New Project: Combatting violence against women and domestic violence by supporting the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

New Project - EIN + VAW_DV.png

Violence against women and domestic violence (VAW/DV) constitute grave violations of human rights and are a form of discrimination. In June 2020, the UN warned of a "shadow pandemic" alongside COVID-19: a global rise in domestic violence. Increased levels of domestic violence have already been recorded in many European states.

Recent events have also highlighted the power of groups who oppose positive reforms on this issue: in particular, President Erdoğan’s announcement that Turkey would be withdrawing from Europe’s leading treaty on VAW/DV, the Istanbul Convention.

The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have an invaluable role to play to highlighting ongoing problems with VAW/DV - and in promoting much-needed change.

Judgments of the Strasbourg Court identify widespread and systemic failures of authorities in states to combat and prevent VAW/DV. These findings are made by an international institution that has a high level of authority. They also initiate an implementation procedure which requires the state to carry out necessary reforms. For example, in Lithuania fundamental reforms were made to the police and prosecution services, after a librarian who had been attacked by her partner won a case at the European Court of Human Rights.

At the time of writing, there are ECtHR judgments pending implementation on this topic concerning Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. These states have a total population of over 375 million, meaning that reforms in them have the capacity to prevent or diminish the violence experienced by tens or hundreds of thousands of victims.

However, reforms are only ensured if the Council of Europe’s judgment implementation process functions effectively. There is always a risk that the ECtHR judgment implementation monitoring process can be closed, without effective reforms having taken place. For example, the government of Moldova requested that monitoring of the country’s leading case on violence against women should be closed - although local rights groups believed that effective reforms were yet to take place. A Moldovan NGO, the Women’s Law Centre, helped avoid premature closure of the implementation process by providing vital information to the Council of Europe, showing how the problem persisted and that further reforms were required. Following this, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers kept the implementation monitoring process open, and requested information to show progress on the key issues raised by the WLC.

This demonstrates how important it is that local organisations specialising in violence against women are able to contribute to the ECtHR implementation monitoring process. However, the process is often hard to engage with for organisations that have no experience of it.

With the generous support of the Government of Luxembourg, EIN is starting a new project to open up the ECtHR implementation monitoring process to organisations that know the most about VAW/DV at the natinal level - the specialist organisations doing daily work to protect victims. EIN will aim to provide comprehensive support to local NGOs that specialise in this area, to ensure that they can effectively contribute to the ECtHR implementation monitoring system, in every country where there is an ECtHR judgment concerning domestic violence pending implementation.

GOUV_MAEE_EN.jpg

The activities for this project will include:

SIGNATUR LUXBG_RGB.jpg
  • Engaging specialist organisations who are not currently familiar with the monitoring process in countries where there are cases pending implementation.

  • Providing bespoke advice, resources, and support in liaising with the Council of Europe, and assistance with drafting written submissions.

  • Organising an online event to share lessons-learnt and best practices across organisations from different states.

  • Delivering briefings on cases concerning violence against women to delegates of the Committee of Ministers.

We thank Luxembourg’s Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs for their support, without which we would not be able to make this project happen.

 

Online Training for Moldovan Civil Society on the ECtHR Judgments Implementation Process

EIN Training event.png

On February 25 and 26th of 2021, EIN hosted its first online training session of the year. This session focused on Moldovan civil society’s engagement with the implementation process for judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

The first of the two sessions focused on the general implementation process.

EIN Director George Stafford and LRCM Executive Director Vladislav Gribincea provided welcoming remarks, which were followed by the first presentation. Tatiana Cojocaru, Lawyer at the Council of Europe’s Department for the Execution of Judgments, discussed how the implementation monitoring process works. More on the implementation process here and here.

Next, Agnes Ciccarone, EIN Programme Manager, discussed how NGOs can get involved in the implementation monitoring process, followed by the “The Dos and Don’ts of NGO submissions in the implementation process”, presented by George Stafford. The final presentation highlighted examples of successful advocacy in Strasbourg for the implementation of ECtHR judgments, provided by Ioana Iliescu, EIN Law and Advocacy Officer.

The second training session focused on how to address the issue of the non-implementation of ECtHR judgments in Moldova. This contained presentations from EIN and Moldovan civil society members and started with a discussion surrounding the ECtHR judgments pending implementation against Moldova by the Director of EIN.

LRCM gave the next two presentations. The first by Legal Officer Daniel Goinic on implementing ECtHR judgments in Moldova, covered the roles of the main actors involved in the process. The second focused on tips for effective domestic advocacy strategy for ECtHR judgment implementation by Vladislav Gribincea.

Alexandru Postica, Strategic Development Advisor of Promo-LEX, gave the following presentation, discussing his organization’s experience in advocating for the implementation of ECtHR judgments. Insights on this subject were also provided by Violeta Andriuta, a lawyer from the Women’s Law Centre.

The training was concluded with a breakout session. This activity allowed participants to discuss how they would write Rule 9 submissions on pending Moldovan cases.

We thank everyone who attended the training sessions, especially those who presented. We look forward to the next online training event!

Civil Society Briefing: UK and Poland

Last week EIN concluded its civil society briefings prior to the March meeting of the Committee of Ministers, with a briefing held on February Friday 26th. Due to Covid-19 it was held online.

EIN Civil Society Briefing2.png

This second civil society briefing focused on cases concerning the U.K and Poland. Gemma McKeown from the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) presented on the McKerr group, with an additional briefing on the case of Pat Finucane, the son of Pat Finucane given by the victim’s son, Michael Finucane.  Jarosław Jagura from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights Poland and Kamila Ferenc from the Federation for Women and Family Planning presented on the P. and S.Tysiąc and R.R. cases v. Poland.

The purpose of civil society briefings is to update the Committee of Ministers (CM) with crucial information on specific cases. Read more on the implementation process here.

McKerr Group v. U.K.:The case concerns actions of security forces in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s and the failure of the UK to conduct Article 2-compliant investigations.

Recommendations on McKerr v. U.K. group of cases by the Committee on the Administration of Justice

General Measures

CAJ invites the CM to ask the U.K:

  • Whether it is recommitting to implementing the Stormont House Agreement and if it is, what action is it taking without further delay to take this forward.

  • What action it is taking to address the underfunding of the Office of the Police Ombudsman and failure of the PSNI to comply with disclosure obligations.

  • What action it is taking to address issues of delays in the provision of disclosure in legacy inquests.

Individuals Measures:

  • CAJ echoes the CM’s profound regret that the inquests and investigations in McKerr, Shanaghan and Kelly & Ors have still not been completed, resulting in ongoing breaches of Article 2 ECHR, and repeats its calls for infringement proceedings, under Article 46 (4) ECHR.

  • CAJ calls for all of the Individual Measures to remain under the supervision of the CM.

  • CAJ repeats its request for the reopening of the supervision of the Individual Measure under the Finucane v. U.K. case without further delay and that this be kept under regular scrutiny by the CM.

The P. and S., Tysiąc and R.R. cases v. Poland:

P. and S. v. Poland: The case concerns the state’s failure to provide reliable information on lawful abortions to the applicant. This case is under enhanced procedure by the Committee of Ministers. More on the case here.

Tysiąc v. Poland: The case concerns the 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.

R.R.  v. Poland: The case concerns the applicant's lack of access to a prenatal test, enabling the applicant to make an informed decision on whether to seek an abortion.

Recommendations on P. and S., Tysiąc and R.R. cases v. Poland

By Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights

  • Recommends the CM to continue its supervision of the P. and S. v. Poland, R. R. v. Poland, and Tysiąc v. Poland cases.

  • Urges the CM to consider the possibility of issuing an interim resolution given the considerable time elapsing from the delivery of the ECtHR's judgments in the following cases: P. and S. v. Poland, R. R. v. Poland, and Tysiąc v. Poland.

  • Recommends that CM should again request the Polish authorities to provide data on the actual availability of abortion in hospitals, specifically the data on hospitals where a woman can't have her pregnancy terminated because of the conscience clause invoked by the doctors.

  • Polish authorities should guarantee that women may receive reliable and objective information on the grounds for the Iawful termination of pregnancy and the condition of the foetus. This information should be provided before the end of the legal period when an abortion is allowed. Polish authorities should introduce an expedient and effective procedure to ensure that women have an opportunity to exercise the right to Iawful abortion. 

  • Mechanisms should be introduced to ensure that the right to abortion is not nullified by the invocation of the conscience clause by doctors.

See Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights presentation below.

By the Centre for Reproductive Rights and the Federation for Women and Family Planning

  • Recommends that the CM continue its enhanced scrutiny of the Tysiąc, R.R. and P. and S. judgments and urge Poland to adopt the measures required by the judgments to address prevailing legal barriers and enforcement deficits and enable women and adolescents to exercise their rights under Polish law to obtain reproductive health services. 

  • Recommends the Committee of Ministers request the authorities to:

    • Establish 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. This mechanism must ensure: a decision within no more than 3 days; the right of judicial appeal; the issuance of enforceable orders mandating a particular health care facility or medical provider to provide the care sought.

    • Adopt effective measures to ensure that refusals based on the “conscience clause” by medical professionals do not undermine or delay women’s access to legal abortion or prenatal testing. This should include enacting legally binding measures requiring medical professionals to timely refer women who are refused abortion care based on the “conscience clause” to alternative medical professionals committed and able to provide the care; establishing effective oversight and monitoring mechanisms; and ensuring an adequate number of medical providers committed to provide abortion care throughout the country.

    • Strengthen enforcement procedures and measures, including by ensuring appropriate sanctions and disciplinary actions against health care facilities and professionals for any failures to comply with obligations to provide legal reproductive health services and information.

    • Effectively monitor compliance by all health care facilities with their contractual obligations to the National Health Fund and actively enforce these contracts, including by sanctioning breaches by health care institutions and medical providers.

    • Adopt effective measures to guarantee women timely access to reliable information on the conditions and effective procedures for their access to legal abortion care, such as comprehensive guidelines to all health facilities and professionals providing reproductive health care.

    • Adopt effective measures to ensure that full and reliable information is provided to women and adolescent girls enabling them to take informed decisions about their pregnancy.

    • Adopt effective measures to enhance protection of patient data confidentiality.

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

    See the original recommendations here.

We thank the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights Poland, and the Federation for Women and Family Planning for sharing their insights and recommendations on these cases.

Relevant Documents:

Civil Society Briefing: Turkey, Kavala, and Demirtaş

This week EIN held its first civil society briefing of 2021. The briefing was held online due to Covid-19. These civil society briefings update the Committee of Ministers (CM) with information on the progress of specific cases. Read more on the implementation process here.

This briefing had two sessions, the first took place on Tuesday, February 23rd, and the second was on February 26th. The first session covered two Turkish cases, presented by Emma Sinclair, Turkey Director at Human Rights Watch, Ayse Bingol, Project Co-Director at the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, and Kerem Altiparmak, Human Rights Lawyer and Founder at the Freedom of Expression Association (IFÖD).

The Kavala v. Turkey case concerns a Turkish philanthropist and human rights defender who is unjustifiably being detained, for over 1200 days, as a means to silence his speech. More on Kavala here.

Overview of Recommendations by Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project on Kavala 

Individual Measures:

The NGOs urge the immediate release of Kavala. If he does remain in pre-trial detention at the time of the 1398th 9-11 March 2021 meeting, the CM should trigger infringement proceedings against Turkey.

General Measures:

The NGOs urges Turkey to address/implement ECtHR violations concerning the right to liberty and security and on the limitations on restricting rights.

Specifically, to: 

  • Request Turkey to inform the Committee of Ministers about the number of people detained on remand since 15 July 2016.

  • Urge Turkey to revise its Action Plan and address in full the structural problems identified in the ECtHR Kavala v. Turkey judgment and recommendations by NGOs.

  • Call on Turkey to pursue a clear and detailed strategy to prevent violations of the rights protected in the Convention. 

Overview of Recommendations by Freedom of Expression Association (IFÖD) on Kavala 

IFÖD urges the CM to invite Turkey to provide statistical information about detention orders issues in the last 5 years and continue to supervise Turkish judicial practice concerning pre-trial detention with the Convention standards.

The Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (No.2) case concerns the arrest/detention of one of Turkey's main opposition leaders to limit political debate.

Overview of Recommendations by ARTICLE 19, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, the International Federation for Human Rights, and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project on Demirtaş

Procedural Matters:

The NGOs urge the Committee of Ministers to place Demirtaş v. Turkey (No.2) under enhanced procedures and treated as a leading case.

 Individual Measures:

The NGOs urge the Committee of Ministers to: 

  • Call for the immediate release of Demirtaş required by the judgment and indicate that his ongoing detention is a prolong violation of his rights.

  • Request the Government of Turkey to end the abuse of judicial proceedings to harass Demirtaş, including by dropping all charges under which he has been investigated and detained.

  • Publicly correct false claims promoted by senior officials of the Government of Turkey.

The second briefing took place on Friday, 26th February 2021. This session focused on two case groups:

Relevant Documents:

Overview of Rule 9 Submissions in view of the Committee of Minister’s Deputies Human Rights Meeting November/December 2021

From the 30th of November to the 2nd of December the Council of Europe’s Committee of Minister’s Deputies will meet for their quarterly Human Rights Meeting. This meeting will examine several judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that are still pending implementation. The agenda consists of 42 cases from 21 members of the Council of Europe.

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

Overview of Submissions

 GAFGAZ MAMMADOV group v. AZERBAIJAN (Application No. 60259/11) 

Violation: This group concerns numerous breaches of the applicants’ freedom of assembly through the dispersal of unauthorised peaceful demonstrations in 2010-2014 and their ensuing arrest and administrative conviction to short periods of detention for having participated in the demonstrations or criminal convictions for public disorder. It also concerns a violation of the right of individual petition on account of the seizure from the office of the applicants' representative of the entire case file relating to the applicants’ pending cases before the Court, together with all his other case files.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-1 (March 2021)

Submissions:


MAMMADLI group v. AZERBAIJAN (Application No. 47145/14) 

Violation: This group concerns the arrest and pre-trial detention to punish the applicants for his activities in the area of electoral monitoring (Mammadli) or for their active social and political engagement (Rashad Hasanov and Others) in breach of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-3 (September 2021) 

Submissions:

MURADOVA GROUP, MAMMADOV (JALALOGLU) GROUP, MIKAYIL MAMMADOV GROUP v. AZERBAIJAN (Application No. 22684/05, 34445/04, 4762/05)

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377bis/H46 (1-3 September 2020)

Submissions:

KOLEVI v. BULGARIA (Application No. 1108/02)

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: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-6 (March 2021)

Submissions:

VELIKOVA GROUP v. BULGARIA (Application No. 41488/98)

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1383/H46-3 (29 September – 1 October 2020)

Submissions:

STATILEO GROUP v. CROATIA (Application No. 12027/10)

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-7 (March 2021)

Submissions:

X  v. FINLAND (Application No. 34806/04)

Violation: Extensions of a confinement in mental hospital and forcible administration of medication without adequate legal safeguards.

First Examination

Submissions:

KHAN v. France (Application No. 12267/16)

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1390/H46-9 (December 2020)

Submissions:

IDENTOBA AND OTHERS GROUP v. GEORGIA (Application No. 73235/12)

 Violation: Lack of protection against homophobic attacks during demonstrations.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1383/H46-5 (29 September – 1 October 2020) 

Submissions:

GUBACSI GROUP v. HUNGARY (Application No. 44686/07)

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1383/H46-9 (29 September – 1 October 2020) 

Submissions:

ILIAS AND AHMED v. HUNGARY (Application No. 47287/15)

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-14 (June 2021)

Submissions:


TONELLO (SHAW GROUP) v. HUNGARY (Application No. 46524/14)

 Violation: Authorities’ failure to enforce court decisions ordering the return to the applicants of their children.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1390/H46-13 (December 2020)

Submissions:

KHLAIFIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY (Application No. 16483/12) 

Violation: Absence of clear and accessible legal basis for the detention of irregular migrants arrived on the Italian coasts in 2011 as part of the events related to the “Arab Spring” in Tunisia; lack of domestic judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention and of the conditions of reception.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-13 (March 2021) 

Submissions:

OZDIL AND OTHERS v. REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application No. 42305/18) 

Violation: In the present case, the Court found violations of Articles 5 § 1 and 8 of the Convention on account of the extra-legal transfer of all five applicants[1] from the Republic of Moldova to Turkey in September 2018, which circumvented all guarantees offered to them by domestic and international law. 

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-15 (March 2021)

Submissions:

SARBAN v. REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application No. 3456/05) 

Violation: Various violations mainly arising from pre-trial detention. 

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377/H46-22 (June 2020) 

Submissions:

X v. North Macedonia (Application no. 29683/16)

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

Last examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1369/H46-18 (March 2020)

Submissions:

TYSIĄC, R.R., and P. AND S. v. Poland (Applications No. 27617/045410/0357375/08)

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-18 (March 2021) 

Submissions:  

BUCUR AND TOMA v. ROMANIA (Application No. 40238/02)

Violation: Conviction of a whistle-blower for having disclosed information on the illegal secret surveillance of citizens by the Intelligence Service; lack of safeguards in the statutory framework governing secret surveillance.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2016)1273/H46-21 (December 2016)

Submissions:

M.C. AND A.C. v. ROMANIA (Application No. 12060/12)

Violation: Lack of an effective investigation into ill-treatment by private parties including into possible homophobic motives behind the attack.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2019)1355/H46-30 (September 2019) 

Submissions:

  •   Coming soon

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

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

Last examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-28 (September 2021)

Submission:

KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Application No. 29492/05)

Violation: Dismissal from judicial office for making critical media statements about the judiciary. 

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-28 (June 2021)

Submissions:

MIKHEYEV GROUP v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Application No. 77617/01)

Violation: Torture or inhuman/degrading treatment in police custody with a view to extracting confessions and lack of effective investigations; arbitrary and/or unacknowledged arrest and detention in police custody. Use in criminal proceedings of confessions obtained in breach of Article 3 and lack of an effective remedy to claim compensation for ill-treatment. 

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2019)1362/H46-26 (December 2019)

CM/Del/Dec(2020)1383/A2 (29 September – 1 October 2020)

 Submissions:

SVINARENKO AND SLYADNEV GROUP v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Application No. 32541/08)

 Violation: Degrading treatment on account of confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during criminal proceedings or in the remand prison for the purposes of participation, by means of a video link, in the hearings concerning detention.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1383/H46-20 (29 September – 1 October 2020)

 Submissions:

CUMHURİYETÇİ EĞİTİM VE KÜLTÜR MERKEZİ VAKFI GROUP and ZENGIN HASAN AND EYLEM GROUP v. TURKEY (Application No. 32093/10, 1448/04)

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: CM/Del/Dec(2019)1362/H46-32 (December 2019)

Submissions:

GURBAN GROUP v. TURKEY (Application No. 4947/04)

Violation: Absence of any mechanism to review “aggravated” life imprisonment sentence, and conditions of detention 

First Examination

 Submissions:

KAVALA v. TURKEY (Application No. 28749/18) 

Photo Credit: Kerem Zzel/dpa/Picture Alliance

Violation:  Unjustified detention of the applicant without reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence, with the ulterior purpose of stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate; unforeseeable lifting of parliamentary immunity and subsequent criminal proceedings to penalise the applicant for political speech.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-39 (September 2021) 

Submissions:

LEVCHUK v. UKRAINE (Application No. 17496/19)

Violation: Failure to ensure the applicant’s protection from domestic violence

First Examination

Submissions:

KEBE AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application No. 12552/12)

Violation: Lack of adequate safeguards in the border-control procedure to protect against arbitrary removal and lack of effective remedy.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2018)1331/H46-32 (December 2018)

Submissions:

McKERR GROUP v. UNITED KINGDOM (Application No. 28883/95)

Violation: Actions of security forces in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s; failure to conduct Article 2 - compliant investigations.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-38 (March 2021)

Submissions:

Promo-LEX launches a new video about the non-implementation of the Catan and others v Russia case.

These cases concern the violation of the right to education of 170 children or parents of children from Latin-script schools located in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova. Pursuant to the “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” (“MRT”) “law” on languages, they suffered from the forced closure of these schools between August 2002 and July 2004, together with measures of harassment.

The European Court of Human Rights held that the Russian Federation exercised effective control over the “MRT” during the period in question and that by virtue of its continued military, economic and political support for the “MRT”, which could not otherwise survive, the Russian Federation incurred responsibility under the Convention for the violation of the applicants’ rights to education.

However, since the judgment has become final, almost 9 years ago, and despite the adoption of 3 interim resolutions and 18 decisions by the Committee of Ministers, little progress has been made. The payment of the just satisfaction is still delayed. The “MRT” laws limiting the use of Latin script in schools are still in force. 20% of the applicants have left the Republic of Moldova since the judgment has become final, and several of the 170 applicants have died. The schools are dying too, due to the ongoing harassment on pupils and teachers.

The video gives the floor to teachers, headmasters, pupils and Promo-LEX strategic development adviser Alexandru Postica, providing an insight into the problems which pupils and teachers are facing every day. Pupils are still not able to attend schools in adequate premises. Following the forced closure of schools, the school administrations had to rent buildings which were not conceived for educational purposes: many children still do not have access to sport facilities or canteens. Obstacles to the freedom of movement of children and teachers are also considerable. Pupils have to travel a long distance everyday to go to school, sometimes up to 25 km each way, and school buses are stopped at the so-called Transnistrian customs for daily passport controls. Systemic harassment to forbid the use of Latin script and of the Romanian language also concerns people beyond the applicants from the Catan case, as shown by the Iovcec and others v Russia case.

Promo-LEX calls for the schools to be allowed to re-integrate to their previous buildings. These were designed for educational purposes, and would allow for better teaching conditions both for school staff members and pupils. They call on to the Committee of Ministers to request from the Russian authorities the immediate payment of just satisfaction and the submission of an Action Plan on how they intend to implement the judgment. Promo-LEX also requests the Committee to refer the case to the European Court in line with the procedure under Article 46 § 4 of the European Convention and to consider it at every meeting until its full execution.

EIN is grateful to its member organisation Promo-Lex in this excellent video. It serves as a strong example of dynamic advocacy, which will be of great interest to other EIN members.