EIN Concerned by Further Persecution of Panayote Dimitras

/

In 2021, migrants contacted the Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM) concerning their arrival in Greece and their wish to apply to asylum. GHM co-founder and spokesperson Panayote Dimitras alerted the Hellenic Police, the Coast Guard, the Greek migration authorities, the UN Refugee Agency in Greece and the Greek Ombudsman about the arrival of migrant individuals in two Greek islands. 

Following these events, in October 2022, the Greek newspaper Kathimerini, published an article entitled “The Turkish coast guard and the activist: Trafficking ring with Greek connections”, alleging the involvement of human rights defenders in migrant trafficking into Greek Islands, indirectly referring to Mr. Dimitras as “the head of a human rights NGO” or “Greek head of the NGO”, as well as to human rights activist Tommy Olsen of Aegean Boat Report, and to criminal investigations filed against them on charges of “facilitating the entry of third country nationals into Greek territory".

At the end of 2022, Mr. Dimitras was summoned to appear before an investigating judge in connection with the following charges: a) forming and joining a criminal organization, b) facilitation by two or more [persons] of the entry into Greek territory of a citizen of a third country for profit and by profession concurrently and c) facilitation of illegal residence of a citizen of a third country for profit consecutively.  Furthermore, the prosecution has now proposed a restraining order which includes a ban to work for the Greek Helsinki Monitor in general, house arrest or ban to leave the country accompanied with bi-monthly presence at police station and a caution of 10,000 euros.

EIN expresses grave concern in relation to these renewed judicial measures taken against Mr. Dimitras, and with regard to the criminalisation of legitimate human rights work on the rights of migrants in Greece.

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

/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevant Resources:

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

/

From 6-8 December 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 45 cases from 21 members of the Council of Europe.

40 EIN members/partners, other civil society actors, lawyers and applicants have made the following submissions for 23 cases under consideration. The list below sets out an overview of these submissions related to cases on the current agenda.

Overview of Submissions

Luli and others group v. Albania

Violation: Excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings and absence of a remedy in that respect.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377/H46-1 - June 2020

Chiragov and others v. Armenia

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2022)/1443/A1 - September 2022 

Latest Submission:

 1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (28/10/2022) (EHRAC) in the case of CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. Armenia (Application No. 13216/05) and SARGSYAN v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 40167/06)

Khadija Ismayilova group v. Azerbaijan

 Violation: Violations of the applicant’s right to privacy and freedom of expression in connection with her work as a journalist.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-1 - June 2022 

Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (27/10/2022) (Legal Education Society) in the case of Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 65286/13)

Mammadli group v. Azerbaijan

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

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2022)1443/H46-3 - September 2022

Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (14/11/2022) in the case of Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 68762/14) (Mammadli group, 47145/14)

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (14/11/2022) in the case of Azizov and Novruzlu v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 65583/13) (Mammadli group, 47145/14)

 1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (21/11/2022) in the case of Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan (No. 2) (Application No. 68817/14) (Mammadli group, 47145/14)

Namazov group v. Azerbaijan

Violation: Lack of procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings, having led to the applicants’ disbarment for breach of professional ethics following verbal altercations with a judge.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-4 - September 2021 

Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (20/10/2022) (European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, the Independent Lawyers Network and the International Partnership for Human Rights) in the case of Namazov v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 74354/13)

Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan

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

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2022)/1443/A1 - September 2022

Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (28/10/2022) (EHRAC) in the case of CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. Armenia (Application No. 13216/05) and SARGSYAN v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 40167/06)

United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and others group v. Bulgaria

 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(2022)1428/H46-7 - March 2022

Latest Submission:

 1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (25/10/2022) in the case of UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria (Application No. 59491/00)

J.M.B. and others v. France

Violation: Poor conditions of detention (overcrowding) and lack of an effective preventive remedy.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-12 - September 2021

Latest Submission:

1451e réunion (décembre 2022) (DH) - Règle 9.4 - Communication d'une autre organisation (Conseil national des barreaux) (02/11/2022) relative à l'affaire J.M.B. et autres c. France (requête n° 9671/15)  

1451e réunion (décembre 2022) (DH) - Règle 9.4 - Communication d'une autre organisation (Syndicat de la magistrature)) (02/11/2022) relative à l'affaire J.M.B. c. France (requête n° 9671/15)

1451e réunion (décembre 2022) (DH) - Règle 9.2 - Communication d'une NHRI (Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’homme (CNCDH) et Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté (CGLPL)) (02/11/2022) relative à l'affaire J.M.B. c. France (requête n° 9671/15)

Khan v. France

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-13 - 30 November - 2 December 2021

Latest Submission:

1451e réunion (décembre 2022) (DH) - Règle 9.2 - Communication d'une ONG (Collectif d’associations de Calais) (24/10/2022) relative à l'affaire Khan c. France (requête n° 12267/16)

1451e réunion (décembre 2022) (DH) - Règle 9.2 - Communication d'une ONG (Défenseurs des droits de l'homme) (13/10/2022) dans l'affaire Khan c. France (requête n°°12267/16)  

Identoba and others group v. Georgia

Violation: Lack of protection against homophobic attacks during demonstrations.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-14 - 30 November -2 December 2021

Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (27/10/2022) (Social Justice Center) in the case of IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12)

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (18/10/2022) (Social Justice Center and EHRAC) in the case of Mikeladze and Others v. Georgia (Application No. 54217/16) (Identoba and Others group, 73235/12)

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender of Georgia) (21/10/2022) in the case of IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12)

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (19/10/2022) (European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association and the Women's Initiatives Supporting Group) in the case of IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12)

Tkhelidze v. Georgia

Violation: Failure to protect from domestic violence and to conduct an effective investigation into police inaction. 

First Examination

 Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender of Georgia) (19/10/2022) in the case of Tkhelidze v. Georgia (Application No. 33056/17)

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (26/10/2022) (Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, Union Sapari, European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, International Partnership for Human Rights) in the case of Tkhelidze v. Georgia (Application No. 33056/17)

Bekir-Ousta and others group v. Greece

Violation: Refusal of domestic courts to register associations.

Last Examination:

CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-8 - June 2022 

Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicants (12/10/2022) in the case of BEKIR-OUSTA AND OTHERS v. Greece (Application No. 35151/05)

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.3 - Communication from an IGO (The Expert Council on NGO Law of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe) (19/10/2022) in the case of Bekir-Ousta and Others v. Greece (Application No. 35151/05)

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Greek Helsinki Monitor) (29/09/2022) in the case of BEKIR-OUSTA AND OTHERS v. Greece (Application No. 35151/05)

Gubacsi group v. Hungary

 Violation: Inhuman and degrading treatment by law enforcement officers and/or the lack of adequate investigations in this respect.

Last Examination:

CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-16 - 30 November - 2 December 2021 

Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (26/10/2022) (Hungarian Helsinki Committee) in the case of GUBACSI v. Hungary (Application No. 44686/07)

X. v. North Macedonia

 Violation: Lack of legislation governing the conditions and procedures for changing on birth certificates the registered sex of transgender people.

Last Examination:

CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-24 - December 2021 

Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Sexual and Health Rights of Marginalized Communities (MARGINS), and TransFormA) (03/10/2022) in the case of X v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (Application No. 29683/16)

Al Nashiri group v. Poland

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2022)1428/H46-21 - March 2022

Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (18/10/2022) in the case of AL NASHIRI v. Poland (Application No. 28761/11)

Reczkowicz group and Broda and Bojara v. Poland

 Violation: Tribunal not established by law due, inter alia, to the fact that Supreme Court judges were appointed in a deficient procedure involving the National Council of the Judiciary, a body which since 2018 offered no sufficient guarantees of independence; violation of the right to access to court on account of the absence of judicial examination of the premature termination of the applicants’ term of office as vice-presidents of a regional court.

 First Examination

 Latest Submission:

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)

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR)) (17/10/2022) in the case of Reczkowicz v. Poland (Application No. 43447/19)

Catan and others group v. Russia Federation

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-21 - June 2022 

Latest Submission:

 1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (24/10/2022) (Promo-Lex) in the cases of MOZER and CATAN AND OTHERS v. Russian Federation (Applications No. 11138/10, 43370/04)

Mozer group v. Russia Federation

Violation: Various violations relating to the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova. 

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-25 - June 2022

Latest Submission:

 1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (04/10/2022) in the case of Istratiy v. Russian Federation (Application No. 15956/11) (Mozer group, 11138/10)  

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (24/10/2022) (Promo-Lex) in the cases of MOZER and CATAN AND OTHERS v. Russian Federation (Applications No. 11138/10, 43370/04)

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

Violation: Non-implementation of arbitral awards or final domestic court decisions ordering State-controlled companies to pay various sums to the applicant companies.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2022)1443/H46-22 - September

Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (05/12/2022) in the case of Omegatech Enterprises Ltd. v. Romania (Application No. 24612/07) (judgment S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. and Others (No. 20752/07))

Kačapor and others group v. Serbia

Violation: Non-enforcement of domestic decisions, including against socially-owned companies.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377/H46-35 - June 2020 

Latest Submission:

 Applicant Communications

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (20/10/2022) in the case of Popovic and Others v. Serbia (Application No. 31634/20) (R. Kacapor group, 2269/06)

NGO/NHRI Communications

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (02/11/2022) (Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights (YUCOM)) in the case of R. KACAPOR v. Serbia (Application No. 2269/06)

Selahattin Demirtaş (no. 2) group v. Türkiye

Violation: Unjustified detention of the applicant (Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2)) 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 the parliamentary immunity and subsequent criminal proceedings to penalise the applicants for their political speeches. 

Last Examination:  CM/Del/Dec(2022)1443/H46-29 - September 2022

Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (14/11/2022) in the case of Encu and others v. Turkey (Application No. 56543/16) (Selahattin Demirtas (no. 2) group, 14305/17)

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (17/10/2022) in the case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey (No. 2) (Application No. 14305/17)

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (14/11/2022) following a communication from NGOs (04/11/2022) 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)1443/H46-30 - September 2022 

Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (12/10/2022) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18)

Opuz group v. Türkiye

Violation: Failure to provide protection from domestic violence.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1390/H46-24 - December 2020 

Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (İNSAN HAKLARI DERNEĞİ (HUMAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION)) (21/10/2022) in the case of OPUZ v. Turkey (Application No. 33401/02)

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Association for Struggle Against Sexual Violence) (18/10/2022) in the case of OPUZ v. Turkey (Application No. 33401/02)

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Mor Cati Women's shelter Foundation) (12/10/2022) in the case of OPUZ v. Turkey (Application No. 33401/02)

Mckerr group v. 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)/1443/H46-32 - September 2022

Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (28/10/2022) (Committee on the Administration of Justice) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95)

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)