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

/

From 20-22 September 2022, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Minister’s Deputies will meet for their the 1443rd 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 32 cases from 19 members of the Council of Europe.

EIN members/partners, other civil society actors, lawyers and applicants have made 31 Rule 9 submissions for 17 cases under consideration. The list below sets out an overview of these submissions related to cases on the current agenda.

Overview of Submissions

Mahmudov and Agazade Group v. Azerbaijan

Violation: Violation of the right to freedom of expression, arbitrary application of the law on defamation.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-3 - 30 November - 2 December 2021

Latest Submissions:

Communication from an NGO (International Partnership for Human Rights) (19/08/2022) in the case of MAHMUDOV AND AGAZADE v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 35877/04)

Communication from an NGO (Media Rights group) (18/08/2022) in the case of MAHMUDOV AND AGAZADE v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 35877/04)

Ramazanova and others Group v. Azerbaijan

Violation: Breach of the right to freedom of association on account of the MoJ failure to respond on the applicants' requests for registration of their associations.

First examination (Standard procedure)

Latest submissions:

Communication from the applicant (08/09/2022) in the case of Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 74288/14) (Ramazanova group, 44363/02)

Communication from the applicant (17/08/2022) in the case of Abdullayev and Others v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 69466/14) (Ramazanova group, 44363/02)

Bell v. Belgium

Violation: Excessive length of civil proceedings.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-6 - June 2021

Latest Submission: Communication from an NHRI (Institut Fédéral pour la protection et la promotion des Droits Humains (IFDH)) (29/07/2022) in the case of BELL v. Belgium (Application No. 44826/05)

Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria

Violation: Eviction of persons of Roma origin on the basis of legislation not requiring adequate examination of the proportionality of the measure.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-9 - 30 November - 2 December 2021

Latest Submission: Communication from an NGO (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) (21/07/2022) in the cases of YORDANOVA AND OTHERS and IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV v. Bulgaria (Applications No. 25446/06, 46577/15)

Ilias and Ahmed Group v. Hungary

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-17 - 30 November - 2 December 2021

Latest Submissions: Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Helsinki Committee) (05/08/2022) in the case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (Application No. 47287/15)

Communication from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (12/08/2022) in the Ilias and Ahmed group of cases v. Hungary (Application No. 47287/15)

László Magyar Group v. Hungary

Violation: Life sentence without parole in combination with the lack of an adequate review mechanism.

Last Examination:CM/Del/Dec(2018)1318/H46-11 - June 2018

Latest Submission: Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Helsinki Committee) (29/07/2022) in the case of LASZLO MAGYAR v. Hungary (Application No. 73593/10)

I.D. Group v. Republic of Moldova

Violation: Poor conditions of detention in facilities under the authority of the Ministries of the Interior and Justice, including lack of access to adequate medical care; absence of an effective remedy.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-19 - June 2021

Latest Submission: Communication from NGOs (Promo-LEX Association and European Prison Litigation Network (08/08/2022) in the case of I.D. v. the Republic of Moldova (Application No. 47203/06)

Tysiąc, R.R., and 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: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-25 - 30 November - 2 December 2021

Latest Submission: Communication from NGOs (Center for Reproductive Rights and the Foundation for Women and Family Planning) (17/08/2022) in the cases of R.R., TYSIAC and P. and S. v. Poland (Applications No. 27617/04, 5410/03, 57375/08)

Cegolea v. Romania

Violation: Discrimination related to the right to stand in parliamentary election and lack of judicial review regarding the fulfilment of an eligibility requirement that disadvantages national minority organisations not yet represented in Parliament

First Examination

Latest Submission: Communication from an NGO (Vox Mentis Foundation) (29/07/2022) in the case of Cegolea v. Romania (Application No. 25560/13)

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

Violation: Non-implementation of arbitral awards ordering a State-controlled company to pay various sums to the applicant companies.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-28 - December 2021

Latest submission Communication from the applicant (12/09/2022) in the case of Omegatech Enterprises Ltd. v. Romania (Application No. 24612/07) (judgment S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. v. Romania, 20752/07) (Sacaleanu group, 73970/01)

Buntov Group v. Russian Federation

Violation: Torture inflicted in a correctional colony and lack of an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-29 - September 2021

Latest Submissions:

Communication from an NGO (European Prison Litigation Network) (22/08/2022) in the case of BUNTOV v. Russian Federation (Application No. 27026/10)

Communication from an NGO (Crew Against Torture) (01/08/2022) in the case of BUNTOV v. Russian Federation (Application No. 27026/10)

Communication from the applicant (29/08/2022) in the case of (29/08/2022) in the case of BUNTOV v. Russian Federation (Application No. 27026/10)

Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russian Federation

Violation: Criminal convictions based on an unfair trial and an arbitrary application of criminal law (violations of Articles 6 and 7).

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-26 - June 2022

Latest Submission: Communication from the applicant (02/06/2022) in the case of NAVALNYY AND OFITSEROV v. Russian Federation (Application No. 46632/13)

 Bati and Others Group v. Türkiye

Violation: Ineffectiveness of investigations against law enforcement officers in allegations of torture and ill-treatment and impunity.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-35 - September 2021

Latest Submission: Communication from NGOs (Truth Justice Memory Center, Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, and Human Rights Association) (29/07/2022)

Selahattin Demirtaş (no. 2) v. Turkey

Violation: Applicant’s arrest and pre-trial detention in the absence of reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence and for the ulterior purpose of stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate (Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5).

Last examination: CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-32 - June 2022

Latest submissions: Communication from the applicant (13/09/2022) 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)1436/H46-31 - June 2022

Latest Submissions: Communication from NGOs (Human Rights Watch; International Commission of Jurists; Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project) (01/09/2022) and reply from the authorities (09/09/2022) in the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (Application No. 28749/18)

Communication from the applicant (22/08/2022) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18)

Communication from the representative of the applicant (11/07/2022) in the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (Application No. 28749/18)

Xenides-Arestis Group v. Türkiye

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-40 - September 2021

Latest Submissions: Communication from the applicant (29/08/2022) in the case of ORPHANIDES v. Turkey (Application No. 36705/97) (Xenides Arestis group, 46347/99)

Communication from the applicants (13/09/2022) in the cases of Demades, Diogenous and Tseriotis, Epiphaniou and Others, Evagorou Christou, Hadjiprocopiou and Others, Iordanis Iordanou, Lordos and Others, Ramon, Rock Ruby Hotels LTD, Saveriades, Skyropiia Yialias LTD and Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (Applications No. 16219/90, 16259/90, 19900/92, 18403/91, 37395/97, 43685/98, 15973/90, 29092/95, 46159/99, 16160/90, 47884/99, 46347/99)

Communication from the applicant (13/09/2022) in the case of LOIZIDOU v. Turkey (Application No. 15318/89) (Xenides Arestis group, 46347/99)

McKerr v. the 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)1436/H46-35 - June 2022

Latest Submissions:

Communication from an NGO (Relatives for Justice) (01/09/2022) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95)

Communication from an NGO (The Malone House Group) (31/08/2022) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95)

Communication from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (16/08/2022) in the MCKERR group of cases v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95)

Communication from an NHRI (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission) (08/08/2022) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95) and reply from the authorities (22/08/2022)

Communication from an NGO (Committee on the Administration of Justice) (29/07/2022) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95)

Communication from an NGO (Relatives for Justice) (02/06/2022) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95)

EIN Civil Society Briefing May: Belgium, Azerbaijan, and Turkey

/

On 30 May 2022, EIN held the latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, ahead of the Committee of Minister’s Human Rights Meeting on 8-10 June 2022. The event was held in person in Strasbourg.

The Briefing focused on the following cases:

  1. Vasilescu v. Belgium, which concerns the inhuman and degrading treatment suffered by the applicants, due to the material conditions of their detention taken as a whole. Bart De Temmerman, from the Conseil Central de Surveillance Pénitentiaire (CCSP), presented relevant developments, and ongoing concerns and made recommendations for the implementation of this case.

  2. Khadija Ismaylova v. Azerbaijan and Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) concerns violations of the applicant’s right to privacy and freedom of expression in connection with her work as a journalist. The status of implementation of the case and recommendations were presented by the Applicant, Khadija Ismaylova.

  3. Selahattin Demirtas (no.2) v Turkey, which concerns the unjustified detention of the applicant without reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence, with the ulterior purpose of stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate; and unforeseeable lifting of parliamentary immunity and subsequent criminal proceedings to penalise the applicant for political speech. The case was briefed on by Ayşe Bingol, Co-Director of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project.

Overview of the case:

Between October 2011 and July 2012 (in the Merksplas and Antwerp prisons), there was insufficient living space; detainees slept on floor mattress; there was lack of privacy in the use of toilets and lack of toilet or access to running water for 60 days; exposure to passive smoking and reduced time out of cell. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

CCSP reminded the participants of the key findings for the ECtHR:

  • § 127  (…) The Court notes that the problems of prison overcrowding in Belgium, as well as the problems of hygiene and ageing prison infrastructure are of a structural nature and do not only concern the personal situation of the applicant. (…)

    (…) none of the remedies invoked by the Belgian Government could be considered effective remedies to be exhausted.

  • § 128 In this context, the Court recommends that the Belgian State consider the adoption of general measures. On the one hand, measures should be taken to guarantee detainees conditions of detention in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention. On the other hand, detainees should have recourse to prevent the continuation of an alleged violation or to enable the person concerned to obtain an improvement in his conditions of detention.

CCSP summarised to participants the last Action Report from the Government (March 2022):

  • The authorities indicate that they must continue to adopt measures and conduct reflections in order to put an end to prison overcrowding and to ensure conditions of detention in accordance with international standards.

  • The authorities indicate that, regarding remand centers, they must continue to conduct reflections in order to better distribute the detainees.

Recommendations to the CM in relation to the Vasilescu v. Belgium judgment:

  • immediate reduction of prison overcrowding so that every prisoner has at least a bed.

  • continuous monitoring of the evolution of prison population and reinforcement of statistical services; preparation and implementation of prison policy on the basis of accurate data.

  • establishment of the Conseil pénitentiaire (Act of 23 March 2019) with the mission to evaluate the social and scientific relevance of the prison policy pursued

  • legislation that puts an upper limit to the number of prisoners.

  • implementation of an effective remedy.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents (French)

This case concerns violations, between 2012 and 2014, of the rights of the applicant, a renowned investigative journalist, to respect for private life and reputation as well as to freedom of expression (violations of Articles 8 and 10). In the context of the present case, the applicant, after having published and contributed to articles criticising the alleged involvement of the President’s daughters in various commercial ventures, was sent a letter threatening her with public humiliation if she did not stop her investigative reporting. When she refused, a video featuring scenes of a sexual nature involving the applicant and her then boyfriend, taken with a hidden camera secretly installed in her bedroom, was posted on the Internet. Around the same time, newspapers ran stories accusing her of anti-government bias and immoral behaviour.

Khadija Ismayilova highlighted to participants the latest developments in individual measures:

  • The latest communication of the authorities is the first official confirmation of the fact that the investigation was suspended.

  • Investigation was ineffective, failing to take into account her status as journalist and the blackmail, treating the crime as a private matter, and failing to take steps capable of identifying the perpetrator.

  • Private information disseminated by Baku City Prosecutor’s office via email to still in public domain

  • All key findings during the investigation were done by her: she discovered the cables from the camera; she found the engineer who connected the cable to the state telephone company’s telephone box.

  • 2020 Memoir of former political prisoner Rufat Safarov contains new information about the identity of the perpetrator

  • In 2012, she lodged a complaint to remove the websites musavat.tv and irib2.info which originally published the video. She filed subpoena to request information about ownership data of the websites, obtaining information about the bank card used to open the website (however, the prosecutor took no further steps to identify the owner of the bank card).

  • In 2014, she discovered evidence, that the new website which published new parts of the video footage filmed back in 2012 was linked to the Ses newspaper: video was uploaded from the Ses Information Agency’s video program.

  • Newspapers and their reporters, who were part of the smear campaign against her were awarded with free apartments by the president funded media house project.

  • Illegal surveillance: Forensic examination of Amnesty International has found traces of Pegasus spyware in her phone

  • Video scandal is still affecting her life and relationships with friends and family

  • Constant mentions of video and extramarital relationship by the government supporters or troll army

  • Videos removed from the original site by the hosting company – but government never issued blocking decision about any website which published the video or links to it

Khadija Ismayilova highlighted latest developments in general measures:

  • Ongoing practice of surveillance, blackmail and smear campaign against journalists, gender activists, family members of political figures, women politicians.

  • Dozens of activists, journalists, lawyers, now in the process of demanding investigation into Pegasus spyware attack in Azerbaijan.

  • New Media Law is restrictive and opens new avenues for persecution against journalists who criticize the government.

Recommendations to the CM in relation to Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan judgment:

  • Reopen and conduct the investigation in respect of the interferences with her private life in a manner that is consistent with international human rights standards, by ensuring that the investigation is carried out in respect of the threatening letter, the secret filming and dissemination of intimate videos by unidentified persons as well as the public disclosure of the personal information in the authorities’ report on the status of investigation;

  • Ensure that, inter alia, concrete steps are taken to identify the perpetrator, and that the authorities send an inquiry regarding the identity of the account holder in connection with the ownership of the websites;

  • Immediately and comprehensively take such action as will ensure that all private content relating her private life that was the subject matter of this case, not least the details disclosed by the prosecutor in the context of the criminal investigation, be permanently removed from online sources;

  • Quash her criminal conviction and ensure removal of her conviction from state registry;

  • Provide compensation for travel ban and asset freezing;

  • Return the tax liability enforced against her as a result of illegal conviction;

  • Ensure justice in the tax case against Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and create conditions for their activity;

  • Recalling Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on promoting a favorable environment for quality journalism in the digital age as well as a positive obligation of the State to create a favorable and enabling environment, ensure safety and security of journalists, take immediate steps in order to effectively guarantee the freedom of expression and safety of journalists in Azerbaijan, and amend the domestic legislation accordingly.

  • Ensure that journalists are not being subject to criminal prosecution for the lack of accreditation in Foreign Ministry, and ensure the accreditation procedures are transparent and effective.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents

Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) case v. Turkey

Overview of the case

The Court found that the applicant was detained in the absence of evidence to support a reasonable suspicion he had committed an offence (violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3) and that his arrest and pre-trial detention especially during two crucial campaigns pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to stifle pluralism and limit freedom of political debate (violation of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5); that lifting of the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and the way the criminal law was applied to penalise the applicant for political speeches were not foreseeable and prescribed by law (violation of Article 10) and that his consequent detention made it effectively impossible for the applicant to take part in the activities of the National Assembly (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1).

The briefing particularly focused on the Government’s argument that “new pieces of evidence” that had not been examined by the ECtHR have emerged and that the substance of the allegations against Mr. Demirtaş is now different. First, as regards the new evidence, Ms. Bingol argued that the Government's argument that an assessment of evidence is out of bounds for the CM is manifestly unfounded in view of the CM’s role in ensuring implementation of the judgment, including the part concerning the Article 18 violation. Second, the Government must convincingly explain why the evidence claimed to be ‘new’ appears only now, several years after the events, and following the ECtHR’s December 2020 judgment. Third, the Government fails to give clear and reliable information on the alleged ‘new’ evidence, failing to explain whether and why they are different from his statements given at the investigation stage. Moreover, heavy reliance is placed on supposed anonymous witnesses, yet reports illustrate an extremely worrying practice of the abuse of such witnesses in Turkey.

Recommendations to the CM in relation to Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (2) judgment:

  1. To insist on the immediate release of Selahattin Demirtaş as required by the ECtHR judgment and indicate that continuation of Mr. Demirtaş’s detention in any form under criminal proceedings remaining within the scope of the Grand Chamber judgment constitutes a prolongation and entrenching of the violation of his rights under the Convention, as found by the ECtHR.

  2. To confirm that the Grand Chamber judgment clearly applies to Mr. Demirtaş’s ongoing pre-trial detention, the criminal proceeding under which he was convicted, and to any other ongoing or future proceedings or detention, in which the factual or legal basis is substantially similar to that already addressed, and found to violate his Convention rights, by the ECtHR in its judgment.

  3. To call for the halt of all criminal proceedings initiated against Mr. Demirtaş following the constitutional amendment lifting his parliamentary immunity, as the Grand Chamber found that the amendment did not meet the legality standard of the Convention, and that all proceedings initiated pursuant to it should therefore be deemed unlawful.

  4. To request the Government of Turkey to end the persecution through abusive criminal proceedings of Selahattin Demirtaş, including by dropping all charges under which he has been investigated, prosecuted and detained, which have pursued an ulterior purpose of stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate, in conformity with the Court’s finding that his rights under Article 5(1) in conjunction with Article 18 were violated, and that his exercise of the right to freedom of expression was wrongfully used as evidence to incriminate him.

  5. To emphasize the continuing nature of the breach and that restitutio in integrum, in this case, requires – inter alia - the cessation of the persecution of Mr. Demirtaş through criminal proceedings, in the form of ongoing and future investigations, prosecutions and detentions, including pre-trial detentions, solely for his political activities and his political speech.

  6. In the event that Selahattin Demirtaş remains in detention at the time of the 1436DH 8-10 June 2022 meeting, to take the necessary steps to trigger infringement proceedings against Turkey under Article 46(4) of the Convention on the ground of its continued failure to comply with the ECtHR Grand Chamber’s judgment.

The Turkey Human Rights Litigation Project also recommended that the CM must now also decide whether new pieces of evidence advanced by the Government are really new, considering the Court’s findings concerning Article 18 in the principal judgment.

Please see our Civil Society Briefing from September 2021 for more information on this case.

Relevant Document

9.2 Submissions

9.1 Submissions

CM Decisions

 

New Report: Implementing Judgments Of The European Court of Human Rights Concerning Domestic and Gender-Based Violence

/

EIN has released a new publication titled “Implementing Judgments of The European Court of Human Rights Concerning Domestic and Gender-Based Violence” on May 17th 2022. The project was launched last year and is supported by Luxembourg’s Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs.

Domestic and gender-based violence is a common and widespread problem across the Council of Europe region and beyond. Globally, 30% of women aged 15 and older have been subjected to physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence, non-partner sexual violence, or both at least once in their lifetime.

We highlight the value of the European Court of Human Rights judgments, and the potential that pending cases have in pushing governments to carry out wide-ranging reforms to combat and prevent domestic and gender-based violence. However, the judgments are only the beginning of the road to justice – they require implementation at the national level for rights to become a reality. Implementing human rights judgments requires individual measures, providing justice for the victim, and general measures requiring reforms in law/practices that prevent similar violations from recurring. Reforms to implement general measures are essential to address the factors contributing to the perpetuation of domestic and gender-based violence.

The key to the effective implementation of ECtHR judgments concerning domestic and gender-based violence is both proactive and good faith engagement of all key stakeholders in the implementation process. If national authorities, the Council of Europe, and civil society take an active role in implementation, these judgments can turn into rights for all.

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

We hope that this report will highlight the potential of ECtHR judgments in ensuring that these judgments lead to change through training and assisting civil society from across Europe. 

More information about the project via our news publication here.

Read our interview on TM and CM v Moldova with Violeta Andriuța from Women's Law Centre concerning domestic violence, which highlights the fact that VAW is a repetitive issue and incremental reform is needed to address it.

Joint Publication Event: Non-Implementation of European Court Judgments and the Rule of Law

/

On Tuesday, 19 April at 11 am, the European Implementation Network (EIN) and Democracy Reporting International (DRI) will publish a joint report on the Non-Implementation of European Court Judgments and the Rule of Law. We will be launching the publication with a live online panel discussion event. You can register for our launch event here.

The panel will focus on the non-implementation of European court judgements, the impact on the rule of law in the EU, and possible solutions for the problem within the EU’s rule of law review cycle. The panellists include: Mr Florian Geyer, Head of Unit, Justice policy and rule of law, European Commission, Ms Sophia in ’t Veld MEP (Renew/The Netherlands), and Mr Christophe Poirel, Director of Human Rights, Council of Europe. Mr George Stafford, Director of EIN, will present the report - and the debate will be moderated by Mr Jakub Jaraczewski, Research Coordinator Rule of Law, DRI. 

Over the last few years, the governments, media and even citizens have become aware of the backsliding of fundamental European values in various countries. The European Union (EU) has adopted a series of policy measures designed to halt and reverse the trend. In 2020, the European Commission adopted a new annual rule of law review cycle. The EU institutions also introduced targeted measures, such as withholding structural funds from countries with severe infringements of the rule of law.

While targeted measures make sense for the extreme cases where governments destroy institutions of the rule of law in a systematic manner, we believe that the annual rule of law review cycle should also capture longer-term problems with the rule of law across all Member States, such as the non-implementation of judgments of two key European courts – the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereafter, “the European Courts”).

The non-implementation of European Court judgments has become a systemic problem. 37.5% of the leading ECtHR judgments from the last ten years concerning EU countries have not been implemented. Each of these represents a significant or structural problem, often with direct consequences for many citizens. The non-implementation of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgments is also a recurring issue. In recent years, resistance against the Luxembourg-based court has increased, with courts and governments in the EU Member States openly challenging it.

The EU’s response to rule of law challenges is at a crucial moment. We hope that this report will help put the implementation of European Court judgments firmly inside the EU’s rule of law agenda.

EIN Training for Turkish Lawyers

/

Last week EIN held an in-person training session on effective advocacy for the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, for the Media and Law Studies Association, as well as senior lawyers from various Bar Associations in Turkey. This training was held at the European Youth Centre Strasbourg on 25 March.

The training allowed participants to learn more about the work of EIN, gain a deeper understanding of the implementation process, and understand how best to engage in it.

We thank MLSA and Freedom House for co-organising this training and all the participants for attending. We look forward to reading your submissions in the future. 

More Info on MLSA and their trip to Strasbourg here.

Resources:

EIN Publications: https://www.einnetwork.org/ein-publications 

EIN Handbooks: https://www.einnetwork.org/ein-handbooks 

Join EIN: https://www.einnetwork.org/partners

Be sure to email us for more information on our training: contact@einnetwork.org.

Photo Credit: EIN