova concerns poor material conditions of detention in establishments under the authority of the Ministries of the Interior and Justice and the lack of access to adequate medical care (including specialised medical treatment) in these facilities and the detention facility of the National Anticorruption Centre, together with the absence of effective domestic remedies in both respects (violations of Articles 3 and 13). Vadim VIERU, lawyer at Promo-LEX presented key positive developments, key shortcomings, key facts on the ground, and set forward recommendations.

2. The Skendzic and Krznaric v Croatia group of cases concern violations of the right to life on account of the lack of effective investigations into war crimes committed during the Croatian Homeland War (1991-1995) against the applicants’ next-of-kin who disappeared or were killed (violations of Article 2 in its procedural limb). Vesna TERSELIC, Director of Documenta - Center for Dealing with the Past, and Ms. Milena Čalić JELIC, Legal Advisor, discussed ongoing concerns regarding the promptness and adequacy of war crimes investigations, and set forward recommendations.

4. Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary, concerns the authorities’ failure to comply with their procedural obligation under Article 3 to assess the risks of ill-treatment before removing the two asylum-seeking applicants to Serbia in 2015. Andras LEDERER, Senior Advocacy Officer at the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, discussed domestic legal instruments in force leading to repeated violations, Action Reports, and how these translate to the reality on the ground, setting forward recommendations.

3. Selahattin Demirtas (no.2) v Turkey, which concerns the 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; and unforeseeable lifting of parliamentary immunity and subsequent criminal proceedings to penalise the applicant for political speech. The case was briefed on by Benan MOLU and Ramazan DEMIR, legal representatives of Mr Demirtas.

I.D. v the Republic Moldova

Overview of the case:

The I.D. group of cases concerns violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention on account of poor material conditions of detention in establishments under the authority of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Ministry of Justice and the lack of access to adequate medical care (including specialized medical treatment) in those facilities, as well as the detention facility of the National Anti-corruption Centre, together with the absence of effective domestic remedies in both respects, as well as the implementation of the effective preventive and compensatory remedy, or a combination of remedies, in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. Other violations found by the Court concern the lack of reasonable clarity as to the scope and manner of the exercise of discretion by the prison authorities as regards the authorization of family visits, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention.

Photo Provided by Promo-LEX

Promo-LEX raised several concerns in relation to the new compensatory mechanism, which are related to:

  • The capacity of the investigative judges to apply the new preventive and compensatory remedy;

  • Risks of misinterpretation of the provisions of laws Nos 163 and 272;

  • A Non-uniform interpretation concerning the pecuniary compensations; the efforts implemented by the authorities to further reduce overcrowding, including through reduced recourse to detention on remand, as well as the construction of a new prison and medical assistance in prisons.

Regarding the efforts to reduce overcrowding, concerns were raised as to the following aspects:

  • prison population rate remains stable in the Republic of Moldova; no prisoner has been released to prevent the spread of COVID-19;

  • authorities failed to develop and adopt policies to reduce overcrowding in prisons by applying release mechanisms due to the COVID-19 pandemic;

  • authorities failed to apply measures to release from detention vulnerable groups of prisoners (such as prisoners with chronic diseases, prisoners over 60 years old, etc.) to reduce overcrowding in prisons and respectively, the COVID-19 associated risks.

Promo-LEX also set out concerns regarding the construction of a new prison, for which the implementation deadline was delayed since 2017 until December 2022, and regarding medical assistance in prisons, noting, inter alia, that:

  • The prison hospital does not comply with the national standards of a medical institution, does not have a health authorization for operation, does not have accreditation for the provision of medical services;

  • The prisoners' right to health is violated due to inadequate treatment, lack of medical staff and noncompliance with national treatment protocols and standards;

  • In the prison nr. 16 there is a lack of medical staff, in the staff states there are no nurse positions, these functions are performed by the detainees. Most medical workers agree to work due to military-grade incentives, which results in higher monthly incomes and faster retirement.

Recommendations:

With regard to the implementation of the preventive and compensatory mechanism, Promo-LEX set forward the following recommendations:

  • The Government to continue to provide statistics to the Committee of Minister's data as to the application in practice of the newly adopted preventive and compensatory remedy;

  • The Supreme Council of Magistracy to ensure that the Investigative Judges respect the terms set by law for examining the cases related to the application of the preventive and compensatory mechanism;

  • Ensure that the practice of the application by the investigative judges of the new remedy is effective and the pecuniary compensation (moral and material) provided to the detainees is equitable and following the ECtHR standards;

With regard to the improvement of detention conditions, Promo-LEX recommended that:

  • The National Prison Administration should implement the recommendations given by the CPT after its last visits during the period of 2015 – 2020, like reducing the levels of violence and reducing the overcrowding in cells;

  • The Government should ensure living space under existing international norms;

  • The Government should improve the quality and quantity of food and water provided to detainee;

With regard to the construction of a new prison, Promo-LEX recommended that:

  • Until the new prison is constructed, the Government should reduce overcrowding, particularly through the wider application of non-custodial measures as an alternative to imprisonment, in the light of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (Tokyo Rules);

  • The Ministry of Justice to provide a detailed timetable for the construction of the new prison in Chișinău and information on its general layout (overall capacity; size and design of accommodation cells; facilities for out-of-cell association activities, including areas for educational and vocational training, workshops, facilities for outdoor exercise and sport, etc.)

With regard to medical assistance in prison, the following recommendations were set forward:

  • The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health, Labor and Social Protection should follow the recommendations given by UN Committee for Prevention of Torture and the recommendations made under the UPR and develop a public policy ensuring the transfer of health workers subordinated to the National Prison Administration under the subordination of the Ministry of Health;

  • The Government should provide appropriate and effective medical care of prisoners and detained persons, including adequate medicines;

  • The Government should ensure the recruitment of qualified medical personnel;

  • The Government should increase the budget allocated for health care in penitentiary institutions, including by developing the capacities and the infrastructure of the Pruncul Prison Hospital – P 16;

  • The Government and parliament should take prompt action to reduce the prison population in conditions allowing effective implementation in detention of the preventive measures required by WHO.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents

Skendzic and Krznaric v Croatia

Overview of the case:

The group of cases concerns the lack of effective investigations into war crimes committed during the Croatian Homeland War (1991-1995) against the applicants’ next-of-kin who disappeared or were killed (violations of Article 2 in its procedural limb). The European Court found the following shortcomings in these investigations:

  • lack of promptness due to inexplicable delays and absence of serious efforts to establish the identity of the perpetrators;

  • lack of adequate investigations on account of:

    • (i) the authorities’ failure to identify and bring the direct perpetrators to justice (only members of the superior chain of command were brought to justice, while the authorities were also under the obligation to identify and bring to justice those who were directly responsible for the killing of the applicants’ next-of-kin);

    • (ii) the authorities’ failure to follow all available leads capable of identifying and bringing perpetrators to justice;

    • (iii) the examination of the circumstances surrounding the killing of the applicants’ next-of-kin remained at the level of a police inquiry, excluding involvement of an investigating judge, despite the existence of a large number of direct witnesses;

  • lack of independence in investigations which were entrusted to police stations employing officers suspected of being involved in the disappearance/killings.

Documenta - Center for Dealig with the Past raised the following key concerns:

  • There has been a decrease in the number of prosecutions and trials following EU accession;

  • Responsible County State attorneys are still lacking capacity for reviewing and investigating dormant war crimes cases;

  • Proceedings hold bias towards ethnic Serbs and there is failure in effectively investigating and indicting perpetrators of war crimes against ethnic Serbs;

  • In absentia trials are creating a high risk of re-opening proceedings;

  • Very limited regional judicial cooperation regarding prosecution of war crimes;

  • Accounting on missing persons is not updated since 2015;

  • The UN Special Rapporteur on Truth, Justice, Compensation and Guarantee of Non-Repetition notes the rise of political interference in the prosecution of war crimes.

The decrease in the number of prosecutions and trials since EU accession was recently highlighted by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence, who has noted that:

  • “progress appears to have stalled in the last 7 years and concerns have risen regarding the prospects of effective social reconciliation, particularly as a result of growing instances of hate speech, the glorification of war crimes, and the relativization of the decisions of the ICTY and national tribunals.”

  • […] “progress was particularly strong in the 90’s and in the early 2000s during Croatia’s process of accession to the European Union. Numerous stakeholders have informed, nonetheless, that the number of prosecutions and trials has significantly decreased since, as did the regional cooperation in this field. Political interference has also reportedly risen.”

  • “Despite earlier progress, cooperation in the region has slowed down hampered by the lack of exchange of information and evidence across borders (which has been described by several interlocutors as a trade on missing persons) as well as the lack of effective investigation and prosecution of war crimes.”

It was indicated that the lack of adequacy and promptness of criminal proceedings is reflected in practice, and several examples were given:

  • The annulment and retrial in the case against Branimir Glavaš, former Member of Croatian Parliament Investigations of war crimes committed in Uzdolje in 1995

  • The investigation into war crimes committed in Bogdanovici in November 1991 Crimes committed during and after the Military Operations „Storm“ and „Flash“

  • War crimes committed against Serb civilians in Vukovar

  • Substantial reduction in the number of final verdicts reached in absentia.

  • Research carried out by Documenta and the Center for Peace, Nonviolence and Human Rights Osijek also indicated that, due to procedural issues “hearings very often start from the beginning, so witnesses who have already been directly heard multiple times are called to testify again”.

Regarding the insufficient capacity of state attorney teams to process cases, Documenta highlighted the limited capacity of county prosecutor’s offices to secure investigation of dormant cases which had been allocated in 2011.

Another concern is the fact that very few proceedings have been initiated for crimes committed by perpetrators against ethnic Serbs, which indicated that the investigations are not impartial irrespective of the ethnicity of those involved:

  • Of the total number of monitored criminal proceedings, during 2020, 40 (91%) were against members of Serbian paramilitary units/Yugoslav People's Army

  • During 2021 there were 38 (90%) of such proceedings

  • Only 1 person indicted as a member of HVO (Croatian Council of Defence – BiH) between 2020 - 2021

  • The UN Special Rapporteur on Truth, Justice, Compensation and Guarantee of Non-Repetition has also noted that “Proceedings have also been criticised for holding a bias towards ethnic Serbs. In this connection, international human rights mechanisms expressed concern that the selection of cases apparently remained disproportionately directed against ethnic Serbs and le noted that according to representatives of victims’ associations, many crimes allegedly committed by members of the Croatian Army and police forces in 1995 had not been investigated or prosecuted.”

The effectiveness of war crimes investigations is affected by the high number of in absentia trials which creates a high risk of overturning decisions:

  • During 2020 and 2021, 86% of former members of Serbian paramilitary formations/Yugoslav People's Army were tried in absentia.

  • For 2020 - 2021, 19% of the proceedings were reopened

  • The UN Special Rapporteur on Truth, Justice, Compensation and Guarantee of Non-Repetition has also noted that “Several of the proceedings conducted earlier on have faced criticism due to the fact that they have been conducted in absentia, as the alleged perpetrators resided in countries from where they could not be extradited. Some persons who were convicted in absentia requested the reopening of their proceedings, which resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of final verdicts reached in absentia.”

The limited regional cooperation is also a concern, which was highlighted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Truth, Justice, Compensation and Guarantee of Non-Repetition and by the chief prosecutor at the UN’s International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals in The Hague, who recently stated that:

  • Croatia is “taking political decisions to block the justice process” in 1990s war crimes cases.

  • “in the former Yugoslavia, the most significant issue remains regional judicial cooperation” in war crimes cases.

  • Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia “are experiencing severe difficulties obtaining cooperation from Croatia”.

Documenta also highlighted concerns regarding the judicial review of criminal investigations, highlighting that the Constitutional Court remedy has been effective for granting compensation (but not for seeing the effective investigations take place), as well as concerns regarding accounting for missing persons.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Recommendations:

Documenta - Center for Dealing with the Past recommended to the Committee of Ministers to:

  • Continue examining the Skendizc and Krznaric group of cases under enhanced procedure;

  • Request the national authorities to accelerate the processing of pending cases, and to reverse the trend of decreasing prosecutions and trials;

  • Ensure that investigations, prosecutions and trials are carried without without ethnic bias (regardless of the ethnicity of the perpetrators and victims);

  • Take steps to increase regional cooperation, exchange of information and evidence across borders and take all necessary efforts to ensure in person trials.

  • Put an end to any political interference in the investigation, prosecution and trials of war crimes;

  • Update the accounting on missing persons and ensure it is accessible to the public;

  • Increase the capacity of county prosecutor’s offices in Osijek, Rijeka, Split and Zagreb to process “dormant cases”.

Relevant Documents

Photo Provided by Hungarian Helsinki Committee

Overview of the case:

The case of Ilias and Ahmed concerns the authorities’ failure to comply with their procedural obligation under Article 3 to assess the risks of ill-treatment before removing the two asylum-seeking applicants to Serbia in 2015. The Court found in particular that “there was an insufficient basis for the government’s decision to establish a general presumption concerning Serbia as a safe third country”, that “the expulsion decisions disregarded the authoritative findings of the UNHCR as to a real risk of denial of access to an effective asylum procedure in Serbia and summary removal from Serbia to North Macedonia and then to Greece, and that the authorities exacerbated the risks facing the applicants by inducing them to enter Serbia illegally instead of negotiating an orderly return”.

On behalf of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Andras Lederer discussed the general presumptions concerning the safety of Serbia as a third country and the legal instruments in force. He also highlighted the fact that the government does not foresee any change.

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee highlighted the fact that automatic removals to Serbia continue. The State Borders Act prescribes the automatic removal of unlawfully staying foreigners to the Serbian side of the border fence without identification, individualised procedure, formal decision or contacting the Serbian authorities. Concern also also raised regarding “access” to asylum:

• Sections 267-275 of the Transitional Act introduces a pre-approval system against which no remedy is available;

• Since May 2020, 86 statements of intent were sent to the asylum authority, 12 of these were approved;

•Those fleeing Ukraine who do not fall under the temporary protection scheme are also sent to Serbia;

• Regular denial of access to asylum on the territory, related domestic court decisions sabotaged or not implemented

Recommendations

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee recommend that the Committee of Ministers request information from the authorities concerning:

• The state of play of the reform of the asylum system allegedly underway since at least 20 October 2020, especially how it will contribute to the implementation of the general measures identified in the judgment

• Until the introduction of this reform, how authorities discharge their duties under Article 3 in the framework of the embassy system in cases where prospective applicants are staying in Hungary

Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers should request the authorities to:

• Conduct a new assessment on the situation of asylum-seekers in Serbia

• Repeal Section 51(2)(f) of the Asylum Act and review the related amendment to the Fundamental Law

• Repeal Section 5(1)(b) of the State Borders Act

• Amend Section 51(2)(e) and Section 51/A of the Asylum Act to ensure that the „safe third country” concept is applied in cases where the third country ensures access to territory and procedure

• Take measures that ensure effective access to territory and procedure at the borders and on the territory of Hungary regardless of their migratory status.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents

Selahattin Demirtaş (no.2) v Turkey

Overview of the case:

The Court found that the applicant was detained in the absence of evidence to support a reasonable suspicion he had committed an offence (violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3) and that his arrest and pre-trial detention especially during two crucial campaigns pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to stifle pluralism and limit freedom of political debate (violation of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5); that lifting of the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and the way the criminal law was applied to penalise the applicant for political speeches were not foreseeable and prescribed by law (violation of Article 10) and that his consequent detention made it effectively impossible for the applicant to take part in the activities of the National Assembly (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1).

The briefing particularly focused on the Government’s argument that “new pieces of evidence” that had not been examined by the ECtHR have emerged and that the substance of the allegations against Mr. Demirtaş is now different.

The applicant’s legal representatives, explained that:

  • The charges against the applicant have not changed in substance

  • Witness/anonymous witness statements have not contained any substantially new facts capable of justifying a new suspicion and the substance of these statements had been based on facts that were similar or even identical to those that the Court had already examined in the Demirtaş v. Türkiye (no. 2) [GC] judgment.

  • The witness statements:

    • are contradictory, inconsistent and false,

    • their content and accusations essentially concern the events of 6-8 October and that Demirtaş is a member of/executive for a terrorist organisation—all of which have been carefully assessed and discussed in the Grand Chamber judgment,

    • are added to the case file approximately 2.5, 3.5, 17, 29, 32 and 33 months after the pre-trial detention decision and are used as tools to keep the applicant in prison.

  • Mr Demirtaş has not been released and has been held in pre-trial detention almost six years;

  • Türkiye have not acted in ‘good faith’, in a manner compatible with the ‘conclusions and spirit’ of the Demirtaş judgment (see also Osman Kavala v. Türkiye [GC], (46/4), para. 173).

The legal representatives of Mr. Demirtaş also explain the ongoing judicial harassment against the applicant:

  • ´4 years and 8 months prison sentence for allegedly ‘making propaganda for a terrorist organization’ (referred to as the second set of proceedings before the Committee of Ministers) – used as a tool to prevent the applicant’s release despite the ECtHR judgment and to prevent his participation in any election which may be held prior to 2026;

  • ´Following decisions of conviction, acquittal, separation and joinder of cases in 47 cases filed against the applicant, 20 cases remain pending under different courts;

  • ´New indictment prepared for the dissolution of the HDP and the political ban on politicians including the applicant – The Constitutional Court may prohibit Mr. Demirtaş from becoming the founder or member of any political party for five years;

  • ´Stigmatized as "terrorist" and "murderer" with the statements of high-level public officials'';

  • The Constitutional Court has not delivered any judgment for the application related to the second pre-trial detention of the applicant since 7 November 2019.

Recommendations

The applicant’s legal representatives urged the Committee of Ministers to:

i. continue the supervision of the implementation of the judgment Selahattin Demirtaş v. Türkiye (no. 2) [GC], as individual measures to ensure the applicant’s release and acquittal and other measures that will provide restitio in integrum have not been fulfilled;

ii. request the Government of Türkiye to release Mr Demirtaş immediately;

iii. request the Government of Türkiye to take measures compatible with the Grand Chamber judgment and to drop all the charges brought against the applicant together with the removal of all other negative consequences of the constitutional amendment;

iv. urge the Constitutional Court of Türkiye to conclude, without delay and in line with the Grand Chamber judgment, the individual applications which are listed between paragraphs 23 and 25 of our Rule 9.1 submission dated 17 May 2021;

v. examine the applicant’s situation at each regular and human rights meeting of the Committee until such time that he is released;

vi.invite the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, member states and international human rights organisations to raise the case and the ongoing judicial harassment faced by the applicant in diplomatic talks between members of the Council of Europe and Türkiye;

vii. write a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Türkiye to urge the Government to fully execute the Grand Chamber judgment;

viii. underline that the continuing detention of Mr. Demirtaş constitutes a violation of Article 46 of the Convention on the binding nature of final judgments of the ECtHR which may trigger Article 46/4 of the Convention.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents

EIN concerned about litigation against the Greek Helsinki Monitor

/

Photo Credit: EIN

EIN expresses concern about the charges and upcoming trials concerning Panayote Dimitras. Mr Dimitras is the co-founder and spokesperson of the Greek Helsinki Monitor (“GHM”), which is an EIN member. 

Part of the work of the GHM involves reporting to the Greek authorities instances of public incitement to violence or hatred against certain groups. GHM seeks to carry out this work in-line with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights and EU legislation.

As a result of GHM’s complaints or complaint reports, various prosecutors have pressed charges in more than 150 cases, from which more than 80 were referred to trial. A worrying trend has developed of charges being brought against Mr Dimitras and GHM because of this work.

In February, EIN issued a public statement expressing concern over ‘false accusation’ charges brought against members of GHM. GHM staff had made the authorities aware of highly concerning public comments made by a Bishop, that GHM and the Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece viewed to be antisemitic. The authorities pressed charges against GHM for making these reports – a step which was condemned by many international human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Nevertheless, Mr. Dimitras and Ms. Gilbert were convicted at first instance to a suspended imprisonment of twelve months. The trial on appeal is scheduled for 2023.  

EIN is concerned to see that more litigation has been started against Mr Demitras due to his work in reporting allegedly racist statements. He is now facing three new trials for false accusation and aggravated defamation. All three result from complaint reports submitted by Mr Dimitras between 2017 and 2019, highlighting public statements made by two politicians (Kostas Katsikis and Christos Kalyviotis) and a media figure (Yannis Zouganelis), that Mr Dimitras considered to be racist.

These proceedings risk having a chilling effect on Greek civil society, preventing work which seeks to highlight and condemn racist statements. The prosecution of Mr Dimitras is of great concern for EIN, raising important questions about the use of sanctions to punish and silence legitimate human rights work. 

EU takes up EIN/DRI proposals on the rule of law reports

/

Last week the EU Commission published its 2022 Rule of Law Report. The report reviews the state of the rule of law in all 27 EU member states.

Together with Democracy Reporting International (DRI), the European Implementation Network has been leading calls for the EU’s rule of law reporting to take into account the non-implementation of judgments from the two key European courts: the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. A joint campaign by EIN and DRI has included a series of submissions to the EU’s rule of law consultation process, blogging, public events, private briefings, and the publication of a report ‘Justice Delayed and Justice Denied: Non-Implementation of European Court Judgments and the Rule of Law’.

We argued that the non-implementation of judgments of the European Courts has become a systemic problem. Some 37.5% of the leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) relating to EU states from the last ten years are still pending implementation. Each of these judgments relates to a significant or structural problem in the laws or practices of states, often with direct consequences for many citizens. This amounted to a serious rule of law problem: both because the subject-matter of the judgments included rulings concerning the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and the right to fair trial; and because the implementation of judgments is inherently a rule of law issue, which is fundamental to a system of checks and balances. If governments are able to exercise power without the limits placed upon them by courts - for instance, by ignoring court judgments - then the rule of law does not exist.

The joint report from EIN and DRI, published April 2022

In response to this, we proposed that the EU rule of law reports take into account the overall levels of implementation of leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In order to facilitate this, we developed a methodology to assess ECtHR judgment implementation, taking into account three elements: the overall number of leading judgments pending implementation against a state; the percentage of leading judgments from the last ten years pending against a state; and the average length of time that leading judgments had been pending implementation. We applied this methodology to analyse the situation in all 27 EU member states, publishing the outcome in a joint report with DRI in April 2022.

Last week we were very pleased to see that the EU Commission has taken up our proposals. The communication concerning the 2022 reports notes the importance of the implementation of ECtHR judgments to the rule of law.

“The track record of implementing leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is also an important indicator for the functioning of the rule of law in a country. The country chapters therefore for the first time include systematic indicators on the implementation of ECtHR leading judgments by all Member States.”
— Communication from the EU Commission on the 2022 Rule of Law Report

Each of the 27 country chapters includes an assessment of the overall levels of implementation of ECtHR judgments in the state concerned. These assessments apply our methodology of analysing three data points about the implementation of leading judgments, citing the contribution from EIN.

We welcome this development in the EU Commission’s rule of law reporting, hoping that it enhances both the EU’s rule of law procedures and the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. We are grateful to the EU Commission for its open engagement on this issue – and to the MEPs who have supported this campaign, including Katerina Barley, Sophie in 't Veld, and Thijs Reuten.

Our project was made possible through the generous support of the Stiftung Mercator Foundation.