EIN Webinar: Towards an effective domestic advocacy strategy for the implementation of ECHR judgments

On 8th October, EIN organised a 3rd webinar for representatives from National Human Rights Institutions. The first two webinars took place respectively on 10th and 17th September.

Attended by representatives from the Legal Working Group of ENNHRI, EIN partner in this initiative, this third webinar focused on the advantages of domestic advocacy in achieving concrete progress on human rights at the national level. Best practices were used to illustrate:

·        What other advocacy avenues are available to NHRIs to work on ECtHR judgment implementation at the domestic level, and

·        How they can hold the government to account about their overall record on implementation.

After introductory remarks by EIN Director George Stafford, Mirela Buturović, Legal Affairs Advisor, explained how the office of the Ombudswoman of the Republic of Croatia is promoting an open and early dialogue with all relevant stakeholders at the national level, when working on ECHR judgment implementation.

Mirela Buturović, Legal Affairs Advisor, office of the Ombudswoman of the Republic of Croatia

She presented in particular the National Council of Experts for the Execution of the Court’s judgment in Croatia, but also other structures used by the Croatian NHRI to reach out to NGOs and experts and get useful input on general measures needed for ECHR judgments implementation, such as the Anti-Discrimination Network. Such alliances have proven to be very efficient to achieve progress on key pending cases, such as the Secic v Croatia case on racist attacks against a person of Roma origin. Her power point presentation is available here.

Greece also offers an interesting example of what can be done, domestically, to work on hate crimes, and push for the implementation of ECHR judgments in this field. Indeed, in 2011, the Greek National Commission for Human Rights (GNCHR) initiated the creation of a Racist Violence Recording Network (RVRN).

Representatives from the GNCHR , Ms Baka and Ms Charopokou, as well as the assistant coordinator of the RVRN, Ms Anastasopoulou, were present to share their experience. Participants were able to learn more about the overall strategy set up by the GNCHR to push for implementation of ECHR judgments, which combines efforts both at the domestic and at the Strasbourg level.

Their presentation clearly showed that such a combination of domestic-based and international tools was instrumental in progress being achieved in key cases, such as the Manolada (Chowdury) case or the Sakir case.

The full video of the webinar will soon be available on the ENNHRI website.

A 4th webinar will be held on 22nd October, focusing on the CM supervision process and how NHRIs can write effective Rule 9 submissions.

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

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

The briefing focused on the following cases:

1) Baka v Hungary, concerning judicial independence.

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

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

Baka v Hungary

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

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

Relevant documents:

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

• ECHR judgment (June 2016)

Khanamirova v Russia

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

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

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

Relevant documents:

•  Rule 9.2 by Stichting Justice Initiative (April 2020)

• ECHR judgment (June 2011)

EIN Webinar: How can NHRIs take part in the judgments implementation process?

One week after its introductory webinar, EIN organised an online training focused on how NHRIs can take part in the ECHR judgments implementation process.  

There are various ways for NHRIs to take part in the ECHR judgment implementation process. One avenue is to take part in the Strasbourg-based supervisory mechanism, by submitting written communications to the Committee of Ministers (CM). Another crucial element is to put implementation onto the agenda at the national level.

Participants learned more about:

• The basics of the CM execution process and what are the important elements to keep in mind when engaging into it

• What they can do domestically to push for enhanced awareness of the importance of judgments’ implementation.

EIN Director George Stafford

After opening remarks by EIN Director George Stafford, Nikolas Sitaropoulos, Head of Division at the Department of the Execution of Judgments of the Council of Europe presented the CM execution process.

Head of Division Nikolas Sitaropoulos

Tamar Abazadze, Public Defender’s Office, Georgia

An experience sharing session followed. Tamar Abazadze, Head of the Analytical Department within the Public Defender’s Office (PDO) of Georgia, presented how the PDO used the CM process to put pressure on the authorities to make progress on new legislation. Her concrete example referred to the setting up of an independent State’s Inspector Service, which was achieved, among other things, following putting pressure put on the authorities through Rule 9 submissions.

Part 2 of the webinar then focused on how NHRIs could put implementation onto the agenda at the national level. Implementation of judgments indeed happen domestically. NHRIs have, through their mandate and the links they have with domestic actors, the possibility to push domestically for changes (in the legislation, in the practice) which are necessary to ensure that judgments are implemented. Be it through the setting up of relevant platforms with partners and NGOs, by providing training to police officers, for instance, or by communicating about the ECHR judgments and the measures to be taken to implement them. Mikayel Khachatryan, Head of the International Cooperation Department and Gohar Simonyan, Coordinator of the National Preventive Mechanism Implementation, Human Rights Defender’s Office of Armenia, shared their experience in this context. They presented to their colleagues how the Human Rights Defender’s Office of Armenia was using Adjunct Counsels and training seminars to enhance the involvement and capacity of NGOs to take part in the ECHR judgments’ implementation process. You can download their power point presentations here.

You can have access to the full video of the webinar here.

Webinar 3 will take place on 8th October, and will focus on “Towards an effective domestic advocacy strategy for the implementation of ECHR judgments”. This series of webinars is organised in cooperation with ENNHRI and the Council of Europe.

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

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

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

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

Kavala v Turkey (Application Nr 28749/18)

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

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

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

Other relevant documents:

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

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

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

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

Ilgar Mammadov v Azerbaijan (Application Nr 15172/13)

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

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

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

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

Other relevant documents:

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

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

EIN webinar on the implementation of ECHR judgments in North Macedonia

Yesterday (4th June 2020) EIN held a successful online training session for 40 lawyers from North Macedonia, in conjunction with the Macedonian Young Lawyers Association (MYLA).

The session was opened with an introduction from the President of the Bar Association of North Macedonia. This was followed by a presentation by the President of MYLA Zoran Drangovski, who set out the key facts and figures of the current situation regarding compliance with the ECtHR’s judgments in North Macedonia.

During the session, EIN explained the process of implementation and possible ways of involvement for lawyers and NGOs, described the procedures and possible courses of action on the examples of Macedonian cases currently facing their implementation. The presentation lasted for 1.5h and was followed by a discussion of questions asked by the audience. MYLA expressed their intentions of close cooperation with EIN in the future, which the EIN secretariat is keen to pursue.

Impact of the Coronavirus on the ECHR process

At the time of writing, France has been put under a temporary lockdown as a result of the Coronavirus, restricting all non-essential activity. This message is to provide an update about the impact of this on the ECHR process, in particular in regard to the implementation monitoring mechanism.

The European Court of Human Rights

The Court recently published a document stating how it would proceed in the context of the coronavirus pandemic. Most notably, although the Court as a building is closed it continues to carry out key functions through staff teleworking. It is also making a temporary amendment to the time requirements for submissions.

The Implementation Monitoring Mechanism

Similarly to the Court, the office of the Department for the Execution of Judgments is closed but it is continuing to operate via teleworking. The Department informs us that there are currently no changes to the deadlines for making NGO submissions for the next CM/DH meeting in June. However, it is also suspected that some government submissions may be delayed due to the virus. There is currently no decision to postpone the June CM/DH meeting. The Department will provide us with more updates if anything changes.

European Implementation Network - Secretariat

The EIN office is closed but we continue to operate via teleworking. The virus has led to the postponement of events EIN planned this Spring. In regard to the EIN briefing prior to the June CM/DH meeting, we are currently exploring ways to provide short video briefings to permanent representations.

If you have any questions about the above, please do not hesitate to contact us at contact@einnetwork.org

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

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

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

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

The main recommendations for each case are available here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links:

Powerpoint of Kerem Altiparmak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The three judgments require the adoption of the following measures:

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

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

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

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

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

• Effective measures to enhance protection of patient data confidentiality;

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

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

Links:

Powerpoint by the speakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions and main Recommendations:

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

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

Links:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links:

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

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

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

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

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

 Pictures: EIN Secretariat