Co-Director Anne-Katrin Speck leaves EIN

After having working as Co-Director of EIN over the last 1.5 years, Anne-Katrin has left the EIN team to work as a full-time doctoral researcher at the University of Ghent.

During her time at EIN, Anne played a crucial role in enriching the organisation’s capacity-building methodology and organised multiple trainings. As a result of her work, over 130 NGO representatives and lawyers were trained on the ECHR judgment implementation process over the last 15 months. She initiated new forms of trainings, coupled with public events, which enhanced debate about the challenges linked to the non-implementation in particular countries. Thanks to her in-depth knowledge of the process, Anne also helped improve and intensify the participation of NGOs in the implementation of key ECHR cases. Her commitment allowed EIN to flourish and extend to a vibrant network of more than 30 members from over 20 countries. Finally, Anne produced important resources which will assist those working on implementation for many years. These include a guide on the implementation of standard cases, and the recently published EIN Toolkit on using domestic advocacy to advance the implementation of ECHR judgments. 

The entire EIN Network would like to thank Anne for her incredibly valuable contribution to EIN’s mission and work, as well as her team spirit. We wish her all the best for her academic career.

Following her departure from the Secretariat, Anne applied to be an individual member of EIN. This application was accepted by the EIN Board, meaning that the network will benefit from Anne’s input in the coming years.

Following Anne’s departure, EIN Co-Director George Stafford will take on the role of EIN Director.

New project to support free speech and the victims of political persecution

A woman is silenced © Flickr/Jennifer Moo

EIN is delighted to announce its role in a new project aiming to ensure robust compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine.

EIN will work as a junior partner in the project, which is led by one of our member organisations, the Netherlands Helsinki Committee. The NHC’s Human Rights Defence Programme works to safeguard human rights by developing the capacity of civil society to communicate effectively; by building their resilience to actively engage in advocacy on human rights; and by supporting human rights defenders.

Starting in July 2020, the new project will focus specifically on compliance with ECtHR judgements in relation to freedom of speech and freedom from political prosecution in Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine. Human rights defenders and NGOs, journalists and other media outlets play an important part in ensuring fundamental freedoms are upheld and that the general public is informed about government decisions. Protecting their freedom of expression and freedom from political persecution is the cornerstone of democracy. In calling on states to uphold their obligations to implement Court rulings – whether by overturning or commuting convictions or sentences; providing reparations to victims of human rights violations; or changing laws to ensure such violations don’t recur – the project will ultimately contribute to the provision of genuine protection of the freedom of expression and the freedom from political persecution for the whole of society.

We are grateful to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands for its financial support of this project.

New EIN toolkit on domestic advocacy for the implementation of Strasbourg Court judgments

The European Court of Human Rights continues to act as a ‘beacon of hope’ for victims of human rights violations denied justice at the national level. But unless judgments are properly implemented, a case won in Strasbourg does not translate into sustained human rights gains.

Civil society plays a crucial role in driving implementation forward, both in Strasbourg and domestically. While levels of civil society engagement at the Council of Europe level have been on the rise, more civil society engagement is needed on the ground, at the national level, to promote the full and effective implementation of human rights judgments.

But how best to push domestically for the implementation of judgments? Over the course of the past year, EIN has tapped into the collective knowledge and experience of its members and partners from across Europe, and collected good practice examples of how domestic civil society actors effectively engage with the authorities, form advocacy alliances, and use the media to promote implementation in their countries.

This has culminated in a new EIN Guide for civil society on domestic advocacy for the implementation of Strasbourg Court judgments. This latest EIN resource was launched on Tuesday, 19 May, at a webinar attended by some 150 participants.

Discover the video of the webinar on our YouTube channel.

The examples compiled in this guide show that, where NGOs have sought, identified and pursued opportunities for engaging with the authorities, where they have formed alliances with other civil society actors and used the media to drive implementation forward, they have managed to secure important human rights gains.

We hope that civil society actors in Europe will draw inspiration from the best practices and lessons learned presented in this toolkit. Because the conditions for effective implementation vary from country to country, from time to time and even from case to case, this guide does not provide a blueprint, one-size-fits-all approach to domestic advocacy for judgment implementation. Instead, it is conceived as a ‘menu’ of potential strategies, tools and actions that NGOs could take at the national level to push for the execution of judgments. The readers are encouraged to pick and choose those elements of this guide that are most relevant to them.

This guide is also a ‘living document’. It seeks to spark a wider conversation among civil society about how to use advocacy at the domestic level to push for the implementation of judgments. We therefore warmly invite our readers to send us feedback, and share their own experiences with domestic advocacy for the implementation of Strasbourg Court judgments with us. So please get in touch!

Important changes to the June CM/DH meeting due to COVID-19

The Committee of Ministers has just announced important changes to its forthcoming June Human Rights (DH) meeting. Here is what you need to know:

1. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the June CM/DH meeting has been divided into two parts:

• A one-day meeting (DH meeting 1377) will be held on Thursday, 4 June 2020. At this meeting, some of the cases on the agenda for the June meeting will be examined through a written procedure. These are cases where the member states agree with the draft decisions prepared by the Secretariat. No debate will take place on 4 June. The decisions adopted at this meeting will be published on 4 June.

• The remaining cases on the order of business of the 1377th meeting will be examined by the CM at a physical meeting to be held on 1-3 September 2020 (meeting 1377bis).

2. The autumn CM/DH meeting (meeting 1383) had been postponed by one week, namely to 29 September - 1 October. The indicative list of cases for this meeting will be approved by the CM by written procedure and published on 4 June 2020. Some of the cases that were originally foreseen to be examined at the June meeting may be transferred to this meeting.

For those of you that have made Rule 9 submissions and/or were planning to engage in domestic advocacy around cases scheduled for examination in June, this has the following implications:
a. We do not currently know, and probably will not know before 4 June, which cases will be examined by written procedure, and which cases will be examined at one of the meetings in September.
b. If you want to make a submission on a case originally scheduled for examination in June 2020, or update the submission you have already made, we encourage you to do so as soon as possible. Rule 9s relating to cases to be dealt with at the 1377bis meeting will only be reflected in the Notes on the agenda if received before 30 May. After that date they will be distributed to the CM as usual.
c. If your case is scheduled for examination at the 1383rd meeting from 29 September - 1 October and you want to make a (first or updated) Rule 9 submission, make sure to do so by end July if you want to ensure that it is reflected in the Notes on the agenda. But, as always, the sooner you can make your submission, the better.

Please do not hesitate to get in touch with the EIN Secretariat if you have any questions.

EIN Webinar: Domestic advocacy for effective implementation of Strasbourg Court judgments

For the webinar of this event, please follow this link.

The European Court of Human Rights continues to act as a ‘beacon of hope’ for victims of human rights violations denied justice at the national level. But unless judgments are properly implemented, a case won in Strasbourg does not translate into tangible human rights gains.

It is on the ground, at the national level that greater civil society advocacy is needed to promote the full and effective implementation of human rights judgments. Over the course of the past year, EIN has tapped into the collective knowledge and experience of its members and partners and collated good practice examples of how domestic civil society actors effectively engage with the authorities, form advocacy alliances, and use the media to promote implementation in their countries.

This has culminated in a new EIN Guide for civil society on domestic advocacy for the implementation of Strasbourg Court judgments. This latest EIN resource will be launched through a webinar on Tuesday, 19 May at 11.00 am CEST.

This one-hour webinar will allow participants to:

·        Be among the first to hear about the lessons we have learned about effective domestic advocacy;

·        Draw inspiration from EIN members and partners as they discuss how they have successfully used various domestic advocacy avenues to push implementation forward; and

·        Share their own experience with us during a Q&A.

Panellists

·        Professor Başak Çalı, EIN Chair (Hertie School of Governance, Berlin and Koç University, Istanbul)

·        Teodora Ion-Rotaru, Executive Director, Asociaţia ACCEPT (Bucharest, Romania)

·        Kirill Koroteev, Head of International Practice, Agora International Human Rights Group (Moscow, Russia)

Chairs: Anne-Katrin Speck and George Stafford, EIN Co-Directors (Strasbourg, France)

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

 The webinar will be recorded, and made available to EIN members and official partners.

Click here to register.

Deadline for applying: 15th May, 2.00 pm CEST

Photos: Hertie School of Governance / Google

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

EIN trains Armenian civil society actors in tackling implementation challenges

Discussions with NGOs and authorities center on forming advocacy coalitions to bring about urgently needed reforms

Two years after the Velvet Revolution: Armenia’s record of implementing ECtHR judgments

Anyone looking at Armenia from the outside may be quick to assume that the window of opportunity created by the Velvet Revolution, which saw a mass protest movement bring down a quasi-authoritarian regime, would guarantee swift and measurable improvements in human rights protections that find their reflection in the closure of a number of the leading cases against Armenia pending implementation. Yet, while there seems to be political will to make the process of implementing Strasbourg Court judgments more effective, civil society is still waiting for profound reforms capable of resolving some of Armenia’s most systemic and widespread human rights violations. So, too, is the Committee of Ministers, which supervises the execution of no fewer than 20 leading cases – that is cases revealing new and often structural or systemic problems – against the Republic in the South Caucasus.

56 percent of the leading cases from the last ten years are still pending implementation, making Armenia score below average (across Europe, 43 percent of leading cases from the last ten years are not fully implemented).

Picture: ©HCAV

These cases cover a variety of issues, ranging from disproportionate and unnecessary dispersal of peaceful protests (Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia) to torture in police custody and killings during arrest operations (Virabyan v. Armenia) to human rights abuses in the army (Muradyan v. Armenia) and inadequate medical care in detention (Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia). Several of them call for the adoption of a whole set of different measures, including judicial reform, trainings and other measures aimed at changing long-standing practices and attitudes. Strikingly, almost half (nine out of 20) of the pending leading cases have not been subject to a Government Action Plan.

Enhancing civil society capacity to promote the implementation of judgments

At the same time, civil society engagement in the implementation process has to date been relatively low in Armenia: only two Rule 9.2 submissions were made in the past twelve months, and participants noted that meetings between NGOs and the Government Agent were rare. They added that media coverage seldom, if ever, extended beyond reporting on a new judgment from Strasbourg to include an implementation dimension. It appeared, then, that more could be done to enhance Armenian civil society’s capacity to effectively advocate for the implementation of Strasbourg Court judgments.

 This was objective of EIN’s training workshop on 3 March, which brought together 23 NGO representatives and lawyers from both Yerevan and the regions to introduce them to the Committee of Ministers’ (CM’s) judgment execution process and ways for civil society to get involved in it.

Why advocate for the implementation of judgments?

Picture: ©HCAV

The participants needed little convincing that advocacy for judgment implementation is a powerful tool to trigger and shape urgently needed reforms. The Strasbourg Court is generally held in high esteem by the authorities and the public. Because of this, participants agreed, being able to point to a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights could help both civil society actors and conscientious domestic decision-makers overcome resistance to change. Indeed, several participants said they would want to see the Court use more prescriptive and specific language in its rulings. This, in turn, underscores the importance for litigating organisations of starting to think about implementation already at the litigation stage, and invite the Court to provide clear guidance on remedies.

The EIN team was also able to point to cases illustrating how Strasbourg Court rulings have translated into tangible human rights improvements in Armenia. Take the case of Mr Bayatyan, a young Jehova’s Witness who was convicted of draft evasion for refusing to do military service on account of his deeply held beliefs. He was sentenced to over two years’ imprisonment. Subsequently, Armenia strengthened the rights of conscientious objectors. This case also shows how important it is for civil society to keep on pushing for implementation: here, an NGO made two Rule 9 submissions to the Committee of Ministers, calling for reforms.

How to push cases forward – domestically and through Strasbourg?

How to make such submissions, when best to do so, how to structure them, what recommendations to include, and what evidence to present was discussed in detail during EIN’s training. The event also saw the launch of the brand-new Armenian version of EIN’s Handbook on Rule 9 submissions.

Great attention was moreover devoted to advocating domestically for the implementation of judgments: by meeting with the Government Agent and other relevant authorities to feed into the drafting of initial action plans; sensitising the public to the need for reform; generating media coverage of non-implementation problems; and collecting evidence of ongoing violations.

The workshop provided a forum for brainstorming how to engage with various interlocutors at the domestic level to strengthen coordination and cooperation and thus make the implementation process more effective and efficient. A first step towards this aim, it was agreed, would be for a group of volunteers to prepare and disseminate a brief analysis of the state of implementation of the 20 leading cases, highlighting the outstanding issues and identifying who needs to take action to ensure the necessary measures are adopted. The plans thus developed fed into group discussions on how to advance the implementation of three (groups of) cases pending implementation, domestically and through advocacy in Strasbourg.

Towards closer civil society cooperation for implementation advocacy

A recurring theme emanating from our brainstorming was the need to better coordinate the efforts of the many civil society organisations that are willing to be involved in implementation monitoring and advocacy. It was very encouraging to see, against this backdrop, that several participants decided on the day of the event that they would set up a working group to devise a holistic advocacy strategy to promote the implementation of Muradyan v. Armenia, concerning a wide-spread problem of human rights abuses in the army, including shocking numbers of non-combat deaths in the military. 

Picture: ©HCAV

But the plans did not stop there. A major conclusion of the workshop, consolidated through subsequent bilateral discussions, was that a civil society platform would be created to function as an ‘implementation hub’ in Armenia: by getting involved early in the implementation of new cases in order to influence its very trajectory and the scope of implementation matters; functioning as a contact point for the authorities, the media, and EIN; keeping a log on timelines for reporting to the Committee of Minsters; preparing reports, briefings and other resources relating to (non-)implementation; coordinating the drafting of joint Rule 9 submissions; ensuring the systematic collection of data about the adequacy of implementation measures; pushing for the strengthening of implementation mechanisms; and generally enhancing knowledge and awareness of the implementation process.  

What role for other stakeholders? The importance of forming advocacy coalitions

Such improved coordination among civil society, it was felt, would also facilitate engagement with the authorities. And indeed, implementation of judgment requires a concerted effort by the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government; civil society; ombudsman institutions; and media outlets capable of informing wider segments of society about the obligations flowing from ECtHR judgments and shaping public opinion.

Picture: ©HCAV

To highlight this ‘shared responsibility’ for judgment implementation and hear from representatives of the various institutions that have a stake in ensuring that Armenia complies with the rulings from Strasbourg, EIN organised an open debate in the morning of 4 March. The debate, which was moderated by EIN Vice-Chair Professor Philip Leach and covered by no fewer than three TV outlets (for a video of the live-stream, see here), saw the participation of

• Mr Liparit Drmeyan, Head of the Office of the Agent of the Republic of Armenia to the ECtHR

• Mr Serjik Avetisyan, Judge at the Court of Cassation,

• Ms Arpi Sargsyan, representative of the Anti-corruption and Penitentiary Policy Department of the Ministry of Justice,

• Ms Gohar Simonyan, Coordinator of the National Preventive Mechanism and Head of the Department for Prevention of Torture and Ill-Treatment at the Office of the Human Rights Defender of the Republic of Armenia,

• Ms Zaruhi Mejlumyan, Attorney-at-Law, formerly associated with Investigative Journalists of Armenia (Hetq), and

•    Ms Mariam Antonyan, Legal Analysis and Initiatives Coordinator, Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor.

EIN’s thread of live-tweets from the event reflects the diversity of the issues discussed – ranging from positive examples of successful judgment implementation in Armenia to specific ongoing and outstanding judicial reforms needed to address torture at the hands of state agents. An encouraging signal from the panel was to see the representatives of the authorities expressing their unreserved desire to closely involve civil society in initiatives aimed at strengthening the implementation process, including an inter-agency platform the Government Agent was planning to set up to help coordinate ECtHR judgment implementation across the government.  

The EIN team left Yerevan heartened by the level of civil society commitment to promoting a range of reforms necessary to ensure full implementation of the Strasbourg Court’s judgments in Armenia. We look forward to continuing our cooperation with our Armenian members and partners.  

EIN would like to thank our colleagues from Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor and OSF for their invaluable support in organising these events, which were funded by OSF Eurasia. We should also like to thank the representatives of the Office of the Government Agent, the National Assembly, the Ministry of Justice, the Ombudsman’s Office, and of OSF Armenia as well as the latter’s Strategic Litigation Program with whom we were able to hold constructive bilateral meetings to discuss concrete ways to strengthen the ECtHR judgment implementation process in Armenia.

Picture: ©HCAV

 Click here to discover the state of implementation in Armenia.

An assessment of NGO impact on ECtHR judgment implementation

Implementing judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: An assessment of the impact achieved through NGO engagement with the Council of Europe’s judgment execution process in three cases on the rights of LGBTI persons

By Nigel Warner, ILGA Europe and EIN Bureau member

This article is a summary. The full version of the paper can be found here.

Since 2009 the Council of Europe (CoE) has made specific provision for engagement by NGOs in its process for ensuring implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the impact that such engagement can achieve with a view to encouraging further NGO involvement.

Many judgments of the ECtHR are implemented by the respondent state without a need for engagement by NGOs with the judgment execution process.[1] However, in a significant proportion a respondent state may be slow – or even resist – putting in place the measures required. Where there is resistance to implementation, the CoE has limited opportunities for obtaining the information it needs to verify that provided by the national authorities. NGOs have a critical role to play in providing this information. The potential for impact is indeed very high, provided they stay the course until implementation is finally achieved.

This paper illustrates the impact achieved through NGO involvement by analysing developments in the implementation of three cases in the field of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), which address three distinct types of violation:

-        denial of the right to peaceful assembly (GENDERDOC-M v. Moldova - “the Moldovan freedom of assembly case”);

-        failure of the authorities to conduct effective investigations into possible hate crimes (M.C. & A.C. v. Romania -  “the Romanian hate crime case”);

-        and the absence of effective procedures governing gender reassignment treatment (L v. Lithuania – “the Lithuanian trans rights case”).

Different degrees of impact are assessed to arise at four distinct levels within the course of the judgment execution process, from the lowest level of impact (1) to the highest level (4), as follows:

1. “Recognition by the Committee of Ministers (CM)[2]”: The extent to which the NGO’s recommendations and/or evidence are acknowledged implicitly or explicitly by the CoE, in a Decision of the CM, or by the Department for the Execution of Judgments (DEJ) in communications with the respondent state.

2. “Engagement”: An increased willingness by the authorities to consult with NGOs making submissions to the CoE.

3. “Adoption”: The extent to which an NGO persuades the respondent state to adopt its recommendations in the Action Plan.

4. “Execution”: The extent to which an NGO contributes to ensuring that the Action Plan measures are implemented effectively. This is of course much the most significant level of impact. NGOs can support implementation by making available their expertise to the authorities.

 Read more

[1] Recent SOGI cases implemented without a need for NGO engagement include: A.P., Garçon & Nicot v. France (79885/12) (requirement for trans persons to undergo sterilisation to obtain legal gender recognition in violation of Article 8); Orlandi and others v. Italy (26431/12) and Oliari v. Italy (18766/11) (legal recognition of same-sex partners); Pajic v. Croatia 68453/13 (discrimination in obtaining a residence permit on the ground of family reunification); Taddeucci & McCall v. Italy (51362/09) (discrimination in obtaining a residence permit on the ground of family reunification); Vallianatos & Mylonas v. Greece 29381/09 (legal recognition of same-sex partners).

[2] When a case succeeds before the ECtHR it is passed over to the Committee of Ministers, whose responsibility it is to ensure that the respondent state complies with its obligation to implement the judgment. The CM does this through a supervisory mechanism – the execution of judgments process – which allows, when needed, for the application of political pressure on the respondent state. The CM is supported in this work by the Department for the Execution of Judgments (DEJ).

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