EIN Briefing on Domestic Violence in Russia and Prison Conditions in Ukraine

EIN held its latest civil society briefing on 23rd November 2020. Due to the Covid-19 crisis, the event was held online.

The briefing focused on the following cases:

1)    Volodina v. Russia, concerning domestic violence and discrimination against women in Russia, presented by Vanessa Kogan, Stichting Justice Initiative Executive Director.

2)    The Nevmerzhitsky case, concerning overcrowding and poor material conditions of detention, the inadequacy of medical care in detention, and lack of effective remedies in all these respects, presented by Hugues de Suremain, European Prison Litigation Network, and Gennadiy Tokarev, Kharkiv Human Right Protection Group

You can find a summary of their Recommendations on these cases here.

The Volodina case

This case concerns domestic violence, including grave physical and mental suffering from physical and psychological abuse of the applicant over two years by her ex-partner. The applicant submitted over eight complaints to the authorities over two years: no attempt to protect the applicant from further violence or to open criminal proceedings against the (known) perpetrator.

The ECtHR found a violation of the applicants right to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Prohibition of torture and cruel treatment). The Court stated that authorities had failed to uphold their obligations to establish a legal framework to prevent the known risks of ill-treatment and to carry out an effective investigation into allegations of ill‑treatment. (para. 78-101). The Court also found a violation of the applicant's Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) right. “The Russian authorities failed to create conditions for substantive gender equality that would enable women to live free from fear of ill-treatment or attacks on their physical integrity to benefit from the equal protection of the law.”(para. 132)

While ECtHR has judged this case, the Committee of Ministers is not monitoring the implementation of the ECtHR judgment of the case.

The presentation was given by Vanessa Kogan, Stichting Justice Initiative Executive Director. You can find the video of their briefing below.

 SJI recommends that the Volodina case should be examined by the Committee of Ministers under the enhanced procedure, at least every six months. Also, individual measures should focus on effective ex officio criminal investigations, and that general measures should aim to eliminate current specific shortcomings.

Relevant documents

• Stichting Justice Initiative – Rule 9 Submission concerning individual and general measures in Volodina v Russia (No.41261/17)

• Stichting Justice Initiative – Volodina vs Russia

• Case of Volodina v. Russia ECtHR Judgment (July 2019)

The Nevmerzhitsky Group case

The Nevmerzhitsky Group concerns poor conditions of detention, specifically, overcrowding and poor material conditions, the inadequacy of medical care, and lack of effective remedies in all these respects. The ECtHR has stated that the lack of proper medical treatment in Ukrainian prison is a structural issue, and no effective remedy is available. 

The presentation focused on issues related to a lack of healthcare in prison facilities. The lack of access to healthcare in Ukrainian prisons is a situation of extreme urgency. There are several issues at the core of this prison crisis, inconsistent health policy, a health system facing major systemic and structural difficulties and the inefficient management of infectious disease, and lastly difficulties exacerbated by the COVID-19. 

The Committee of Ministers is monitoring the Nevmerzhitsky group and will resume its examination at their 1390th meeting (December 2020) (DH).

Presentation by Hugues de Suremain, European Prison Litigation Network, and Gennadiy Tokarev, Kharkiv Human Right Protection Group. You can find the video of their briefing below.  

In particular, the presenters called on the Committee of Ministers to request the Government of Ukraine to:

• urgently fill the vacancies for health care workers and the need for equipment and medicines;

• clarify as soon as possible the chain of responsibility within the medical units and designate those responsible for the quality of care;

• initiate, possibly in the form of a consensus conference, a transparent process for the transfer of prison medicine to the Ministry of Health, comprising a national debate including civil society and international organizations.

  In addition, EPLN and KHPG also called on the Committee of Ministers to:

• separate the examination of groups of cases concerning health care in prison from those concerning material conditions of detention, as the necessary reforms involve distinct responses, actors and time frames;

• act with the Directorate-General for Human Rights to ensure that prison health issues are given greater priority in cooperation programs and find synergies with relevant EU instruments.

Relevant documents

• European Prison Litigation Network and Kharkiv Human Right Protection Group – Rule 9 Submission (14/09/20)

• Case of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (12/10/05)

• Committee of Ministers Decision - H46-25 Nevmerzhitsky group (Application No. 54825/00), Yakovenko group (Application No. 15825/06), Logvinenko group (Application No. 13448/07), Isayev group (Application No. 28827/02) and Melnik group (Application No. 72286/01) v. Ukraine  (1/10/2020)

Judicial independence in Hungary and protection of family life in Russia at the heart of EIN briefing

EIN held its latest civil society briefing on 17th September 2020. Due to the Covid-19 crisis, the event was held online.

The briefing focused on the following cases:

1) Baka v Hungary, concerning judicial independence.

2) Khanamirova v Russia, concerning the failure of authorities to ensure mothers have custody of their children in accordance with court orders.

You can find a summary of their Recommendations on these cases here.

Baka v Hungary

This case concerns the undue and premature termination of the applicants’ mandates as President of the former Hungarian Supreme Court through ad hominem legislative measures adopted in the context of a major reform of the judiciary. The legislative act was of constitutional rank and thus not subject to review by the Constitutional Court. The Strasbourg Court found violations of the applicant’s right of access to court and freedom of expression.

The presentation was given by András Kádár, Co-Chair of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, and Dávid Vig, Director of Amnesty International Hungary. You can find the video of their briefing below. As you will see, there is a statement from Judge Baka at the start of the video.

Relevant documents:

• Joint submission by Amnesty International and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (July 2020), and reply by the authorities

• ECHR judgment (June 2016)

Khanamirova v Russia

This group of cases concerns non-enforcement of judicial decisions concerning child custody (violation of Article 8).

The presentation was given by Stichting Justice Initiative. Prior to the presentation, there is a short video involving interviews with victims of ongoing violations. All of the mothers in the videos have obtained judgments from the ECtHR or are involved in litigation there. You can also find here further information on custody rights/family kidnapping in Russia.

This is a group under standard procedure that is not on the agenda for the upcoming CM-DH meeting. However, EIN believes that it deserves the immediate attention of the Committee of Ministers because: it is a shocking human rights violation, which is exacerbated with every passing day, but where we believe rapid progress can be made if the case receives sufficient attention. The presentation of this case has therefore been arranged in order to call for it to be debated at the December CM-DH Meeting.

Relevant documents:

•  Rule 9.2 by Stichting Justice Initiative (April 2020)

• ECHR judgment (June 2011)

Access to an effective remedy to challenge expulsion of asylum seekers in Greece: Briefing by HIAS Greece and Amnesty International

EIN held its latest civil society briefing on 11th September 2020. Due to the Covid-19 crisis, the event was held online, with the participation of over 35 representatives from various Council of Europe Member States.

In view of the forthcoming Committee of Ministers Human Rights meetings, the briefing focused on the following cases:

1) Identoba and others v Georgia, by Arpi Avetisyan, ILGA-Europe

2) M.S.S. and Rahimi groups of cases v Greece, by Elli Kriona-Saranti, HIAS Greece and Adriana Tidona, Amnesty International

You can find a summary of their Recommendations on these cases here.

Identoba and others v Georgia

The case concerns the lack of protection against homophobic attacks or religiously motivated attacks by private individuals during marches/meetings.

You can watch the online version of the briefing by Arpi Avetisyan.

Latest Rule 9.2 communications on the case:
Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (The Human Rights Education and Monitoring Center, the Women’s Initiatives Support Group and ILGA-Europe) (10/08/2020) concerning the IDENTOBA AND OTHERS group of cases v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)776]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender (Ombudsman) of Georgia) (05/08/2020) concerning the IDENTOBA AND OTHERS group of cases v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)775]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO an NGO (Georgian Young Lawyer's Association) (04/08/2020) concerning the IDENTOBA AND OTHERS group of cases v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)774]

M.S.S. and Rahimi group of cases v Greece

The cases concern the conditions of detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants and the lack of an effective remedy to challenge conditions of detention in Greece. At the start of the briefing, Ms Kriona-Saranti and Ms Tidona reported about the extremely difficult conditions faced by migrants in Lesvos, following the destruction of the camp by a fire.

The presentation then focused on the effective remedy against Art. 3 re refoulement as well as on the reception and detention conditions.

You can see the details of their Recommendations on this case in their video.

Latest Rule 9.2 communications on the case:

Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Refugee Support Aegean, Foundation PRO ASYL) (28/07/2020) concerning the cases of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and RAHIMI v. Greece (Applications No. 30696/09, 8687/08) (244 pages) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)723]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (HIAS) (10/08/2020) concerning the cases of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and RAHIMI v. Greece (Applications No. 30696/09, 8687/08) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)716]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Equal Rights Beyond Borders) (10/08/2020) concerning the cases of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and RAHIMI v. Greece (Applications No. 30696/09, 8687/08) (160 pages) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)715]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Amnesty international) (07/08/2020) concerning the cases of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and RAHIMI v. Greece (Applications No. 30696/09, 8687/08) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)714]

 Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Greek Council for Refugees) (31/07/2020) concerning the cases of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and RAHIMI v. Greece (Applications No. 30696/09, 8687/08) (244 pages) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)713]

EIN briefing focuses on the persecution of human rights defenders and politicians in Azerbaijan and Turkey

EIN held its latest civil society briefing on 18th August 2020. Due to the Covid-19 crisis, the event was held online, with the participation of over 35 representatives from various Council of Europe Member States.

In view of the forthcoming Committee of Ministers Human Rights meetings, the briefing focused on important cases related to the persecution of human rights defenders and politicians in Azerbaijan and Turkey: Kavala v Turkey and Ilgar Mammadov v Azerbaijan.

The main recommendations by Human Rights Watch on the Kavala case, and by EHRAC on the Ilgar Mammadov group of cases can be found here.

Kavala v Turkey (Application Nr 28749/18)

Osman Kavala is a Turkish philanthropist and human rights defender who has contributed to the establishment of numerous NGOs in Turkey since the 1990s. These organisations currently operate in human rights, cultural and social studies, historical reconciliation and environmental protection.

Osman Kavala was arrested on 18 October 2017, accused of attempting to overthrow the government within the context of investigations into the Gezi events of 2013 (Article 312 of the Criminal Code) and to overthrow the constitutional order within the context of the attempted coup in July 2016 (Article 309) and has been continuously detained since then, currently under a detention order based on accusations of committing “political or military espionage” under Article 328 of the Criminal Code.

The video by Emma Sinclair-Webb, Human Rights Watch, who briefed the delegates about the Kavala case is available under this link.

Other relevant documents:

Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and the Turkish Human Rights Litigation Project) (29/05/2020) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18) (Mergen and others group)

Rules 9.4/9.6 - Communication from other organisation: the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (19/06/2020) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18) (Mergen and Others group) and reply from the authorities (02/07/2020) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)577-rev]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği (İFÖD)) (18/06/2020) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18) (Mergen and Others group) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)575]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Amnesty International) (19/05/2020) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18) (Mergen and others group) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)472]

Ilgar Mammadov v Azerbaijan (Application Nr 15172/13)

Ilgar Mammadov is an Azerbaijani blogger, activist and political figure. After announcing his intention to run for President in 2013, Mr Mammadov was detained and prosecuted in order to silence him. Mr Mammadov won a series of cases at the European Court of Human Rights and was released in August 2018. On 23 April 2020, he, and the human rights defender Rasul Jafarov, were granted full acquittal by Azerbaijan’s Supreme Court.

Despite the steps forward in these two cases, the general situation for civil society in Azerbaijan remains very poor. It is extremely difficult or impossible for civil society organisations to operate in the country, whilst individuals are routinely targeted by the authorities in order to silence them.  In his presentation, Professor Philip Leach, from EHRAC, therefore insisted on the need to create an adequate legal environment for civil society organisations to exist and work in Azerbaijan.

He also higlighted the necessaity to push for the acquittal, just satisfaction and other individual measures in other Article 18 cases of political persecution, including those of journalist Khadija Ismayilova, elections monitor Anar Mammaldi, human rights defender Intigam Aliyev, and activists from the N!DA group.

You can find the video by Professor Philip on this case here.

Other relevant documents:

Joint EHRAC-Amnesty International Rule 9(2) submission on the Mammadov group, April 2020.

EHRAC latest Rule 9(1) in the case of Aliyev v Azerbaijan (68762/14), part of the Mammadov group.   

Freedom of expression cases at the heart of EIN civil society briefing

The latest civil society briefing organised by the European Implementation Network, and co-hosted by the Permanent Representations of Ireland, the United Kingdom and Norway took place on Friday, 21st February 2020.  

More than 50 participants from 29 countries as well as various Council of Europe bodies attended.

Presentations were given on key freedom of expression cases v Turkey, as well as important cases concerning access to legal abortion in Poland, and the conditions of detention in Romania.

The main recommendations for each case are available here.

Öner and Türk group of cases v Turkey (Application Nr 51962/12) Nedim Şener group v Turkey (Application Nr 38270/11) and Altuğ Taner Akçam group v Turkey (Application Nr 27520/07) on unjustified interferences with freedom of expression, in particular through criminal proceedings, and the consequent chilling effect

By Dr Kerem Altiparmak, Freedom of Expression Association (IFÖD)

 Kerem Altiparmak updated the Committee of Ministers concerning the legislative and executive developments with respect to the ongoing lack of full and effective implementation of general measures in Öner and Türk group cases (no. 51962/12). Despite the amendments made in relevant provisions and some positive developments in judicial practice, structural problems observed in this group of cases by the European Court are still continuing. The submission on these cases was prepared by İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği (İFÖD – Freedom of Expression Association), a non-profit and non-governmental organization aims to protect and foster the right to freedom of opinion and expression in Turkey.

Kerem Altiparmak underlined that there had been no progress achieved with regard to the provision of an adequate legislative framework that enables the protection of Article 10 and full and effective implementation of Öner and Türk; Şener and Akçam group of cases.

As he showed, previous amendments introduced had not produced the results suggested by the Government either. ‘Recent amendments made in the Turkish Criminal Code and Anti-Terror Law do not meet the Committee of Ministers’ requirement of fully aligning with the Court’s case law in terms of foreseeability and necessity in a democratic society standard’, he said.

He formulated various recommendations on these cases. Among other things, he underlined that the Öner and Türk; Şener and Akçam group of cases should remain under enhanced procedure and that, given the close connection between freedom of expression and media as foundational pillars of a democratic society, the Committee of Ministers should review the Öner and Türk; Şener and Akçam group of cases in frequent and regular intervals concerning the legislative general measures.

The Committee of Ministers should also carefully examine the introduction of retrogressive measures under Judicial Reform.

Links:

Powerpoint of Kerem Altiparmak

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from a NGO (The Freedom of Expression Association (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği - IFÖD)) (22/01/2020) in the cases of Altug Taner Akcam v. Turkey (27520/07), Nedim Sener v. Turkey (38270/11) and Oner and Turk v. Turkey (51962/12) and response from the Turkish authorities (30/01/2020) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)92]

Action report (12/02/2020) - Communication from Turkey concerning the case of ONER AND TURK v. Turkey (Application No. 51962/12) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)139]

Action plan (07/01/2020) - Communication from Turkey concerning the ONER AND TURK group of cases v. Turkey (Application No. 51962/12) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)20]

P. and S. v Poland (Application Nr 57375/08), Tysiac v Poland (Application Nr 5410/03) and R.R. v Poland (Application Nr 27617/04) about challenges linked to access lawful abortion in Poland

The cases were briefed by Adriana Lamačková, Senior Legal Consultant for Europe, Centre for Reproductive Rights, and Kamila Ferenc from the Federation for Women and Family Planning

The three judgments became final in 2007, 2011, and 2013 respectively, and more than 12 years have now passed since the first of these landmark judgments. Yet effective measures to give effect to these judgments have still not been adopted by the Polish authorities.

The three judgments each address distinct but overlapping issues regarding the ongoing and serious failures of the Polish authorities to ensure that access to legal abortion in Poland becomes a practical reality for women and adolescent girls and is not merely a theoretical entitlement. Although each of these three judgements mandate some of the same implementation measures, they also each involve distinct and separate issues which can only be addressed by specific implementation measures.

The three judgments require the adoption of the following measures:

• An effective and timely procedure for women to challenge and resolve disagreements with and between doctors regarding their entitlement to legal abortion care and to exercise their rights in this regard;

• Effective measures to guarantee women access to reliable information on the conditions and effective procedures for their access to legal abortion care;

• An effective legal and procedural framework that guarantees that full and reliable information is provided to women and adolescent girls enabling them to take informed decisions about their pregnancy;

• Effective measures to ensure that conscience-based refusals by medical professionals do not undermine or delay women’s access to legal abortion services or prenatal testing;

• Strengthened enforcement procedures and measures to hold health facilities and professionals accountable for any failures to comply with legal obligations to provide legal reproductive health services and information;

• Effective measures to enhance protection of patient data confidentiality;

• Targeted measures to ensure that the needs of adolescents who are seeking legal abortion services are met and that they are treated with respect and due consideration for their vulnerability.

Only once all of these measures have been adopted by the Polish authorities can these three judgments be considered implemented.

Links:

Powerpoint by the speakers

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from a NGO (Center of Reproductive Rights/Federation for Women and Family Planning) (22/01/2020) in the cases of R.R., TYSIAC and P. and S. v. Poland (Applications No. 27617/04, 5410/03, 57375/08) and reply from the authorities (05/02/2020) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)99-rev]

Communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights) (05/02/2020) in the cases of R.R., TYSIAC and P. and S. v. Poland (Applications No. 27617/04, 5410/03, 57375/08) and reply from the authorities (19/02/2020)

1369th meeting (March 2020) (DH) - Rules 9.4 and 9.6 - Communication from the Commissioner for Human Rights (27/01/2020) in the cases of R.R., TYSIAC and P. and S. v. Poland (Applications No. 27617/04, 5410/03, 57375/08) and reply from the authorities (07/02/2020) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)101-rev]

1369th meeting (March 2020) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from NHRI (Commissioner for Human Rights of the Republic of Poland) (29/01/2020) and reply from the authorities (12/02/2020) in the cases of R.R., TYSIAC and P. and S. v. Poland (Applications No. 27617/04, 5410/03, 57375/08) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)136]

1369th meeting (March 2020) (DH) - Rule 8.2a Communication from the authorities (20/12/2019) in the case of P. and S. v. Poland (Application No. 57375/08) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)5]

Işıkırık v Turkey (Application Nr 41226/09) about unforeseeable conviction of membership of an illegal organisation for the mere fact of attending a public meeting and expressing views there

By Dr Kerem Altiparmak, Freedom of Expression Association (IFÖD)

Işıkırık group of cases comprise of four judgments concerning violations of the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly and/or freedom of expression. The Işıkırık group of cases underline structural problems with respect to the full and effective enjoyment of freedom of assembly and freedom of expression as a result of extensive and unforeseeable interpretation and implementation of criminal provisions. The common feature of these cases was the authorities’ failure to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings and critical expressions.

There has been no progress achieved with regard to the provision of an adequate legislative framework that enables the protection of Article 10 and 11 and full and effective implementation of Işıkırık Group cases. What is more, the legislative framework has become more arbitrary and punitive.

Conclusions and main Recommendations:

Recent legal amendments do not meet the Committee of Ministers’ requirement of fully aligning with the Court’s case law in terms of foreseeability and necessity in a democratic society standards. Recent amendments change nothing to the enjoyment of the right to assembly and freedom of expression. In fact, they become even more unforeseeable and more significantly, arbitrary and selective.

The executive practice confirms the arbitrary use of Articles 220 § 6 and 220 § 7 of TCC, alongside punitive use. The Işıkırık Group cases should remain under enhanced procedure and given the close connection between assembly and expression as foundational pillars of a democratic society, the Committee of Ministers should review the Işıkırık Group in frequent and regular intervals as the legislative and executive general measures. The Committee of Ministers should raise concern with regard to not only the lack of progress in fully aligning the Articles 220 § 6 and 220 § 7 of TCC with Convention standards, but also the introduction of retrogressive measures. Finally, the Committee of Ministers should ask the government to provide detailed statistical data (not just percentages) involving Articles 220 §, 220 § 7, 314 § 1 and 314 § 2 of the TCC with regards to criminal investigations, criminal prosecutions and the outcome of such prosecutions (guilty, not guilty, suspended sentences) as well as detailed information about the length of criminal sentences.

Links:

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (The Freedom of Expression Association (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği - IFÖD)) (21/01/2020) in the Işıkırık group of cases v. Turkey (Application No. 41226/09) and response from the Turkish authorities (28/01/2020) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)81]

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from NGOs (Article 19 and the Turkey Strategic Litigation Project (TSLP)) (21/01/2020) in the case of Işıkırık Group v. Turkey (Application No. 41226/09) and response from the Turkish authorities (28/01/2020) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)82]

Rule 9.1 Communication from the applicant (18/11/2019) in the Isikirik group of cases v. Turkey (Application No. 41226/09) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2019)1457]

1369th meeting (March 2020) (DH) - Action plan (15/01/2020) - Communication from Turkey concerning the Isikirik group of cases v. Turkey (Application No. 41226/09) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)38]

Rezmives and others and Bragadireanu group v Romania (Application Nr 61467/12+ and 22088/04) on overcrowding and poor conditions of detention in police detention facilities

By George Stafford, Co-Director of the European Implementation Network, on the basis of an input by Ecaterina-Georgiana Gheorghe, Executive Director, APADOR-CH

Further details on the presentation are available in the power point presentation below.

Links:

Power point by George Stafford, EIN Co-Director, on behalf of Georgiana Gheorghe, from APADOR-CH

Rule 9.2 - Communication from a NGO (Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania – Helsinki Committee (APADOR-CH)) (21/10/2019) in the cases of Rezmives and Others and BRAGADIREANU group v. Romania (Applications No. 22088/04, 61467/12) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2019)1263]

Rule 8.2a Communication from the authorities (14/02/2020) in the cases of BRAGADIREANU and REZMIVES AND OTHERS v. Romania (Applications No. 22088/04, 61467/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2020)143]

Rezmiveș and others and Bragadireanu group v. Romania (Applications Nos. 61467/12 and 22088/04) [CM/Del/Dec(2019)1362/H46-19]

1369th meeting (March 2020) (DH) - Letter from the Registrar (12/02/2020) in the cases of BRAGADIREANU and REZMIVES AND OTHERS v. Romania (Applications No. 22088/04, 61467/12) (document distributed at the request of the Secretariat)  

 Pictures: EIN Secretariat

Greek, Russian and Ukrainian cases presented at latest EIN briefing on implementation

EIN briefing on 24 November 2017

On 24 November 2017, the European Implementation Network convened a quarterly civil society briefing on cases of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) scheduled for review at the 1302nd Human Rights Meeting (DH) of the Committee of Ministers’ (CM) Deputies on 5-7 December 2017.

The meeting was held at the Palais de l’Europe and attended by representatives of over twenty delegations, the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights and the Committee of Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

This was the fourth briefing undertaken in 2017, following previous briefings on different cases held in February, May and September respectively.

The following cases were discussed at the briefing: Bekir-Ousta and others group v Greece, OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v Russian Federation, Kaverzin, Afanasyev groups, Karabet and Others, and Belousov v Ukraine, and Nevmerzhitsky, Yakovenko, Logvinenko, Isayev and Melnik groups v Ukraine.

A summary of points in the form of 3-5 recommendations made by all presenters on their respective cases can be found here and further information on the discussions at the briefing is provided below.

Bekir-Ousta and others group v Greece (Appl. No. 35151/05)

This group of cases concern the refusal by domestic courts to register associations on the grounds that their aim was to promote the idea that an ethnic Turkish minority existed in Greece. In 2008 the ECtHR found a violation of Article 11 of the Convention; however, none of the applicant organisations have been registered or re-registered to date. A similar judgment was made in 2015 in the case of a Macedonian minority organisation in Greece House of Macedonian Civilization and others v Greece.

Panayote Dimitras, Spokesperson of the Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM), provided an overview of the recent developments related to the recognition of Turkish and Macedonian minorities in Greece. He drew the CM’s attention to the fact that Greek courts continue to refuse registration of the associations. As stated by the Greek courts in 2017 in the cases of the Cultural Association of Turkish Women in the Prefecture of Xanthi and the House of Macedonian Civilization, there is no “structured Turkish minority” and “no Macedonian nation, no Macedonian culture, no Macedonian language, and no Macedonian minority”. Mr. Dimitras also gave his assessment of the recent legislative amendments allowing the reopening of the cases adjudicated by the ECtHR and adopted by Parliament on 13 October 2017.

The GHM memo can be found here. The four submissions of the GHM to the Department for Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights pursuant to Rule 9.2 of the CM’s Rules for the Supervision of the Execution of Judgments can be found here, here, here and here.

OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v Russian Federation (Appl. No. 14902/04)

The case concerns violations concerning tax and enforcement proceedings brought against the applicant oil company, leading to its liquidation in 2007. In its judgment of 2012, the ECtHR ruled that it led to violations of a right to fair trial (Article 6) and a right to property (Article 1 of Protocol 1) and awarded the applicant a total of EUR 1,866,104,634 as pecuniary damages to be paid to Yukos shareholders.

The judgment requires the Russian Federation to prepare a distribution plan for paying the just satisfaction, but it has not done so. On 19 January 2017 the Russian Constitutional Court held that the judgment was incompatible with the Russian Constitution.

At the briefing, Piers Gardner, Barrister at Monckton Chambers and legal representative of Yukos, reiterated the immediate, mandatory and unconditional obligation of the Russian Federation to pay just satisfaction. He urged the Committee to actively engage in developing a plan for the distribution of the just satisfaction, as a cooperative undertaking between the Russian Federation and the CM, as indicated in the Court’s judgment. The briefing stressed how the various facets associated with the preparation of a distribution plan were essentially of a technical and practical nature.

Mr. Gardner’s memo as shared with the briefing participants can be found here.

Kaverzin, Afanasyev groups, Karabet and Others, and Belousov v Ukraine (Appl. Nos. 23893/03, 38722/02, 38906/07 and 4494/07)

This group of cases relates to torture and/or ill-treatment by police, the lack of effective investigations into such complaints and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In some of the cases, the Court also found violations of Articles 5, 6, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol 1.

Vitalia Lebid, Attorney at the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, provided the CM with a comprehensive overview of the existing problems related to implementation of these judgments. She alerted the CM that ill-treatment still remains a widespread problem and is often used as a disciplinary method by police in Ukraine. Highlighting the lack of any effective remedies against ill-treatment by police, Ms. Lebid noted the need to speed up the establishment of the State Bureau of Investigation. This is because current investigations being conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office remain ineffective due to the lack of independence of the office and the current response to reported allegations, which results in the lose of evidence and more generally yields inadequate investigations. Additionally, there is still no effective mechanism in place to provide compensation for ill-treatment/torture.

Ms. Lebid provided the participants with a memo identifying key problems and recommendations, which can be found here. The latest action plan of the Ukrainian authorities submitted to the CM on 31 October 2017 can be found here.

Nevmerzhitsky, Yakovenko, Logvinenko, Isayev and Melnik groups v Ukraine (Appl. No. 54825/00)

These cases concern inhuman and/or degrading treatment (Article 3) suffered by the applicants because of overcrowding and the poor conditions of prison and detention facilities; the unacceptable conditions for detainees during transfer by road and rail; and the inadequacy of medical care. In the Nevmerzhitsky case, the Court concluded that the force-feeding of the applicant amounted to torture. In some of the cases, the Court also found a lack of effective remedies (Article 13).

Vitalia Lebid, as above, provided the briefing participants with information on the current situation in pre-trial detention facilities, where overcrowding still remains a problem – as noted in the November 2016 report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – and material conditions remain inadequate in most penitentiary facilities in Ukraine. She also highlighted the need to adopt several legislative amendments that would pave the way for improvements in these areas. Finally, Ms. Lebid drew the CM’s attention to the fact that there is no effective mechanism to protect the rights of prisoners, including a mechanism to obtain compensation for inadequate conditions.

Ms. Lebid’s memo disseminated during the briefing can be found here. The latest action report of the Ukrainian authorities submitted in 26 October 2017 can be found here.

Third EIN briefing in 2017 addresses important cases from Georgia, Azerbaijan and Russian Federation

On 5 September 2017, the European Implementation Network convened a quarterly civil society briefing on cases scheduled for review at the 1294th Human Rights Meeting (DH) of the Committee of Ministers from 19 to 21 September 2017. This was the third such briefing undertaken to date in 2017, following previous briefings on different cases held in February and May respectively.

From left: prof. Philip Leach (EHRAC), Nino Jomarjidze (GYLA), Ramute Remezaite (EIN), Karinna Moskalenko and Anna Maralyan (International Protection Centre), Alexey Navalny (Anti-Corruption Foundation)

DH members were briefed at the Palais de l’Europe on the implementation of the following cases: Gharibashvili group v Georgia; Rasul Jafarov v Azerbaijan (as part of the Ilgar Mammadov group); Navalnyy and Ofitserov v Russian Federation; and Kudeshkina v Russian Federation.

Gharibashvili group v Georgia (Appl. No. 11830/03)

This group of six judgments and eleven decisions concerns the lack of effective investigations into allegations of violations of the right to life and of ill-treatment (procedural aspects of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights). In addition, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found in two cases a substantive violation of Article 3 due to the excessive use of force by the police in the course of the applicants’ arrest and/or in custody. In these cases, the ECtHR concluded that the official investigations lacked the requisite independence and impartiality due to the institutional connection between those implicated and the investigators in charge of the cases.

Nino Jomarjidze, Strategic Litigation Lawyer, Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA), provided an overview of general measures currently taken by the Georgian authorities.  In her intervention, which can be found here, she particularly highlighted the need to enhance efforts relating to effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment and the meaningful involvement of victims into investigations. The recent action report of the Georgian authorities of 11 August 2017 can be found here.  

Rasul Jafarov v Azerbaijan, as part of the Ilgar Mammadov group (Appl. No. 69981/14)

The case concerns an arrest and pre-trial detention of Azerbaijani human rights defender Rasul Jafarov, which the Court found unlawful and aimed to silence and punish the applicant for his human rights activities, in violation of Articles 5 and 18 of the Convention.

At the briefing, prof. Philip Leach, legal representative of Rasul Jafarov and Director of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), argued that the criminal proceedings that led to Jafarov’s conviction should be re-opened on the basis of the Court’s judgment so that a full restitution is achieved. Prof. Leach introduced an opinion of a leading criminal law expert Julian B. Knowles QC at Matrix Chambers suggesting that the findings of the Court in Jafarov’s case arguing that the whole criminal case against him was politically motivated, and accordingly that Mr Jafarov`s conviction was based on procedural errors or shortcomings `of such gravity that a serious doubt is cast on the legitimacy of his conviction`. EHRAC submission of 1 September 2014 and the opinion can be found here.

Navalnyy and Ofitserov v Russian Federation (Appl. No. 46632/13)

The case concerned a complaint of arbitrary and unfair criminal proceedings that led to a conviction for embezzlement of property belonging to a Russian state company Kirovles by a prominent opposition politician and anti-corruption activist Alexey Navalny and a businessman Petr Ofitserov. The Court found a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention, noting that the trial was conducted ‘without judicial examination’ and the judgement of the Russian courts had been prejudicial, establishing ‘a link to public activities’ of Mr Navalny.

Members of the Committee of Ministers at the EIN civil society briefing 

Aleksey Navalny, co-applicant and Founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation, and Nikita Kulachenkov, Investigations, Anti-Corruption Foundation argued that the individual measures taken, i.e., the re-opening of the case that led to the conviction of Mr Navalny, was not effective as the re-trial was simply repeated with the identical violations of fair trial. The Committee was invited to establish that the re-opening of the proceedings as a result of an ECtHR judgment entails the proceedings to be wholly compliant with Convention norms, including fair trial. The briefing note can be found here. The latest action report of the Russian authorities submitted in August 2017 can be found here.

Kudeshkina v Russian Federation (Appl. No. 29492/05)

In this case, the ECtHR found that the applicant’s dismissal from the judiciary in 2004 to be in violation of Article 10 of the Convention as the penalty imposed on the applicant (i.e. early termination of office at the respective court as well as abrogation of the judge’s rank) for her comments critical of the Russian judiciary was disproportionately severe and capable of having a “chilling effect on judges who wish to participate in the public debate on the effectiveness of judicial institutions.”

Karinna Moskalenko, legal representative of the applicant and Director of International Protection Centre, called upon the Committee to urge the Russian Federation to provide an action plan in this case, which it has failed to present for over 8 years.  As the applicant judge is no longer in a position to call for restoration of her office due to severe illness and age, the Russian Federation was invited to ensure that the applicant is provided with the status of a retired judge and in that way would be entitled to a retirement pension and other privileges, which she has been deprived of since her dismissal. Ms. Moskalenko’s intervention can be found here.

A summary of points in the form of 2-3 recommendations made by all presenters on their respective cases can be found here. 

NGO briefing in Strasbourg discusses cases against Bulgaria, Russia and Ukraine

EIN NGO briefing at the Council of Europe premises on 24 May 2017

On 24 May 2017, the European Implementation Network (EIN) convened its quarterly civil society briefing to the Committee of Ministers (CM) on cases scheduled for its review at the 1288th CM-DH meeting on 6-8 June 2017. On that occasion, the EIN briefed CM members on the implementation of cases of United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others group v Bulgaria, Ananyev and Others group and Kalashnikov group v Russian Federation and Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov and Zhovner group v Ukraine. The briefing took place at the premises of the Council of Europe. 

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

The cases concern the unjustified refusals of the courts to register an association aiming at achieving "the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria". The refusals were based on considerations of national security, protection of public order and the rights of others and on the constitutional prohibition on associations pursuing political goals, which the European Court of Human Rights found in violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. To date, no Macedonian group has been registered by the Bulgarian courts under the existing procedure despite numerous attempts by several organisations, including the UMO Ilinden. 

The assessment of the latest domestic developments was provided by Krassimir Kanev, Chairperson of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC). A brief note of the BHC disseminated at the briefing can be found here. All action plans and reports of the Government of Bulgaria in these cases, including the latest addendum to the action plan of March 2017, can be found on HUDOC EXEC here (see under 'Related'). 

Ananyev and Others group and Kalashnikov group v Russian Federation (Appl. Nos. 42525/07, 47095/99)

In these cases, the Court found that poor detention conditions in Russian remand centres and lack of effective remedies to challenge it amounted to violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention respectively. The Court highlighted this as a structural problem in the Russian Federation by applying a pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ananyev and Others. 

During the briefing, Natalia Taubina, Director of the Public Verdict Foundation (PVF) discussed the latest developments in the execution process of the respective cases, including the latest action plan of the authorities of April 2017, and provided recommendations. The latest PVF submission under the rule 9(2) of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers filed after the NGO briefing can be found here.

Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov and Zhovner group v Ukraine (Appl. Nos. 40450/04, 56848/00)

These cases relate to the structural problem of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions, mostly delivered against the State and against state owned or controlled entities, and to the lack of an effective remedy in this respect. The Court found Ukraine in violation of Articles 6.1, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention. According to the Hudoc Exec database, the group concerns about 420 cases. The Court's judgment in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov was adopted through a pilot judgment procedure highlighting the non-enforcement of domestic decision as a structural problem in Ukraine. According to the information available on the Hudoc Exec database, as of 18 January 2017, there were 11,780 Ivanov-type cases pending before the Court, of which 8,479 have been communicated to the Ukrainian Government. The latest action plan of the authorities was submitted for the CM-DH meeting on 9-11 June 2015.

Latest information on the execution of these cases and recommendations to the Ukrainian Government were presented by Maksim Shcherbatyuk from the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (UHHRU). The UHHRU submission under the rule 9(2) of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers filed after the NGO briefing can be found here. 

EIN and OSJI briefing discusses cases from Azerbaijan, Belgium and Greece, Romania, Moldova and Russia

Photo credit: EIN

On 20 February 2017, the European Implementation Network (EIN) and the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) convened its quarterly civil society briefing to the Committee of Ministers (CM) on cases scheduled for its review at the 1280th CM-DH meeting on 7-9 March 2017. On that occasion, EIN and OSJI briefed CM members on the implementation of cases of Rasul Jafarov v Azerbaijan, M.S.S v Greece and Belgium, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Campeanu v Romania, and Catan and Others v Moldova and Russia. The briefing took place at the premises of the Council of Europe, under the invitation of the Permanent Representations of Ireland and Norway. 

Rasul Jafarov v Azerbaijan (Appl. No. 69981/14)

Rasul Jafarov is an Azerbaijani human rights defender and Chairman of the Human Rights Club whose arrest and pre-trial detention in August 2014 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found unlawful and aimed 'to silence and punish the applicant for his activities in the area of human rights’ (violations of Articles 5 and 18, and 34 of the Convention). The Government of Azerbaijan has so far failed to take any individual measures to implement the judgment. It has not yet paid the compensation of €25,000 indicated by the ECtHR despite the deadline of 4 October 2016. The Supreme Court dismissed Jafarov's appeal to re-examine the criminal case that led to his conviction on the basis that the ECtHR judgment of 17 March 2016 is a `newly discovered fact` provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code of Azerbaijan.

Information on the latest developments in the case was provided by Ramute Remezaite, Legal Consultant of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre representing Rasul Jafarov before the ECtHR. Two written submissions to the CM can be found here and here.

M.S.S v Belgium and Greece (Appl. No. 30696/09)

The M.S.S group of cases concerns the degrading treatment of the applicants (asylum seekers or irregular migrants) on account of their conditions of detention such as overcrowding, insufficient ventilation, lack of regular access to toilets or sanitary facilities, unsuitable food or inadequate allowances for food in various detention facilities. The ECtHR found such a treatment amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (degrading ill-treatment). Some of the cases of the group concern the violations of the applicants’ right to an effective remedy in relation to deficiencies in the examination of the applicant’s asylum application and the conditions of the detention. 

At the briefing, Simon Cox, Migration Lawyer, Open Society Justice Initiative, Irem Arf Rayfield, Regional Researcher on Migration (Europe) - Amnesty International and Eleni Takou, Senior Advocacy Officer, Solidarity Center, Greece provided detailed information on the current state of execution of the cases and the suggested actions to be taken by the CM. 

The submission of the Amnesty International to the CM can be found here. 

Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Campeanu v Romania (Appl. No. 47848/08)

The case concerns the authorities’ failure to protect the right to life of Mr. Câmpeanu, a young man of Roma origin, orphaned, HIV-positive and diagnosed with profound intellectual disability. The ECtHR found a substantial violation of Article 2 of the Convention in relation to severe shortcomings in the social and medical care afforded to the applicant before his death at the neuropsychiatric hospital. Under Article 46 of the Convention, the ECtHR indicated that Romania take the necessary general measures to ensure that persons with mental health problems in a situation comparable to that of Mr Câmpeanu are afforded independent representation, enabling them to have Convention complaints relating to their health and treatment examined before a court or other independent body.

The current state of execution and the latest domestic developments were presented by Georgiana Iorgulescu, Executive Director, and Georgiana Pascu, Programme Manager of the Centre for Legal Resources (CLR), Romania.

The CLR submission of 20 February 2017 to the CM in response to the revised action plan of the Romanian Government of 2 January 2017 can be found here.

Catan and Others v Moldova and Russia (Appl. Nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06)

The case concerns the violation of the right to education of 170 children or their parents from Latin-script schools located in the Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova. Pursuant to the “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” “law” on languages, they had suffered from the forced closure of these schools between August 2002 and July 2004, as well as from measures of harassment, which the ECtHR found in violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 by the Russian Federation. 

The review of execution of judgments process to date and the latest developments were presented by Alexandru Postica, Human Rights Programme Director, PROMO-LEX, Moldova. A brief summary of the presentation can be found here.

More information on the execution process of the cases supervised by the CM can be found on the HUDOC-EXEC database of the Department for Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. 

EIN and OSJI quarterly briefing: cases against Georgia, Russia and the United Kingdom

EIN and OSJI briefing on 28 November 2016

On 29 November 2016, the European Implementation Network (EIN) and the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) convened its quarterly civil society briefing on cases scheduled for review at the 1273 CM-DH meeting. On that occasion, EIN and OSJI briefed members of the Committee of Ministers on Identoba and Others v Georgia, Alekseyev v Russia, Israilova and Others v Russia, and McKerr group v the United Kingdom.

Identoba and Others v Georgia (Appl. No. 73235/12)

The case concerns a peaceful demonstration in Tbilisi in May 2012 to mark the International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia, which was violently disrupted by counter-demonstrators. The applicants, an NGO, Identoba, and 13 individuals, complained that the Georgian authorities had failed to protect them from violent attacks and to effectively investigate the incident, including the discriminatory motive behind the attacks. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) taken in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), and of Article 11 (right to freedom of peaceful assembly), also taken in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

The current state of execution and suggested actions to be taken by Georgia were presented by Nigel Warner of ILGA-Europe.

A joint NGO submission by Identoba, Women's Initiatives Support Group (WISG), Amnesty International, and ILGA-Europe as non-governmental organisations under rule 9(2) of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers can be found here. 

The Committee's decision on the case adopted at its 1273 CM-DH meeting can be found here. 

Alekseyev v Russia (Appl. Nos. 4916/07, 25924/08, 14599/09)

Nigel Warner of ILGA-Europe presents on Alekseyev v Russia case

The Alekseyev v. Russia cases address repeated bans on demonstrations promoting tolerance and respect for the human rights of LGBTI persons, and the absence of an effective remedy to challenge those bans. The European Court of Human Rights found violations of Convention Articles 11 (right to freedom of assembly), 13 (right to an effective remedy), and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 11. The execution of judgments process in this case has now been proceeding for 5 ½ years. 

The review of execution of judgments process to date and latest developments were presented by Nigel Warner of ILGA-Europe. 

A joint NGO submission by Coming Out and ILGA-Europe as non-governmental organisations under rule 9(2) of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers can be found here. 

The Committee's decision on the case adopted at its 1273 CM-DH meeting can be found here.

 Israilova and Others v Russia (Appl. No. 4571/04)

The case concerns enforced disappearance of the applicant's son and is being reviewed by the Committee of Ministers as a part of the Khashiyev and Akayeva group. The Court found violations of Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), and Article 13 (effective remedy) in respect to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. As reported by the applicant's legal representatives, in May 2015, the applicant has been informed that her son's remains had been found. According to an expert forensic examination conducted in October 2015, the authorities have determined with close to 100% accuracy that the remains found belong to the applicant’s son. However, the remains have still not been handed over to the applicant for burial. 

Information on the latest developments in the case and suggested questions to the Russian Government were presented by Diana Kostina of the Russian Justice Initiative.  

Submission of the Russian Justice Initiative on the developments related to the remains of the applicant's son under rule 9(2) of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers can be found here. 

The Committee's decision on the Khashiyev and Akayeva group adopted at its 1273 CM-DH meeting can be found here.

McKerr group v the United Kingdom (Appl. No. 28883/95)

In these cases the Court found the United Kingdom in violation of its procedural obligations under Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention.

Six of these judgments, delivered in 2001-2003, concern the deaths of the applicants’ next-of-kin in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s either during security forces operations or in circumstances giving rise to suspicion of collusion with those forces. A ‘package of measures’ was put forward to remedy these violations however implementation of these judgments has been subject to excessive delay.

Further judgments have been delivered since 2013 again finding Article 2 investigative violations due to excessive delays in inquest proceedings into deaths concerning the security forces in Northern Ireland. 

Latest information on the execution of this group of cases and recommendations were presented by Gemma McKeown of the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ). 

CAJ submission under rule 9(2) of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers can be found here. 

The Committee's decision on the McKerr group adopted at its 1273 CM-DH meeting can be found here. 

EIN and OSJI quarterly briefing: cases against Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia and Poland

Mr Jakob Finci (middle) and Rasul Jafarov (right) at the NGO briefing 

On 12 September 2016, the European Implementation Network (EIN) and the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) convened its quarterly civil society briefing on cases scheduled for review at the 1265 CM-DH meeting. On that occasion, EIN and OSJI briefed members of the Committee of Ministers on Sejdić and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina; CIA rendition cases (Al Nashiri v Poland and El Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as well as Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, and Namat Aliyev group v. Azerbaijan.

Sejdić and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina (App. Nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06)

The case concerns constitutionally entrenched racial discrimination in relation to the right to vote and the right to stand for elections. In 2009, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Bosnia and Herzegovina to be in breach of Protocol 12, which provides for the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination, in failing to allow its citizens who are not ‘Constituent Peoples’ to stand for election to the Presidency. The ECtHR also found a violation of Article 14 of the ECHR, which provides for freedom from discrimination, taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol 1, which protects free elections to the legislature, as a result of the inability of ‘Others’ to stand for election to the House of Peoples.

The current state of execution and suggested actions to be taken by Bosnia and Herzegovina was presented by Mr Jakob Finci, former Ambassador and applicant.

Namat Aliyev group (App. 18705/06) v. Azerbaijan

These cases concern parliamentary elections that occurred in Azerbaijan in November 2005; applicants were members of the opposition parties or independent candidates. The ECtHR found violations of Article 3, Protocol No. 1 due to actions by the electoral commissions and domestic courts deemed arbitrary and without motivation, including rejecting complaints alleging breaches of electoral law and cancelling candidate registration. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan annulled the elections in the electoral constituencies of certain applicants without sufficient reason, and without affording procedural safeguards to the parties (including the inability to participate in a review hearing).

Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (App.15172/13)

The case concerns the arrest and detention of the applicant, an opposition politician, in violation of Articles 5, 6 and 18 of the Convention. The ECtHR concluded inter alia that the applicant was arrested for reasons other than those permitted by Article 5, namely to silence or punish the applicant for having criticized the Azerbaijani government.

Both cases were presented by human rights defender and chair of the Human Rights Club, Rasul Jafarov, whose arrest and pre-trial detention the ECtHR has also found politically motivated in his case Rasul Jafarov v Azerbaijan (App. 69981/14).

OSJI Litigation Director RUPERT SKILBECK presents on the CIA rendition cases

Al Nashiri v Poland (App. No 28761/11)

In this case, the ECtHR concluded that Poland violated Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 by participating in the extraordinary rendition and secret detention of Mr. Al Nashiri in a secret CIA prison on Polish soil, and by failing to effectively investigate this participation. The ECtHR found it established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was secretly detained in a secret CIA prison on Polish territory from 5 December 2002 until 6 June 2003. In addition, it found that by refusing to comply with its evidentiary requests, Poland failed to discharge its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention. Since 2006, the applicant has been held at Guantanamo Bay, facing the prospect of an unfair trial by a military commission and continuing risk of the death penalty.

El Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (App no 39630/09)

In El-Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Grand Chamber of the European Court found Macedonia in violation of the Convention for the extraordinary rendition of Khaled El-Masri, and the subsequent failure to conduct an effective investigation into his torture and ill-treatment.

The CIA rendition cases were presented by Rupert Skilbeck, Litigation Director at Open Society Justice Initiative.

Summary of the main points and recommendations on the above mentioned cases presented at the briefing can be found here. 

Well-attended briefing on implementation of judgments

On 11 September 2015, the European Implementation Network and Open Society Justice Initiative convened a joint briefing for Permanent Representations to the Council of Europe in view of the forthcoming human rights meeting for the Committee of Ministers on 22 - 24 September 2015. Information and updates from civil society on the implementation of the following European Court judgments were provided: Al Nashiri v. Poland (Application No. 28761/11), Genderdoc-M v. Moldova (Application No. 9106/06), Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 15172/13), Mahmudov and Agazade Group v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 35877/04), Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 18705/06), Insanov v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 16133/08), Bati and Others v. Turkey (Application No. 33097/96) and Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia (Application No. 57942/00). Approximately 40 people attended the briefing held at the Centre Culturel St Thomas, in Strasbourg.