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

/

From the 11th to the 13th of June 2024, the Committee of Ministers will meet for their quarterly Human Rights Meeting. During this meeting, the Committee of Ministers will examine 40 leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that are pending implementation.

EIN members and partners, other civil society actors, lawyers and applicants have made 47 Rule 9 submissions for 41 cases under consideration. The list below sets out an overview of these submissions related to cases on the current agenda.

 

Overview of Submissions

Khadija Ismayilova Group V. Azerbaijan

Violation: Violations of the applicants’ right to privacy and freedom of expression in connection with their work.

Last examination: September 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1475/H46-4

Latest submission(s): 1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Media Defence) (02/05/2024) concerning the group of cases Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 65286/13) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)549]

 
 
 

Sejdić And Finci Group v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

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

Last examination: December 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1483/H46-8

Latest submission(s): 1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (04/04/2024) concerning the case of ZORNIC v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (Application No. 3681/06) (Sejdic and Finci group, 27996/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)394]

 
 

Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria

Violation: Disciplinary proceedings and sanctions against the President of the judges’ association in retaliation against her criticism of the Supreme Judicial Council and the executive.

Last examination: June 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/H46-7

Latest submission(s): 1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (07/05/2024) following a communication from an NGO (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) (19/04/2024) concerning the case of Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria (Application No. 40072/13) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)488-rev]

 

Kolevi v. Bulgaria

Violation: Systemic problem of ineffective criminal investigations with regard to shortcomings which affect investigations concerning both private individuals and law enforcement agents and lack of guarantees for the independence of criminal investigations against the Chief Prosecutor.

Last examination: December 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1483/H46-10

Latest submission(s): 1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (13/05/2024) following a communication from an NGO (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) (02/05/2024) concerning the case of KOLEVI v. Bulgaria (Application No. 1108/02) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)537]

 
 
 

 Merabishvili v. Georgia

Violation: Failure by the domestic courts to give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify continuation of detention on remand; continued detention on remand with the predominant purpose of obtaining information from the applicant about third persons.

Last examination: March 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-9

Latest submission(s): 1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender’s Office of Georgia) (02/05/2024) concerning the case of Merabishvili v. Georgia (Application No. 72508/13) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)562] 

 
 

Baka v. Hungary

Violation: Lack of access to a court as regards the premature termination of the applicant’s mandate as President of the Supreme Court which also led to a violation of his right to freedom of expression.

Last examination: December 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1483/H46-17

Latest submission(s): 1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Helsinki Committee) (22/04/2024) concerning the group of cases BAKA v. Hungary (Application No. 20261/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)487]

 

Szabo and Vissy v. Hungary

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

Last examination: March 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-12

Latest submission(s): 1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Civil Liberty Union) (19/04/2024) concerning the case of SZABO AND VISSY v. Hungary (Application No. 37138/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)541]

 
 
 

Blokhin v. Russian Federation, Fudin v. Russian Federation, Matytsina Group v. Russian Federation, Vasilyev and Kovtun Group v. Russian Federation, Atyukov Group v. Russian Federation, Karelin Group v. Russian Federation

Violation: Groups of cases concerning unfair proceedings.

Last examination: First examination

Latest submission(s): 1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre de la protection internationale) (24/04/2024) concerning the cases of Blokhin, Vasilyev and Kovtun, Matytsina, Fudin, Atyukov and Karelin v. Russia (Applications No. 47152/06, 13703/04, 58428/10, 66637/12, 74467/10, 926/08) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)484]

 

Boris Popov v. Russian Federation, Boyko v. Russian Federation, Gorlov and Others Group v. Russian Federation, Igranov and Others Group v. Russian Federation, N.T. Group v. Russian Federation, Khoroshenko Group v. Russian Federation, Resin v. Russian Federation, Vlasov Group v. Russian Federation & Zakharkin v. Russian Federation

Violation: Groups of cases concerning prisoners’ rights.

Last examination: First examination

Latest submission(s): 1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre de la protection internationale) (17/04/2024) concerning the cases of N.T., ZAKHARKIN, BORIS POPOV, Gorlov and Others, KHOROSHENKO, Boyko, Igranov and Others, VLASOV and Resin v. Russia (Applications No. 14727/11, 1555/04, 23284/04, 27057/06, 41418/04, 42259/07, 42399/13, 78146/01, 9798/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)464]

1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (International Partnership for Human Rights, European Prison Litigation Network, State Capture: Research and Action) (29/04/2024) concerning the groups of cases Tomov and Others and VLASOV v. Russia (Applications No. 18255/10, 78146/01) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)538][Ii1] 

1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Memorial Human Rights Defence Centre; OVD Info) (26/04/2024) concerning the cases of BORIS POPOV, Gorlov and Others, Boyko, VLASOV and Resin v. Russia (Applications No. 23284/04, 27057/06, 42259/07, 78146/01, 9798/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)585]

 
 

İzzettin Doğan and Others v. Türkiye & Mansur Yalçin and Others v. Türkiye

Violation: Structural and administrative problems leading to various differences in treatment between followers of the Alevi faith and adherents of the majority branch of Islam, including compulsory religious education classes.

Last examination: June 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/H46-32

Latest submission(s): 1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Alevi Bektaşi Federation, Alevi Philosophy Association, Federation of Alevi Foundations, Association for Monitoring Equal Rights, Human Rights Agenda Association, Norwegian Helsinki Committee Freedom of Belief Initiative) (24/04/2024) concerning the case of IZZETTIN DOGAN AND OTHERS v. Turkey (Application No. 62649/10) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)510]

1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Norwegian Helsinki Committee Freedom of Belief Initiative) (22/04/2024) concerning the case of Izzettin Dogan and Others v. Turkey (Application No. 62649/10) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)479]

1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Alevi Philosophy Center Association (ADO)) (10/04/2024) concerning the cases of Izzettin Dogan and Others and Mansur Yalcin and Others v. Turkey (Applications No. 62649/10, 21163/11) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)439]

1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (14/05/2024) following communications from NGOs (10/04/2024, 22/04/2024, 24/04/2024) concerning the case of IZZETTIN DOGAN AND OTHERS v. Turkey (Application No. 62649/10) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)551]

1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Alevi Philosophy Centre) (13/05/2024) concerning the case of MANSUR YALCIN AND OTHERS v. Turkey (Application No. 21163/11) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)582] 

 

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: March 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1492/H46-35

Latest submission(s): 1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant’s representative (29/05/2024) concerning the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (Application No. 28749/18) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)610]

 

Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) Group v. Türkiye

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

Last examination: March 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1492/H46-34

Latest submission(s): 1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (03/05/2024) concerning the case of Yuksekdag Senoglu and Others v. Türkiye (Application No. 14332/17) (Selahattin Demirtas (No. 2) group, 14305/17) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)632]

1501st meeting (June 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (31/05/2024) concerning the case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey (no. 2) (Application No. 14305/17) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)622]

 

EIN Civil Society Briefing May 2024 – Bulgaria, Ireland and Azerbaijan

/

On the 31st of May 2024, EIN held the latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, ahead of the 1501st Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting which will be held between 11th – 13th June 2024. The event took place in person in Strasbourg, and was facilitated by Ioulietta Bisiouli, EIN Director. 

The briefing focused on the following cases:

 

The Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria case concerns the disciplinary sanctioning of a judge, who had criticised the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) and the executive, as well as government policies on judicial independence and actions in the context of public concerns about corruption. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the sanctions (reduction in salary and dismissal from office) violated her freedom of expression (Article 10) and were intended to penalise and intimidate her for her criticism, also breaching Article 18 in conjunction with Article 10. The Court highlighted the disproportionate nature of the sanctions and their chilling effect on the judiciary. 

The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC) recalled the main disciplinary proceedings taken against Judge Todorova and provided an overview of the Government’s insufficient actions. In particular, the BHC noted the existence of other cases of disciplinary sanctions against magistrates as a form of workplace harassment, the need for clearer rules on remuneration of judges, as well as the lack of a holistic approach to the judicial reform and the threat posed by the government’s resignation, as highlighted in its last Rule 9.2 communication. 

 

Recommendation for the implementation of the Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria case 

The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee formulated the following recommendations for the implementation of the Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria case, requesting the Committee of Ministers to: 

  1. Examine the implementation of this case together with Pengezov v. Bulgaria (no. 66292/14), as both cases present systemic problems of independence of the judiciary in Bulgaria;  

    And to call on the authorities to: 

  2. Pursue a thorough judicial reform that preserves the constitutional amendments of December 2023 and protects judiciary from undue influence;  

  3. Ensure that evidence on undue influence over magistrates, including judges and the judicial authorities, is adequately examined and taken into consideration;  

  4. Ensure that protection of freedom of expression of judges is an integral part of the judicial reform in Bulgaria; 

  5. Introduce effective guarantees against undue influence on the SJC, in line with the CM recommendation in its decision of June 2023; 5.1. Introduce a mechanism for protection against harassment in the workplace, which would allow for timely protection against abuse of powers of disciplinary bodies against judges;  

  6. Remove the provisions that allow judges to be stripped of additional remuneration in cases of pending disciplinary proceedings against them from the SJC Rules for Determination of Additional Remuneration of Judges as a legal basis for harassment;  

  7. Ensure that violations of the Code of Ethical Conduct for Judges and the Code of Ethical Conduct of Prosecutors and Investigators are removed from the new Judicial Act as grounds for disciplinary proceedings; ensure that the two Codes are in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission and the Consultative Council of European Judges. 

 
 

The Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan group of cases concerns violations of the rights of an investigative journalist in Azerbaijan who exposed corruption involving the President’s family. In 2012, after refusing to stop her reporting despite threats, videos of her intimate moments, secretly recorded in her bedroom, were posted online, and newspapers accused her of anti-government bias and immorality. The European Court of Human Rights found that the authorities failed to protect her privacy and journalistic freedom, and inadequately investigated the incidents, violating Articles 8 and 10. This case has been pending for more than five years. 

Media Defence highlighted in particular the failure of the authorities in carrying out effective criminal investigation in the acts committed against Ms. Ismayilova, the negative developments creating an unfavourable environment for journalists, as well as the government failure to abide by the request of international bodies – notably the Committee of Ministers and the Venice Commission - to update the Media Law in order to guarantee freedom of expression. 

 

Recommendation for the implementation of the Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan 

In light of this grim situation, Media Defence formulated recommendations on individual and general measures that would guarantee the effective implementation of the judgment. 

Recommendations on Individual measures

1. Conduct the investigation in respect of the interference with Ms Ismayilova’s private life in a manner that is consistent with international human rights standards and the findings of the Court in the case Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan; 

2. Immediately and comprehensively take such action as will ensure that all private content relating to Ms Ismayilova that was the subject matter of the cases Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan and Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 3), not least the details disclosed by the prosecutor in the context of the criminal investigation, be permanently removed from online sources without delay;  

3. Take steps to ensure Ms Ismayilova is not hindered in her work or day to day life, including by lifting the travel ban and ensuring her ability to continue her journalistic activities without interference. 

Relevant Documents: 

Recommendations on General measures 

4. Disclose, in a complete, transparent and comprehensive manner, all decisions and authorisations for the use of Pegasus spyware and other digital surveillance measures against journalists and investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible, as required with a view to ensuring non-repetition of the violation established by the Court under Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention; 

5. Recalling Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on promoting a favourable environment for quality journalism in the digital age as well as a positive obligation of the State to:  

  1. Create a favourable and enabling environment for carrying out journalistic activities; 

  2. Take immediate steps in order to effectively guarantee the freedom of expression and safety of journalists in Azerbaijan, including by ending the deprivation of liberty and discontinuing the criminal prosecution of independent journalists in Azerbaijan under trumped-up charges; lifting the travel bans and other sanctions imposed on journalists in connection with those criminal investigations; and allowing independent news outlets, including Toplum TV, to continue reporting;  

  3. Investigate in a manner compliant with the requirements of the Convention all cases involving unlawful conduct against journalists perpetrated in the last three years, and to provide to the Committee all relevant information on legal proceedings and their results; 

  4. Establish and implement a specific action plan for the capacity-building of the judiciary in respect to ensuring the balance between the right to respect for private life and the right to freedom of expression, in accordance with the Court’s caselaw; e. And amend the domestic legislation, including the Media Law, on the basis of the Venice Commission’s recommendations;  

6. Given the dire situation for media workers in Azerbaijan, and the ongoing crackdown on independent media, to schedule the case for examination again in December 2024, and to instruct the Secretariat of the Committee to prepare an interim resolution if no progress is demonstrated by authorities. 

O’Keeffe v. Ireland 

The O'Keeffe v. Ireland case involves the Irish State's responsibility for the sexual abuse of a nine-year-old by a lay teacher in a National School in 1973. The Court ruled that Ireland failed to protect the applicant from abuse by delegating school management to non-state actors without effective state oversight, directing complaints away from state authorities (substantive violation of Article 3). Additionally, the Court found that domestic remedies were ineffective in addressing the State's failure to protect (violation of Article 13 with Article 3). 

The presentation of the case reminded permanent representations to the Council of Europe of the timeline of the O’Keeffe case from the early litigation at the national level to the ECtHR judgment, and of IHREC’s engagement with the implementation process at the national and international level, including the Committee of Ministers. 

IHREC explained that the Irish Government’s choice to implement the ECtHR’s judgment on the provision of an effective remedy by establishing an Ex Gratia, a non-statutory scheme of redress payments created fundamentally unfair barriers to victims of sexual abuse as they impose pre-conditions to eligibility. Such barriers notably include the instituted and discontinued legal proceedings, the proof of a prior complaint and the compliance with the Statute of Limitations. 

Ms. O'Keeffe’s presence in Strasbourg for the occasion provided a victim-oriented perspective on the consequences of the ineffectiveness of the reforms taken so far. Her intervention was a poignant reminder of the ongoing struggle for justice for the hundreds of adults who experienced the same violations as her during their childhood. 

 

Recommendation for the implementation of the O’Keeffe v. Ireland 

Faced with an apparent lack of commitment to effectively and fully implement this 10-year-pending case on part of the Irish authorities, the O’Keeffe v. Ireland case requires rigorous and urgent monitoring, as a vulnerable and ageing population remains without an effective remedy as directed by the ECtHR in O’Keeffe v. Ireland a decade ago. IHREC therefore called on the Committee of Ministers to ‘trigger up’ this case from standard to enhanced supervision, and to call on the Irish government to adopt a redress scheme without discriminatory and arbitrary pre-conditions. 

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

/

From the 12th to the 14th of March 2024, the Committee of Ministers will meet for their quarterly Human Rights Meeting. During this meeting, the Committee of Ministers will examine 39 leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that are pending implementation.

EIN members and partners, other civil society actors, lawyers and applicants have made 41 Rule 9 submissions for 28 cases under consideration. The list below sets out an overview of these submissions related to cases on the current agenda.

Overview of Submissions

Virabyan Group v. Armenia

Violation: Ill-treatment in police custody and ineffective investigations.

Last Examination: March 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1428/H46-3

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (08/02/2024) following a communication from NGOs (Democracy Development Foundation, Protection of Rights without Borders NGO, Helsinki Citizens Assembly of Vanadzor, Law Development and Protection Foundation, Transparency International Anticorruption Center) (30/01/2024) concerning the case of VIRABYAN v. Armenia (Application No. 40094/05)

Gafgaz Mammadov Group v. Azerbaijan

Violation: Dispersals of demonstrations and arrests of demonstrators.

Last Examination: June 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/A2

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (05/02/2024) concerning the case of Majidli v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 7218/13) (Gafgaz Mammadov group, 60259/11) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)134]

Stanev v. Bulgaria

Violation: Unlawfulness of the placement in social care home of the applicant with mental disorders; lack of judicial review and poor living conditions; impossibility for the applicant, partially incapacitated, to request the restoration of his legal capacity.

Last Examination:  March 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-6

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (The Validity Foundation, Kera Foundation, The Network of Independent Experts (NIE), The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Centre for Independent Living, Chance and Support Association) (26/01/2024) concerning the STANEV group of cases v. Bulgaria (Application No. 36760/06)

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: September 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1475/H46-11

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) (25/01/2024) concerning the case of UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria (Application No. 59491/00)

Statileo Group v. Croatia  

Violation: Statutory limitations on use of property by landlords, including through the rent control scheme for flats subject to protected leases.

Last Examination: December 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1483/H46-12

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (31/01/2024) following a communication from an NGO (Croatian Federation of Tenants - Citizens of EU) (25/01/2024) concerning the case of STATILEO v. Croatia (Application No. 12027/10)

D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic

Violation: Discrimination in the enjoyment of the applicants’ right to education due to their enrolment to special schools between 1996 and 1999, on account of their Roma origin.

Last Examination: September 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1475/A2b

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Forum for Human Rights (FORUM) and European Roma Rights Centre) (23/01/2024) concerning the case of D.H. AND OTHERS v. Czech Republic (Application No. 57325/00)

 H.F. and Others v. France

Violation: Violation of the right to enter the State of which a person is a national, due to the absence of appropriate safeguards against arbitrariness in the examination of requests to repatriate French children held since 2019 in the camps in north-eastern Syria.

First Examination

Latest Submission: 1492e réunion (mars 2024) (DH) - Règle 9.2 - Communication d’une ONG (Avocats sans Frontières France) (30/01/2024) relative à l’affaire H.F. et autres c. France (requête n° 24384/19)

J.M.B. and Others v. France

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

Last Examination: December 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1451/H46-11

Latest Submissions: 1492e réunion (mars 2024) (DH) - Règle 9.2 - Communication d’une ONG (Observatoire international des prisons) (31/01/2024) relative à l’affaire J.M.B. et autres c. France (requête n° 9671/15)

1492e réunion (mars 2024) (DH) - Règle 9.2 - Communication d’INDH (Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’homme (CNCDH) et Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté (CGLPL)) (31/01/2024) relative à l’affaire J.M.B. et autres c. France (requête n° 9671/15)

Tsintsabadze Group v. Georgia

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

Last Examination: June 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/H46-11

Latest Submissions: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (23/02/2024) concerning the cases of Ochigava and Tsintsabadze v. Georgia (Applications No. 14142/15, 35403/06)

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Social Justice Center) (08/02/2024) concerning the case of Machalikashvili and Others v. Georgia (Application No. 32245/19) (Tsintsabadze group, 35403/06)

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA), European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC)) (24/01/2024) concerning the TSINTSABADZE group of cases v. Georgia (Application No. 35403/06)

Nisiotis Group v. Greece

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

Last Examination: March 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1428/H46-13

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hellenic League for Human Rights) (22/01/2024) concerning the case of NISIOTIS v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08)

Bakirdzi and E.C. v. Hungary

Violation: Discriminatory restriction of voting rights of the applicants belonging to recognised national minorities.

First Examination

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Civil Liberties Union) (29/01/2024) concerning the case of Bakirdzi and E.C. v. Hungary (Application No. 49636/14)  

Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary and Szolcsán v. Hungary

Violation: Discriminatory assignment of Roma children to special primary schools for children with mental disabilities (Horváth and Kiss).

Discrimination of a Roma pupil on account of segregation in a State-run primary school attended almost exclusively by Roma children (Szolcsán)

Last Examination: June 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-9 (Horváth and Kiss).

First examination (Szolcsán)

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Rosa Parks foundation and the Coalition for Inclusive Education) (23/01/2024) concerning the case of HORVATH and KISS v. Hungary (Application No. 11146/11)

 Varga and Others + v. Hungary and István Gábor Kovács Group v. Hungary

Violation: Overcrowding and poor material conditions of detention, lack of effective remedies and other deficiencies in the protection of prisoners' rights.

Last Examination: March 2021 - CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-12

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (HHC) (18/12/2023) concerning the cases of ISTVAN GABOR KOVACS and Varga v. Hungary (Applications No. 15707/10, 14097/12)

Darboe and Camara v. Italy

Violation: Placement of unaccompanied minor in adult reception centre in inadequate conditions and without being provided with minimum procedural guarantees in age-assessment procedure.

First Examination

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI)) (31/01/2024) concerning the case of Darboe and Camara v. Italy (Application No. 5797/17)

L. v. Lithuania

Violation: Lack of legislation governing the conditions and procedures relating to gender reassignment.

Last Examination: September 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1475/H46-21

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (TGEU-Transgender Europe, Lithuanian trans rights and mutual support association “Trans Autonomija”, the National LGBTI rights organization LGL, Human Rights Monitoring Institute and ILGA Europe) (25/01/2024) concerning the case of L. v. Lithuania (Application No. 27527/03)

Manole and Others v. Republic of Moldova

Violation: Censorship and political control by State authorities at State Television Company, Teleradio-Moldova.

Last Examination: March 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-14

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Independent Journalism Center) (25/01/2024) concerning the case of MANOLE AND OTHERS v. Republic of Moldova (Application No. 13936/02)

M.K. and Others Group v. Poland

Violation: Refusal of border guards to receive asylum application and summary removal to a third country with a risk of refoulement to and ill-treatment in the country of origin. Collective expulsion of aliens in a wider state policy of refusing entry to foreigners coming from Belarus. Lack of effective remedy with a suspensive effect. Non-compliance with interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court.

Last Examination: March 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-15

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Association for Legal Intervention) (12/02/2024) concerning the case of M.K. and Others v. Poland (Application No. 40503/17)

Tysiąc, R.R., & 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: June 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/H46-19

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Foundation for Women and Family Planning (FEDERA) and Center for Reproductive Rights) (07/02/2024) concerning the cases of TYSIAC, R.R. and P. and S. v. Poland (Applications No. 5410/03, 27617/04, 57375/08)

E.B. and M.G.C. Group v. Romania

Violation: Breaches of the State’s positive obligation effectively to apply a criminal-law system punishing any non-consensual sexual acts, in particular when the victims are children and persons with psychosocial disabilities.

Last Examination: December 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)A1

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre for Legal Resources) (26/01/2024) concerning the case of E.B. v. Romania (Application No. 49089/10)

S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. and others (Applications Concerning S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. (No. 20752/07) and Omegatech Enterprises Ltd. (No. 24612/07)) & Seven other Similar Applications v. Romania

Violation: Non-implementation of courts or arbitral awards ordering State-controlled companies to pay various sums to the applicants/applicant companies.

Last Examination: December 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)/1483/H46-29

Latest Submissions: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (29/01/2024) concerning the case of Omegatech Enterprises Ltd. v. Romania (Application No. 24612/07) (judgment S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. and Others v. Romania (No. 20752/07)) (Sacaleanu group, 73970/01)

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (10/01/2024) concerning the case of Omegatech Enterprises Ltd. v. Romania (Application No. 24612/07) (judgment S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. and Others v. Romania (No. 20752/07)) (Sacaleanu group, 73970/01)

Ecodefence and Others v. Russian Federation

Violation: Restrictions resulting in persecution and dissolution of some NGOs based on the domestic law, incompatible with the right to freedom of assembly.

First Examination

Latest Submissions: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (08/02/2024) concerning the case of Ecodefence and Others v. Russia (Application No. 9988/13)

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Memorial Human Rights Defence Centre, OVD-Info, European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), SOVA Research Centre, Citizens’ Watch and Public Verdict Foundation) (06/02/2024) concerning the case of Ecodefence and Others v. Russian Federation (Application No. 9988/13)

Zoltán Varga v. Slovak Republic

Violation: Surveillance operation, without adequate legal safeguards against abuse due to the practically unfettered power exercised by the Slovak Intelligence Service

First Examination

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicants (07/12/2023) in the cases of Hascak and Zoltán Varga v. Slovak Republic (Applications No. 58359/12, 58361/12) (Zoltan Varga group, 58361/12)

Cyprus v. Türkiye

Violation: 14 violations in relation to the situation in the northern part of Cyprus (missing persons).

Last Examination: March 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-25

Latest Submissions: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Truth Now) (15/01/2024) concerning the cases of VARNAVA AND OTHERS v. Turkey and CYPRUS v. Turkey (Applications No. 16064/90, 25781/94)

 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (07/12/2023) concerning the cases of Cyprus v. Turkey and Varnava v. Turkey (Applications Nos. 25781/94, 16064/90)

Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) Group v. Türkiye

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

Last Examination: December 2023 - M/Del/Dec(2023)1483/H46-36

Latest Submissions: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (17/01/2024) concerning the case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey (No. 2) (Application No. 14305/17)

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and the International Federation for Human Rights) (12/02/2024) concerning the group of cases 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: December 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1483/H46-37

Latest Submissions: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (08/02/2024) concerning the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (Application No. 28749/18) 

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch, The International Commission of Jurists) (26/01/2024) concerning the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (Application No. 28749/18) 

Öner And Türk Group, Nedim Şener Group, Altuğ Taner Akçam Group, Artun and Guvener Group, and Işikirik Group v. Türkiye

Violation: Unjustified interferences with freedom of expression, in particular through criminal proceedings, including defamation, and the consequent chilling effect. Unforeseeable conviction of membership of an illegal organisation for the mere fact of attending a public meeting and expressing views there.

Last Examination: March 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-28

Latest Submissions: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Truth Justice Memory Center (Hakikat Adalet Hafıza Merkezi) and others) (30/01/2024) concerning the Altug Taner Akcam, Artun and Guvener, Isikirik, Nedim Sener, Oner and Turk groups of cases v. Turkey (Applications No. 27520/07, 75510/01, 41226/09, 38270/11, 51962/12)

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Human Rights Association (İnsan Hakları Derneği)) (24/01/2024) concerning the cases of Altug Taner Akcam, Artun and Guvener, Isikirik, Nedim Sener and Oner and Turk groups v. Turkey (Applications No. 27520/07, 75510/01, 41226/09, 38270/11, 51962/12)

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA)) (25/01/2024) concerning the cases of Altug Taner Akcam, Artun and Guvener, Nedim Sener and Oner and Turk groups v. Turkey (Applications No. 27520/07, 75510/01, 38270/11, 51962/12) and Işıkırık v. Turkey (41226/09)

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Amnesty International) (12/02/2024) concerning the case of Taner Kiliç (n° 2) v. Turkey (Application No. 208/18) (Nedim Sener group, 38270/11)

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (30/01/2024) concerning the case of Taner Kiliç (n° 2) v. Turkey (Application No. 208/18) (Nedim Sener group, 38270/11)

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from NGOs (Amnesty International, ICJ, and Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project) (05/01/2024) concerning the case of Taner Kiliç (No. 2) v. Turkey (Application No. 208/18) (Nedim Sener group, 38270/11) and reply from the authorities (18/01/2024)

Varnava and Others v. Türkiye

Violation: Lack of effective investigation into the fate of nine Greek Cypriots who disappeared during the military operations undertaken by Turkey in Cyprus in 1974.

Last Examination: March 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-30

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (17/01/2024) concerning the case of VARNAVA AND OTHERS v. Turkey (Application No. 16064/90)

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Truth Now) (15/01/2024) concerning the cases of VARNAVA AND OTHERS v. Turkey and CYPRUS v. Turkey (Applications No. 16064/90, 25781/94)

 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (07/12/2023) concerning the cases of Cyprus v. Turkey and Varnava v. Turkey (Applications Nos. 25781/94, 16064/90)

Shmorgunov and Others Group v. Ukraine

Violation: Multiple violations to stop Maidan protests in 2013-2014 and lack of effective and independent investigations.

First Examination

Latest Submission: 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (30/01/2024) following a communication from an NGO (UKRAINIAN HELSINKI HUMAN RIGHTS UNION) (22/01/2024) concerning the case of Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine (Application No. 15367/14)

 

EIN Civil Society Briefing March 2024 - Greece, Türkiye, Moldova and Italy

/

On the 1st of March 2024, EIN held the latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, ahead of the 1492nd Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting which takes place between 12th – 14th March 2024. The event was held in person in Strasbourg, and facilitated by Ioulietta Bisiouli, EIN Director.

The Briefing focused on the following cases:


The Nisiotis Group v Greece group of cases concern the inhuman and/or degrading treatment of the applicants on account of the poor conditions of detention of the applicants in overcrowded prisons in Greece (violations of Article 3). The findings in the cases in this group include: overpopulation in prisons; inadequate medical services in prison; deficiencies in infrastructure: lack of dinning place, inadequate ventilation, lack of toilet doors, inadequate heating, as well as the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the applicants’ complaints concerning the conditions of their detention (Article 13). 

Hellenic League for Human Rights highlighted major findings of the Convention for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) in respect of Greece:

  • Prison conditions and Overpopulation and Understaffing – untrained staff.

  • No effective complaints system.

  • Lack of a long-term policy and a strategic plan.

  • Inter-prisoner violence.

    Transfer of prisoners by police vehicles.

  • Ref: CPT report 2022  and CPT report 2023  

Hellenic League for Human Rights discussed current trends and obstacles:

  • Prison population is at 10,270. All closed prison establishments suffer from extreme occupancy that constantly exceeds maximum capacity.

  • Average occupancy of closed prisons: 120-160%

  • Average occupancy of open prisons: 35-60%

  • No social work and minimal to no use of monitoring bracelet 

Hellenic League for Human Rights addressed what the Greek government has done so far:

  • The Greek government announced the establishment of new prisons. The new prison of Drama is operational (only one wing).

  • A number of new staff was hired in 2023-2024.

  • A new domestic remedy was adopted in October 2022 [Art 6a of the Penitentiary Code].

… and what the Greek government has failed to do:

  • The recommendations addressed by the CPT are in most of the cases still not implemented.

  • The findings of the ECtHR as regards Art. 3 (overpopulation and material prison conditions) are not efficiently redressed.

  • The findings of the ECtHR as regards Art. 13 (domestic remedy) are not efficiently redressed.

Hellenic League for Human Rights raised the following concerns about ineffective implementation:

  • Overcrowding is still an enduring structural problem affecting a large number of detainees.

  • There is a high number of friendly settlements concluded between the Government and the applicants amounts to acknowledgment that prison conditions do not comply with Art. 3.

  • New provisions of the Criminal Code will cause serious increase of prison population.

  • The expected new prison establishments are not going to solve the problem of overpopulation (CPT 2022, paras. 13, 16).

  • No measures have been taken in order to redress inadequate transfers of prisoners by police vehicles.

  • No measures have been taken as regards disciplinary cells.

  • The domestic remedy introduced in October 2022 (Art. 6a Pen. Code) is not effectively implemented.

  • All 350 applications of Art. 6a have been rejected by the Court Councils. All relevant decisions were outdated.

  • Already, the Greek Ombudsman (2024) said that Art. 6a “is not an adequate measure to improve detention conditions when they amount to a violation of Art. 3 ECHR”.

The NGO requested the Committee of Ministers to ask the Greek authorities to:

  • Draft and enforce a genuine “Strategic plan” after dialogue with stakeholders setting a specific timetable, ensuring funding sources, and indicating specific sustainable measures for decongestion.

  • Start working with the most highly overpopulated prisons (Komotini, Korydallos, Ioannina, Volos, Nafplion, Tripoli, Chios). Implement alternative measures (social work) and expand rural prisons.

  • Guarantee regular allocation of funds for prisons: upgrading prison premises and staff. Not expanding closed prison places but ensuring more than 3 sq.m. of “free space to move” to each inmate.

  • Urgently reconsider criminal policy which has been adopted. Increasing sentences will result in extreme suffocation of the prison establishments.

  • Hire additional custodial trained staff and conduct regular training on security, crisis management, health issues etc, in relation to prison to all existing staff.

  • Reconsider implementation Art. 6A of the Penitentiary Code, as it has been proved that it can not offer guarantees as an effective means to redress prison conditions.

See slides for full briefing.

Relevant Documents

NGO Communications:

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hellenic League for Human Rights) (22/01/2024) concerning the case of NISIOTIS v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)101]

1428th meeting (March 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hellenic League for Human Rights) (27/01/2022) in the case of NISIOTIS v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)168]

1428th meeting (March 2022) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Hellenic Action for Human Rights “Pleiades”) (31/01/2022) in the case of NISIOTIS v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08) and reply from the authorities (04/02/2022) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)159]

1428th meeting (March 2022) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Hellenic League for Human Rights) (13/01/2022) in the case of NISIOTIS v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08) and reply from the authorities (21/01/2022) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)107]

CM Decisions:

1428th meeting (DH), March 2022 - H46-13 Nisiotis group v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08) [CM/Del/Dec(2022)1428/H46-13]

1390th meeting (1-3 December 2020) (DH) - H46-11 Nisiotis group v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08) [CM/Del/Dec(2020)1390/H46-11]

1324 meeting (DH) September 2018 - H46-8 Nisiotis group v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08) [CM/Del/Dec(2018)1324/H46-8]

The Manole and others v the Republic of Moldova case concerns concerns undue interferences with the right of freedom of expression of journalists, editors and producers working at the state television company Teleradio-Moldova on account of censorship and political control by the state authorities in the period 2001-2006. The Court found a violation of Article 10 arising inter alia from insufficient statutory guarantees of independence for the public broadcaster. It noted that the legislative framework had been flawed throughout, in that it did not provide sufficient safeguards against the control of Teleradio-Moldova’s senior management, and thus its editorial policy, by the political organ of the government.

The Court indicated under Article 46 that the Republic of Moldova was under a legal obligation to take general measures at the earliest opportunity to remedy the situation, including by undertaking legislative reform to ensure that the legal framework complies with the requirements of Article 10, which also takes into account the Committee of Ministers' Recommendation Rec(96)10 on the guarantees of the independence of public service broadcasting and the recommendations of the Council of Europe experts on the draft law on public service broadcasting in Moldova.

Independent Journalism Centre outlined the key facts and the rights violations of the case:

General Principles (Pluralism in Audiovisual Media)

  • Teleradio-Moldova (TRM) held a position of dominance (private TVs were too weak).

  • The authorities had the duty (positive obligation) to ensure: the public access to impartial and accurate information & diversity of political outlook; journalists & other professionals are not prevented from imparting info.

Interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression:

  • Media employees – directly affected by the policy applied by their employer

  • Sanctions taken by an employer -> interference with freedom of expression

Conclusion on compliance with Article 10:

  • TRM enjoyed virtual monopoly over audiovisual broadcasting in Moldova.

  • The State failed to comply with its positive obligation.

  • The legislative framework was flawed (it did not provide sufficient safeguards against the control of TRM's senior management, and thus its editorial policy, by the political organ of the Government).

  • These flaws were not remedied when Law on TRM (2002) was adopted.

Independent Journalism Centre assessed the legislative framework in 2021:

  • Despite some positive preliminary findings (such as the criminalization of censorship), the law still allowed for a general tendency to favor (slightly) the Government.

  • Causes: Funding mechanism & indirect interference in the selection of Supervisory Body

  • In 2021, two main amendments had been enacted to the Code of Audiovisual Media Services

  • Amendments changed procedures for appointing and removing members of the NRA (Audiovisual Council), enabling its’ members to be appointed by Parliament, which also has discretionary right to reject the candidates. Furthermore, NRA (Audiovisual Council) members can be dismissed by Parliament, in case of finding "defective activity" or "improper performance of duties" or in case of rejecting of the annual activity report.

  • Amendments changed the procedures for appointing and removing members of the TRM's Supervisory Body and the General Director:

    • General Director to be appointed by Parliament at the proposal of the Supervisory Council (SC). Parliament given discretionary right to reject candidates.

    • Dismissal of General Director by Parliament, in case of finding “defective activity”, improper performance or non-performance of the duties.

    • Appointment of General Director by Parliament & CSOs. The Parliamentary Commission has the last word.

    • Dismissal of Supervisory Council if Parliament finds “defective activity”, improper performance or non-performance of the SC duties. Rejection of the annual activity report.

Updated Action Plan by Authorities (December 2023) and Independent Journalism Centre’s concerns:

Several general measures were presented by the authorities:

  • Draft Law no. 218 of 4 July 2023 amending the Code of Audiovisual Media Services and Draft Law on the Subsidy Fund.

    • These draft laws are unrelated to the implementation of the ECtHR judgment in the present case. The regulations do not extend their purview to encompass the public broadcaster or NRA.

  • The commitment of the Parliamentary Committee (PC) regarding the review of the relevant provisions of the Code of Audiovisual Media Services so as to secure the independence of the members of the Supervisory Council of TRM:

    • Independent Journalism Centre is a member of the Parliamentary Joint Working Group

    • The matter pertaining to the review of relevant provisions within the AMSC has not been deliberated within the agenda of the PC/PJWF

    • Requests made by the IJC to instigate efforts in this regard have yet to be acknowledged or acted upon

Independent Journalism Centre highlights the evidence on the general tendency to favor governing political forces:

  • Freedom House, Nations in Transit 2020: Moldova, April 2020: “The editorial independence of the public broadcaster TRM remains flawed. According to the new Code of Audiovisual Media Services, the members of TRM’s Board of Supervisors are to be appointed by the AC, which is highly politicized. Domestic monitoring organizations identified sporadic instances of biased coverage in TRM’s reporting.”

  • Monitoring Reports: OSCE/OHDIHR, November 2020 (TRM gave I. Dodon - former president of the Republic of Moldova - positive media coverage, while his opponent had neutral coverage. Election, Second Round); IJC, March 2021, April-September 2020

  • Recent (November - December 2022 and December 2023): a slight bias toward the governing party was observed in terms of news coverage frequency, including direct citations as sources; representatives of non-parliamentary political parties received limited attention in the news.

The 2021 legislative amendments are characterized by:

  • Flawed appointing/selection mechanisms for the NRA (Audiovisual Council), TRM's Supervisory Body and General Director

  • Flawed dismissing/revoking mechanisms for the NRA (Audiovisual Council) members, TRM's Supervisory Body and General Director

  • Direct subordination to the Parliament.

The Independent Journalism Centre asked the Committee to request Moldovan authorities to:

Darboe and Camara v Italy

The Darboe and Camara v Italy concerns the applicants placement in an adult migrant centre and the age-assessment procedure that ensued. In June 2016, the applicant, a Gambian national, arrived in Italy on makeshift vessels, and claimed asylum as unaccompanied minor. No information on how to initiate the relevant procedure had been provided to him and no request for international protection had been lodged in his case. After an initial placement in a centre for foreign unaccompanied minors he was transferred to an adult reception, overcrowded and lacking adequate facilities and healthcare, where a medical examination (wrist X-ray examination) concluded that he was an adult of eighteen years old. His stay in the adult reception centre lasted more than four months.

ASGI outline the key facts of the case & the Government’s recent Action Report to participants:

  • Unaccompanied minor placed in an adult reception center: overcrowded, lacking adequate facilities and healthcare, for more than 4 months. No guardian appointed, no information and access to asylum procedure.

  • Identified as adult based on wrist X-ray examination, without procedural safeguards.

  • Violations of:

    • Article 8: lack of procedural guarantees in age assessment procedure > no access to rights as unaccompanied minor.

    • Article 3: conditions and duration of stay in adult reception center.

    • Article 13 with 3 and 8: lack of remedy to complain about reception conditions and age assessment.



Government’s Action Report 2023 and communication January 2024 presented general measures:

  • Law 47/17 on unaccompanied minors (UAMs)

  • Increase of reception system’s capacity

  • National Plan against Human Trafficking

  • Law Decree 133/23 conv. Law 176/23 in response to emergency increase in migrants’ arrivals

  • Request for closure of the supervision.

ASGI highlights their concerns regarding General Measures:

Measures implemented do not prevent recurrence of systemic violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13, similar to Darboe and Camara case:

  • Limited implementation of Law 47/17 in practice

  • Law Decree 133/23 conv. Law 176/23 seriously worsened the legal framework regarding UAMs reception and age assessment > rights violations likely to increase.

Concerns about practices and new legislation have been expressed by the National Ombudsperson for the Rights of the Child, the Association of Juvenile Judges, UNICEF, Save the Children

Reception Conditions

  • 23,226 UAMs present in Italy on 31 December 2023 (Source: Ministry of Labour and Welfare)

  • Insufficient number of places in reception centers for UAMs with adequate standards: 750 places in governmental first reception centers for UAMs + 6,150 places in accommodation and integration centers for UAMs (Source: Government’s Communication).

  • 4,473 UAMs placed in first reception centers with standards seriously inadequate to ensure the rights of UAMs (hotspots, first reception centers for adults, emergency first reception facilities etc.), waiting to be transferred to adequate centers for UAMs, on 31 December 2023 (Source: Ministry of Labour and Welfare)

  • Law Decree 133/23 has introduced the possibility to place UAMs aged 16+ in adult reception centers:

    • pending the transfer to centers for UAMs, for up to 5 months

    • in dedicated sections, but no indications to avoid promiscuity with adults

    • no specialized staff and services for UAMs provided

  • The placement of UAMs in adult reception centers, that happened in practice but was forbidden by law until October 2023, is likely to increase

  • Widespread and increasing detention of UAMs in adult reception centers in inadequate conditions

    • with no legal basis and procedural guarantees (detention of UAMs forbidden by D.Lgs. 142/15, Art. 19, para. 4)

    • Hotspots and governmental reception centers in Lampedusa, Pozzallo/Cifali, Taranto, Crotone, Restinco 

  • In the adult reception centers and emergency first reception facilities monitored by ASGI, UAMs were in conditions similar to Darboe and Camara case:

    • inadequate material conditions, in some cases overcrowding and promiscuity with adults

    • no guardian appointed, no access to asylum procedure and legal support

    • no or limited access to health care, psychological assistance and education

    • lasting several months

    • serious stress in the children, exacerbated by deprivation of liberty

  • No remedy to complain about reception conditions has been introduced

  • Placement in inadequate reception centers also hinders identification of UAMs victims of trafficking > prevents implementation of National Plan against Human Trafficking

  • Three Rule 39 applications to ECtHR (October-December 2023):

    • UAM detained in adult reception center in Crotone for 5 months

    • UAM detained in adult reception center in Restinco for 2 months

    • UAM detained in a Police station in Rome for 6 days

  • In the three cases ECtHR decided interim measures: transfer to adequate reception center for UAMs

  • Increased influx of UAMs does not exonerate Italy from the respect of international human rights, and in any case no derogation from obligations under Article 3 is admissible

Age Assessment Procedure

  • Limited implementation of procedural safeguards established by Law 47/17: e.g. multidisciplinary teams have not been established in many areas

  • Law Decree 133/23 conv. Law 176/23 introduced an age assessment procedure derogating from most procedural safeguards established by Law 47/17:

    • no appointment of a guardian, access to a lawyer and informed participation

    • medical examination, no multidisciplinary approach

    • no judicial decision on age assessment

    • 5 days to lodge an appeal, without automatic suspension of proceedings resulting from identification as an adult

  • no access to an effective remedy and not consistent with the principle of presumption of minor age

ASGI provided their Recommendation to the Committee of Ministers and for Italian Authorities:

  • Considering the persisting and increasing systemic violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13, the Committee of Ministers should continue the monitoring procedure under enhanced supervision and all upon Italian authorities to:

    • Amend Law 176/23 provisions regarding the reception of UAMs in adult centers and the age assessment procedure derogating from the safeguards established by Law 47/17

    • Cease unlawful de facto detention of UAMs

    • Increase the capacity of adequate reception system for UAMs

    • Ensure that procedural safeguards in age assessment procedures established by Law 47/17 are respected in practice.

See slides for full briefing.

Relevant Documents:

NGO Communications

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI)) (31/01/2024) concerning the case of Darboe and Camara v. Italy (Application No. 5797/17) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)149]

1483rd meeting (December 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI)) (06/11/2023) in the case of Darboe and Camara v. Italy (Application No. 5797/17) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)1395]

The Öner and Turk v Türkiye, Işıkırık v Türkiye, Altuğ Taner Akçam v Türkiye, Artun and Güvener v Türkiye and Nedim Şener v Türkiye groups of cases concern unjustified and disproportionate interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression on account of criminal proceedings for having expressed opinions that did not incite hatred or violence, and the consequent chilling effect on society as a whole. 

Hafiza Merkezi outlined the subject matter of the five groups and provided information on the legislative status of relevant provisions:

Öner and Türk group of cases

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

  • Article 6 § 2 of ATL- printing of statements made by a terrorist organization

    • Amendment added in 2013:  “condoning, praising or encouraging methods [using] coercion, violence or threats”

  • Article 7 § 2 of ATL - propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation

    • Amendment added in 2013: “by justifying, praising or encouraging the use of methods constituting coercion, violence or threats”

    • Amendment added in 2019: “Expressions of thought that do not exceed the limits of reporting or for the purpose of criticism shall not constitute a crime”

    • No new amendment, continuing violations

  • Article 215 of CC - praising an offence or an offender

    • Amendment added in 2013: “…provided that there emerges an imminent and clear danger to the public order”

    • No new information provided

  • Article 216 of CC - provoking the public to hatred, hostility, denigrating a section of the public on grounds of social class, race, religion, sect, gender or regional differences

    • No amendment

    • No information provided in the action plan

  • Article 6 § 1 of ATL - disclosing or publishing the identities of officials on counter-terrorism duties, or identifying such persons as targets

    • Ambiguous wording, increasing use against journalists and rights defenders

    • Previously examined before the ECtHR and the CM

Işıkırık group of cases

The Işıkırık group concerns Article 220 §§ 6 and 7 of the Criminal Code, which provide that anyone who commits a crime on behalf of an illegal organisation or who knowingly and willingly aids and abets an illegal organisation shall be sentenced as a member of that organisation. Based on these provisions, most of the applicants in this group of cases were sentenced to several years of imprisonment for membership of an illegal organisation for having, for example, peacefully participated in a demonstration called for by an illegal organisation, or expressed a positive opinion about such an organisation, without the prosecution having to prove the elements of actual membership.

  • Article 220 § 6 of the CC - committing an offense on behalf of an organization without being a member

    • Hamit Yakut pilot judgment of the Constitutional Court (2021) – not implemented by the Parliament

    • Annulment by the Constitutional Court (2023) – comes into force on 8 April 2024

    • Legislative proposal (currently before Parliament) offers no change.

  • Article 220 § 7 of the CC - aiding and abetting an organization willingly and knowingly without belonging to its structure

    • Amendment added in 2013: “by justifying, praising or encouraging the use of methods constituting coercion, violence or threats”

    • The Constitutional Court found it meets the legality requirement

    • No new amendment foreseen.

Altuğ Taner Akçam group of cases

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

  • Article 301 of the CC - publicly denigrating the Turkish nation or the organs and institutions of the state, including the judiciary and the army

    • Amended in 2008: denigrating “Turkish nation” instead of “Turkishness”, lower sentences + authorization from Ministry of Justice required for investigation

    • The ECtHR found the provision does not meet the “quality of law” requirement since “its unacceptably broad terms result in a lack of foreseeability as to its effects” (Altuğ Taner Akçam v. Turkey, § 95)

    • Despite calls from the CM, no new amendment since the Taner Akçam judgment

Artun and Güvener group of cases

The Artun and Güvener group concerns criminal convictions for insulting public institutions, officials and the President under Articles 125 and 299 of the Criminal Code (the President, the Republic, police officers, tax inspectors etc.). The Court included indications under Article 46 that the violation stemmed from a problem with the drafting and application of Article 299 which afforded the Head of State privileged status or special protection vis-à-vis the right to convey information and opinions concerning him, and held that bringing the relevant domestic law into line with Article 10 would constitute an appropriate form of redress making it possible to put an end to the violation.

  • Article 125 of the CC – insulting

    • No new amendment 

  • Article 299 of the CC – insulting the President

    • No new amendment

    • Action plan argues that “no abolishment is required” and Ministry of Justice authorization required for prosecution functions as a filtering mechanism

    • latest CM decision calling for the abrogation of Article 299 

Nedim Şener group of cases

The Nedim Şener group focuses on the pre-trial detention of individuals, mainly journalists, without relevant and sufficient reasons, on serious charges based on their publications or speech. In one case in the grouo, the Court found inter alia that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was unlawful, since the offence with which he was charged, namely the dissemination of propaganda in favour of an illegal terrorist organisation, had - wrongly - been considered one of the offences listed in Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for which the reasons justifying the detention were established by legal presumption.

  • Article 100 of the Code on Criminal Procedure (Grounds for arrest)

    • Pre-trial detention used as a punitive measure and no concrete evidence sought

    • Lower courts even find Article 100 insufficient

    • CM called for the judiciary to “rely on concrete evidence justifying strong suspicion when placing individuals in detention”.


The NGO set out their main concerns regarding the implementation of these cases:

  • “Expressions of thought that do not exceed the limits of reporting or for the purpose of criticism shall not constitute a crime” - similar phrases added over the years had no positive impact.

  • Broad wording of provisions and arbitrary conduct of the judiciary.

    • Troubling approach associating any dissenting opinion with terrorism.

  • Circumventing provisions

  • Non-implementation of Constitutional Court judgments

    • Individual applications

    • Annulment decisions – Parliament is reluctant to make required legislative changes in a Convention compliant manner

MLSA presented the findings in their 2023 Trial Monitoring Report 2023:

Öner and Türk v. Türkiye: Terrorism charges are still the primary charge against freedom of expression in Türkiye.

  • Terror charges are the most frequent charge in freedom of expression cases by making up for almost half of all the charges - 103 cases.

  • Terrorist propaganda (Anti Terror Law – 7§2) is the second crime most often prosecuted in the report – 46 cases (%15).

  • The government introduced amendments in 2019 to the article but courts are still failing to differentiate between terrorist propaganda and news content.

  • Terrorist organisation membership (7§1) are the main charge in 10% of all cases.

  • Targeting the individuals involved in counterterrorism (Anti Terrorism Law – 6§1) is being used to circumvent the other provisions reviewed by the committee. It was charged 12 times in last period.

  • Terrorist organization membership (Anti Terrorism Law – 7§1) is being used to circumvent the other provisions reviewed by the Committee.

    • Evidence used in connection to these charges are mostly composed of news articles and social media posts.

    • It was used in almost 10 % of all freedom of expression cases.

    • In total, in 3 cases, 5 defendants were sentenced to 31 years, 3 months and 9 days in total.


    Işıkırık v. Türkiye: Annulled Article 220/6 of TPC is being reinstated and circumvented by Article 220/7.

    • Article 220/6 of TPC: committing a crime on behalf of a criminal organization without being a member

      • In one case, four journalists were sentenced to 11 years due to this charge

    • Article 220/7 of TPC: willingly aiding a criminal organization

      • In two freedom of expression cases, 32 defendants were sentenced to almost 103 years imprisonment on this charge.

    Nedim Şener v. Türkiye: Detention is used as a punishment mechanism in freedom of expression cases.

    • Number of detained journalists is misleading without context

    • Compared to last year the detained defendants increased by 150%

    • Journalist Dicle Müftüoğlu was imprisoned since April 2023 until February 2024 without her lawyer being allowed to make a defense statement in the first hearing. Her case was only composed of her journalistic activities. No evidence was produced during her detention.

    • 18 Journalists in Diyarbakır have been detained in June 2022, without an indictment being filed for 9 months. They were released after 13 months of detention.

MLSA and Hafiza Merkezi provided their Recommendations to the Committee of Ministers to:

  • Continue to examine the execution of the judgments in these case groups regularly and under enhanced procedure;

  • Examine and address the increasing use of interchangeable criminal provisions;

  • Instruct the Secretariat to draft an interim decision if no tangible progress is made or detailed statistics are not provided by the next review.

    The NGOs called on Turkey to:

  • Amend its definition of terrorism in the Anti-Terrorism Law in a way that is narrowly construed and compliant with Convention standards;

  • Repeal or substantially amend Articles 125, 215, 216, 314 of the Criminal Code, and Articles 6 and 7 of Anti-Terrorism Law, particularly by addressing their overbroad, vague, and unforeseeable wording;

  • Abolish Articles 220 § 6, 220 § 7, 299 and 301 of the Criminal Code which fail to fulfill the legality criteria, and closely monitor the legal proposals on Article 220 § 6 as the Committee of Ministers;

  • Submit detailed and separate statistical information covering last 5 years of the application of different Articles causing freedom of expression violations;

  • Take tangible steps to ensure that the Anti-Terrorism Law and the Criminal Code are not interpreted in a broad manner by the judiciary, that pre-trial detention decisions are not used as a punitive measure, and that Constitutional Court judgements are promptly implemented by all judicial and administrative bodies;

  • Stop targeting, harassing and intimidating journalists and HRDs by subjecting them to judicial and administrative measures.

See slides for full briefing.

Relevant Documents:

NGO Communications

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (22/02/2024) following a communication from NGOs (Truth Justice Memory Center (Hakikat Adalet Hafıza Merkezi) and others) (30/01/2024) concerning the Altug Taner Akcam, Artun and Guvener, Isikirik, Nedim Sener, Oner and Turk groups of cases v. Turkey (Applications No. 27520/07, 75510/01, 41226/09, 38270/11, 51962/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)222]

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Truth Justice Memory Center (Hakikat Adalet Hafıza Merkezi) and others) (30/01/2024) concerning the Altug Taner Akcam, Artun and Guvener, Isikirik, Nedim Sener, Oner and Turk groups of cases v. Turkey (Applications No. 27520/07, 75510/01, 41226/09, 38270/11, 51962/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)142]

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Human Rights Association (İnsan Hakları Derneği)) (24/01/2024) concerning the cases of Altug Taner Akcam, Artun and Guvener, Isikirik, Nedim Sener and Oner and Turk groups v. Turkey (Applications No. 27520/07, 75510/01, 41226/09, 38270/11, 51962/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)122]

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA)) (25/01/2024) concerning the cases of Altug Taner Akcam, Artun and Guvener, Nedim Sener and Oner and Turk groups v. Turkey (Applications No. 27520/07, 75510/01, 38270/11, 51962/12) and Işıkırık v. Turkey (41226/09) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)121]

CM Decisions

1459th meeting (DH), March 2023 - H46-28 Öner and Türk group (Application No. 51962/12), Nedim Şener group (Application No. 38270/11), Altuğ Taner Akçam group (Application No. 27520/07), Artun and Güvener group (Application No. 75510/01) and Işıkırık group (Application No. 41226/09) v. Turkey [CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-28]

1428th meeting (DH), March 2022 - H46-36 Öner and Türk group (Application No. 51962/12), Nedim Şener group (Application No. 38270/11), Altuğ Taner Akçam group (Application No. 27520/07) and Artun and Güvener group (Application No. 75510/01), Işıkırık group (Application No. 41226/09) v. Turkey [CM/Del/Dec(2022)1428/H46-36]

New Project: Promoting the Rule of Law in Europe through the Implementation of Judgments of the ECtHR Concerning Independence and Impartiality of the Judiciary

/

EIN is launching a new project initiative that aims to promote the independence and impartiality of the judiciary in Europe, through the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on this topic.

How Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Can Help Protect the Rule of Law

Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights addressing the issues of independence and impartiality of the judiciary and prosecution play an important role in Europe’s institutional response to the backsliding of the rule of law. They identify shortcomings that lie at the heart of the rule of law-related problematic, the relevant findings having been made by an international body that has a high level of legal and institutional authority.

The procedure set forth for the implementation of the Strasbourg Court judgments provides a fundamental framework for defining and facilitating much needed reforms related to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Following a Strasbourg Court judgment, the government of the country concerned is required to carry out reforms to address the underlying rule of law problem – a process which is monitored by the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe standards and practice provide guidelines about what reforms are necessary; the state is obliged to submit regular reporting about progress made; and the country’s government is held to account regarding their progress by other European states in regular meetings of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. In cases concerning the rule of law (stricto sensu), such measures can range from adopting provisions to ensure freedom of expression of magistrates on matters related to judiciary reforms, to ensuring the lawful composition of superior courts.

In states where the European Court of Human Rights has found a violation concerning the rule of law and conditions for change do not yet exist, the continuation of the implementation process for rule of law judgments before the Committee of Ministers is in itself invaluable for holding the government to account, and supporting pressure in other parts of Europe’s rule of law architecture. 

The Importance of Stakeholder Input

The input of national organisations working on rule of law issues is fundamental to the implementation of judgments concerning the independence and impartiality of judges and prosecutors. However, knowledge and experience-sharing in this area is still rather limited.

The Project

We aim at the creation of an informal network of organisations and individuals who are working on the implementation of ECtHR judgments concerning the independence and impartiality of the judiciary – and ensuring that this network is adequately connected, informed and supported to achieve change. Such a network currently does not exist and the work of relevant stakeholders is not adequately supported as a result.

In particular, we propose the following:

  1. A launch event for collaborative work on the implementation of ECtHR judgments concerning the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and the prosecution.

  2. Publication of a written report on ECtHR judgments pertaining to the independence of the judiciary and the prosecution, with an emphasis on those cases in respect of which significant delays are recorded in the adoption of effective measures to tackle the violations established by the Strasbourg Court.

  3. Support for the network’s ongoing work in promoting the implementation of ECtHR judgments independence of the judiciary and the prosecution.

Interested organisations are invited to reach out to EIN at: contact@einnetwork.org.

Overview of Rule 9 Submissions in view of the Committee of Ministers' Deputies Human Rights Meeting in December 2023

/

From the 5th to the 7th of December 2023, the Committee of Ministers will meet for their quarterly Human Rights Meeting. During this meeting, the Committee of Ministers will examine 43 leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that are pending implementation.

EIN members and partners, other civil society actors, lawyers and applicants have made 53 Rule 9 submissions for 28 cases under consideration. The list below sets out an overview of these submissions related to cases on the current agenda.


Overview of Submissions

Sharxhi and others v. Albania

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

Last Examination: March 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-1

Latest Submission: Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (25/10/2023) in the case of Sharxhi and Others v. Albania (Application No. 10613/16)

Muradyan v. Armenia

Violation: Failure to provide plausible explanation for the injury sustained by the applicant’s son, a military conscript, and his ensuing death. Lack of an effective investigation into his death.

Last Examination: September 2019 - CM/Del/Dec(2019)1355/H46-1

Latest Submissions: Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (27/11/2023) following a communication from an NGO (Helsinki Citizens' Assembly – Vanadzor) (16/11/2023) in the case of Muradyan v. Armenia (Application No. 11275/07)

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Helsinki Citizens' Assembly – Vanadzor) (24/10/2023) in the case of Muradyan v. Armenia (Application No. 11275/07) and reply from the authorities (08/11/2023)

Muradova group, Mammadov (Jalaloglu) Group, and Mikayil Mammadov Group v. Azerbaijan

Violation: Excessive use of force by the security forces and lack of effective investigations.

Last Examination: 30 November - 2 December 2021 -CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-5

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Legal Education Society) (26/06/2023) in the Muradova (Application No. 22684/05), Mammadov (Jalaloglu) (Application No. 34445/04), and Mikayil Mammadov groups (Application No. 4762/05) v. Azerbaijan

Sejdić and Finci Group v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

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

Last Examination: June 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/H46-4

Latest Submission: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Minority Rights Group International) (23/10/2023) in the case of SEJDIC AND FINCI v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (Application No. 27996/06)

International Bank for Commerce and Development ad and others group v. Bulgaria

Violation: Unfairness of the proceedings concerning the withdrawal of a bank licence and the bank’s insolvency.

Last Examination: June 2018 - CM/Del/Dec(2018)1318/H46-6

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (20/11/2023) in the case of Korporativna Targovska Banka AD v. Bulgaria (Application No. 46564/15) (International Bank for Commerce and Development AD group, 7031/05) 

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (16/08/2023) in the case of Korporativna Targovska Banka AD v. Bulgaria (Application No. 46564/15) (INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR COMMERCE AND DEVELOPMENT AD group, 7031/05)

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (20/10/2023) in the case of Korporativna Targovska Banka AD v. Bulgaria (Application No. 46564/15) (INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR COMMERCE AND DEVELOPMENT AD group, 7031/05) 

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (20/09/2023) in the case of Korporativna Targovska Banka AD v. Bulgaria (Application No. 46564/15) (International Bank for Commerce and Development AD group, 7031/05)

Velikova Group v. Bulgaria

Violation: Excessive use of force by law enforcement agents; ineffective investigations.

Last Examination: 30 November - 2 December 2021 - CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-10

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (BULGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE (BHC)) (23/10/2023) in the VELIKOVA group of cases v. Bulgaria (Application No. 41488/98)

Statileo Group v. Croatia

Violation: Statutory limitations on use of property by landlords, including through the rent control scheme for flats subject to protected leases.

Last Examination: June 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/H46-9

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Udruga Proljece) (10/11/2023) in the case of STATILEO v. Croatia (Application No. 12027/10)

Identoba and others group v. Georgia

Violation: Lack of protection against homophobic attacks during demonstrations.

Last Examination: December 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1451/H46-13

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI)) (30/10/2023) in the case of IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) 

Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Social Justice Center and European Human Rights Advocacy Centre) (19/10/2023) in the case of Mikeladze and Others v. Georgia (Application No. 54217/16) (Identoba and Others group, 73235/12) 

Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), Women's Initiatives Support Group (WISG) and Georgian Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA)) (16/10/2023) in the case of IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) 

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender of Georgia) (19/10/2023) in the case of IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) 

Rule 9.4 - Communication from another Organisation (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights) (24/10/2023) in the case of IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12)

Tkhelidze Group v. Georgia

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

Last Examination: December 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1451/H46-14

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (The Public Defender of Georgia) (03/11/2023) in the case of Tkhelidze v. Georgia (Application No. 33056/17) 

Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA), European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) and Union Sapari) (20/10/2023) 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 or dissolution of the applicants’ associations.

Last Examination: June 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/H46-12

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (25/10/2023) in the case of BEKIR-OUSTA AND OTHERS v. Greece (Application No. 35151/05) 

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Greek Helsinki Monitor) (13/11/2023) in the case of Bekir-Ousta and Others v. Greece (Application No. 35151/05) 

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Greek Helsinki Monitor) (16/10/2023) in the case of BEKIR-OUSTA AND OTHERS v. Greece (Application No. 35151/05) 

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Federation of Western Thrace Turks in Europe) (14/09/2023) in the case of BEKIR-OUSTA AND OTHERS v. Greece (Application No. 35151/05)

Sidiropoulos and Papakostas Group v. Greece

Violation: Use of potentially lethal force and ill-treatment by law enforcement agents and lack of effective investigations.

Last Examination: September 2021 - CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-15

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Greek Helsinki Monitor) (18/10/2023) in the case of Sidiropoulos and Papakostas v. Greece (Application No. 33349/10) 

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Pro Bono Publico) (16/10/2023) in the case of Sidiropoulos and Papakostas v. Greece (Application No. 33349/10) [anglais uniquement]

Baka v. Hungary

Violation: Lack of access to a court as regards the premature termination of the applicant’s mandate as President of the Supreme Court which also led to a violation of his right to freedom of expression.

Last Examination: March 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-11

Latest Submission: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC)) (05/10/2023) in the case of BAKA v. Hungary (Application No. 20261/12)

Cestaro Group v. Italy

Violation: Ill-treatment by the police; inadequate criminal legislation to punish acts of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.

Last Examination: December 2019 - CM/Del/Dec(2019)1362/H46-14

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Associazione Luca Coscioni Per La Liberta Di Ricerca Scientifica) (19/01/2023) in the case of CESTARO v. Italy (Application No. 6884/11)

Cosovan v. Republic of Moldova

Violation: Lack of adequate medical care in prison, lack of domestic remedies, and lack of sufficient reasons for prolongation of pre-trial detention.

First Examination

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Promo-LEX and European Prison Litigation Network) and an NHRI (The People’s Advocate Office) (24/10/2023) in the case of Cosovan v. the Republic of Moldova (Application No. 13472/18)

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: December 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1451/H46-22

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Transgender Europe, Coalition MARGINS, TransFormA and ILGA Europe) (27/07/2023) in the case of X. v. the “former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (Application No. 29683/16)

Strand Lobben and others group v. Norway

Violation: Various shortcomings in the decision-making processes in child welfare proceedings.

Last Examination: September 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1443/H46-18

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Menneskerett Norge) (17/02/2023) in the case of Strand Lobben and others v. Norway (Application No. 37283/13) 

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Menneskerett Norge) (16/11/2022) in the case of Strand Lobben and others v. Norway (Application No. 37283/13) 

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (17/05/2023) in the case of A.S. v. Norway (Application No. 60371/15) (Strand Lobben and Others group, 37283/13) 

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (27/02/2023) in the case of A.S. v. Norway (Application No. 60371/15) (Strand Lobben and Others group, 37283/13) 

Juszczyszyn and Żurek v. Poland

Violation: Unforeseeable suspension of a judge, by a tribunal not established by law, predominantly aiming to sanction and dissuade him from verifying the lawfulness of appointment of judges upon recommendation of the reformed National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) (Juszczyszyn) and application of a set of measures against a former judicial member of the NCJ in connection with his views in defence of judicial independence (Żurek).

First Examination

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR)) (28/08/2023) in the case of Juszczyszyn v. Poland (Application No. 35599/20) 

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (20/04/2023) following a communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights) (31/03/2023) in the cases of Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o., Reczkowicz group, Grzeda, Broda and Bojara, Juszczyszyn and Zurek v. Poland (Applications No. 4907/18, 43447/19, 43572/18, 26691/18, 35599/20, 39650/18)

Reczkowicz Group, Broda and Bojara, and Grzęda v. Poland

Violation: Tribunal not established by law due to, inter alia, systemic dysfunction in the judicial appointments’ procedures (Reczkowicz group) and lack of access to court regarding the termination of the applicants’ terms of office (Broda and Bojara, Grzęda).

Last Examination: June 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/H46-18

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (14/11/2023) in the case of Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v. Poland (Application No. 1469/20) (Reczkowicz group, 43447/19) 

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights) (26/10/2023) in the cases of Reczkowicz, Advance Pharma sp. z o.o and Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (Applications No. 43447/19, 1469/20, 49868/19) 

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Polish Judges Association Iustitia) (30/05/2023) in the cases of Broda and Bojara, Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. and Dolinska - Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (Applications No. 26691/18, 4907/18, 49868/19) 

Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland

Violation: Insufficient reasons of courts for refusal to refer a legal question to the Constitutional Court. Tribunal not established by law due to grave irregularities in the election of one of the Constitutional Court's judges examining the applicant company’s constitutional complaint.

Last Examination: June 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/H46-20

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (14/11/2023) in the case of Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v. Poland (Application No. 1469/20) (Reczkowicz group, 43447/19) 

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights) (26/10/2023) in the cases of Reczkowicz, Advance Pharma sp. z o.o and Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (Applications No. 43447/19, 1469/20, 49868/19) 

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Polish Judges Association Iustitia) (30/05/2023) in the cases of Broda and Bojara, Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. and Dolinska - Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (Applications No. 26691/18, 4907/18, 49868/19) 

E.B. and M.G.C. Group v. Romania

Violation: Breaches of the State’s positive obligation effectively to apply a criminal-law system punishing any non-consensual sexual acts, in particular when the victims are children and persons with psychosocial disabilities.

Last Examination: 29 September – 1 October 2020 - CM/Del/Dec(2020)1383/H46-15

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Network for Preventing and Combating Violence against Women (”The Network”)) (18/10/2023) in the M.G.C. group of cases v. Romania (Application No. 61495/11)

Săcăleanu Group v. Romania

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

Last Examination: March 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-17 and September 2023 CM/Del/Dec(2023)1475/H46-30

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (28/11/2023) in the case of Omegatech Enterprises Ltd. v. Romania (Application No. 24612/07) (judgment S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. and Others v. Romania (No. 20752/07)) (Sacaleanu group (73970/01) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)1466]

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (27/11/2023) in the case of Omegatech Enterprises Ltd. v. Romania (Application No. 24612/07) (judgment S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. and Others v. Romania (No. 20752/07)) (Sacaleanu group (73970/01) 

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (16/10/2023) in the case of Omegatech Enterprises Ltd. v. Romania (Application No. 24612/07) (judgment S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. and Others v. Romania (No. 20752/07)) (Sacaleanu group (73970/01)

Alekseyev, Bayev and others, Berkman Group, and Zhdanov and others v. Russian Federation

Violation: Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly (Alekseyev, Bayev and Others, Berkman group). Refusal to register LGBT associations (Zdganov and Others).

Last Examination: December 2018 - CM/Del/Dec(2018)1331/H46-24, First examination, and First examination.

Latest Submission: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Crew Against Torture) (13/09/2023) in the cases of Zhdanov and Others, ALEKSEYEV group, Bayev and Others and Berkman group v. Russian Federation (Applications No. 12200/08, 4916/07, 67667/09, 46712/15)

Magnitskiy and others and Mazepa and others group v. Russian Federation

Violation: High-profile murder cases and lack of effective investigation.

First Examination

Latest Submission: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (EHRAC) (17/10/2023) in the case of Mazepa and Others v. Russian Federation (Application No. 15086/07)

Navalnyy and Ofitserov Group v. Russian Federation

Violation: Different violations relating to various repressive measures taken by the authorities against Mr Aleksey Navalnyy, with strong factual links between them.

Last Examination: June 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/H46-30

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (03/11/2023) in the case of NAVALNYY AND OFITSEROV v. Russia (Application No. 46632/13)

R. Kačapor and others group v. Serbia

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

Last Examination: December 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1451/H46-37

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (02/08/2023) in the case of Zemljoradnicka Zadruga Paor v. Serbia (Application No. 13246/22) (R. Kacapor group, 2269/06)

Selahattin Demirtaş (no. 2) Group v. Türkiye

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

Last Examination: September 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1475/H46-38

Latest Submission: Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from NGOs (Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, HRW, ICJ, IFHR) (23/10/2023) in the case of Yuksekdag Senoglu and Others v. Türkiye (Application No. 14332/17) (Selahattin Demirtas (No. 2) group, 14305/17) and reply from the authorities (02/11/2023) 

Opuz Group v. Türkiye

Violation: Failure to provide protection from domestic violence.

Last Examination: December 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1451/H46-41

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (‘Mor Çatı’ Women’s Shelter Foundation) (30/10/2023) in the case of OPUZ v. Turkey (Application No. 33401/02) 

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO ('Mor Çatı' Women’s Shelter Foundation) (17/10/2023) in the OPUZ group of cases v. Turkey (Application No. 33401/02) 

Ahmet Yildirim Group v. Türkiye

Violation: Restriction of access to the internet and wholesale blocking of internet sites.

Last Examination: March 2021 - CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-31

Latest Submissions: Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Ifade Ozgurlugu Dernegi (IFOD – Freedom of Expression Association)) (03/11/2023) in the case of AHMET YILDIRIM v. Turkey (Application No. 3111/10) 

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from NGOs (Media and Law Studies Association, Free Web Turkey Platform) (18/10/2023) in the cases of AHMET YILDIRIM and Cengiz and Others v. Turkey (Applications No. 3111/10, 48226/10) and reply from the authorities (02/11/2023)

EIN Civil Society Briefing November 2023 - Hungary, Türkiye, and Georgia

/

On the 27th of November 2023, EIN held the latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, ahead of the 1483rd Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting which takes place between 5th – 7th December 2023. The event was held in person in Strasbourg, and facilitated by Ioulietta Bisiouli, EIN Director.

The Briefing focused on the following cases:

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

  • Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) v Türkiye 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. The case was presented by Ramazan Demir, Legal Representative of the applicant.

  • Identoba and others v Georgia concerns the lack of protection against homophobic attacks during demonstrations, presented by David Javakhishvili, International Litigation Lawyer at GYLA, and Toby Collis, Lawyer at EHRAC.


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


The Hungarian Helsinki Committee discussed the lack of a remedy against removal and the judicial reform of 2023, setting out general measures required:

  • Providing guarantees for procedural fairness in cases involving the removal of judges

  • Ensuring that measures leading to the removal of judges will be open to effective review

The NGO also addressed the government’s excuse for non-execution:

“those measures which were criticised and put under scrutiny in the case of Baka, all resulted from a one-time constitutional reform” - this excuse is not valid

In 2023, there is still no remedy against removal:

  • The chief justice can be removed from office without legal remedy by 2/3 majority of the Parliament

  • The decision on impeachment is political and not subject to judicial remedy

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee also outline repeating patterns of political pressure on the judiciary:

  1. Removal of judge Baka through ad hominem legislation

  2. Removal of senior judges by forced early retirement via legislative acts

  3. Election of new Kúria President through ad hominem legislation

  4. Removal of a lower-court judge from the bench (case of judge Szabó) after she turned to the CJEU

  5. Possibility of impeaching the Kúria President without judicial remedy

  6. Overruling judicial decisions

The NGO provided comments on the Judicial Reform of 2023:

Hungary passed a judicial reform in May 2023

  • To fulfill undertakings towards the European Union

  • A possibility not taken to implement the Baka judgment

  • No new rules on the impeachment procedure, still no remedy

  • New rules on the eligibility and election of the Kúria President and Vice-president

  • More guarantees against undue interference by court administration

Hacking the requirement of excluding re-election of the Kúria President

  • The Kúria President cannot be re-elected, but can remain in office for an indefinite period

  • Undermines the whole reform regarding the status of the Kúria President

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee also discussed the freedom of expression violation and the ongoing chilling effect on judges:

A New Kúria President was elected in 2020 through ad hominem legislative acts of constitutional rank, without former experience as judge and against the objection of the National Judicial Council. The UN  Special Rapporteur criticised this as “an attack against the independence of the judiciary in violation of the principle of separation of powers”, while the EC Rule of Law Report noted it was “not in line with European standards”.

The Chilling Effect

The chilling effect preventing judges from speaking out publicly against measures undermining the independence of the judiciary is caused by:

  • National measures (smear campaigns, political attacks, legal measures, abusive lawsuits).

  • Adopted and/or applied with the aim to dissuade or deter natural persons from fulfilling their professional duties.

  • Aiming at creating a self-censorship.

Since 2017, the Committee has called on the Hungarian authorities to fully guarantee and safeguard judges’ freedom of expression, to take measures to lift and countervail the chilling effect, and to evaluate the domestic legislation regarding guarantees against undue interference. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee emphasized that none of these expected measures were taken, and that the situation has not been addressed but rather aggravated.

Furthermore, smear campaigns against judges have continued, with the same pattern, in several waves:

  • Target: judges as members of the National Judicial Council (NJC)

  • Method: discrediting members of the NJC as judges

  • Aim: discouraging judges from speaking out

    Smear attacks continue even during the NJC elections.

The new Kúria President has had an active role in the silencing of judges, having:

As regards the New Code of Ethics for Judges adopted by the NJC, it significantly extends the freedom of expression of judges, especially with respect to criticising legislation. However, the Kúria President challenged the new Code before the Constitutional Court requesting its annulment and questioning the legal authority of the NJC to adopt the Code. The proceedings are still pending.

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee called on the Committee of Ministers to:

  1. Continue examining the case under enhanced procedure

  2. Take into account the changed context of the execution

  3. Require legislative changes

    • to exclude political pressure through the Kúria President

    • to remove the possibility of prolongation of the mandate of Kúria President by political minority

    • to guarantee freedom of expression of judges in accordance with ECtHR judgments

  4. Require Hungarian authorities to refrain from

    • public critique of judicial decisions

    • legislative steps overruling judicial decisions

    • smear campaigns against judges

  5. Evaluate the domestic legislation regarding guarantees against undue interference

See slides for full briefing.

Relevant Documents

NGO Communications:

1483rd meeting (December 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC)) (05/10/2023) in the case of BAKA v. Hungary (Application No. 20261/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)1245]

1459th meeting (March 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Amnesty International and Hungarian Helsinki Committee) (26/01/2023) in the case of BAKA v. Hungary (Application No. 20261/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)157]

1459th meeting (March 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Association of Hungarian Judges (MABIE)) (27/01/2023) in the case of BAKA v. Hungary (Application No. 20261/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)156]

1459th meeting (March 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Res Iudicata - Association of Judges for Social Awareness) (24/01/2023) in the case of BAKA v. Hungary (Application No. 20261/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)145]

1459th meeting (March 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (European Association of Judges (EAJ)) (18/01/2023) in the case of BAKA v. Hungary (Application No. 20261/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)116]

1428th meeting (March 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Helsinki Committee) (24/02/2022) in the case of BAKA v. Hungary (Application No. 20261/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)286]

CM Decisions:

1459th meeting (DH), March 2023 - H46-11 Baka v. Hungary (Application No. 20261/12) [CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-11]

1428th meeting (DH), March 2022 - H46-14 Baka v. Hungary (Application No. 20261/12) [CM/Del/Dec(2022)1428/H46-14]

The Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) v Türkiye case concerns the arrest and pre-trial detention of, and criminal proceedings against, the applicant, a member of the National Assembly and one of the leaders of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP, a pro-Kurdish opposition party).

The applicant’s legal representative, Mr. Ramazan Demir reminded the participants of the key facts of the case:

  • Mr Selahattin Demirtaş, who was at the time one of the co-chairs of and a member of parliament for the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) was placed in pre-trial detention since 2016 on account of allegations that his speeches and statements incited acts of violence between 6-8 October 2014. He was not released after judgment.

  • The case was referred to the Grand Chamber, and he was placed in pre-trial detention again under new investigation related to events between 6-8 October 2014. According to the Grand Chamber judgment delivered in December 2020: 

    • The second pre-trial detention decision was a continuation of the first pre-trial detention decision. 

    • The applicant was detained with political motives under Article 18.

    • Mr. Selahattin Demirtaş must be released immediately.

Ramazan Demir outlined the Government’s arguments:

The Government’s Arguments

  • The applicant’s detention subject to the Court’s judgment has ended;

  • The current detention falls outside the scope of the present application;

  • New charges, evidence and allegations (i.e. witness and anonymous witness statements) were in substance different from those examined by the Court in its judgment;

  • The necessary individual measures have been taken.

The Government alleges that Mr Demirtaş’s continued detention, on the basis of a new charge, amounted to a new fact, raising a new problem, one that had not been examined by the Court. However:

  • 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 organization';

    • 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.

Ongoing judicial harassment against the applicant:

  • The 4 years and 8 months prison sentence in the second set of proceedings was used as a tool to prevent the applicant’s release and to prevent his participation in any election.

  • There have been 47 cases filed against the applicant, and 10 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 has not delivered any judgment for the application related to the second pre-trial detention of the applicant since 7 November 2019.

In terms of recommendations, Ramazan Demir requested the Committee of Ministers to:

  1. Request the Government of Türkiye to release Mr Demirtaş immediately;

  2. 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;

  3. Urge the Constitutional Court of Türkiye to conclude, without delay and in line with the Grand Chamber judgment, the individual applications listed between paragraphs 23 and 25 of the applicant’s Rule 9.1 submission dated 17 May 2021;

  4. 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;

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

  6. 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;

  7. Write a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Türkiye to urge the Government to fully execute the Grand Chamber judgment.

See slides for full briefing.

Relevant Documents

Applicant Communications:

1475th meeting (September 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (31/07/2023) in the case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Türkiye (no. 2) (Application No. 14305/17) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)920]

1459th meeting (March 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (10/01/2023) in the case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Türkiye (no. 2) (Application No. 14305/17) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)65]

NGO Communications:

1483rd meeting (December 2023) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from NGOs (Türkiye Human Rights Litigation Support Project, HRW, ICJ, IFHR) (23/10/2023) in the case of Yuksekdag Senoglu and Others v. Türkiye (Application No. 14332/17) (Selahattin Demirtas (No. 2) group, 14305/17) and reply from the authorities (02/11/2023) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)1326-rev]

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (11/05/2023) following a communication from an NGO (Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA)) (14/04/2023) in the case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Türkiye (No. 2) (Application No. 14305/17) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)589]

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA)) (14/04/2023) in the case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Türkiye (No. 2) (Application No. 14305/17) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)518]

CM Decisions:

1475th meeting (DH), September 2023 - H46-38 Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) group v. Türkiye (Application No. 14305/17) [CM/Del/Dec(2023)1475/H46-38]

1468th meeting (DH), June 2023 - H46-33 Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) group v. Türkiye (Application No. 14305/17) [CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/H46-33]

1459th meeting (DH), March 2023 - H46-26 Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) group v. Türkiye (Application No. 14305/17) [CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-26]

The Identoba and Others v Georgia group of cases concerns several violations regarding the lack of protection against homophobic attacks or religiously motivated attacks by private individuals during marches/meetings.

GYLA and EHRAC provided participants with a summary of the group of cases & action plans/reports:

The Identoba group is a collection of cases from Georgia concerning:

  • Degrading treatment of the applicants on account of abusive and humiliating police conduct, motivated by homophobic and/or transphobic hatred; and/or

  • Authorities’ failure to provide adequate protection against, and in some instances official acquiescence and connivance in, inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted by private individuals on LGBTI activists and Jehovah’s Witnesses; and/or

  • Absence of effective investigations into these facts, including lack of investigation into discriminatory motives, including issues of discrimination on LGBTI status, religious status (Jehovah’s Witness/ Muslim groups),

  • A number of cases in the group have been closed, but 3 remain open, and individual measures have been insufficient:

Summary of Action Plans/Reports:

  • The Government provided early Action Plans in 2016 - 2017, and annual Action Reports since 2018. An Action Report was submitted recently (for the December 2023 meeting) asking the Committee to end supervision.

  • The report outlines recent individual measures – in summary, investigations are ongoing and 2 persons have been charged in the Mikeladze case. No police officers have been charged or identified in the other cases. 

  • Regarding general measures, the Action Report emphasized:

    • Zero tolerance messages against hate crimes is a ‘priority’ and an ‘ongoing process.’

    • Authorities cooperate on the organisation of Pride events. However, it was not possible to hold the July 8, 2023 Tbilisi Pride event: “a particularly large number of counter demonstrators made it complicated to control them in a wide area.”

    • The investigations of attacks during previous marches are ongoing.

    • A department of human rights protection was set up and specialised investigation of hate crimes was developed through hate crime training (only specialised investigators/ prosecutors investigate hate crimes).

    • Collecting data: a memorandum was signed on data collection. Complete data for 2022 was published.

    • The National Human Rights Strategy was approved and adopted in 2023, and authorities are now working on an Action Plan.

GYLA and EHRAC outlined the status of individual measures:

Individual Measures

  • Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia  (App. no. 7224/11)

    • To date, no individual has been determined charged or convicted.

    • Victims have not been granted adequate access to pertinent information or documentation.

    • The criminal responsibility of police officers will be excluded due to the expiration of the statute of limitations on December 15, 2023

  • WISG and Others v. Georgia  (App. no. 73204/13)

    • Not a single individual has been found criminally responsible or held to account.

    • Prosecutor declined request for the acknowledgment of all those interviewed as victims.

  • Mikeladze and Others v Georgia (54217/16)

    • No investigative activity took place between 2015 to 2021.

    • Criminal charges were brought against two former police officers.

    • For the remaining applicants: investigation ongoing and not yet granted victim status.

GYLA and EHRAC outlined developments pertinent to general measures:

General Measures: Zero-tolerance messages

  • Anti-LGBT sentiment and statements continue to form at the highest points of Government. The NGOs provided statements made by the Prime Minister as an example:

  • “March should not take place as it is unacceptable to the majority of the population”, then he followed up on this by saying “We have our traditions, rules and everyone should respect our rules and traditions. … I would also like to point out that, unfortunately, behind the organizers ... are revanchist, radical groups. In particular, the radical opposition led by Saakashvili. They are involved, absolutely, I declare this with full responsibility, that they are organizing this march.” - Prime Minister- Irakli Garibashvili

  • Shortly after, the angry mob started to attack journalists and offices of various NGOs.

GYLA and EHRAC highlighted the impact and chilling effect on freedom of peaceful assembly from these cases:

  • 5 July 2021 - Publicly organized violent attacks on journalists because of their support for LGBTQI

    • More than 50 journalists were beaten and some were hospitalized while covering a protest against a gay rights rally in Georgia's capital, Tbilisi;

    • Due to the large-scale aggression of violent groups, the “Pride March” was canceled;

    • None of the organizers of the hate groups have been charged;

    • No investigation has been initiated into the alleged violations of State itself.

  • In 2022, Tbilisi Pride decided not to hold a March of Dignity - Chilling Effect';

  • 8 July 2023 - At least 2000 anti-LGBTIQ+ individuals attacked the NGO Tbilisi Pride’s Pride Festival in Tbilisi, Georgia;

    • Tbilisi Pride had to cancel all the Pride-related events following the attack;

    • None of the organizers or participants of the hate groups have been charged.

The NGO highlighed deficiencies of the investigation of hate crimes and refusal of establishment specialized investigative unit:

  • The investigative units are not launching investigations.

  • The government refuses to initiate investigations with respect to the omissions of police officers and the negligence of MIA's high-ranking officials.

  • The prosecutor's office continues to refuse to grant victim status or involve victims.

  • The government has not established a specialized investigative unit.

  • Discriminatory motive is not included as an aggravating factor for administrative offences.

Results of impunity

  • Aleksandre Lashkarava, a cameraman severely beaten by members of a hate group, passed away soon after event. The investigation is still ongoing.

  • Some journalists have left the country, while others have left the profession.

  • Due to the physical injuries sustained, cameraman Ilia Tvaliashvili suffered permanent negative consequences on his body and is under restricted work.

  • The organizers of hate groups continue to publicly plan assaults on Pride events. None of them have been charged or detained.

  • The legal representatives of the victims do not even have access to the criminal case materials related to the organizers.

The National Human Rights Strategy and Action Plan

“The National Strategy for the Protection of Human Rights for 2022-2030 was adopted by the Parliament in March 2023  without including the needs of the LGBTI community”. - Public Defender of Georgia

GYLA and EHRAC concluded with their individual and general measures recommendations to the Committee of Ministers:

Individual measures

  • The responsible authorities should carry out effective, timely, independent investigations, including identification of police officers involved, and ensure that statute of limitations do not lead to impunity;

  • Authorities must reclassify the crimes commensurate with their seriousness; and

  • Authorities should grant victim status and adequate victim participation.

General measures

  • Authorities must create a specialized investigative unit capable of investigating the hate crimes;

  • Authorities must observe its positive obligation to protect LBGTQI persons at events from violence and effectively investigate these incidents, particularly those arising out of the violence on 5-6 July 2021, and 08 July 2023, and particularly the organisers of the events;

  • The Government must reconsider its official tolerance of the repetitive violent acts committed by organizers of hate crimes, and discontinue anti-LGTBQI sentiments;

  • Together with civil society actors, the State should establish the measures necessary to enable the safe and peaceful gatherings of LGBTQI activists and take preventive measures to deter violence, hatred and discriminatory attitudes and behaviour.

See slides for full briefing.

Relevant Documents:

NGO Communications:

1483rd meeting (December 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI)) (30/10/2023) in the case of IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)1370]

1483rd meeting (December 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Social Justice Center and European Human Rights Advocacy Centre) (19/10/2023) in the case of Mikeladze and Others v. Georgia (Application No. 54217/16) (Identoba and Others group, 73235/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)1310]

NHRI Communications:

1483rd meeting (December 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender of Georgia) (19/10/2023) in the case of IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)1311]

CM Decisions:

1451st meeting (DH), December 2022 - H46-13 Identoba and Others group v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) [CM/Del/Dec(2022)1451/H46-13]

1419th meeting (DH), 30 November- 2 December 2021 - H46-14 Identoba and Others group v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) [CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-14]

Protecting Freedom of Expression through ECtHR judgments: Insights from the EIN Capacity-building Conference in Leipzig

/

On November 20th and 21st, the European Implementation Network organised a capacity-building conference in Leipzig, Germany. The conference, which brought together about 50 experts from 26 European civil society organisations, academics, and journalists, aimed at empowering civil society and its allies across Europe to promote free speech reforms through the implementation of ECtHR judgments. It addressed the complexities surrounding the implementation of ECtHR judgments related to freedom of expression in Europe, shedding light on the challenges faced by civil society in ensuring the execution of relevant judgments, and shared best practices for free speech advocacy.

 
 
 

Setting the Stage

The conference opened with a speech delivered by EIN Chair Prof. Dr. Başak Çalı, who placed emphasis on the importance of addressing the high number of pending freedom of expression leading judgments - approximately 100 - and the pivotal role of civil society in advocating for their execution to safeguard free speech in Europe.

The first session provided an introduction into the ECtHR implementation process and how NGOs can use it to advance freedom of expression in Europe. EIN Director Ioulietta Bisiouli discussed the general principles of the ECtHR implementation process and the impact of unimplemented free speech-related judgments on the democratic functioning and the upholding of the rule of law in European countries. The EIN Director underlined the primordial importance of upholding the Convention system through ensuring unwavering respect for its implementation mechanism, including in relation to free speech judgments, and recalled the human rights role of the Committee of Ministers, as well as the Deputies’ duty to hold recalcitrant States to account for their failures to achieve a timely and effective implementation of the ECtHR judgments.

The session continued with a presentation by EIN Finance and Programme Manager Agnès Ciccarone, who provided insights into how NGOs can enhance their impact on ECtHR implementation through effective Rule 9 submissions, outlining “The Dos and Don’ts for Rule 9 submissions in the implementation process”. Research on best practices for free speech advocacy was presented by EIN Law and Advocacy Officer Ioana Iliescu, emphasising on the need for constructive engagement with the national authorities, coalition-building, and effective communication about (non-)implementation of judgments, notably by working with the media.

 

The discussions in substance

The second session of the conference featured four panel discussions as well as two keynote speeches on a number of selected free speech-related topics that are addressed by the ECtHR case-law in a recurrent manner.

Civil and criminal defamation

Panel 1 : Georgiana Gheorghe, Andreas Takis, Dr. Başak Çalı, Tina Đaković, Nora Wehofsits (from left to right).

The first panel discussion was carried out with the participation of Georgiana Gheorghe, Executive Director at APADOR-CH, Tina Đaković, Organization and Program Coordinator at Human Rights House Zagreb, Nora Wehofsits, International Advocacy Officer at Human Rights House Foundation, and Andreas Takis, President of the Board of the Hellenic League for Human Rights.

The panel addressed the issue of defamation and the distinction between statements of fact and value judgments. Panellists highlighted the challenges faced in various European countries, such as the long-standing failure of national courts to apply relevant  Art. 10 standards, in a continued pattern of non-compliance with multiple violation-finding judgments rendered by the ECtHR in the course of more than 1.5 decades (Greece), the thorny path to decriminalisation of defamation and the difficulties in consolidating the progress achieved (Romania), the disproportionate amount of damages awarded in defamation lawsuits, the need for stronger legislation and the provision of concrete criteria regarding the proportionality test between personality and free speech-related rights. The broader discussion highlighted the significance of anti-SLAPP advocacy and the role played by other mechanisms, such as the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, in triggering a political discussion capable of addressing this growing phenomenon in Europe. Overall, the panel underlined the need for a balanced legal approach to uphold freedom of expression while safeguarding individual personality rights.

Censorship and state control over the media

Ioulietta Bisiouli & Cristina Frumosu-Durnea.

Following this panel, Cristina Frumosu-Durnea, Program Manager at Independent Journalism Centre in Moldova, held a keynote speech focusing on the implementation of the Manole and Others case, which concerns censorship and state control over media bodies. The speaker shed light on censorship challenges and State control faced by the media, placing emphasis on the importance of research, active engagement and the strategic choice of timing when engaging with the implementation process to achieve an effective case supervision by the Committee of Ministers.

Protection of journalistic sources and access to public information

Panel 2: Nóra Novoszádek, Dr. Dariia Opryshko, Ioulietta Bisiouli, Ilaria Fevola, Dr. Dirk Voorhoof, Wiebke Hangst (from left to right).

The second panel consisted of Dr. Dariia Opryshko, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Information, Telecommunications and Media Law of the University of Münster and consultant of the NGO “Human Rights Platform”, Wiebke Hangst, Legal Officer at Media Defence, Ilaria Fevola, Legal officer at Article 19, Nóra Novoszádek, Senior Legal Officer at the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, as well as, Dr. Dirk Voorhoof, Professor emeritus on Freedom of Expression. The panel delved into the protection of journalistic sources and access to public information. 

The importance of civil society engagement was underscored in the context of Ukraine, highlighting the need for both national and international involvement to stimulate political will and foster positive developments. The particular importance of upholding freedom of expression in the context of the work of human rights defenders was also underlined, including in relation to Hungary, along with the need for advocacy to elevate national issues to higher platforms, such as the EU, compelling respondent States to engage in the implementation process.

Panellists also brought into focus the impact of recourse to novel spyware on the protection of journalistic sources, emphasising on the existence of a worrisome correlation between high levels of unimplemented freedom of expression judgments and enhanced recourse to the use of such spyware by the same member States. Furthermore, the speakers looked into the forging of strategies for creating awareness and advocating for freedom of expression; the value of involving legal experts and academia in the implementation process, which led to full implementation of judgments concerning the protection of journalistic sources in Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands; and the need to approach judgments as advocacy opportunities even before they are delivered, by making relevant third party interventions before the Court. An important conclusion of this panel was that significant delays in the implementation process can also occur as a result of the complacency of member States which otherwise adhere more strictly to democratic principles and generally uphold the rule of law. Vigilance as to the effectiveness of the implementation mechanism is therefore always required.

Freedom of expression of magistrates

Panel 3: Konrad Siemaszko, Georgiana Gheorghe, Kerem Altiparmak, Adela Katchaounova, Erika Farkas (from left to right).

The second day of the conference kicked off with a third panel discussion with the participation of Adela Katchaounova, Legal Defense Programme Director at the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Georgiana Gheorghe, Executive Director at APADOR-CH, Konrad Siemaszko, Lawyer and Head of the Freedom of Expression Programme at the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, as well as Erika Farkas, Legal Officer at the Hungarian Helsinki Committee.

The panel addressed the issues surrounding the freedom of expression of magistrates. Panellists discussed the chilling effect of political attacks and disciplinary measures on magistrates, as well as advocacy strategies based on experiences from different European countries, including Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania. Panellists addressed how positive developments in this field are often dependent on the windows of opportunity created by changes in the political context. They also discussed the fact that the ‘chilling effect’ of restrictions to the freedom of expression of magistrates is rather part of broader political strategies aiming at weakening judicial independence. Successfully advocating for freedom of expression in this context therefore requires a multifaceted approach, which includes recognising broader patterns, cultivating alliances, integrating individual narratives, leveraging media attention at every stage of implementation, as well as grounding advocacy strategies in foundational principles and resources.

Safety and security of journalists and other media actors

Panel 4: Vafa Fati-Zada (on screen), Dr. Dariia Opryshko, Szabolcs Hegyi, Ilaria Fevola, Veysel Ok (from left to right).

The fourth panel discussion featured Dr. Dariia Opryshko, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Information, Telecommunications and Media Law of the University of Münster and consultant of the NGO “Human Rights Platform”, Vafa Fati-Zada at the Justice for Journalists Foundation, Veysel Ok, Attorney at Law and Co-Director of the Media Law and Studies Association (MLSA), as well as Ilaria Fevola, Legal officer at Article 19.

The panel focused on the safety and security of journalists and other media actors, who are fundamental pillars of a free and vibrant democracy. Journalists often face important risks such as censorship, intimidation and violence which can even result in serious bodily harm and the loss of life, in their pursuit of truth and unhindered dissemination of public information. Panellists discussed the positive developments in strengthening the legal framework for the protection and safety of journalists which were recorded in Ukraine after 2014, while underlining the challenges in ensuring effective investigations into attacks against journalists that remain unaddressed. Other good practices which have ensured the safety, well-being, and release from prison of journalists working in difficult contexts and jurisdictions have also been contributed. The speakers furthermore addressed the important, ongoing challenges faced by journalists and the media in Turkey, whereas the worrisome correlation between the increasing use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) and risks in the safety and security of journalists most often targeted by SLAPPs was also explored.

Monitoring freedom of expression judgments in the specific context of the Russian Federation

Violetta Fitsner.

The session was closed by a keynote speech by OVD-Info Advocacy Lawyer, Violetta Fitsner, who gave a sobering account of the challenges in implementing (inter alia) freedom of expression judgments in Russia,[1] emphasising on the need for continued civil society engagement with the implementation process and the necessity to continue raising implementation concerns with alternative international human rights mechanisms, but also underscoring the resilience, determination and commitment of Russian human rights defenders to bringing ECtHR judgments to fruition.  

Putting implementation skills into practice

The third session of the 2-day conference consisted in break-out practical exercises, allowing participants to apply the knowledge and skills garnered throughout the capacity-building event. Participants worked in groups to brainstorm on the strategy and the content of mock Rule 9 submissions in ECtHR free speech-related judgements.

Empowering Voices: Charting the Future of Freedom of Expression Implementation in Europe

In her concluding remarks, EIN Director Ioulietta Bisiouli highlighted the primordial importance of participation to the implementation process, including in connection with free speech-related judgments. While recognising the crucial role political will plays for the timely and effective implementation of ECtHR judgments, she underlined the significance of knowledge about and active engagement of civil society with the implementation process with a view to addressing existing gaps and unlocking the full potential of the Convention system and its implementation mechanism in cases where such political will is weak or inexistent. She  concluded by emphasising on the importance of individual responsibility for upholding the Convention system and on the need to read the Reykjavík principles as an invitation to renew the European societies’ bond therewith and to acknowledge the importance of the Convention system as a unique mechanism, capable of bringing about tangible progress and improvement in the level of enjoyment of human rights of European citizens, under the condition that the inherent weaknesses of the implementation mechanism be acknowledged and effectively countered.

The EIN Leipzig capacity-building conference was not just a gathering of like-minded people. It was a meeting that allowed an in-depth exploration of challenges and opportunities for addressing them in the context of implementation of ECtHR freedom of expression and media freedom-related judgments. Participants left Leipzig armed with a global overview of the state of play in this field, as well as with concrete tools and best practices on advocating for the effective execution of free speech judgments, with the ultimate aim of putting them to good use and thus making a lasting positive impact on the upholding of the rule of law in Europe. The conference, which only kicked off in substance the relevant EIN project foreseen to be concluded in the first part of 2025, thus marked a significant step forward towards a more robust, informed, and engaged civil society in the pursuit of a Europe where freedom of expression is not just acknowledged in judgments but also turns into a tangible, concrete, effectively protected and respected right.

We extend our sincere gratitude to the Swedish Postcode Lottery, the Fritt Ord Foundation and the Isocrates Foundation for their generous funding, which enables us to undertake this important project, as well as to the Mediencampus Villa Ida in Leipzig for providing an ideal venue for our capacity-building conference and for effectively and gracefully assisting us in organising all the related logistics. Above all, we sincerely thank all the speakers, moderators and participants for making the Leipzig capacity-building event a true success. We will continue engaging with you bilaterally with a view to increasing the number of submissions and the overall effective engagement with the implementation mechanism in respect of ECtHR free speech-related judgments.

[1] Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022, but considers itself not a party from March 16, 2022 (date when Russia ceased to be a Member of the CoE). The authorities promulgated laws prohibiting implementation of the judgments of the ECtHR adopted after March 15, 2022, and stopped any communications with the Court and the Committee of Ministers.

Capacity Building: ENNHRI, EIN and CoE Department on Execution of Judgments of the ECtHR

/

On November 15th, EIN, ENNHRI and the Council of Europe’s Department of Execution for the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights facilitated a capacity-building training session in Strasbourg, France.

The training focused on enhancing the capacity of National Human Rights Institutions (“NHRI”) to contribute to the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”). The programme consisted of an introduction and three sessions on topics surrounding the ECtHR implementation process.

Opening comments and instructions were made by Leena Leikas, Chair of ENNHRI Legal Working Group and Ioulietta Bisiouli, EIN Director, who set out the objectives & the structure of the training.

The first session addressed why NHRIs should take part in the implementation process and address the non-implementation of judgments of the ECtHR as a rule of law problem, This discussion was led by Paula Nowek, Human Rights Officer (Legal) at ENNHRI Secretariat, Patrick Schäfer, Head of Section of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, and Ioulietta Bisiouli, EIN Director.

The next session aimed to provide NHRIs with an overview of the implementation process in Strasbourg and the mandate of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers and their role. This session covered the supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the ECHR led by Patrick Schäfer, Head of Section of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, and how to write effective Rule 9 submissions by Gohar Simonyan, Legal Officer, Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe. This session concluded with a presentation about NHRI’s role in the implementation process presented by Michael O’Neill, Head of Legal at Irish Human Rights & Equality Commission, who shared his experience.

Agnes Ciccarone, EIN Programme Manager, outlined the “The Dos and Don’ts for Rule 9 submissions in the implementation process”, followed by Laurens Lavrysen, Jurist at the Belgian NHRI (FIRM), who presented his own experience with submitting Rule 9 submissions to the implementation process. The next session offered participants practical insights into how to draft Rule 9 submissions to the Committee of Ministers by working in small groups to discuss how they would submit a Rule 9 for a pending ECtHR case.

The last session addressed how NHRIs can become more engaged with the ECtHR judgments implementation process at the national level and the national advocacy strategies that could be employed by NHRIs. Ioulietta Bisiouli, EIN Director, introduced the topic by discussing why national advocacy for the implementation of judgments is necessary. Next, Ioana Iliescu, EIN Law and Advocacy Officer, set out examples of how NHRIs can advocate for implementation at the national level. Finally, Simona Drenik Bavdek, Assistant Head of the Center for Human Rights at the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia, shared her experiences on setting up a national oversight mechanism for ECtHR implementation in Slovenia.

The training wrapped up with a peer exchange/discussion with participants. Leena Leikas, Chair of ENNHRI Legal Working Group, Patrick Schäfer, Head of Section of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, and Ioulietta Bisiouli, EIN Director, closed the training session and thanked all participants for attending and their engagement.

We thank everyone who joined the training, and we hope to see your submissions and engagement with the implementation of ECtHR judgments in the future.

EIN Civil Society Briefing September 2023: Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece & the UK

/

On the 15th of September 2023, EIN held the latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, ahead of the 1475th Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting on 19th – 21st September 2023. The event was held in person in Strasbourg, facilitated by Ioulietta Bisiouli, EIN Director.

The Briefing focused on the following cases:


The Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary case concerns authorities’ failure to comply with their procedural obligation 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.

Hungarian Helsinki Committee provided participants with the legislative developments and challenges:

Positive changes:

  • The “safe transit country” inadmissibility ground according to Section 51(2)(f) of the Asylum Act (found against EU law by the CJEU) was abolished as of 1 January 2023.

Remaining gaps:

  • There has been no reassessment of the legislative presumption of Serbia being a „safe third country” carried out by the Hungarian authorities.

  • Section XIV (4) of the Fundamental Law, which provided the constitutional foundation for the 'safe transit country' concept remains to be in force.

  • Sections 5 (1a) and (1b) of Act LXXXIX of 2007 on the State Border legalizing summary removals to Serbia remain to be in force.

  • Section 5 (1b) of Act LXXXIX of 2007 on the State Border extending the above legalization to the whole territory of the country under the state of crisis due to mass migration remains to be in force.

Hungarian Helsinki Committee continued to outline the embassy system and the summary removals to Serbia:

The Government’s communication, 26.6.2023:

„The legislative presumption of “safe third country” for Serbia has not been applied by the asylum authority and the national courts since the introduction of the transitional asylum procedure as of 26 May 2020 (“Embassy procedure”)”

C-823/21, Commission v. Hungary, 22.6.2023:

In the respective infringement procedure the CJEU ruled that:

By making the possibility, for certain third-country nationals or stateless persons present in its territory or at its borders of making an application for international protection subject to the prior submission of a declaration of intent at a Hungarian embassy situated in a third country and to the grant of a travel document enabling them to enter Hungarian territory, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Asylum procedures directive.

Summary removals to Serbia

Legislation:

Section 5(1)(b) of the Act LXXXIX of 2007 on State Borders that regularized collective expulsions to Serbia remain to be in force.

Refusal to implement judgments:

  • R.N. v. Hungary 4.4.2023.

  • H.K. v. Hungary, 22.9.2022.

  • Shazad v. Hungary, 8.10.2021.

  • C-808/18, Commission v. Hungary,17.12.2020.

Hungarian Helsinki Committee highlighted the impacts of the war against Ukraine on the case:

Late January 2023, the practice at the Hungarian/Ukrainian border has changed. According to the new rules only those are granted entry:

  • who have the necessary and valid travel documents (e.g. visa, passport);

  • who are not under the effect of an entry ban;

  • •those third-country nationals who did not enter Ukraine after 24 February 2022.

As a result, third-country nationals (non Ukrainians) who have returned to Ukraine after the war are refused entry to Hungary. The non-refoulement examination bares serious shortcomings.

Hungarian Helsinki Committee provided their recommendations to the Committee of Ministers:

The HHC respectfully recommends the CM to continue examining the execution of the judgment.

Recommendations to the Government of Hungary:

  • Conduct a new adequate assessment of all existing sources on the situation of asylum seekers in Serbia.

  • Amend Section 51(2)(e) and Section 51/A of the Asylum Act to ensure that the “safe third country” concept is applied and expulsion is ordered only if the third country takes back the asylum seeker in an orderly manner.

  • Repeal the legislation legalizing summary removals and until it is done refrain from the unlawful practice on continuing these removals.

  • Take measures to ensure effective access to territory and procedure for those seeking protection at the borders and on the territory of Hungary.

  • Refrain from unlawful refusals at the Hungarian-Ukrainian border.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

NGO Communications

1475th meeting (September 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Helsinki Committee) (01/08/2023) in the case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (Application No. 47287/15) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)960]

CM Decisions

1443rd meeting (DH), September 2022 - H46-11 Ilias and Ahmed group v. Hungary (Application No. 47287/15) [CM/Del/Dec(2022)1443/H46-11]

The Safi and Others v. Greece case concerns the ineffective investigation into a coastguard operation in 2014 in the Aegean Sea during which eleven relatives of the migrant applicants who were aboard a fishing boat drowned. The major shortcomings identified by the Court are the following: lack of investigation into the allegedly flawed translations of applicants’ statements which constituted an integral part of the case file; insufficient participation of the applicants in the criminal proceedings, who were not granted access to the recordings between the coastguards and to data from an island radar which were of significant evidentiary value; there were lines of further investigation which were clearly necessary but which were not pursued by the prosecuting authorities thus compromising their ability to shed full light on the circumstances of the sinking.

Mr Minos Mouzourakis from Refugee Support Aegean and Mr Stephanos Stavros, Human Rights Lawyer, outlined the key elements and context of the case:

  • Boat with 27 persons towed by Hellenic Coast Guard sank off Farmakonisi on 20 January 2014. 11 people drowned

  • Archived criminal proceedings against Coast Guard officials in the incident, as well as military officers subjecting applicants to degrading treatment upon arrival

  • Court awarded non-pecuniary damage

    Violations found by the Court

  • Substantive violation of Article 2: delayed notification of JRCC, ill-equipped vessel without rescue equipment

  • Procedural violation of Article 2: deficiencies in interpretation and transcript of testimonies, denial of access to evidence, dismissal of submissions without due reasoning

  • Substantive violation of Article 3: degrading stripping and bodily search of survivors

Safi v. Greece in context – the Pylos shipwreck and beyond

  • Sinking of a trawler with an estimated 750 passengers in the Greek SAR zone on 14 June 2023. Only 104 survived.

  • CommDH called for effective investigation & highlighted that Pylos is “not an isolated incident” à explicit link of Pylos with Safi v. Greece

  • European Ombudsman opened own-initiative inquiry into Frontex role, including in the Pylos case

  • 40 survivors lodged criminal complaint before the Piraeus Naval Court Prosecutor on 13 September 2023 – preliminary investigation pending

    vBeyond Pylos: UN Special Procedures August 2023 concerns regarding failure to provide prompt & effective assistance to people in distress and call for investigation into Coast Guard alleged breaches of the right to life

Refugee Support Aegean and Mr Stephanos Stavros note the substantial and procedural obligations of the case to participants:

Substantive obligations under Article 2 ECHR: Coast Guard operations

Indicative cases

  • Farmakonisi 20 Jan 2014 - 11 dead - Safi v. Greece App No 5418/15 (Judgment)

  • Agathonisi 16 Mar 2018 - 16 dead - F.M. v. Greece App No 17622/21 (Communicated)

  • Pylos - 14 Jun 2023 - 600+ dead or missing - Pending domestic criminal proceedings

Key issues

  • Absence of interpretation services at the Coast Guard (JRCC, vessels) for effective communication

  • Delay in search and rescue

  • Absence of video-recording of Coast Guard rescue operations

  • Absence of adequate search and rescue equipment in deployed vessels

Conclusion: Safi v. Greece involves complex problems relating to the adequacy of resources, design and roll-out of Coast Guard operations at sea & on search and rescue

Procedural obligations under Article 2 ECHR: Effectiveness of investigations

(Coast Guard responsibility investigated by Piraeus Naval Court Prosecutor)

Indicative cases (others concerning sea and land)

  • Farmakonisi 20 Jan 2014 - Archived - Safi v. Greece App No 5418/15 (Judgment)

  • Pserimos 22 Sep 2014 - Archived - Alkhatib v. Greece App No 3566/16 (Communicated)

  • Symi 31 Aug 2015 - Acquitted before trial - Almukhlas v. Greece App No 22776/18 (Communicated)

  • Agathonisi 16 Mar 2018 - Complaint dismissed - F.M. v. Greece App No 17622/21 (Communicated)

  • Pylos 14 Jun 2023 - Pending preliminary examination

Key issues

  • Preliminary interrogation & initial evidence collection by Coast Guard officials

  • Piraeus Naval Court Prosecutor not promptly intervened

  • Limited number of witness testimonies

  • Deficiencies in interpretation

  • Deficiencies in inspections, use of available digital evidence etc.

Refugee Support Aegean and Mr Stephanos Stavros provide their conclusions & recommendations to the Committee of Ministers:

Conclusions

  • Violations occurred in January 2014 relevant through time: similar incidents e.g. in Agathonisi (2018), Pylos (2023)

  • Execution raises complex issues as regards the adequacy of resources, design and roll-out of Coast Guard operations at sea & on search and rescue

  • Assessment of investigations raises complex issues on institutional set-up (interrogation officials, prosecutors’ approach), adequacy of selection and modalities of witness examination, assessment of evidence et al.

  • Safi v. Greece should be transferred to enhanced supervision

Recommendations

  1. The regulatory framework governing Coast Guard operations in the area of border protection and search and rescue should be updated in full compliance with international, EU and national law and in particular Regulation (EU) 656/2014 and the Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU). Such a revision would ensure correct and sufficient guidance on how to assess distress phases, to safeguard the life and integrity of third parties on board in the management of incidents concerning refugees at sea, and to guarantee access to the asylum procedure.  

  2. Greek authorities should ensure sufficient and adequate interpretation services to enable effective communication of interested parties with EKSED, 112 and involved Coast Guard vessels.

  3. Coast Guard operations and vessel courses should be fully audio- and video- recorded, with a view to improving coordination, prevention of instances of ill-  

    treatment and effective investigation of complaints.

  4. Greek authorities should immediately cease practices endangering human lives at sea e.g. unreasonable use of firearms, push backs and abandonment  

    of people on life-rafts.

  5. The Prosecutor of the Naval Court of Piraeus should immediately intervene in cases involving the Coast Guard. Preliminary interrogations should not be  

    conducted by Coast Guard officers, in conformity with Circular 1/2023.

  6. Testimonies should be collected from all passengers, otherwise a substantial number, with an adequate, certified and independent interpreter in a  

    language they understand.

  7. Inspections, expert reports and forensic reports should be independent and reliable in line with international standards. Digital evidence, where available,  should be used in the criminal investigation of incidents.

  8. Survivors of shipwrecks should immediately be referred to adequate living conditions and support services, and should not be detained. The authorities  

    should immediately register missing persons, collect DNA samples and issue certificate of missing persons to their relatives.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents

NGO Communications

1475th meeting (September 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (AIRE Centre, HIAS Greece, and Equal Rights Beyond Borders) (18/08/2023) in the case of Safi and Others v. Greece (Application No. 5418/15) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)1024]

1475th meeting (September 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Refugee support Aegean (RSA) and Stiftung PRO ASYL) (17/08/2023) in the case of Safi and Others v. Greece (Application No. 5418/15) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)1023]

1475th meeting (September 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hellenic League for Human Rights) (23/06/2023) in the case of Safi and Others v. Greece (Application No. 5418/15) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)814]

Umo Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria 

The Umo Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria case concerns the unjustified refusals of the courts, between 1999 and 2015, to register associations the aim of which is to achieve the recognition of and protect the interests of "the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria”. The refusals were based on considerations of national security, protection of public order and the rights of others (goals aiming at “the recognition of the Macedonian minority” and alleged separatist ideas) and on the constitutional prohibition on associations pursuing political goals, as well as failure to meet formal legal requirements.

Mr Krassimir Kanev from the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee outlines to participants the underlying reasons for the refusals:

  • Persistent denial of the Macedonian identity at the national level

  • Fear that recognition will bring its spread

  • Contempt of “ethnic apostasy”

  • Denial, restriction and persecution of an ethnic group brings assimilation

  • Recognition of a Macedonian association would lead to a recognition of a Macedonian minority in Bulgaria

  • Recognition will amount to a betrayal of the victims of the wars of “national unification”

Bulgarian Helsinki Committee provide participants with developments with the Macedonian groups’ dynamics:

  • Proliferation of the Macedonian groups

  • Renouncing radicalism of demands

  • Persistent attempts to obtain recognition and to register associations

  • Attempts to use all available or imagined opportunities

  • Activism more pronounced among the senior age groups

Bulgarian Helsinki Committee highlight to participants the trends in justifications of refusals:

First phase: Macedonian groups - threat to national security and territorial integrity

  • Example (Case Description): “The refusals were based on considerations of national security, protection of public order and the rights of others (goals aiming at “the recognition of the Macedonian minority” and alleged separatist ideas) and on the constitutional prohibition on associations pursuing political goals, as well as failure to meet formal legal requirements.”

Second phase: overt discrimination. Macedonians – threat to the “unity of the nation”

  • Example (SCA on the refusal to register SRMVCT in June 2021): “Such an ethnic group does not exist as a separate and established group of people with religious, linguistic, cultural or other characteristics that distinguish them from the rest of the population. In these circumstances, the establishment of an association with the goals and means specified in its constitutive act, essentially pursues the artificial creation, imposition and advertising of the idea of the existence among a certain part of the Bulgarian population of ethnic identity other than the national one…”

Third phase: mixed reasons

  • RA and the regional courts – overt discriminatory reasons based on the goals and the Macedonian identity of the members

  • SCA – disregards entirely the reasons of the lower court and justifies refusals by non-compliance with formal legal requirements. E.g.:

    • Improper regulation of representation;

    • Lack of regulation of property relations upon termination of membership;

    • Lack of regulation of for-profit activities.

Bulgarian Helsinki Committee note recent developments and their conclusions to participants:

  • No Macedonian organisation registered in Bulgaria

  • Continued refusals on grounds identical to those, which the ECtHR considered and systematically rejected in its previous judgments

  • New ground – Macedonian identity as a threat to the “unity of the nation”

  • Formal legal requirements at the last instance

  • At present:

    • At least 17 cases of refusals to register pending before the ECtHR;

    • 1 refusal to register pending before the HRC;

    • At least 2 cases of violations of freedom of assembly pending before the ECtHR;

    • 1 registered organisation dissolved in 2020.

  • Government’s action plans – mostly reports on series of unsuccessful attempts at registration

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

NGO Communications

1475th meeting (September 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC)) (20/07/2023) in the case of UMO Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (Application No. 59491/00) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)931]

CM Decisions

1451st meeting (DH), December 2022 - H46-8 Groupe Organisation Macédonienne unie Ilinden et autres c. Bulgarie (Requête n° 59491/00) [CM/Del/Dec(2022)1451/H46-8]

1428th meeting (DH), March 2022 - H46-7 United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others group v. Bulgaria (Application No. 59491/00) [CM/Del/Dec(2022)1428/H46-7]

McKerr Group v. the United Kingdom

The McKerr Group v. the United Kingdom case concerns investigations into the deaths of the applicants’ next-of-kin in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s, either during security force operations or in circumstances giving rise to suspicion of collusion in their deaths by security force personnel.

Committee on the Administration of Justice provided an overview of the case to participants:

  • CAJ is principal human rights NGO in Northern Ireland and affiliated to EIN and FIDH.

  • 1998 Good Friday Agreement guarantees incorporation of ECHR into Northern Ireland law with remedies for victims and direct access to courts.

  • 2014 Stormont House Agreement provided for new transitional justice mechanisms.

  • McKerr Group: ‘Package of Measures’ & peace process reforms: 

    • Inquests, Civil Proceedings. 

    • Police Investigations, independent ‘called in’, police ombudsman investigations 

  • Learning also from Package of Measures as to safeguards needed in transitional justice mechanisms to ensure effective and independent investigations in Northern Ireland.

Committee on the Administration outlined to participants the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill:

Core elements of Bill:

  • Closing down existing ‘Package of Measures’ permanently

  • Amnesty: the ‘Conditional Immunities Scheme’

  • Establishing the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR)

  • Abandonment of UK-Ireland Stormont House Agreement 2014

  • Ministerial amendments to Bill published evening after June Committee of Ministers meeting - Commissioner Mijatović amendments leave “the fundamental problems with the Bill intact.”

UK Ministers: Objectives of the Bill:

Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Brandon Lewis MP: 

  • •In introducing Bill stated purpose was to end investigations into veterans, who would no longer have to fear ‘a knock at the door’ (UK Parliament, 24 May 22, vol 715, Col 115)

  • •Stated that due to the Bill “no longer will our [military] veterans be hounded and hauled in for questioning about events that happened decades ago.” (Conservative Home, 9 June 2022)

  • Military Veterans Minister: Johnny Mercer MP spoke of  ‘vexatious’ investigations, prosecutions’  (UK Parliament debate on Bill,  June 2023).

  • •Ministers have implied lawyers, human rights groups, judges, prosecutors, independent institutions and officers have created a ‘pernicious counter narrative’ and are ‘rewriting history’.

  • •By contrast UNSR Pablo DeGrieff  UN Doc: A/HRC/34/62/Add (2016) found Northern Ireland impunity gap was in ‘apparent selectivity’ in prosecutions during the conflict.

  • •CAJ-academic study found key arguments deployed that legacy cases are ‘imbalanced’ against the security forces “are neither factually nor legally accurate and lack intellectual credibility.”

Committee on the Administration shared developments on the closure of Civil Litigation and Legacy Inquests:

Closure of Civil Litigation

575 civil cases against military alone (June 2022), estimated over 1000 in total.

Cases currently delivering significant truth recovery and reparations, examples:

  • Liam Holden [2023] NIKB 39, found to have been tortured by Army, posthumous damages for “waterboarding, hooding and threats to kill, malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office” of approx. EUR €385,000. 

  • McParland March 2023, child witnessed sectarian killing on doorstep in 1994, court held police “turned a blind eye to Informant 1’s serious criminality” … and actively protected him “from any effective investigation and from prosecution”  despite admitted “involvement in previous murders and criminality.” EUR €100,000

  • Legacy Bill: closes down all Troubles-related civil litigation taken after May 2022.

  • Amendments to Bill to prohibit all claims relating to Interim Custody Orders (internment, regardless of when proceedings taken).

Closure of Legacy Inquests

  • Lord Chief Justice’s Five Year Plan of legacy inquests – 18 competed , 36 outstanding (16 at hearing)

  • Plus 10 new inquests also directed by Attorney General (state and non state actors).

  • Stormont House Agreement would have left inquest system intact.

  • Original bill closed inquests save those substantively commenced by May 2023.

  • Ministers amended Bill in Lords to close down more inquests, only those that have completed proceedings by May 2024 can proceed. 

  • Ministers’ complained coronial judges progressing inquests too ‘expeditiously’.

Legacy Inquests:

Northern Ireland’s ‘truth trials’

UK Command Paper preceding bill claims “the vast majority” of killings by the security forces were lawful. 

Majority of Inquests concerning State cases contradicting official truth: 

  • Stephen Geddis (aged 10), shot dead by British soldier on 30 August 1975, Coroner held (verdict 06.09.22) that the victim posed no threat, and the firing was not justified.

  • Thomas Mills, shot dead by British soldier in July 1972, Coroner held (verdict 13.05.22) that the soldier was not justified in opening fire and the force used was disproportionate to the threat perceived.

  • Pat McElhone, shot dead by British soldier on 7th August 1974, Coroner held (verdict 21.01.21) that the shooting cannot be justified.

  • Ballymurphy massacre, ten civilians shot dead by the British army in August 1971 (Francis Quinn, Fr Hugh Mullan, Noel Phillips, Joan Connolly, Daniel Teggart, Joseph Murphy, Edward Doherty, John Laverty, Joseph Corr, and John James McKerr.) Corner held (verdict 11.05.21) that the killings were unjustified.

  • Kathleen Thompson, shot dead by British solider on 6th November 1971. Coroner held (29.06.22) that the shooting was ‘unjustified.’

  • Leo Norney (17) shot dead by British soldier on 13 September 1975. Corner held (verdict 03.07.23) that Leo was ‘entirely innocent’ and that he had been deliberately killed by Paratrooper McKay.

Committee on the Administration provided insights into investigations & conditional immunities scheme:

PSNI, Call in, Ombudsman Investigations:

In relation to pre-1998 conflict related cases:

  • Bill will close down and prohibit from May 2024 all criminal Investigations by police, ‘call in’  and Police Ombudsman. Exemption permitting investigative reports to be produced after cut-off date, removed from the Bill by Ministerial amendment.

  • No transitional arrangement, unlike SHA.

  • Prohibition on investigations permanent – even after ICRIR ceases operations.

  • Police Ombudsman: 442 complaints; 167 allocated for investigation but only 69 anticipated for completion before May 2024. Amendments augmented prohibitions on Ombudsman investigating conflict-related human rights violations.

  • ‘Call In’ independent Police Team: Operation Kenova, Turma, Mizzenmast, Glenanne.

  • NI Police Legacy Investigations Branch (LIB): over 1,000 cases; 30 cases referred to prosecutors (most (Irish) republican and (British) loyalist armed groups). 

Conditional Immunities Scheme

  • Voted out by upper chamber of UK Parliament (House of Lords) but reinstated by lower chamber, House of Commons.

  • Government Amendments leave low subjective threshold of immunity intact.

  • The ICRIR must grant immunity to applicants who give information they themselves believe to be true. Applicants do not have to give any new information at all – former soldiers could rely on original statements with no legal standing.

  • No exemption for torture. Opposition introduced exemption for immunity for sexual offences, but investigations still prohibited.

  • Revoking immunity on basis of a fresh terrorist conviction added: but police will still be statute barred from investigating original offence, even after ICRIR ceases.

  • Ministerial amendments expressly incentivise applications for immunity by abolishing the ‘Early Release Scheme’ under Good Friday Agreement.

Committee on the Administration provided feed back on the ICRIR’s independence and effectiveness:

ICRIR Independence:

  • Committee of Ministers concerns regarding role of Secretary of State (SoS) in ‘establishment and oversight of ICRIR’.

  • Appointments: SoS appoints all Commissioners. Amendment that SoS to ‘consult’ re appointing Chief Commissioner-  but recruitment has already happened.

  • Budget and Oversight: SoS controls budget and provides all oversight of ICRIR.

  • Mandate: Sops can limit Commissioners’ terms and close ICRIR at any time.

  • Caseload: SoS extensive powers to shape caseload of ICRIR.

  • National Security + Veto: SoS can redact ICRIR reports to families.

  • Composition of investigators: departs from Ombudsman & Call-in practice.

ICRIR: Effectiveness

  • ‘Reviews’ can include criminal investigations with police powers but such powers of (search, questioning) will not be operable against a person who has immunity. 

  • Ministers rejected amendments requiring ICRIR ‘reviews’ to be ECHR compatible. 

  • Ministers rejected amendments to strengthen powers to compel disclosure of documents from public authorities.

  • ICRIR by contrast has broad ‘Supply of information’ powers to summons individuals subject to a £5,000 fine or even imprisonment for refusing to hand over a document, with no express safeguards (e.g. journalistic sources, legal privilege).

  • ICRIR has no control over its own caseload or final content of its reports.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents

NGO Communications

1475th meeting (September 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Relatives for Justice) (23/08/2023) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)1032]

1475th meeting (September 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Committee on the Administration of Justice) (02/08/2023) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)957]

1475th meeting (September 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Malone House group) (31/07/2023) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)953]

NHRI Communications

1475th meeting (September 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission) (04/07/2023) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)856]

1443rd meeting (September 2022) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - 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) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)856-rev]

CM Decisions

1468th meeting (DH), June 2023 - H46-41 McKerr group v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95) [CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/H46-41]

1459th meeting (DH), March 2023 - H46-35 McKerr group v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95) [CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-35]