NGO Briefings
We organise regular briefings on judgments of the European Court of Human Rights for members of the Committee of Ministers in view of their quarterly Human Rights (DH) meetings, where the implementation of judgments is discussed. With the briefings, we aim to provide the Committee with updated information on the progress of specific cases from civil society organisations on the ground. Information and documents from the briefings are published here.
The briefings were first started by the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) in February 2013. In May 2015, the briefings started to be co-convened by OSJI and EIN. Beginning in 2018, the briefings are fully organised and chaired by EIN.
List of countries covered by the EIN briefings: Albania / Armenia / Azerbaijan / Belgium / Bosnia and Herzegovina / Bulgaria / Czech Republic / Croatia/ France/ Georgia / Greece / Hungary / Italy/ Lithuania/ Moldova / North Macedonia / Poland / Romania/ Russia / Serbia / Turkey / Ukraine/ UK
Albania
Armenia
Sargsyan v Azerbaijan and Chiragov v Armenia
Briefed on: 24 May 2016
Two Grand Chamber judgments delivered on 16 June 2015 upheld the European Convention rights of families displaced by the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the early 1990s, a conflict that created hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally-displaced persons (IDPs) on both sides, and which has remained unresolved in the ensuing decades. Peace negotiations have been held under the auspices of the OSCE ‘Minsk Group’ (co-chaired by France, Russia and the United States), but as the judgments make clear, settlement negotiations have repeatedly failed.
- Briefing note by Philip Leach, European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC); and Rhodri Williams
- Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: Sargsyan v Azerbaijan and Chiragov v Armenia
Azerbaijan
Khadija Ismayilova v Azerbaijan (Application No 65286/13), Khadija Ismayilova v Azerbaijan no2 (Application No 30778/15) and Khadija Ismayilova v Azerbaijan no 3 (Application No 35283/14)
Briefed on: 30 May 2022
The cases concern violations of the applicant’s right to privacy and freedom of expression in connection with her work as a journalist.
Powerpoint presentation by Khadija Ismayilova
Ramazanova and others v Azerbaijan (Application No 44362/03)
Briefed on 3rd March 2022
Powerpoint by HRHF and EMDS
The case concerns the violations of the right to freedom of association on account of the failure of the authorities to apply properly the national legislation regulating the registration / the dissolution of the associations. The case was briefed by Nora Wehofsits, International Advocacy Officer, Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF), and Anar Mammadli, Co-Founder and Senior Advisor, Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Center (EMDS).
Mammadli v. Azerbaijan (Application No 47145/14)
Briefed on 20 May 2019
This case, as well as the Namat Aliyev case, concerns various violations of the right to free elections (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1) of the applicants (members of the opposition parties or independent candidates) in the context of the parliamentary elections of 2005 and 2010.
Tural Aghayev, lawyer at the Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre from Azerbaijan, briefed about this case.
Aliyev v Azerbaijan (Application No 68762/14), part of the Ilgar Mammadov group of cases
Briefed on 20 May 2019 and 22 November 2019
Intigam Aliyev was prosecuted for ‘illegal entrepreneurship’, ‘large-scale tax evasion’ and ‘aggravated abuse of power’ in August 2014. He was convicted and sentenced to 7 ½ years’ imprisonment in April 2015. The European Court found violations of Arts 3, 5(1), 5(4), 8, 18 in conjunction with Arts 5 & 8.
Prof. Philip Leach, from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, presented his recommendations regarding individual and general measures needed to implement the judgment. He set out the judgment of the Court under Article 46, including the explicit requirement that measures should be taken to restore Mr Aliyev’s ability to carry out his professional activities.
Documents from the November 2019 briefing
Rule 9.1 submission by the applicant, November 2019 (Intigam Aliyev)
Brief and Power Point by Ramute Remezaite
Rasul Jafarov v Azerbaijan, as part of the Ilgar Mammadov group (Appl. No. 69981/14)
Briefed on: 20 February and 5 September 2017 , 20 May 2019 and 22 November 2019
The case concerns an arrest and pre-trial detention of Azerbaijani human rights defender Rasul Jafarov, which the Court found unlawful and aimed to silence and punish the applicant for his human rights activities, in violation of Articles 5 and 18 of the Convention.
In April 2020 Mr Jafarov was issued with a full acquittal by the Azerbaijan Supreme Court, with an award of compensation. This removed the bar on him working as a lawyer and restored his right to run in elections. The supervision of his case was closed on 01/09/2020.
Documents from the November 2019 briefing:
Rule 9.1 submission by the applicant, September 2019 (Rasul Jafarov)
Brief by Ramute Remezaite, EHRAC, and power point
Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (App.15172/13)
Briefed on: 12 September 2016
The case concerns the arrest and detention of the applicant, an opposition politician, in violation of Articles 5, 6 and 18 of the Convention. The ECtHR concluded inter alia that the applicant was arrested for reasons other than those permitted by Article 5, namely to silence or punish the applicant for having criticized the Azerbaijani government. Mr Mammadov won a series of cases at the European Court of Human Rights and was released in August 2018. In April 2020 Mr Mammadov was issued with a full acquittal by the Azerbaijan Supreme Court, with an award of compensation. This restored his right to run in elections. The supervision of his case was closed on 01/09/2020. As of April 2020, other Azerbaijani victims of political persuction identified by the European Court of Human Rights still wait for justice (including Anar Mammaldi and Intigam Aliyev).
Case briefing note (includes material on other cases)
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Namat Aliyev group (App. 18705/06) v. Azerbaijan
Briefed on: 11 September 2015, 12 September 2016 and 20 May 2019
These cases concern parliamentary elections that occurred in Azerbaijan in November 2005; applicants were members of the opposition parties or independent candidates. The ECtHR found violations of Article 3, Protocol No. 1 due to actions by the electoral commissions and domestic courts deemed arbitrary and without motivation, including rejecting complaints alleging breaches of electoral law and cancelling candidate registration. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan annulled the elections in the electoral constituencies of certain applicants without sufficient reason, and without affording procedural safeguards to the parties (including the inability to participate in a review hearing).
Documents from the 2019 briefing:
Sargsyan v Azerbaijan and Chiragov v Armenia
Briefed on: 24 May 2016
Two Grand Chamber judgments delivered on 16 June 2015 upheld the European Convention rights of families displaced by the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the early 1990s, a conflict that created hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally-displaced persons (IDPs) on both sides, and which has remained unresolved in the ensuing decades. Peace negotiations have been held under the auspices of the OSCE ‘Minsk Group’ (co-chaired by France, Russia and the United States), but as the judgments make clear, settlement negotiations have repeatedly failed.
- Briefing note by Philip Leach, European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC); and Rhodri Williams
- Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: Sargsyan v Azerbaijan and Chiragov v Armenia
Mahmudov and Agazade Group v. Azerbaijan (App no 35877/04), Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan (App no 40984/07)
Briefed on: 11 September 2015
Case summary: Applicants were prosecuted for the publication of a print article in 2003 and objected to their imprisonment for defamation of a politician and agriculture expert; the Court found violations of Articles 10.
- Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Belgium
Vasilescu v Belgium (Application No 64682/12)
Briefed on 30 May 2022
The case concerns structural problems concerning prison overcrowding and poor material conditions of detention and lack of effective remedies.
Submission by the CSSP
Powerpoint by Bart de Temmerman, Member of the Bureau, CSSP, May 2022
M.S.S v Belgium and Greece (Appl. No. 30696/09)
Briefed on: 20 February 2017
The M.S.S group of cases concerns the degrading treatment of the applicants (asylum seekers or irregular migrants) on account of their conditions of detention such as overcrowding, insufficient ventilation, lack of regular access to toilets or sanitary facilities, unsuitable food or inadequate allowances for food in various detention facilities. The ECtHR found such a treatment amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (degrading ill-treatment).
- Submission of Amnesty International to the Committee of Ministers
- Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Sejdić and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina (App. Nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06)
Briefed on: 12 September 2016 and on 25 May 2023
The case concerns constitutionally entrenched racial discrimination in relation to the right to vote and the right to stand for elections. In 2009, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Bosnia and Herzegovina to be in breach of Protocol 12, which provides for the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination, in failing to allow its citizens who are not ‘Constituent Peoples’ to stand for election to the Presidency.
In 2023, the briefing was held by Chelsea Gonzalez, Programme Officer at Minority Rights Group International. Minority Rights Group International provided participants with explanations regarding the Dayton Accords and Electoral Quotas, explaining the effects of the quota system, which disenfranchises minorities, discriminates against constituent peoples living in ‘wrong’ entity and facilitates the trickling down of discrimination to local level. Minority Rights Group International discussed the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Rule 9 Submission from April 2023, setting out the Commissioner’s primary concerns regarding the recent developments at national level.
Bulgaria
Stanev v Bulgaria (application n 36760/06)
Briefed on 28th February 2023
This case concerns the placement of the applicant, subject to a partial guardianship order following a diagnosis of schizophrenia, in a social care home.
The presentation on this case was given by Simona Florescu, Litigation Manager at Validity, and Aneta Mircheva, Lawyer at the Network of Independent Experts.
Rule 9.2 submission on the case (February 2023)
Kehayov v Bulgaria (Application Nos 41035/98 36925/10)
Briefed on: 5 March 2018
This group of cases concerns inhuman and degrading treatment of the applicants in penitentiary facilities between 1996 and 2016 (violations of Article 3). In certain cases, the Court also found that there was no preventive remedy and that there were various shortcomings in the functioning of the domestic compensatory remedy (violations of Article 13).
Briefing note of Ms Katchaounova, Legal Programme Director at the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
Rule 9.2. submission made by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee on this group of cases
2017 Action Plan of Bulgaria on this group of cases and its addendum
United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others group v Bulgaria (Appl. No. 59491/00)
Briefed on: 15 September 2023 and 24 May 2017
The cases concern the unjustified refusals of the courts to register an association aiming at achieving "the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria".
Briefed on September 15, 2023 and May 2017
Documents from the September 2023 briefing
Power point presentation by Krassimir Kanev, Chairman of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
Latest rule 9.2 by the BHC
Documents from the May 2017 briefing
Memo by Krassimir Kanev, Chairperson of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
Case summary by the Council of Europe's Department for the Execution of Judgments
Czech Republic
D.H. and others v the Czech Republic (Application No 57325/00)
Briefed on 6 September 2019
In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights decided that there was a systemic discrimination of Roma children in the Czech Republic. The Grand Chamber ruled that 18 Roma children had been sent to special schools and taught a reduced educational programme.
Power point presentation by OSF Prague and the Office of the Public Defender of Rights (6/9/2019)
Croatia
Skendic and Krznaric v. Croatia (Application no. 16212/08)
Briefed on: September 16, 2022
The Skendzic and Krznaric v Croatia group of cases concern violations of the right to life on account of the lack of effective investigations into war crimes committed during the Croatian Homeland War (1991-1995) against the applicants’ next-of-kin who disappeared or were killed (violations of Article 2 in its procedural limb).
The ECtHR found the violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of failings in the investigative procedures concerning the disappearance of applicants’ relatives.
The European Court found that the violations resulted from the following shortcomings in the impugned criminal investigations:
- lack of promptness: inexplicable delays in the investigations
- lack of adequacy: the authorities’ failure to identify and bring the direct perpetrators to justice, as only the superior chain of command was prosecuted and convicted; the authorities’ failure to follow all available leads capable of identifying and bringing perpetrators to justice; examination of circumstances surrounding the killing of the applicants’ relatives remained at the level of a police inquiry
- Lack of independence: investigations were entrusted to the police stations whose members were police officers suspected of being implicated in the events surrounding the disappearance or killing of the applicants’ relatives.
Human Rights House Zagreb and Documenta – Center for Dealing with the Past were actively involved in the process of the execution of the judgment. They have submitted rule 9.2 communications on two occasions on 6 May 2019 and on 14 September 2022.
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
Communication by Human Rights House Zagreb and Documenta – Center for Dealing with the past
Powerpoint presentation by HRHZ and Documenta
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia/ North Macedonia
El Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (App no 39630/09)
Briefed on 12 September 2016 and 22 November 2019
The case concerns violations related to a ‘secret rendition’ operation by the CIA. The Grand Chamber of the European Court found Macedonia in violation of the Convention for the extraordinary rendition of Khaled El-Masri, and the subsequent failure to conduct an effective investigation into his torture and ill-treatment.
On 22 November 2019, the case was presented by Amrit Singh, from OSJI. On behalf of the Justice Initiative.
Documents from the November 2019 briefing:
Rule 9.2 submission by OSJI, May-June 2018
Submission of Ms Amrit Singh on the case, 22/11/2019
France
J.M.B. and Others v. France (Application no. 9671/15)
Briefed on: November 28, 2022
This case concerns the degrading treatment suffered by 27 of the applicants, due to prison overcrowding and poor conditions of their detention (personal space of less than 3 m2 in the majority of the establishments and lack of privacy in the use of toilets, of ventilation, hygiene and of out-of-cell activities) in the detention centres (DC) of Ducos (Martinique), Baie-Mahault (Guadeloupe) and Faa'a Nuutania (French Polynesia) and the remand centres (RC) of Nîmes, Nice and Fresnes (region of Paris), during different periods (2006 to date) (violation of Article 3).
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Communication from Observatoire International des Prisons, Section France
Power point presentation by OIP, Section France
Read the EIN Voices about this case
M.A. v France (Application No 9373/15)
Briefed on 3rd March 2022
Power Point by Paul Chiron
The M.A. case concerns the enforcement on 20 February 2015 of a removal order against the applicant, an Algerian national, who was sentenced in 2006 in France to seven years’ imprisonment and to permanent exclusion from French territory for terrorism-related acts. The case was briefed by Paul Chiron, Legal and Action Support Officer at la Cimade.
Georgia
Tsintsabadze v Georgia ( Application No 35403/06)
Briefed on 3rd March 2022
This group of cases concerns the lack of effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment or violations of the right to life.
The case was briefed on 3rd March 2022 by Tamar Abadze, from the Public Defender Office of Georgia (PDO), and Tamar Oniani, from the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA).
Power point by Tamar Abadze, PDO
Power point by Tamar Oniani, GYLA
Merabishvili v Georgia (Application 72508/13)
Briefed on: 23 November 2018
The case concerns violations suffered by the applicant, a former Prime Minister of Georgia, in the context of the criminal proceedings instituted against him in December 2012 and January 2013, for alleged embezzlement and the abuse of official authority (violations of Article 5 § 3 and Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention). The briefing on this case by delivered by Otar Kakhidze, Georgian MP.
You can download the text of the EHRAC rule 9 submission on this case, as well as all attachments: annexe 1, 2, 3 , 4 and 5. The power point presentation of Mr Kakhidze is here. The October 2018 Action Plan from the Georgian government can be downloaded here. The November 2018 Rule 9.2. submission by the Public Defender of Georgia can be downloaded here.
Other documents presented by Mr Kakhidze:
Nov 2018 letter from Georgian MPs to the CM-DH.
October statement from Georgian NGOs on the crisis of institutions in Georgia
Excerpt from the Georgian Public Defender Report 2018
Gharibashvili group v Georgia (Appl. No. 11830/03)
Briefed on: 5 September 2017
This group of six judgments and eleven decisions concerns the lack of effective investigations into allegations of violations of the right to life and of ill-treatment (procedural aspects of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights).
- Intervention by Nino Jomarjidze, Strategic Litigation Lawyer, Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association
- Action report by the Georgian government
- Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Identoba and Others v Georgia (Appl. No. 73235/12)
Briefed on: 27 November 2023, 18 November 2021, 11 September 2020, 28 May 2018, and 29 November 2016
The case concerns a peaceful demonstration in Tbilisi in May 2012 to mark the International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia, which was violently disrupted by counter-demonstrators. The applicants, an NGO, Identoba, and 13 individuals, complained that the Georgian authorities had failed to protect them from violent attacks and to effectively investigate the incident, including the discriminatory motive behind the attacks.
Briefing on 27 November 2023, in November 2021, in 2020 and 2016
Documents from the November 2023 briefing:
Powerpoint presentation by Davit Javakhishvili, GYLA, and Toby Collis, EHRAC
Latest Rule 9.2 Communication from EHRAC and GYLA on the case (October 2023)
Communication from NGOs (Social Justice Center and European Human Rights Advocacy Centre) in the case of Mikeladze and Others v. Georgia
Communication from an NGO (Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI)) on the Identoba group
Documents from the November 2021 briefing:
Power point by Tamar Oniani, GYLA
Documents from past briefings:
Rule 9 submission of WISG, the Human Rights Education and Monitoring Centre Georgia, and ILGA Europe (2020)
Video by ILGA Europe, September 2020
Rule 9.2 by GYLA (2020)
Rule 9 submission of WISG, the Human Rights Education and Monitoring Centre Georgia and ILGA Europe (2018)
Rule 9 submission of Identoba, Women's Initiatives Support Group (WISG), Amnesty International, and ILGA-Europe (2016)
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Greece
Safi and others v Greece (Application No 5418/15)
Briefed on 15 September 2023
This case concerns the ineffective investigation into a coastguard operation in 2014 in the Aegean Sea during which eleven relatives of the migrant applicants who were aboard a fishing boat drowned (procedural violation of Article 2).
The case is currently examined under the standard supervision procedure. The speakers, Minos Mouzourakis from Refugee Support Aegean, and Stephanos Stavros, on behalf of the Hellenic League for Human Rights, Human Rights Legal Project & I Have Rights highlighted that:
· The violations which occurred in January 2014 are relevant through time: similar incidents e.g. in Agathonisi (2018), Pylos (2023)
· The execution raises complex issues as regards the adequacy of resources, design and roll-out of Coast Guard operations at sea & on search and rescue procedures
· The assessment of investigations raises complex issues pertaining to the institutional set-up (interrogation officials, prosecutors’ approach), adequacy of selection and modalities of witness examination, assessment of evidence et al.
And therefore respectfully requested the transfer of the Safi and Others v Greece case to the enhanced supervision procedure.
Power point presentation by Minos Mouzourakis and Stephanos Stavros
Rule 9.2 from Refugee Support Aegean and Stiftung Pro Asyl on the case (August 2023)
Rule 9.2 from the AIRE Centre, HIAS Greece and Equal Rights Beyond Borders (August 2023)
Rule 9.2 by the Hellenic League for Human Rights (June 2023)
HOUSE of MACEDONIAN CIVILIZATION AND OTHERS v GREECE (Application No 1295/10)
Briefed on 22 November 2019
The House of Macedonian Civilization case is about the non-registration by courts of an association, contrary to the Court’s 1998 judgment concerning the same association.
Briefing text on the House of Macedonian Civilization and others, by Panayote Dimitras
Rule 9.1 on the House of Macedonian Civilization and others, by the Greek Helsinki Monitor (October 2019)
Sakir v Greece (Application No 48475/09)
Briefed on 22 November 2019
This case concerns ineffective investigations into alleged hate crimes. Mr Dimitras called upon the CM to ask Greece to amend its anti-racism Law 927/79, so as to implement the recommendations of ECRI, UN HRCttee and UN CERD to criminalize racist insults and defamation, as well as the public dissemination, public distribution, production or storage of racist material.
Briefing text on the Sakir group, by Panayote Dimitras, Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM)
Rule 9.1. and 9.2. on the Sakir group, by the Greek Helsinki Monitor (October 2019)
Makaratzis and others group of cases v Greece (Application No 50385/99)
Briefed on: 23 November 2018
These cases concern ill-treatment and the unauthorized and disproportionate use of force by law enforcement officials.
Nisiotis Group v Greece (Application No 34704/08)
Briefed on: 1 March 2024 and 10 September 2018
The Nisiotis Group v Greece concerns the inhuman and/or degrading treatment of the applicants arising from poor conditions of detention in overcrowded prisons in Greece (violation of Art. 3)., notably in Ioannina, Korydallos, Diavata/ Thessaloniki, Alikarnassos, Patra, Larissa, Corfu, Korydallos prison Hospital, Hios, Komotini, Nafplio and Korinthos in relation to more than 1,200 applicants.
Documents from the 2024 briefing:
Powerpoint by Professor Tsitselikis, University of Macedonia, Representative of the Hellenic League for Human Rights
Latest Rule 9.2. communication on this case by the Hellenic League for Human Rights (January 2024)
Documents from the 2018 briefing:
Memo Professor Tsitselikis, University of Macedonia-Thessaloniki, and Member of the Hellenic League for Human Rights
Rule 9.2. communication on this case, by the Hellenic League for Human Rights
July 2018 communication from the Greek authorities on this case
Final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (20/6/2011, in French)
Bekir-Ousta and others group v Greece (Appl. No. 35151/05)
Briefed on: 6 September 2019, 23 November 2018 and on 24 November 2017
This group of cases concern the refusal by domestic courts to register associations on the grounds that their aim was to promote the idea that an ethnic Turkish minority existed in Greece.
Documents from the September 2019 briefing:
M.S.S v Belgium and Greece (Appl. No. 30696/09)
Briefed on: 11 September 2020, and 20 February 2017
The M.S.S group of cases concerns the degrading treatment of the applicants (asylum seekers or irregular migrants) on account of their conditions of detention such as overcrowding, insufficient ventilation, lack of regular access to toilets or sanitary facilities, unsuitable food or inadequate allowances for food in various detention facilities. The ECtHR found such a treatment amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (degrading ill-treatment).
Documents from the September 2020 briefing:
Submission by Amnesty International to the Committee of Ministers
Submission by HIAS Greece
Joint video by Amnesty International and HIAS Greece
Documents from the February 2017 briefing:
Submission of Amnesty International to the Committee of Ministers
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Hungary
Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (Application no. 47287/15)
Briefed on: September 15 2023, and September 16, 2022
The case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary concerns the authorities’ failure to comply with their procedural obligation under Article 3 to assess the risks of ill-treatment before removing the two asylum-seeking applicants to Serbia in 2015. The Court found in particular that “there was an insufficient basis for the government’s decision to establish a general presumption concerning Serbia as a safe third country”, that “the expulsion decisions disregarded the authoritative findings of the UNHCR as to a real risk of denial of access to an effective asylum procedure in Serbia and summary removal from Serbia to North Macedonia and then to Greece, and that the authorities exacerbated the risks facing the applicants by inducing them to enter Serbia illegally instead of negotiating an orderly return”.
Hungarian Helsinki Committee has been actively involved in the process of the examination of the case. The organization has highlighted that the practice of push-backs and that domestic legislation has not been amended to bring Hungary in harmony with its obligations stemming from international law and the law of the European Union.Returns to Serbia continued in a summary manner with no examination as to whether that would amount to refoulement, and the procedural leg of Article 3 of the Convention thus remained to be systemically breached.
Documents from the 2023 briefing:
Communication from the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (August 2023)
Power point presentation by Balazs Gaal, HHC
Documents from the September 2022 briefing:
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Communication from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
Communication from Hungarian Helsinki Committee
Power point presentation by the HHC
Baka v Hungary (Application No 20261/12)
Documents from the November 2023 briefing:
Powerpoint presentation by Erika Farkas
Latest submission by the HHC (October 2023)
Documents from the February 2023 briefing:
The presentation was given by Erika Farkas, Legal officer at the Hungarian Helsinki Committee.
Powerpoint presentation by Erika Farkas
Joint submission by Amnesty International and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (January 2023)
Documents from the September 2021 briefing:
Powerpoint presentation by András Kádár and Dávid Vig
Joint submission by Amnesty International and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (July 2021)
Documents from the September 2020 briefing:
You can find the video of their briefing here.
Joint submission by Amnesty International and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (July 2020) and reply by the authorities
ECHR judgment (June 2016)
This case concerns the undue and premature termination of the applicants’ mandates as President of the former Hungarian Supreme Court through ad hominem legislative measures adopted in the context of a major reform of the judiciary. The legislative act was of constitutional rank and thus not subject to review by the Constitutional Court. The Strasbourg Court found violations of the applicant’s right of access to court and freedom of expression.
The presentation was given by András Kádár, Co-Chair of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, and Dávid Vig, Director of Amnesty International Hungary.
Laszlo Magyar Group v Hungary (Application No 73593/10)
Briefed on 28 May 2018
This group concerns the execution of the judgment reached by the ECtHR in the case of Laszlo Magyar v Hungary, establishing that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (whole/actual life sentence) imposed upon the applicant violated Article 3 of the Convention; and the judgment in the T.P. and A.T. v Hungary case, establishing that, irrespective of the new “mandatory pardon procedure” introduced for whole lifers, Hungarian rules on life imprisonment without parole still violate Article 3. In the case of Laszlo Magyar, the Court also found violation of the right to a fair trial (Article 6) because of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, which lasted from 2002 to 2010.
2016 Submission by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
2018 Action Plan from Hungary
Italy
Darboe and Camara v Italy (5797/17)
Briefed on 1 March 2024
The case was briefed by Elena Rozzi, lawyer at ASGI. The case concerns Mr. Darboe’s placement in an adult migrant centre and the age-assessment procedure that ensued.
Powerpoint presentation from Ms Rozzi
Latest Rule 9.2 Communication from ASGI (January 2024)
Lithuania
Abu Zubaydah v Lithuania (Application No 46454/11)
Briefed on 7th September 2021
The case concerns violations of a number of Convention rights on account of the fact that the applicant was the victim of an “extraordinary rendition” operation. The European Court found it established beyond reasonable doubt that Lithuania had hosted a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) detention facility, code-named “Detention Site Violet” which operated from either 17 or 18 February 2005 until 25 March 2006 and that the applicant was secretly detained there during that period. He was subsequently transferred by the CIA out of Lithuania to another CIA detention site in Afghanistan and eventually to the United States (US) Internment Facility at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.
The status of execution of the case by presented by Helen Duffy, counsel for Mr. Abu Zubaydah, Director at Human Rights in Practice.
Reference documents:
DH-DD(2021)781, Communication from an NGO (Human Rights in Practice) (28/07/2021) in the case of Abu Zubaydah v Lithuania (Application No. 46454/11)
Moldova
Manole and others v the Republic of Moldova (13936/02)
Briefing on 1 March 2024
This case 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 presentation on the case was provided by Cristina Frumosu-Durnea, Media lawyer at the Independent Journalism Centre.
Powerpoint by Cristina Frumosu-Durnea
Latest Rule 9.2 Communication from the Independent Journalism Centre (January 2024)
I.D. v. the Republic of Moldova (Application no. 47203/06)
Briefed on: September 16, 2022
I.D. v. the Republic of Moldova concerns poor material conditions of detention in establishments under the authority of the Ministries of the Interior and Justice and the lack of access to adequate medical care (including specialised medical treatment) in these facilities and the detention facility of the National Anticorruption Centre, together with the absence of effective domestic remedies in both respects (violations of Articles 3 and 13).
Promo-LEX has been actively involved in the process of the execution of the judgment by submitting rule 9.2 communications on several occasions. Case documents can be accessed here.
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Communication from Promo-LEX Association and European Prison Litigation Network.
Power point presentation by Promo-LEX
Ciorap v the Republic of Moldova (Appl. Nos 12066/02, 9190/03, 39806/05)
Briefed on: 5 March 2018
The Ciorap group of cases mainly concern poor conditions of detention in Prison No. 13 in Chisinau and the lack of effective domestic remedies in this respect. The supervision of these cases was closed on 13 March 2018.
Briefing memo of Ms Hriptievschi
Rule 9.2. communications from the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova: from 2016, and 2018
Revised Action Plan by the Government of the Republic of Moldova (January 2018)
Genderdoc-M v. Moldova (App no 9106/06)
Briefed on: 6 September 2019 and 11 September 2015
This case concerns an Article 11 violation of the applicant NGO’s right to
peaceful assembly on account of the ban on a demonstration planned to be held in Chisinau
in May 2005 in front of the Parliament to encourage the adoption of laws for the protection of
sexual minorities from discrimination. In the meeting in September 2019, the Committee noted that significant progress was achieved as concerns the organisation of pride marches in the last few years in Moldova and that the applicant NGO was able to exercise the right of assembly effectively. The Committee’s supervision over the case was therefore brought to an end.
Documents from the 2019 briefing:
Catan and Others v Moldova and Russia (Appl. Nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06)
Briefed on: 20 February 2017
The case concerns the violation of the right to education of 170 children or their parents from Latin-script schools located in the Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova. Pursuant to the “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” “law” on languages, they had suffered from the forced closure of these schools between August 2002 and July 2004, as well as from measures of harassment, which the ECtHR found in violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 by the Russian Federation.
Poland
Reczkowicz v. Poland (Application no. 43447/19)
Briefed on 28 November, 2022
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).
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Communication from Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights
Power point presentation by Marcin Szwed, HFHR
Broda and Bojara v. Poland (Application no. 26691/18)
Briefed on: November 28, 2022
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.
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Communication from Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights
Power point presentation by Marcin Szwed, HFHR
Xero Flor W Polsce SP. Z.O.O. v. Poland (Appliction no 4907/18)
Briefed on: November 28, 2022
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.
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
Communication by Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights
Powerpoint presentation by Marcin Szwed, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights
P. and S. v Poland (Application No 57375/08)
Briefed on: 26 February 2021, 21 February 2020, 25 February 2019, and 10 September 2018
The 2012 judgment in the case of P. and S. v. Poland (application no. 57375/08) is one of three important decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning access to legal abortion in Poland, together with the Tysiac v Poland (Application Nr 5410/03) and R.R. v Poland (Application Nr 27617/04) cases.
In all three cases, the ECtHR ruled that the rights of the applicants were violated because of the practical difficulties they experienced in exercising their right to legal abortion.
Documents from the 2021 briefing:
Power point by Jarosław Jagura, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights
Rule 9.2 submission by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (February 2021)
Documents from the 2020 briefing:
Power point presentation by Adriana Lamačková, Senior Legal Consultant for Europe, Centre for Reproductive Rights, and Kamila Ferenc from the Federation for Women and Family Planning
Main recommendations from these organisations on the cases
Rule 9.2 submission by the Centre for Reproductive Rights and the Federation for Women and Family Planning, January 2020
Al Nashiri v Poland (App. No 28761/11) and Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v Poland (App No 7511/13)
Briefed on: 11 September 2015, 24 May 2016, 12 September 2016 and 7th September 2021
The cases concern the violation of a number of Convention rights arising from the fact that the applicants were victims of a secret “rendition” operation.
The cases were briefed by Mikołaj Pietrzak, counsel for Mr. Al Nashiri, and Helen Duffy, counsel for Mr. Abu Zubaydah, Director at Human Rights in Practice.
Documents from the 2021 briefing:
Presentation by Mikołaj Pietrzak, counsel for Mr. Al Nashiri
Documents from past briefings:
Case briefing note (includes material on other cases)
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Romania
Briefed in May 2023
The Parascineti v. România concerns the ill-treatment suffered by the applicant during his involuntary placement in the psychiatric unit of the Sighetu Marmaţiei Hospital between 5 and 13 July 2005, due to overcrowding, poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, including the absence of an individual bed, and the impossibility to spend time outdoors due to staff shortages (violation of Article 3). The Cristian Teodorescu v. România case concerns the unlawful placement of the applicants in psychiatric hospitals, or in one case (Ulisei Grosu) the applicant’s arrest by police with a view to such placement, without compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Mental Health Act and without any justification relating to their mental health condition (violations of Article 5 § 1(e)).
The R.D. and I.M.D. v. Romania case concerns the non-voluntary confinement of the applicants in a psychiatric hospital for the purpose of compelling them to undergo medical treatment and about the obligation to undergo that medical treatment.
The Centre for Legal Resources presented their Recommendations on these cases.
Al-Nashiri v Romania (Application No 33234/12)
Briefed on 6th September 2021 and 20 May 2019
The case concerns violations of a number of Convention rights on account of the fact that the applicant was the victim of an “extraordinary rendition” operation. The European Court found it established beyond reasonable doubt that Romania hosted a CIA detention site code-named “Detention Site Black”, which operated from 22 September 2003 to 5 November 2005, and that the applicant was secretly detained there from 12 April 2004 to 6 October 2005, or, at the latest, to 5 November 2005. He was subjected to inhuman treatment, on account of an extremely harsh detention regime. He was subsequently transferred by the CIA out of Romania to another of its detention facilities.
Ms Amrit Singh, Counsel for Mr Al-Nashiri, and Director, Accountability, Liberty and Transparency Division at the Open Society Justice Initiative, set out why the case was still not being properly implemented and made recommendations to the Committee of Ministers.
Documents from the September 2021 briefing:
Presentation by OSJI on the case (September 2021)
DH-DD(2021)777, Communication from an NGO (Open Society Justice Initiative) (27/07/2021) in the case of Al Nashiri v. Romania (Application No. 33234/12).
Documents from the May 2019 briefing:
Balsan v Romania (Appl. No 49645/09)
Briefed on: 28 May 2018
This case concerns the failure by the national authorities to adequately protect the applicant from domestic violence inflicted by her spouse in 2007 and 2008. The ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 and of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3.
2018 Action Plan from the Romanian authorities
Case briefing notes of Ms Georghe
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Bragadireanu v Romania group of cases (Application No 22088/04) and Rezmives and others (Application No 61467/12+ )
Briefed on: 21 February 2020 and 5 March 2018
These cases concern inhuman and/or degrading treatment suffered by the applicants on account of overcrowding and poor material conditions in prisons and police detention facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard; the inadequacy of the medical care provided to some of the applicants and several other dysfunctions regarding the protection of the prisoners' rights (violations of Article 3; and violation of Article 13 in the case of Marcu).
Documents from the February 2020 briefing:
Power point by George Stafford, EIN Co-Director, on behalf of Georgiana Gheorghe, Director, APADOR-CH
Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Campeanu v Romania (Appl. No. 47848/08)
Briefed on: 20 February 2017 and 25 May 2023
The case concerns the authorities’ failure to protect the right to life of Mr. Câmpeanu, a young man of Roma origin, orphaned, HIV-positive and diagnosed with profound intellectual disability. The ECtHR found a substantial violation of Article 2 of the Convention in relation to severe shortcomings in the social and medical care afforded to the applicant before his death at the neuropsychiatric hospital.
The current state of execution and the latest domestic developments were presented by Georgiana Pascu, (CLR), Romania.
CLR outlined to participants the several human rights violations of the case:
Authorities’ failure to protect the right to life of a young man, orphaned, HIV-positive and with “severe intellectual disability”.
Ineffectiveness of the investigation and the court proceedings into his death
Lack in domestic law of a legal framework suited to the specific needs of people with mental disabilities and allowing for the examination of the allegations concerning the violation of Mr Câmpeanu’s right to life by an independent authority. The Court stated that Romania must adopt measures to ensure that “persons with mental disabilities in a situation comparable to that of Mr Câmpeanu are afforded independent representation, enabling them to have Convention complaints relating to their health and treatment examined before a court or other independent body”.
CLR provided information on recent developments on legal protections for vulnerable adults.
Russia
Lashmankin and others v Russia (Application No 57818/09+)
Briefed on 3rd March 2022 and 25th May 2021
Documents from the March 2022 briefing:
Power point by EIN
Documents from the May 2021 briefing:
The case was briefed by Denis Shedow, from OVD-Info and Tatiana Chernikova from HRC Memorial.
Powerpoint presentation by HRC-Memorial and OVD-Info
Rule 9.2 submission by Public Verdict Foundation, HRC Memorial, Committee against Torture and OVD-Info (April 2021)
Rule 9.2 submission by the Centre de la Protection Internationale (April 2021)
Rule 9.2 submission by Agora International Human Rights Group and Apologia of Protest (April 2021)
The Lashmankin group mainly concerns violations of the right to freedom of assembly in different Russian cities in 2006-2017 (violations of Article 11, interpreted in the light of Article 10), lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 11), deprivation of liberty of the participants in violation of domestic law (violations of Article 5 § 1), excessive use of force to disperse such events and failure to duly investigate it (violations of Article 3), blocking of internet posts calling for the participation in peaceful assemblies and convictions for such calls (violation of Article 10) and subsequent consideration of some of the cases related to these events in violation of in dubio pro reo principle in that the courts interpreted the doubts in favour of the police (violations of Article 6). The Court also found other violations in some of the cases.
Volodina v Russia (Application No 41261/17)
Briefed on 23rd November 2020
This case concerns domestic violence, including grave physical and mental suffering from physical and psychological abuse of the applicant over two years by her ex-partner. The applicant submitted over eight complaints to the authorities over two years: no attempt to protect the applicant from further violence or to open criminal proceedings against the (known) perpetrator. The presentation was given by Vanessa Kogan, Stichting Justice Initiative Executive Director.
Khanamirova group of cases v Russian Federation (Application No 21353/10)
Submission by Stichting Justice Initiative (April 2020)
ECHR judgment (November 2011)
The presentation was given by Stichting Justice Initiative. Prior to the presentation, there is a short introductory video involving interviews with victims of ongoing violations. All of the mothers in the videos have obtained judgments from the ECtHR or are involved in litigation there. You can also find here further information on custody rights/family kidnapping in Russia.
OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v Russian Federation (Appl. No. 14902/04)
Briefed on: 6th September 2021 and on 24 November 2017
The case concerns violations concerning tax and enforcement proceedings brought against the applicant oil company, leading to its liquidation in 2007.
Documents from the 2021 briefing:
DH-DD(2021)868: Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (02/09/2021) in the case of OAO NEFTYANAYA KOMPANIYA YUKOS v. Russian Federation (Application No. 14902/04)
Documents from the 2017 briefing:
Memorandum of Piers Gardner, legal representative of Yukos
Case summary by the Council of Europe's Department for the Execution of Judgments
Kudeshkina v Russian Federation (Appl. No. 29492/05)
Briefed on: 5 September 2017
In this case, the ECtHR found that the applicant’s dismissal from the judiciary in 2004 to be in violation of Article 10 of the Convention as the penalty imposed on the applicant (i.e. early termination of office at the respective court as well as abrogation of the judge’s rank) for her comments critical of the Russian judiciary was disproportionately severe and capable of having a “chilling effect on judges who wish to participate in the public debate on the effectiveness of judicial institutions.”
- Intervention by Karinna Moskalenko, legal representative of the applicant and Director of International Protection Centre
- Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Navalnyy and Ofitserov v Russian Federation (Appl. No. 46632/13) and Navalnyy v Russian Federation (App.No 101/15)
Briefed on: 5 September 2017 and 18 November 2021
The case concerned a complaint of arbitrary and unfair criminal proceedings that led to a conviction for embezzlement of property belonging to a Russian state company Kirovles by a prominent opposition politician and anti-corruption activist Alexey Navalny and a businessman Petr Ofitserov.
Documents from the November 2021 briefing:
Power point presentation by Anna Maralyan, Centre de la Protection Internationale
Documents from the November 2017 briefing:
EIN briefing for the Committee of Ministers
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Ananyev and Others group and Kalashnikov group v Russian Federation (Appl. Nos. 42525/07, 47095/99)
Briefed on: 24 May 2017
In these cases, the Court found that poor detention conditions in Russian remand centres and lack of effective remedies to challenge it amounted to violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention respectively. The Court highlighted this as a structural problem in the Russian Federation by applying a pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ananyev and Others.
- Case summary by the Council of Europe's Department for the Execution of Judgments
- Action plan by the Russian authorities
Catan and Others v Moldova and Russia (Appl. Nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06)
Briefed on: 20 February 2017, 25 May 2021, 18 November 2021
The case concerns the violation of the right to education of 170 children or their parents from Latin-script schools located in the Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova. Pursuant to the “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” “law” on languages, they had suffered from the forced closure of these schools between August 2002 and July 2004, as well as from measures of harassment, which the ECtHR found in violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 by the Russian Federation.
Documents from the November 2021 briefing:
Power point from Alexandru Postica and Ion Manole, Promo-LEX
Video about the impact of the non-implementation of the judgment, by Promo-LEX
Documents from the May 2021 briefing:
Presentation by Vadim Vieru, Promo-LEX
Documents from the February 2017 briefing:
Israilova and Others v Russia (Appl. No. 4571/04)
Briefed on: 29 November 2016
The case concerns enforced disappearance of the applicant's son and is being reviewed by the Committee of Ministers as a part of the Khashiyev and Akayeva group. The Court found violations of Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), and Article 13 (effective remedy) in respect to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention.
Alekseyev v Russia (Appl. Nos. 4916/07, 25924/08, 14599/09) and Bayev v Russia (App. No 67667/090
Briefed on: 23 November 2018 and 28 November 2016
The Alekseyev v. Russia cases address repeated bans on demonstrations promoting tolerance and respect for the human rights of LGBTI persons, and the absence of an effective remedy to challenge those bans. The European Court of Human Rights found violations of Convention Articles 11 (right to freedom of assembly), 13 (right to an effective remedy), and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 11.
The Bayev v. Russia case addresses violations of the right to freedom of expression and discrimination on account of fines imposed on the applicants for displaying banners considered to promote homosexuality among minors against the regional laws prohibiting such “propaganda”, adopted in several regions since 2006, and followed by a nation-wide law of 2013 similar to that effect (violations of Article 10 and of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10).
Documents from the Nov 2018 briefing:
Rule 9 submission by Coming Out and ILGA Europe
October 2018 Action Plan from the Russian Federation
Memo by Mr Warner
Khashiyev v Russia (Lead: app. No. 57942/00), Abakarova and Others v. Russia (App. 16664/07)
Briefed on: 24 May 2016
This group of more than 200 cases arises predominantly out of the 1999-2006 Chechen conflict and includes cases of aerial bombardment, extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearances, and torture. In 2015, the Court rendered the third judgment concerning the bombing of the Katyr-Yurt village. Echoing the findings of Isayeva v. Russia (2005) and Abuyeva and others v. Russia (2010), the Court found in the Abakarova case that Russia violated article 2 (right to life) and article 13 (right to an effective remedy) by failing to investigate the Katyr-Yurt bombing and provide redress for victims. The Abakarova judgment became final on 14 March 2016.
Speaker: Kirill Korotev, legal director, Memorial Human Rights Centr
Serbia
Zorica Jovanovic v Serbia (Appl. No 21794/08)
Briefed on: 5 March 2018
This case concerns failure to provide information as to the fate of new-born babies alleged to have died in maternity wards. In its judgment, the ECtHR held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention – respect for family life.
Briefing memo from the Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights
2017 revised Action Plan from Serbia
Turkey
Opuz v. Turkey (Application no. 33401/02)
Briefed on: November 28, 2022
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).
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Communication from Mor Cati Women’s shelter Foundation on 12 October 2022 and 23 October 2020
Power point presentation by Elif Ege, Mor Cati
Kavala v. Turkey case (Application No 28749/18)
Briefed on 6th September 2021, and on 23rd February 2021.
Turkey’s ‘evasive judicial tactics’ to circumvent its obligation to
implement the ECtHR’s Selahattin Demirtaş and Osman Kavala
judgments, Powerpoint from the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project
DH-DD(2021)836, Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project) (18/08/2021) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18)
DH-DD (2021/841), Rule 9.2 – Communication from the applicant (30/08/2021) on the case of Kavala v Turkey (Application No. 28749/18)
Latest Rule 9.2 by IFÖD (February 2021)
The case concerns a Turkish philanthropist and human rights defender who is unjustifiably being detained, for over 1200 days, as a means to silence his speech. More on Kavala here.
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (No.2) (Application No 14305/17)
Briefed on 27 November 2023, 16 September 2022, 30th May 2022, 6th September 2021 and 23rd February 2021.
Documents of the November 2023 briefing:
Powerpoint presentation by Ramazan Demir, lawyer
Latest joint Communication from various NGOs on the case (October 2023)
Document of the September 2022 briefing:
Powerpoint by Benan Molu, lawyer
Documents of the May 2022 briefing:
Recommendations by NGOs, as presented by Ayse Bingol Demir, Turkish Human Rights Litigation Support Project .
Documents from past briefings:
DH-DD(2021)759, Communication from NGOs (ARTICLE 19, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, the International Federation for Human Rights and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers) (26/07/2021) in the case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey (No. 2) and reply of the authorities (Application No. 14305/17).
Turkey’s ‘evasive judicial tactics’ to circumvent its obligation to
implement the ECtHR’s Selahattin Demirtaş and Osman Kavala
judgments, Powerpoint from the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project
The case concerns the arrest/detention of one of Turkey's main opposition leaders to limit political debate.
Işıkırık v Turkey (Application Nr 41226/09)
Briefed on: 21 February 2020
by Dr Kerem Altiparmak, on behalf of the Freedom of Expression Association (IFÖD)
Öner and Türk group of cases v Turkey (51962/12) Nedim Şener group v Turkey (38270/11) and Altuğ Taner Akçam group v Turkey (27520/07)
Briefed on: 1 March 2024, 28 February 2023, 25 May 2021 and 21 February 2020
Documents from the March 2024 briefing:
Powerpoint presentation by Batikan Erkoc, MLSA, Özlem Zingil and Idil Özcan, Hafiza Merkezi
Rule 9.2 Communication from MLSA (January 2024)
Rule 9.2 Communication from Hafiza Merkezi (January 2024)
Rule 9.2 Communication from the Human Rights Association (January 2024)
Documents from the February 2023 briefing:
Powerpoint by Mümtaz Murat Kök, Project Coordinator and Editor at the Media and Law Studies Association.
Rule 9.2 Communication by MLSA (January 2023)
Documents from the May 2021 briefing:
Powerpoint of Aslı Ece Koçak, Editor and Project Coordinator, the Media and Law Studies Association
Documents from the February 2020 briefing:
Rule 9.2 by Article 19 and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project on the Öner and Türk case (January 2020)
These groups mainly concern unjustified and disproportionate interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression on account of criminal proceedings initiated under various articles of the Criminal Code or Anti-Terrorism Law for having expressed opinions that did not incite hatred or violence, and the consequent chilling effect on society as a whole (Article 10).
CUMHURİYETÇİ EĞİTİM VE KÜLTÜR MERKEZİ VAKFI GROUP, ZENGIN HASAN AND EYLEM GROUP v TURKEY (32093/10, 62649/10, 1448/04)
Briefed on 22 November 2019
These groups of cases concerns the discrimination towards followers of the Alevi faith in Turkey.
Dr Mine Yildirim, Head of the Freedom of Belief Initiative at NHC provided an update about these cases, her analysis about the recent Action plan of the authorities, as well as her recommendations on how to get these cases properly implemented.
Power point presentation by Dr Mine Yildirim, Head of Freedom of Belief Initiative, Norwegian Helsinki Committee
Rule 9.2 by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee on the cases: CUMHURİYETÇİ EĞİTİM VE KÜLTÜR MERKEZİ VAKFI GROUP, ZENGIN HASAN AND EYLEM GROUP v TURKEY (32093/10, 62649/10, 1448/04)
Action Plan from the Turkish authorities (October 2019)
Oya Ataman group v Turkey (Application Nr 74552/01)
Briefed on 28 February 2023 and 25 February 2019
These cases concern violations of the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly and/or their ill-treatment or the death of their relatives when excessive force was used to disperse peaceful demonstrations. Certain cases also concern failure to carry out an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment or lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Articles 2, 3, 11 and 13 of the Convention).
Documents from the 2023 briefing:
Powerpoint presentation by Mümtaz Murat Kök, Project Coordinator and Editor at Media and Law Studies Association and Beril Onder, Project Lawyer at the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project.
Rule 9.2 Communication by MLSA (January 2023)
Documents from the 2019 briefing:
An update on the group was delivered by Basak Cali, EIN Chair, Hertie School of Governance, Berlin; Center for Global Public Law, Koç University, Istanbul, on behalf of the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP). IHOP submitted a Rule 9.2 communication on the case on 4 February 2019.
Rule 9.2. of IHOP on the case and government answer (January/ February 2019)
Latest communication from the Turkish government on the case
Power Point presentation by Prof. Cali
Logvinenko group of cases v Ukraine (Application No 13448/07)
Briefed on 25 May 2021
These cases mainly concern inhuman and/or degrading treatment due to overcrowding, poor material conditions and inadequate nutrition in police establishments, pre-trial detention centres and prisons, as well as during transportation by road or rail between detention facilities or to courts; inadequacy of medical care in general and for infectious diseases, drug addiction and physical disability in particular; and lack of effective preventive and compensatory remedies in all these respects (violations of Articles 3 and 13).
The latest developments on the case were presented by Gennadiy Tokarev, from Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.
Powerpoint by Gennadiy Tokarev
Nevmerzhitsky group of cases (Application No 54825/00)
Briefed on 23 November 2020
Rule 9 submission on the case: September 2020, October 2020
The Nevmerzhitsky Group concerns poor conditions of detention, specifically, overcrowding and poor material conditions, the inadequacy of medical care, and lack of effective remedies in all these respects. The ECtHR has stated that the lack of proper medical treatment in Ukrainian prison is a structural issue, and no effective remedy is available.
The presentation on the case was delivered by Gennagiy Tokarev, Kharkiv Human Right Protection Group, and Hugues de Suremain, European Prison Litigation Network.
Fedorchenko and Lozenko group v Ukraine (Application No 387/03)
Briefed on: 25th February 2019
These cases concern the failure to carry out effective investigations into violent acts allegedly carried out on racial/ethnic grounds (violation of the procedural limb of Articles 2 or 3) and to investigate a possible causal link between alleged racist attitudes and the attacks (violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 2 or 3 in respect of its procedural limb). In Fedorchenko and Lozenko, the authorities failed to investigate the deaths of the applicants’ Romani-origin relatives caused by an arson attack on their house in October 2001.
Power point presentation by the Chiricli Fund and the European Roma Rights Centre
Rule 9.2 submission by the Chiricli Fund and the European Roma Rights Centre in February 2019
January 2019 Action Plan by the Ukrainian Government
Final judgment on the case (20/12/2012)
Gongadze v Ukraine (Application No 34056/02)
Briefed on: 10 September 2018
The case concerns the killing of a journalist and lack of effective investigation.
Action Plan from Ukraine (25/6/2018)
Briefing notes by Olena Protsenko, Lawyer at the Centre for Strategic Litigation of the Ukrainian Helsinki Rights Union
Recent Rule 9.2 submission (Sept. 2018) by the Ukrainian Helsinki Rights Union on this case
Final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (8/2/2006)
Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov and Zhovner group v Ukraine (Appl. Nos. 40450/04, 56848/00)
Briefed on: 24 May 2017 and on 28 May 2018
These cases relate to the structural problem of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions, mostly delivered against the State and against state owned or controlled entities, and to the lack of an effective remedy in this respect.
Briefing memo of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union for the briefing on 28 May 2018
2017 Rule9.2 submission from the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union and the answer from the authorities
2018 Action Plan from the Ukrainian authorities
Nevmerzhitsky, Yakovenko, Logvinenko, Isayev and Melnik groups v Ukraine (Appl. No. 54825/00)
Briefed on: 24 November 2017
These cases concern inhuman and/or degrading treatment (Article 3) suffered by the applicants because of overcrowding and the poor conditions of prison and detention facilities; the unacceptable conditions for detainees during transfer by road and rail; and the inadequacy of medical care.
- Briefing memo by Vitalia Lebid, Attorney at the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
- Case summary by the Council of Europe's Department for the Execution of Judgments
- Action Report by the Ukrainian authorities
Kaverzin, Afanasyev groups, Karabet and Others, and Belousov v Ukraine (Appl. Nos. 23893/03, 38722/02, 38906/07 and 4494/07)
Briefed on: 24 November 2017
This group of cases relates to torture and/or ill-treatment by police, the lack of effective investigations into such complaints and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In some of the cases, the Court also found violations of Articles 5, 6, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol 1.
- Background memo by Vitalia Lebid, Attorney at the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
- Case summary of the Kaverzin and Afanasiyev groupsby the Council of Europe's Department for the Execution of Judgments
- Action plan by the Ukrainian government
United Kingdom
McKerr group v the United Kingdom (Appl. No. 28883/95)
Briefed on: 15 September 2023, 26 February 2021, 6 September 2019 and 29 November 2016
Six of these judgments, delivered in 2001-2003, concern the deaths of the applicants’ next-of-kin in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s either during security forces operations or in circumstances giving rise to suspicion of collusion with those forces. In these cases the Court found the United Kingdom in violation of its procedural obligations under Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention.
Documents from the September 2023 briefing:
Power point presentation by Daniel Holder, Deputy Director, CAJ
Latest Rule 9.2 submission by CAJ (August 2023)
Documents from the February 2021 briefing:
Power point presentation by Gemma McKeown, Solicitor, CAJ
Latest Rule 9.2 submission by CAJ (February 2021)
Documents from the September 2019 briefing:
Rule 9 submission by the Committee on the Administration of Justice (July 2019)
Power Point presentation by Daniel Holder, Deputy Director, CAJ
EIN Briefings 2015-2019
Manushaqe Puto and Others Group and Driza Group v Albania (Applications No 604/07 and 33771/02)
Briefed on: 10 September 2018
These cases relate to the non-enforcement of final domestic court and administrative decisions relating to the applicants’ rights to restitution or compensation for property nationalised under the communist regime.
Memo by Ina Xhepa, Director of the European Centre Albania
Recent Action Plan by the Albanian authorities (August 2018)
Final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (23/3/2015)
The supervision of the case was closed on 08/12/2020.