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.