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

/

📅 From the 17th to the 19th of September 2024, the Committee of Ministers will meet for their quarterly Human Rights Meeting. This periodic meeting allows the Committee of Ministers to make decisions on pressing human rights violations & encourage the implementation of ECtHR judgments. During these three days, the Committee of Ministers will examine 54 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 27 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(s): 1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (20/08/2024) concerning the case of Sharxhi and Others v. Albania (Application No. 10613/16) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)936]

 
 

Mammadli group v. Azerbaijan 

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

Last examination: June 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1501/H46-4 

Latest submission(s): 1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Free Voices Collective (FVC), Independent Lawyers Network (ILN), European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) and International Partnership of Human Rights (IPHR)) (08/08/2024) concerning the group of cases Mammadli v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 47145/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)941]

 

Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan 

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

Last examination: September 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1475/H46-7 

Latest submission(s): 1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (09/08/2024) concerning the case of SARGSYAN v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 40167/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)917] 

 

Camara v. Belgium 

Violation: Structural problem of non-enforcement of judicial decisions ordering the authorities to provide asylum seekers with material assistance or accommodation. 

Last examination: First examination 

Latest submission(s): 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Human rights centre at Ghent University) (22/01/2024) concerning the case of Camara v. Belgium (Application No. 49255/22) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)161] 

 
 
 

 Identoba and Others group v. Georgia 

Violation: Lack of protection against homophobic attacks during demonstrations. 

Last examination: December 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1483/H46-13 

Latest submission(s): 1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Social Justice Center, European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) (02/08/2024) concerning the cases of Georgian Muslim Relations and Others and Mikeladze and Others v. Georgia (Applications No. 24225/19, 54217/16) (Identoba and Others group, 73235/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)913] 

1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), Women's Initiatives Support Group (WISG), Georgian Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA), ILGA-Europe and Transgender Europe (TGEU)) (02/08/2024) concerning the cases of Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze, Women's Initiatives Supporting Group and Others and IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Applications No. 7224/11, 73204/13, 73235/12) (Identoba and Others group) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)912] 

1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Social Justice Center) (02/08/2024) concerning the cases of A.D. and Others and Identoba and Others v. Georgia (Applications No. 57864/17, 73235/12) (Identoba and Others group) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)910] 

1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender of Georgia) (18/07/2024) concerning the group of cases IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)857] 

 

Kanellopoulos group v. Greece 

Violation: Non-compliance with final domestic judgments ordering the lifting of land expropriation orders or charges on land. In some cases, the lack of an effective remedy to ensure the enforcement. 

Last examination: December 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1483/A2 

Latest submission(s): 1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (08/03/2024) concerning the case of PANAGIOTIS GIKAS and GEORGIOS GIKAS v. Greece (Application No. 26914/07) (Kanellopoulos group, 11325/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)303] 

 
 

László Magyar group v. Hungary 

Violation: Life sentence without parole in combination with the lack of an adequate review mechanism, life sentence with parole after 40 years. 

Last examination: September 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1475/H46-17 

Latest submission(s): 1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Helsinki Committee) (02/08/2024) concerning the LASZLO MAGYAR group of cases v. Hungary (Application No. 73593/10) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)908] 

 
 
 

Reczkowicz group v. Poland 

Violation: Tribunal not established by law due to, inter alia, systemic dysfunction in the judicial appointments’ procedures. Deficiencies of the system of extraordinary review appeal. 

Last examination: December 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1483/H46-25  

Latest submission(s): 1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights) (08/08/2024) concerning the group of cases of Reczkowicz v. Poland (Application No. 43447/19) and reply from the authorities (23/08/2024) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)940-rev] 

 

Xero Flor W Polsce SP. Z O.O. v. Poland 

Violation: 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: December 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1483/H46-26 

Latest submission(s): 1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights) (08/08/2024) concerning the case of Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland (Application No. 4907/18) and reply from the authorities (23/08/2024) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)939-rev] 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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: June 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1501/H46-34 

Latest submission(s): 1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (09/09/2024) concerning the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (Application No. 28749/18) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1026] 

 

Xenides-Arestis group v. Türkiye 

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

Last examination: September 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1475/H46-40 

Latest submission(s): 1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (04/09/2024) concerning the case of ROCK RUBY HOTELS LTD v. Turkey (Application No. 46159/99) (Xenides Arestis group, 46347/99) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1000]  

1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (26/07/2024) concerning the group of cases Xenides Arestis v. Turkey (Application No. 46347/99) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)865] 

1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (24/07/2024) concerning the group of cases Xenides Arestis v. Turkey (Application No. 46347/99) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)859] 

1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (17/07/2024) concerning the case of ORPHANIDES v. Turkey (Application No. 36705/97) (Xenides Arestis group, 46347/99) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)839] 

1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (16/07/2024) concerning the case of RAMON v. Turkey (Application No. 29092/95) (Xenides Arestis group, 46347/99) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)835] 

1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (04/07/2024) concerning the XENIDES-ARESTIS group of cases v. Turkey (Application No. 46347/99) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)771] 

EIN Civil Society Briefing September 2024 – Poland, Hungary and Portugal

/

On the 6th of September 2024, EIN held in Strasbourg the latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, ahead of the 1507th Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting which will be held between 17th – 19th September 2024.

The briefing focused on the following cases:

Reczkowicz v. Poland and Xero Flor w Polsce SP. Z O.O. v. Poland

 

The Reczkowicz v. Poland and Xero Flor w Polsce SP. Z O.O. v. Poland cases concern the violation of the right to a tribunal established by law under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of procedurally flawed judicial appointments, undermining the independence and legality of the judicial bodies involved in deciding the applicants' cases.

In the Reczkowicz group, the judges of the various chambers in the Supreme Court (SC) that dealt with the applicants’ cases were appointed “in an inherently deficient procedure” on the motion of the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), which lacked independence from the legislature and the executive (violation of Article 6 § 1).

In Xero Flor w Polsce SP. Z O.O. v. Poland, the Court found grave procedural breaches in the appointment of one of the judges on the Constitutional Court panel that rejected the applicant company’s complaint, the appointment having breached the fundamental rule of Polish law.

Recommendations for the implementation of the Reczkowicz v. Poland group of cases

The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR) formulated the following recommendations for the implementation of the Reczkowicz v. Poland group of cases, requesting the Committee of Ministers to: 

  • Restore the independence of the National Council of the Judiciary by reforming the election procedure for judicial members of the NCJ and terminating the term of office for unlawfully elected NCJ members;

  • Ensure that the new law addresses the status of judges appointed at the request of the NCJ after 2017, in line with European standards, by introducing a fair procedure for individual verification of appointments before an independent NCJ, with a right of appeal to court;

  • Ensure that the new law regulates the effects of rulings by judges appointed post-2017, balancing the right to an independent tribunal established by law with the need for legal certainty and stability of the justice system;

  • Explicitly exclude by law the possibility of judges’ disciplinary liability for examining the appointments, independence, and impartiality of other judges;

  • Refrain from questioning the validity of the Court's rulings.

Recommendations for the implementation of the Xero Flor w Polsce SP. Z O.O. v. Poland case

Concerning instead the implementation of the Xero Flor w Polsce SP. Z O.O. v. Poland case, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR) formulated the following recommendations, requesting the Committee of Ministers to:

  • Prevent unlawfully elected persons from adjudicating in the Constitutional Tribunal (CT), by prohibiting all three unlawfully elected judges from adjudicating, on both judgments on the merits and procedural decisions; 

  • Address these adjudication issues in cases other than those initiated by constitutional complaints, as they may also cause problems; 

  • Refrain from questioning the validity of the Court’s rulings; 

  • As regards individual measures, introduce a procedure to reopen proceedings initiated by constitutional complaints that were discontinued by the CT in an unlawful composition; 

  • Regulate the status of CT rulings issued in an unlawful composition, balancing legal certainty with the right to an independent court established by law (see also ODIHR’s 24 August 2024 opinion on two bills on CT, which suggests reconsidering the nullification of all judgments rendered with the involvement of "persons not entitled to adjudicate"); 

  • Implement legislative measures to prevent external undue influence on the appointment of judges. 

Relevant Documents:

The László Magyar v. Hungary group of cases concerns the violations of the prohibition against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, due to the applicants receiving life sentences without the possibility of parole (“whole life sentences”) and without an adequate review mechanism, or life sentences with parole eligibility (“simple life sentences”) only after serving 30 to 40 years (Article 3).

 

Recommendations for the implementation of the László Magyar v. Hungary group of cases

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee formulated the following recommendations for the implementation of the László Magyar v. Hungary group of cases, requesting the Committee of Ministers to:

  • Continue examining the execution of the judgments in the László Magyar v. Hungary group of cases under the enhanced procedure.

  • Issue an interim resolution in the group of cases as foreshadowed by the CM’s September 2023 decision if “no tangible progress” is achieved in the implementation of the group of cases.

And to ask the Hungarian authorities to:

  • Abolish the institution of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole from both the respective laws and the Fundamental Law of Hungary.

  • Establish, without further delay and in accordance with a clear timetable, a review system for those already sentenced to whole life imprisonment which complies with the standards set by the Court with respect to the decision-making process, applicable procedural safeguards and its timing, and which provides a real prospect of release.

  • Ensure, without further delay and in accordance with a clear timetable, that a review complying with the standards set by the Court takes place no later than 25 years after the imposition of every life sentence, with further periodic reviews thereafter.

  • Collect and make publicly accessible relevant data.

  • Ensure that the rights violations suffered by the applicants in the László Magyar v. Hungary group of cases are fully remedied and that they are eligible for parole in accordance with the guidance of the Court and the Committee of Ministers; and provide information to the Committee of Ministers on the individual situation of each applicant.

Relevant Documents:

The Petrescu v. Portugal case involves the inhuman and degrading treatment of the applicant due to overcrowding and poor conditions in prisons, in violation of Article 3. The Court noted a structural issue of overcrowding affecting over half of Portugal's prisons and found that none of the remedies suggested by the Government were effective in addressing the applicant's detention conditions. It recommended that Portugal adopt general measures to ensure detention conditions comply with Article 3 and provide a remedy for prisoners to prevent continued violations or improve their conditions.

Recommendations for the implementation of the Petrescu v. Portugal case

The European Prison Litigation Network and Forum Penal formulated the following recommendations for the implementation of the Petrescu v. Portugal case, requesting the Committee of Ministers to: 

  • Underline the need for political commitment to tackle structural overcrowding and poor prison conditions.

  • Reaffirm the need to “adopt a comprehensive strategy aimed at identifying and tackling the root causes of prison overcrowding” (CM/Del/Dec(2023)1475/H46-25), in consultation with all stakeholders, including civil society.

  • Recommend in particular to address the root causes of long prison sentences and lack of access to sentences adjustment in Portugal.

  • Reiterate the need to establish an effective judicial preventive remedy as well as a judicial compensatory remedy capable of providing timely compensation for inadequate detention conditions, and to ensure that prisoners can make effective use of these remedies, including through effective access to legal information, a lawyer and legal aid.

  • Recommend substantial investment in social services to support prisoners’ reintegration and access to early release schemes.

Implementing Safi and Others v. Greece: Urgent need for measures to protect migrants’ right to life

/

Last month, the Council of Europe anti-torture Committee (CPT) published the findings of its 2023 visit to Greece highlighting ongoing concerns about pushbacks and the treatment of migrants by Greek authorities.  

The report details credible and consistent allegations of physical abuse by coastguard officials during interceptions at sea, where the coastguard's operational decisions and delays contributed to the tragic loss of life. Its findings suggest that such practices are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of ill-treatment and disregard for the safety and rights of migrants. 

The CPT’s concerns only echo those already raised by multiple international sources. According to the December 2023 Frontex SI report 12595/2023 on the tragic Pylos shipwreck (of which only 104 of the 750 passengers of the boat came out alive), the Greek authorities, responsible for coordination of assistance, failed to timely answer Frontex’ calls - having initially notified Frontex that further assistance was not needed -, and also failed to declare a search and rescue and to deploy sufficient appropriate assets in time to rescue the migrants in distress. These operational shortcomings mirror the failures identified in the Safi case, concerning 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. In that case, too, the rescue was also planned without appropriate equipment, and the possibilities of requesting additional assistance and sending a "Mayday Relay" alert were either not considered or significantly delayed.  

Furthermore, in February 2024, in response to the systematic pushbacks and violence against non-EU nationals, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on Greece criticising the lack of progress in the judicial investigation and the treatment of migrants at the external borders. 

Pushback operations and the abuse of migrants’ rights by the Greek authorities continue to come under the scrutiny of the ECtHR. In the January 2024 judgment of Alkhatib v. Greece, the ECtHR identified violations of the right to life due to the lack of an adequate legal framework on the use of potentially lethal force against migrants by the coastguard boat during a pursuit to intercept a boat and the inadequate planning of the rescue operation. 

The Safi case is pending implementation before the Committee of Ministers since 2022, yet the ongoing documentation of pushbacks and the lack of proper safeguards for migrants intercepted at sea reinforce the ECtHR’s concerns, demonstrating that similar violations continue taking place. The Greek authorities should urgently take all possible measures to safeguard the lives of those seeking refuge in Europe. In the meantime, the Committee of Ministers remains one of the last weighty international institutions still turning a blind eye on the systemic nature of these shortcomings revealed in Safi by continuing examining this case under the standard supervision procedure, despite numerous calls by civil society organisations to place it under the enhanced supervision procedure (see, inter alia, the joint submissions of the AIRE Centre, HIAS Greece, and Equal Rights Beyond Borders, as well as of Refugee Support Aegean and Stiftung PRO ASYL of September 2023). It is high time that the CM stepped up its response to rise to the occasion. 

For further information, you can consult the following resources:

Photo: Left.gr/Kalodoukas

EIN 2024 General Assembly

/
 

On 18 June, EIN members gathered in The Hague for our annual General Assembly. Every two years, this is an event that we organise in person. This year, the event took place ahead of the EIN Conference “Safeguarding the Rule of Law: Implementing ECtHR Judgments for Lasting Impact”, which gathered around 50 participants. This event was organised as part of our project on promoting the rule of law in Europe through the implementation of judgments of the ECtHR concerning independence and impartiality of the judiciary, financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

23 members came to The Hague, 5 joined us online, and 3 members were represented via proxy. At the meeting, major documents for the life of the Network were discussed and adopted, such as the annual accounts, and the planned budgets for 2024-2025. It was also a unique opportunity for EIN members to take stock of the work achieved by the Network in 2023 on advocating for the implementation of ECtHR judgments to be higher on the agenda and for introducing EIN’s new Turkish member organisations: the Freedom of Expression Association (İFÖD – İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği) and the Human Rights Association (İnsan Hakları Derneği ”IHD”). Finally, the 2024 General Assembly was an opportunity for EIN Former Director, George Stafford, who stepped down in 2023, to address EIN members with a few words of wisdom and farewell.

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

A special thank you to the Ministry of Justice of the Netherlands for hosting our events.  

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)