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

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

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

Overview of Submissions

Virabyan Group v. Armenia

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

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

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

Gafgaz Mammadov Group v. Azerbaijan

Violation: Dispersals of demonstrations and arrests of demonstrators.

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

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

Stanev v. Bulgaria

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

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

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

United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others Group v. Bulgaria

Violation: Unjustified refusals by the courts to register an association aiming at achieving “the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria”.

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

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

Statileo Group v. Croatia  

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

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

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

D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic

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

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

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

 H.F. and Others v. France

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

First Examination

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

J.M.B. and Others v. France

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

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

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

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

Tsintsabadze Group v. Georgia

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

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

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

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

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

Nisiotis Group v. Greece

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

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

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

Bakirdzi and E.C. v. Hungary

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

First Examination

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

Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary and Szolcsán v. Hungary

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

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

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

First examination (Szolcsán)

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

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

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

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

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

Darboe and Camara v. Italy

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

First Examination

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

L. v. Lithuania

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

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

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

Manole and Others v. Republic of Moldova

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

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

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

M.K. and Others Group v. Poland

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

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

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

Tysiąc, R.R., & P. and S. v. Poland

Violation: Absence of an adequate legal framework for the exercise of the right to therapeutic abortion in the event of disagreement between the patient and the specialist doctor (Tysiac) and lack of access to prenatal test enabling to take an informed decision on whether to seek an abortion (R.R.).

Failure to provide effective access to reliable information on the conditions and procedures to be followed to access lawful abortion lawful abortion (P. and S.).

Last Examination: June 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/H46-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ecodefence and Others v. Russian Federation

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

First Examination

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

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

Zoltán Varga v. Slovak Republic

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

First Examination

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

Cyprus v. Türkiye

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

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

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

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

Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) Group v. Türkiye

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

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

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

1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and the International Federation for Human Rights) (12/02/2024) concerning the group of cases Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey (No. 2) (Application No. 14305/17)

Kavala v. Türkiye

Violation: Unjustified and extended detention of the applicant without reasonable suspicion and with the ulterior purpose of reducing him to silence.

Last Examination: December 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1483/H46-37

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Varnava and Others v. Türkiye

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

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

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

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

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

Shmorgunov and Others Group v. Ukraine

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

First Examination

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

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

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

The Briefing focused on the following cases:

• Nisiotis Group v Greece, which concerns prison overcrowding and other poor conditions in prison and the lack of effective remedy, presented by Prof. Konstantinos Tsitselikis, representative of the Hellenic League for Human Rights.

• Öner and Turk v Türkiye, Işıkırık v Türkiye, Altuğ Taner Akçam v Türkiye, Artun and Güvener v Türkiye and Nedim Şener v Türkiye groups, which concern the unjustified interferences with freedom of expression, in particular through criminal proceedings, including defamation, and the consequent chilling effect, as well as unforeseeable conviction of membership of an illegal organisation for the mere fact of attending a public meeting and expressing views there, presented by Batıkan Erkoç, Project and Grants Manager at MLSA, Özlem Zingil and Idil Özcan, Program Director and Lawyer at Hafiza Merkezi.

• Manole and others v the Republic of Moldova, which concerns censorship and political control by State authorities at State Television Company, Teleradio-Moldova, presented by Cristina Frumosu-Durnea, Media Lawyer, Independent Journalism Centre.

• Darboe and Camara v Italy, which concerns placement of unaccompanied minor in adult reception centre in inadequate conditions and without being provided with minimum procedural guarantees in age-assessment procedure by Elena Rozzi, Lawyer at ASGI.

---

Nisiotis Group v Greece

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

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

• Prison conditions and Overpopulation and Understaffing – untrained staff.

• No effective complaints system.

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

• Inter-prisoner violence.

  Transfer of prisoners by police vehicles.

• Ref: CPT report 2022  and CPT report 2023  

Hellenic League for Human Rights discussed current trends and obstacles:

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

• Average occupancy of closed prisons: 120-160%

• Average occupancy of open prisons: 35-60%

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

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

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

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

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

… and what the Greek government has failed to do:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No measures have been taken as regards disciplinary cells.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See slides for full briefing.

Relevant Documents

NGO Communications:

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

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

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

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

CM Decisions:

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

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

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

---

Manole and others v the Republic of Moldova

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

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

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

General Principles (Pluralism in Audiovisual Media)

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

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

Interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression:

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

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

Conclusion on compliance with Article 10:

• TRM enjoyed virtual monopoly over audiovisual broadcasting in Moldova.

• The State failed to comply with its positive obligation.

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

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

Independent Journalism Centre assessed the legislative framework in 2021:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several general measures were presented by the authorities:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2021 legislative amendments are characterized by:

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

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

• Direct subordination to the Parliament.

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

• Review the pertinent provisions of the Audiovisual Media Services Code No. 174/2018;

• Reinstate the mechanisms that govern the status and composition of the NRA (Audiovisual Council), TRM's Supervisory Body, and senior management, as outlined in the 2018 version of the Audiovisual Media Services Code;

• Ensure that these mechanisms include clear safeguards for a genuine independence of the NRA and immovability of its members, as well as exclude possible political control of TRM;

• Ensure that subsequent legislation overseeing the procedures for public competitions in the selection of NRA (Audiovisual Council) members, TRM's Supervisory Body, and senior management incorporates well-defined and measurable criteria for evaluating and assessing candidates;

• Amend the Audiovisual Media Services Code in order to ensure that the funding model for the public broadcaster will reduce the vulnerability of TRM to influence from governing political parties.

  See slides for full briefing.

  Relevant Documents:

  NGO Communications

  1492nd meeting (March 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Independent Journalism Center) (25/01/2024) concerning the case of MANOLE AND OTHERS v. Republic of Moldova (Application No. 13936/02) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)135]

  1419th meeting (December 2021) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Independent Justice Center) (26/10/2021) in the case of MANOLE AND OTHERS v. Republic of Moldova (Application No. 13936/02) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2021)1158]

  CM Decisions

  1459th meeting (DH), March 2023 - H46-14 Manole and Others v. Republic of Moldova (Application No. 13936/02) [CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-14]

  1436th meeting (DH), June 2022 - H46-15 Manole and Others v. Republic of Moldova (Application No. 13936/02) [CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-15]

---

Darboe and Camara v Italy

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

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

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

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

• Violations of:

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

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

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

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

• Law 47/17 on unaccompanied minors (UAMs)

• Increase of reception system’s capacity

• National Plan against Human Trafficking

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

• Request for closure of the supervision.

ASGI highlights their concerns regarding General Measures:

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

• Limited implementation of Law 47/17 in practice

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

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

Reception Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • no specialized staff and services for UAMs provided

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • lasting several months

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

• No remedy to complain about reception conditions has been introduced

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Age Assessment Procedure

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

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

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

  • medical examination, no multidisciplinary approach

  • no judicial decision on age assessment

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

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

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

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

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

  • Cease unlawful de facto detention of UAMs

  • Increase the capacity of adequate reception system for UAMs

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

See slides for full briefing.

Relevant Documents:

NGO Communications

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

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

---

Öner and Turk v Türkiye

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

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

Öner and Türk group of cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • No new amendment, continuing violations

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

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

  • No new information provided

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

  • No amendment

  • No information provided in the action plan

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

  • Ambiguous wording, increasing use against journalists and rights defenders

  • Previously examined before the ECtHR and the CM

Işıkırık group of cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The Constitutional Court found it meets the legality requirement

  • No new amendment foreseen.

Altuğ Taner Akçam group of cases

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

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

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

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

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

Artun and Güvener group of cases

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

• Article 125 of the CC – insulting

  • No new amendment 

• Article 299 of the CC – insulting the President

  • No new amendment

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

  • latest CM decision calling for the abrogation of Article 299 

Nedim Şener group of cases

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

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

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

  • Lower courts even find Article 100 insufficient

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

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

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

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

  • Troubling approach associating any dissenting opinion with terrorism.

• Circumventing provisions

• Non-implementation of Constitutional Court judgments

  • Individual applications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Number of detained journalists is misleading without context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  The NGOs called on Turkey to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

See slides for full briefing.

Relevant Documents:

NGO Communications

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

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

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

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

CM Decisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of Stakeholder Input

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

The Project

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

In particular, we propose the following:

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

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

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

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

Training Event: Implementing ECtHR Judgments Concerning Disability Rights and Mental Health in Romania

On the 16th – 17th of January 2023, EIN held a two-day training session for NGOs, civil society activists, and self-representatives on implementation and Disability Rights and Mental Health in Romania.

This in-person training aimed to equip participants with the knowledge and tools they need to use the Committee of Ministers’ judgment execution process and to empower them to advocate for the full and effective implementation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments in their field of work. 

There are currently 13 leading ECtHR judgments pending implementation in Romania which concern the rights of persons with intellectual and psycho-social disabilities and mental health: Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Campeanu v. Romania, E.B. v. Romania, Cinta v. Romania, N. v. Romania, N v. Romania (no. 2), Parascineti v. Romania, Cristian Teodorescu v. Romania, R.D. and I.M.D. v. Romania, Ţicu v. Romania, Solcan v. Romania, Stepanian v. Romania, B. v. Romania (no. 2), Epure v. Romania.

Photo Credit: EIN (Copy)

Photo Credit: EIN (Copy)

Photo Credit: EIN (Copy)

Photo Credit: EIN (Copy)

EIN is aware that the disability rights movement in Romania faces persistent challenges, given the disconnect between the standards set out by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the legal and practical realities on the ground. As the European Convention of Human Rights is a living instrument, the jurisprudence of the Committee of Ministers is also subject to evolution – an evolution which can be influenced by civil society organizations’ involvement in the process. The decisions of the Committee of Ministers can, in turn, function as effective advocacy tools at national level.

Georgiana Pascu, Program Manager at the Center for Legal Resources (CLR), introduced CLR’s activities which focus on accessible justice for persons with disabilities and its’ aim to enhance the implementation of ECtHR judgments concerning the rights of persons with intellectual and psycho-social disabilities and mental health in Romania.

The training was held by Ioana Iliescu, Law and Advocacy Officer at the European Implementation Network. In the first session, participants were provided with insights into why advocating for ECtHR implementation is necessary, but also how it can facilitate human rights progress on the ground. Further, Ms. Iliescu explained the basics of the ECtHR implementation process, with a focus on the key elements involved. 

The second session addressed how participants can get involved in the implementation process before the Committee of Ministers, providing participants with advice on making effective Rule 9 submissions to the Committee of Ministers, and presenting possibilities for expanding their “arsenal” of advocacy tools.

The third session of the training focused on the leading judgments concerning disability rights in Romania which are pending implementation, as well as their status of implementation, and on examples of good practices from other Rule 9 submissions made in ECtHR judgments concerning disability rights in other states.

The final training session concluded with an exercise giving participants the opportunity to discuss how they would engage with the implementation of the ECtHR judgments Parascineti v. Romania, which concerns living conditions and care afforded to patients in psychiatric hospital facilities, and Cristian Teodorescu v. Romania, which concerns legislative deficiencies as regards the procedure and safeguards for involuntary placement in psychiatric hospital facilities.

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

EIN Concerned by Further Persecution of Panayote Dimitras

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevant Resources:

• For more on JMB v France, please see our November 2022 Civil Society Briefing

• EIN Handbook

• EIN Guide to Rule 9 Submissions

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

From 6-8 December 2022, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Minister’s Deputies will meet for their quarterly Human Rights Meeting. This meeting will examine several judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that are still pending implementation. The agenda consists of 45 cases from 21 members of the Council of Europe.

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

---

Overview of Submissions

Luli and others group v. Albania

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

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

Chiragov and others v. Armenia

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

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

Latest Submission:

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

Khadija Ismayilova group v. Azerbaijan

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

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

Latest Submission:

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

Mammadli group v. Azerbaijan

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

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

Latest Submission:

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

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

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

Namazov group v. Azerbaijan

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

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

Latest Submission:

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

Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan

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

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

Latest Submission:

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

United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and others group v. Bulgaria

 Violation: Unjustified refusals by the courts to register an association aiming at achieving "the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria".

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2022)1428/H46-7 - March 2022

Latest Submission:

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

J.M.B. and others v. France

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

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

Latest Submission:

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

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

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

Khan v. France

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

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

Latest Submission:

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

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

Identoba and others group v. Georgia

Violation: Lack of protection against homophobic attacks during demonstrations.

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

Latest Submission:

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

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

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

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

Tkhelidze v. Georgia

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

First Examination

 Latest Submission:

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

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

Bekir-Ousta and others group v. Greece

Violation: Refusal of domestic courts to register associations.

Last Examination:

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

Latest Submission:

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

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

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

Gubacsi group v. Hungary

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

Last Examination:

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

Latest Submission:

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

X. v. North Macedonia

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

Last Examination:

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

Latest Submission:

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

Al Nashiri group v. Poland

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

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

Latest Submission:

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

Reczkowicz group and Broda and Bojara v. Poland

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

 First Examination

 Latest Submission:

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR)) (18/10/2022) in the case of Broda and Bojara v. Poland (Application No. 26691/18)

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

Catan and others group v. Russia Federation

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

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

Latest Submission:

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

Mozer group v. Russia Federation

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

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

Latest Submission:

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

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

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

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

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

Latest Submission:

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

Kačapor and others group v. Serbia

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

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

Latest Submission:

 Applicant Communications

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

NGO/NHRI Communications

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

Selahattin Demirtaş (no. 2) group v. Türkiye

Violation: Unjustified detention of the applicant (Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2)) without reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence, with the ulterior purpose of stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate. Unforeseeable lifting of the parliamentary immunity and subsequent criminal proceedings to penalise the applicants for their political speeches. 

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

Latest Submission:

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

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

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (14/11/2022) following a communication from NGOs (04/11/2022) in the case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey (no. 2) (Application No. 14305/17)

Kavala v. Türkiye

Violation: Unjustified and extended detention of the applicant without reasonable suspicion and with the ulterior purpose of reducing him to silence. 

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2022)1443/H46-30 - September 2022 

Latest Submission:

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

Opuz group v. Türkiye

Violation: Failure to provide protection from domestic violence.

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

Latest Submission:

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

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

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

Mckerr group v. United Kingdom

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

 Last Examination:

CM/Del/Dec(2022)/1443/H46-32 - September 2022

Latest Submission:

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

EIN Civil Society Briefing November 2022: France, Poland, and Turkey

On 28 November 2022, EIN held the latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, ahead of the 1451st Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting on 6 – 8 November 2022. The event was held in person in Strasbourg.

The Briefing focused on the following cases:

1.     The J.M.B. and others v France case concerns prison overcrowding and poor conditions of detention and lack of an effective preventive remedy. This presentation was given by Prune Missoffe, Head of Analyses and Advocacy, and Julie Fragonas, Trainee Lawyer at Observatoire International des Prisons, Section France.

Photo Credit: EIN

Photo Credit: EIN

Photo Credit: EIN

Photo Credit: EIN

2.     A. The Xero Flor W Polsce SP. Z.O.O. v Poland case concerns an infringement of the applicant company’s right to a fair hearing due to the domestic courts' failure, in the context of civil proceedings, to examine its argument that secondary legislation limiting its right to compensation was unconstitutional.

2.     B. The Reczkowicz group case concerns an infringement of the right to tribunal established by law, due to the fact that the judges of the Disciplinary Chamber in the Supreme Court that dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal against disciplinary penalty in 2019 were appointed in a deficient judicial appointment procedure involving the National Council of the Judiciary lacking independence from legislature and executive

 2.     C.  Broda and Bojara v Poland case concerns an infringement of the right to access to court on account of the premature termination of the applicants’ term of office as vice-presidents of a regional court on the basis of temporary legislation in force between 12 August 2017 and 12 February 2018, which did not allow for examination either by an ordinary court or by another body exercising judicial duties.

Marcin Szwed, Lawyer at Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, presented on these cases concerning Poland.

3.     The Opuz group v Turkey case was presented by Elif Ege, Programme Coordinator at Mor Çatı, concerning the failure of the authorities to protect women from domestic violence, despite having been reasonably informed of the real and imminent risks and threats.

---

J.M.B. and others v France

Overview of the case:

The J.M.B v France case concerns the structural problem of degrading treatment suffered by 27 of the applicants, due to prison overcrowding and poor conditions in the detention centres during different periods (2006 to date). It also concerns the lack of an effective preventive domestic remedy for 31 of the applicants, where administrative interim proceedings are ineffective in practice, due to the limited scope of the judge's injunctions and the difficulties in enforcing the overcrowding and dilapidation of prisons measures. 

Observatoire International des Prisons reminded participants of the last Committee of Ministers Decisions in the case from 2021:

·      Occupancy rates in the prisons concerned demonstrate the existence of a structural problem, where the Court recommended the government to adopt general measures aimed at “guaranteeing prisoners conditions of detention that comply with Article 3, in particular by ensuring the definitive reduction of prison overcrowding”.

·      Lack of an effective domestic solution to remedy living conditions that violate human dignity, and the Court recommended the government create an effective legal remedy to put an end to the inhumanity of living conditions in prisons.

Observatoire International des Prisons provided information on recent developments concerning prison overcrowding since the Courts judgment:

o  Prison overcrowding is a worsening situation, as the occupancy rate has increased to 141.5 % since the last CM examination.

o  Degrading living conditions are exacerbated by dilapidated and unsanitary conditions

o  There is a lack of a coherent long-term strategy

o   Constructing new prisons to address prison overcrowding fails to address the structural problem.

o   Regarding the new judicial remedy: there is no assessment tool of its’ efficiency; some detainees cannot benefit from it; it is not an effective tool to remedy overcrowding;

o   Regarding the “Référé-liberté” remedy: it is not an effective remedy either, as the issues identified by the ECtHR remain: there are delays with regard to the execution of the injunctions issued and there is a failure to order sufficient measures.

Observatoire International des Prisons outlined their recommendations to participants:

• On prison overcrowding

  • Establishing a binding prison regulation mechanism

  • Adopting a national action plan ensuring the definitive reduction of prison overcrowding

  • Discontinuing prison expansion programmes and revising budgetary priorities

• On the new judicial remedy

  • Creating monitoring tools to assess the effectiveness of the remedy

  • Reinforcing the effectiveness of the remedy

• On the preexisting “référé-liberté”

  • Expanding the scope of measures a judge can order

  • Reinforcing the execution procedures

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

NGO/NHRI Communications

1451e réunion (décembre 2022) (DH) - Règle 9.4 - Communication d'une autre organisation (Conseil national des barreaux) (02/11/2022) relative à l'affaire J.M.B. et autres c. France (requête n° 9671/15) [French only] [DH-DD(2022)1253]

1451e réunion (décembre 2022) (DH) - Règle 9.4 - Communication d'une autre organisation (Syndicat de la magistrature)) (02/11/2022) relative à l'affaire J.M.B. c. France (requête n° 9671/15) [French only] [DH-DD(2022)1234]

1451e réunion (décembre 2022) (DH) - Règle 9.2 - Communication d'une NHRI (Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’homme (CNCDH) et Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté (CGLPL)) (02/11/2022) relative à l'affaire J.M.B. c. France (requête n° 9671/15) [French only] [DH-DD(2022)1233]

CM Decisions

1411e réunion (DH), 14-16 septembre 2021 - H46-12 J.M.B. et autres c. France (Requête n° 9671/15) [CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-12]

---

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

Overview of the Case:

This case concerns an infringement of the applicant company’s right to a fair hearing due to the domestic courts' failure to examine its argument that secondary legislation limiting its right to compensation was unconstitutional. It also concerns the infringement of the applicant company’s right to a tribunal established by law due to the participation of Judge M.M. in the Constitutional Court’s panel that rejected its constitutional complaint.

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights reminded participants of the Court’s Judgment:

• There was a violation of a right to a ‘tribunal established by law’ (Article 6 § 1 ECHR);

• The judge was elected with a manifest breach of domestic law;

• The violation ‘concerned a fundamental rule of the election procedure, namely the rule that a judge of the Constitutional Court was to be elected by the Sejm whose term of office covered the date on which his seat became vacant.’

• An additional violation of Article 6: lack of justification of domestic courts for non-referring legal question to the Constitutional Tribunal

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights provided participants with recent developments in the case:

• Unlawfully elected persons continue to participate in the Constitutional Tribunal’s panels:

  • Between 7 May 2021 and 28 November 2022 the CT issued 16 judgments (out of total 21) and 45 decisions on discontinuation of proceedings (out of total 88) in irregular panels;

  • There were 39 decisions on discontinuation of proceedings initiated by constitutional complaints issued by the CT in panels with unlawfully elected persons

• The Constitutional Tribunal questions the legitimacy of the Court’s judgments:

  • Judgment of 24 November 2021, no. K 6/21

  • Judgment of 10 March 2022, no. K 7/21

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights outlines their recommendations for the case:

• HFHR’s Rule 9 submission – 30 March 2022;

• Unlawfully elected persons must be prevented from adjudication in the Constitutional Tribunal;

• Domestic authorities must refrain from questioning the validity of the Court’s rulings;

• The CoM should address in recommendations the problems with the status of decisions issued by irregular panels; and the prevention of external undue influence on the appointment of judges.

Relevant Documents

CM Decisions

1436th meeting (DH), June 2022 - H46-18 Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland (Application No. 4907/18) [CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-18]

NGO/NHRI Communications

1436th meeting (June 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (30/03/2022) in the case of Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland (Application No. 4907/18) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)411]

---

Broda and Bojara v Poland

Overview of the Case
This case concerns an infringement of the right to access to the court on account of the premature termination of the applicants’ term of office as vice presidents of a regional court on the basis of temporary legislation in force between 12 August 2017 and 12 February 2018, which did not allow for examination either by an ordinary court or by another body exercising judicial duties

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights reminded participants of the Court’s Judgment:

• The Court ruled that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 ECHR;

• The applicants were completely deprived of access to court with regard to their dismissal from the office of vice presidents of courts;

• The Minister’s decision did not contain any statement of reasons;

• There was no available protection against arbitrary dismissals;

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights provided participants with recent developments in the case:

• The provisions on the basis of which the applicants were dismissed are no longer in force;

• Currently, the Minister of Justice may remove the president/vice-president of court only on specific grounds enumerated in the law:

  • gross or persistent failure to discharge the duties;

  • remaining vice-president/president in office is incompatible with the interest of administration of justice;

  • particular inefficiency of president/vice-president in exercising administrative supervision or organising works in the court or lower courts;

  • voluntary resignation of president/vice-president.

• The Minister must consult the college of a given court and if it opposes the dismissal, the Minister must also consult the National Council of Judiciary;

• However, the negative opinion of the NCJ is not binding on the Minister unless it was issued with 2/3 majority;

• The Minister’s decision cannot be challenged in court.

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights outlines their recommendations for the case:

• HFHR’s Rule 9 submission – 18 October 2022;

• Implementation of the judgment on the general level requires the adoption of proper legislative measures;

• There is a need for legislative change: the powers of the Minister of Justice to dismiss presidents/vice-presidents of courts must be limited in order to protect independence of the judiciary:

  • negative opinion of the NCJ should be binding on the Minister of Justice (as it was until 2017);

  • NCJ must be an independent and lawfully constituted organ;

  • limitation of the MoJ’s discretion in the appointment of court presidents will also be advisable

• The decision of the Minister of Justice on the dismissal of presidents/vice-presidents of courts must be appealable to court;

• Domestic authorities must refrain from questioning the validity of the Court’s rulings.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents

NGO/NHRI Communications

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (03/11/2022) following a communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR)) (18/10/2022) in the case of Broda and Bojara v. Poland (Application No. 26691/18) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)1168]

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR)) (18/10/2022) in the case of Broda and Bojara v. Poland (Application No. 26691/18) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)1139]

---

Reczkowicz group v Poland

Overview of the Case
This case concerns an infringement of the right to tribunal established by law, due to the fact that the judges of the Disciplinary Chamber in the Supreme Court that dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal against disciplinary penalty in 2019 were appointed in a deficient judicial appointment procedure involving the National Council of the Judiciary lacking independence from legislature and executive (violation of Article 6 of the Convention).

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights reminded participants of the Court’s judgment:

• The Court ruled that there was a violation of a right to a ‘tribunal established by law’ (Article 6 § 1 ECHR);

• Judges of the Disciplinary Chamber were appointed with manifest violations of domestic law;

• Unconstitutionality of the current model of the election of judicial members of the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ);

• NCJ is no longer an independent body;

• The Court presented a similar approach in subsequent cases concerning unlawfully elected judges of the Supreme Court.

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights provided participants with recent developments in the case:

• The independence of the NCJ has not been restored;

• The Disciplinary Chamber was dissolved and replaced by the Professional Responsibility Chamber (PRC);

• There are controversies around the PRC with regard to:

  • The procedure for the assignment of judges to the PRC;

  • 6 out of 11 judges assigned to PRC were appointed upon the request of reorganised NCJ.

• Limited effectiveness of the procedure for verification of independence and impartiality of judges;

• Disciplinary actions against judges who rely on the ECHR and EU standards.

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights outlines their recommendations for the case; the Committee of Ministers should call for:

• Restoration of the NCJ independence through reform of the procedure for the election of judicial members of the NCJ.

• Unlawfully appointed persons must not participate in adjudication of individual cases;

• The status of judgments issued by unlawfully appointed persons must be regulated;

• Judges who apply standards developed by the ECtHR in Reczkowicz and other judgments must not face disciplinary charges;

• Domestic authorities must refrain from questioning validity of the Court’s rulings.

HFHR’s Rule 9 submission of 14 October 2022 is available here.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents

Applicant Communications

1443rd meeting (September 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (06/09/2022) in the case of Dolinska - Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (Application No. 49868/19) (Reczkowicz group, 43447/19) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)943]

1443rd meeting (September 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (25/08/2022) in the case of Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v. Poland (Application No. 1469/20) (Reczkowicz group, 43447/19) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)889]

1436th meeting (June 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (31/05/2022) in the case of Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v. Poland (Reczkowicz group, 43447/19) (Application No. 1469/20) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)594]

NGO/NHRI Communications

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR)) (17/10/2022) in the case of Reczkowicz v. Poland (Application No. 43447/19) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)1135]

1443rd meeting (September 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (The Justice Defence Committee) (06/09/2022) in the cases of Reczkowicz, Dolinska - Ficek and Ozimek and Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v. Poland (Applications No. 43447/19, 49868/19, 1469/20) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)978]

---

Opuz group v Turkey

Overview of the Case

This group of cases concerns the failure of the authorities to protect women (the applicants or their female relatives) from domestic violence, despite having been reasonably informed of the real and imminent risks and threats (Articles 2 and 3). In the cases of Opuz, M.G. and Halime Kılıç, the Court also found that the failure to protect the women was discriminatory on grounds of gender (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3).

Mor Çatı provided an update and recommendations for individual measures in the M.G. case, after reminding participants that, in the CM’s latest decision, it had reiterated “the importance of continuing to monitor the applicants’ safety, since their former husbands are not in detention:

• The appeal proceedings are still pending and the applicant’s ex-husband has not been detained and continues to make threats against her.

• The national authorities should speed up the proceedings in order to ensure that the perpetrator is brought to justice effectively, and should also urgently take measures to ensure the applicant’s safety.

Mor Çatı reminded participants that, on 20 March 2021, Turkey decided to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention. In relation to the latest Action Plan, Mor Çatı stated that the existing laws are presented as general measures; however, the main issue on the ground is the lack of implementation of these laws. There are no monitoring and evaluation processes to achieve standards in the implementation of the laws and there are no any sanctions against bad practitioners.

Mor Çatı provided updated information on the following areas:

• Barriers to justice

  • Victims hesitate to file complaints due to distrust of system, deterrent behavior of public officials, lack of information, lack of qualified free legal support, long duration of the legal procedures, lack of protection and social and psychological support during long duration of legal procedures.

• Reasonable time to ensure that investigative procedural steps are completed

  • Taking the statement of the suspect takes up to 1 year or more.

  • The trial process: The local court proceedings takes up to 1-2 years. It can take up to 2-3 years on average to conclude appealed case decisions. It can take approximately about 2-3 more years for cases before the Court of Cassation.

• Risk assessment

  • The Penal Code does not include a specific regulation for risk assessment in the context of domestic violence offence, these measures are only available in the Law No. 6284.

  • Prosecutor’s Offices, Criminal Courts and Family Courts fail to conduct risk assessment in respect of perpetrators who repeatedly commit violent crimes against women.

• Implementation of arrest warrants

  • Law enforcement do not conduct an effective search to execute the arrest warrants; arrests are made if the perpetrator is found by chance.

  • Arrests for warrants are sometimes never executed and years may go by. Those who are not arrested until the statute of limitations is expired have their

    sentence repealed.

• Non-Deterrent Effect of Sentences and de facto impunity  

  • Sentences are usually imposed at the lower limit and a discretionary mitigation (mitigation for good conduct) is applied.

  • Mitigated sentences given for the offenses of bodily harm with intent, threat and insult are usually commuted to a fine, followed by a deferment of the announcement of the verdict, as a result of which even the fine is not paid de facto.

• Discretionary mitigation and mitigation of sentences on account of unjust provocation

  • In the case of more serious offenses where the convict has started to serve the sentence, the full term of imprisonment is not served due to the practice of conditional release; due to legal regulations such as suspension of sentence, de facto impunity takes place even when the convict has started to serve the sentence.

  • Contrary to the legal provisions, the mitigation of sentences on account of “unjust provocation” results in a significant reduction in sentences based on a

    sexist practice.

• Grounds for impunity

  • The courts ignore less serious offenses (e.g. offense of libel) when there is more than one type of crime is inflicted by the perpetrator.

  • Court decisions are influenced by the physical appearance (e.g. well-dressed etc.) and economic class of the perpetrator.

  • It is observed that the grounds for acquittals often refer to expressions such as “defendant’s persistent denial of charges”; and the presumption of innocence is used as a legal cover-up for impunity.

Mor Çatı set out their recommendations for the implementation of the Opuz group of cases. The CM should call on the authorities to:

• Re-become a party to Istanbul Convention.

• Establish state-wide effective, comprehensive and coordinated policies encompassing all relevant measures to prevent and combat all forms of violence.

• In order to ensure an effective implementation of both the Penal Code and the Law No.6284, the state should present data on the existing official complaint mechanisms, how many complaints have been filed to these mechanisms and what the results were and on monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the relevant legal framework, including the number and result of investigations towards public officers for bad practice. The statistical data should be disaggregated by gender, age, type and frequency of violence, relationship between perpetrator and survivor, geographical location and disability status.

• Ensure that bad practices by public officials are sanctioned.

• Facilitate for women the right to file complaints also with the police stations in their own neighborhoods rather than making mandatory referrals to specialised units such as the Bureaus of Combatting Domestic Violence and Violence Against Women.  

• Promptly provide legal support in criminal cases to victims without administrative obstacles.  

• Take measures to ensure that investigative procedural steps are completed within 6 months to maximum 1 year, including by taking the statement of the suspect at the investigation stage and collecting evidence or conducting an inquiry within a reasonable time if the suspect cannot be reached.

• Provide data on the number of cases where risk assessment is conducted and detailed information on the tools used for risk assessment.

• Provide information on how and to what extent the 2020 Circular is enforced and on sanctions for non-implementation.

• Carry out a holistic risk assessment that includes a danger assessment, tailored specifically to cases of violence against women.

• Take measures to ensure that arrest warrants are implemented effectively.

• Provide data on how many arrest warrants are given, how many of them are for convicted perpetrators, how many of these warrants are executed, the mechanisms implemented to execute arrest warrants

• Take measures (awareness-raising, training and capacity-building measures, etc.) to avoid sexist practices in the mitigation of sentences and judgments.

• Provide information on what legislative measures are envisaged to ensure that investigations in less serious offences are initiated even in the absence of a complaint by domestic violence victim.

• Take measures to enable effective implementation of sentences (e.g. To prevent the de facto impunity as a result of converting fines to fees.)

• Provide data on the implementation of the recent changes in the Penal Code regarding the application of “good conduct” in cases of violence against women.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents

---

NGO/NHRI Communications

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (08/11/2022) following communications from NGOs (DH-DD(2022)1128, DH-DD(2022)1140 and DH-DD(2022)1162) in the case of OPUZ v. Turkey (Application No. 33401/02) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)1214]

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (İNSAN HAKLARI DERNEĞİ (HUMAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION)) (21/10/2022) in the case of OPUZ v. Turkey (Application No. 33401/02) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)1162]

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Association for Struggle Against Sexual Violence) (18/10/2022) in the case of OPUZ v. Turkey (Application No. 33401/02) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)1140]

1451st meeting (December 2022) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Mor Cati Women's shelter Foundation) (12/10/2022) in the case of OPUZ v. Turkey (Application No. 33401/02) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)1128]

CM Decisions

1390th meeting (1-3 December 2020) (DH) - H46-24 Opuz group v. Turkey (Application No. 33401/02) [CM/Del/Dec(2020)1390/H46-24]

1331 meeting (DH) December 2018 - H46-29 Opuz group v. Turkey (Application No. 33401/02) [CM/Del/Dec(2018)1331/H46-29]

1280 meeting (DH) - H46-32 Opuz group v. Turkey (Application No. 33401/02) - Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments [CM/Del/Dec(2017)1280/H46-32]

1222 meeting/réunion - 11-12 March/mars 2015 (DH) - Decision cases No. 21 / Décision affaires n° 21 - Opuz against Turkey / Opuz contre Turquie (33401/02) [CM/Del/Dec(2015)1222/21]

CoE’s High-Level Reflection Group provides Recommendations on ECtHR Implementation in its October 2022 Report

In October the High-Level Reflection Group of the Council of Europe published its’ report relating to the Council of Europe’s role in responding to the new realities and challenges facing Europe and the world. Among other important topics, it addresses the coherence and the effectiveness of the Council of Europe human rights protection system and the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

EIN welcomes the report, its’ prioritisation of the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the recommendations set out by the High-Level Reflection Group.

In July 2022, EIN wrote to the High Level Reflection Group to express deep concern about the current outlook for the implementation of ECtHR judgments and setting out a series of proposals to address this issue. Full details of these proposals are available in the attached document. We glad to see that many of the proposals set out by EIN are also reflected in the High-Level Reflection Group’s approach.

The High-Level Reflection group recognises that "continued efforts are needed, in particular, to address present day and future challenges" with regard to ECtHR implementation. These challenges include the increasing number of judgments delivered by the ECtHR that are pending implementation and the increasing length of time it takes for cases to be fully implemented. The report also highlights “signs of an increasing lack of compliance with the most basic human rights standards”, “which requires serious attention and more resolute action on the part of states within the collective system of the Council of Europe.”

Within this section of the High-Level Reflection Group’s Report, the Group also provide 12 recommendations on ECtHR implementation. Below, we highlight those that were contained in EIN’s call for action:

• “Organising and maintaining a permanent dialogue with the competent national authorities, both at technical and political level and engaging, as appropriate, with independent agencies, NHRIs, legal professionals, academia or civil society.” 

  We welcome this recommendation which also falls in line with EIN’s proposal on a biennial meeting for litigators, NGOs, and NHRIs that engage in the implementation monitoring process, similar in structure to the biennial meeting organised by the European Court of Human Rights.

• “Envisaging an increase of the Council of Europe’s co-operation and assistance capacity to support the execution of judgments of the Court, possibly by committing part of the Ordinary Budget to such activities.”

This reflects EIN’s proposal for an increase in the frequency and transparency of technical co-operation projects.

• “Considering the issuing of graduated sanctions in cases of persistent noncompliance with a judgment by a member state.”

This approach also reflects EIN’s Recommendation to develop a procedure that lies between Interim Resolutions and the infringement procedure, which can create real and credible pressure to implement judgments.

Finally, we also appreciate the acknowledgement, in the High-Level Reflection Group’s report, that an increase of the capacities of the Department for the Execution of Judgments should be envisaged. EIN has advocated for an increase in funding for the Department for the Execution of Judgments; the problem of non-implementation is a resource issue, and adequate resources need to be allocated to this process.

We hope that the recommendations of the High-Level Reflection group can be put into action, in order to urgently address the non-implementation of ECtHR judgments.

Training Event: Implementing Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Turkey

On November 3rd and 4th, EIN and Netherlands Helsinki Committee co-hosted an online training event focused on Implementing Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Turkey. This two-day training aimed to equip NGOs and lawyers with knowledge of the execution process, in order to advocate for the full and effective implementation of ECtHR judgments.

The first day of the training event aimed to provide civil society organizations with an overview of NGO engagement in the ECtHR implementation process. Prof. Dr Basak Cali, EIN Chair, Professor of International law, and Director of the Centre for Fundamental Rights, Hertie School, started the event with an introduction, followed by a discussion with participants about their experiences and training expectations.

Next, the training focused on how NGOs can get involved in the ECtHR implementation process, presented by Ioana Iliescu, EIN Law and Advocacy Office and Agnes Ciccarone, EIN Programme and Finance Manager. The second presentation addressed best practices for NGO submissions, presented by Isik Batmaz, Head of the Section Department for the Execution of Judgments at the Council of Europe.

The second session, on the 4th of November, addressed (the lack of) ECtHR implementation in Turkey in the context of opportunities and challenges experienced by NGOs working on the subject in Turkey. It was introduced and moderated by Ramute Remezaite, Implementation Lead at the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre and EIN Board Member.

Ozlem Zingil, Lawyer at the Truth Justice Memory Center (Hafiza Merkezi) and Mümtaz Murat Kök, Projects and Communications Coordinator at the Media Law Studies Association (Medya ve Hukuk Çalışmaları) discussed their experiences with working on ECtHR implementation and lessons learned.

The final part focused on selected cases, with parallel breakout rooms to enable participants to discuss how to approach cases of particular interest. Participants gained new insights on how to draft submissions and strategies to have maximum impact on the execution process of a judgment and, ultimately, to contribute to better protection of human rights in the EU. Participants then presented their findings with the rest of the group on how they would engage in the implementation process in particular cases.

We thank everyone who participated in this event and the Netherlands Helsinki Committee, who co-organised the training.