EIN Online Training: Combatting violence against women and domestic violence by supporting implementation of ECtHR judgments

This week, EIN facilitated a new online training to support the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) concerning violence against women and domestic violence (“VAW/DV”). The training is part of EIN’s project on VAW/DV, which is meant to provide comprehensive support to specialist organisations to ensure that they can effectively contribute to the ECtHR implementation monitoring system.

This online training aims to sensitize expert organisations on the importance of contributing to the implementation of VAW/DV judgments at the Committee of Ministers level and equip them with tools to help them best make use of the supervision process.

The day began with Prof. Başak Çalı, EIN Chair, who outlined the objectives and structure of the training and provided a warm welcome to participants. She was joined by the Deputy Permanent Representative and Government Agent of Luxembourg, David Weis, who stressed the importance of the issue and underlined Luxembourg’s support for the implementation of these judgments.

The first presentation of the day was held by George Stafford, EIN Director, who discussed the benefits of advocating for the implementation of VAW/DV judgments of the ECtHR. Next, Ekaterina Malareva, Lawyer at the Department for the Execution of Judgments, Council of Europe, provided the participants with an overview of how the implementation process works.

Following a short break, participants continued to learn how the implementation process works and asked questions regarding the topic. Violeta Andriuța, Lawyer at the Women’s Law Centre Moldova, presented her own experiences advocating for the implementation the T.M. and C.M. v. Moldova judgment and shared her lessons learned.

After lunch, Agnès Ciccarone, EIN Programme Manager, outlined best practices for NGOs making submissions to the Committee of Ministers. She was followed by Elena Biaggioni, Lawyer at Donne in Rette contro la Violenza, who also shared her invaluable experiences on advocating for the implementation of the Talpis v. Italy judgment, progress made and lessons learnt thus far. The final presentation was held by Ioana Iliescu, EIN Law and Advocacy Officer, who discussed common issues included to date in NGO submissions in domestic violence and violence against women cases, with a particular focus on scope, evidencing and recommendations.

In the last session of the day, participants were divided into break-out groups to discuss specific domestic violence judgments and the best course of action for implementation by applying the day’s training. The break-out groups discussed Tershana v. Albania, Levchuk v. Ukraine and Tkhelidze v. Georgia. The participants discussed break-out group outcomes and upcoming plans to engage with the implementation of ECtHR judgments on VAW/DV. The training concluded with a discussion on EIN’s upcoming report on on the implementation of VAW/DV judgments of the ECtHR.

We thank all those who joined us online, especially those who presented. We also express our gratitude to the Permanent Representation of Luxembourg to the Council of Europe, which supports the project.

EIN General Assembly November 2021

Image Credit: EIN

On November 19th, 2021, EIN held its General Assembly in Strasbourg. This assembly was a hybrid event, allowing people to meet in person or join online.

The day began with EIN’s Chair, Başak Çalı, who opened the assembly, welcomed members and presented EIN activities and their impact on the implementation of the judgments of the ECtHR. EIN’s Director, George Stafford then outlined the external evaluation and draft EIN strategy for 2022-2025. This was followed by a lively discussion about EIN’s strategy and the most effective way for civil society to promote the full and timely implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

Breakout sessions in small groups enabled members to have fruitful discussions and bring crucial feedback about various parts of the EIN strategy .

The General Assembly was also the opportunity for a partial renewal of the EIN Board. EIN now counts a Board of 11 members, including 5 women and 6 men. Congratulations to all newly elected members!

The second session of the General Assembly began with the Adoption of a resolution about EIN financial reserves, presented by Krassimir Kanev, EIN Treasurer.

Members also voted on a revised version of EIN’s Founding Statute. This change will allow for more continuity in the governance bodies.

EIN’s Chair, Başak Çalı, closed the General Assembly and provided closing remarks to all members who joined the sessions.

 We thank all those who joined the General Assembly in person and online. Thank you for your continued support and hard work in advocating for the full and effective implementation of European Court of Human Rights judgments.

Ukraine Conference: Implementing Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

To conclude the previous two days of training in Kyiv, Ukraine, together with the Netherlands Helsinki Committee, EIN hosted a conference on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Ukraine. The event aimed to bring together government officials, the judiciary, civil society, and the media to discuss the implementation of ECtHR judgments and ways to promote this in Ukraine.

Implementing ECtHR judgments can be a significant challenge. Whilst payment of compensation to the victim can be straightforward, it is only the first step. To fully implement the judgment, states often need to carry out reforms to ensure the same underlying human rights violation do not happen to others, requiring changes to legislation, policies, and practices. Ukraine’s implementation of ECtHR judgments has brought widespread positive developments to the protection of human rights in the country. However, Ukraine also faces a significant backlog of unimplemented ECtHR cases.

Volodymyr Yavorskyy, Center for Civil Liberties, opened the conference by outlining the day’s events and setting out participants expectations. Shortly after, two testimonies’ were given by victims of human rights violations: Myroslava Gongadze, widow of journalist Georgiy Gongadze (Gongadze v Ukraine), and Aurika Goryaynova (Goryaynova v Ukraine). They had won cases before the ECtHR and discussed their experience with the implementation of individual measures required by their judgments.

After the testimonies from victims, George Stafford, EIN Director, provided the conference participants with an overview of the implementation of ECtHR judgments in Ukraine. This was followed by presentations from representatives of the executive and the judiciary: Alisa Pietukhova, representative of the Office of the Government Agent of Ukraine, and Arkadiy Bushchenko, Judge at the Criminal Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court, who discussed their roles, experiences and efforts in the implementation of judgments of the ECtHR.

Next, Olga Dubinska, Legal officer at Department of the Execution of ECtHR judgments of the Council of Europe discussed further examples of ECtHR implementation and set out general advice on the promotion of ECtHR judgments in Ukraine. The final presentation was given by Sergyi Zayets, a human rights lawyer, on the mechanism for the supervision of the implementation of the ECtHR judgments in Ukraine, established in the Verkhovnaya Rada of Ukraine.

The conference concluded with a roundtable discussion on systemic challenges of implementing ECtHR judgments and how to promote implementation in Ukraine. This discussion included all of the speakers and participants from the floor.

We hope that the conference provided an opportunity for key actors to reflect on the difficulties involved in this challenge of implementation. We want to thank everyone who presented and participated in the conference.

Ukraine Civil Society Training: Making ECHR Judgments Lead to Justice

This week, EIN and Netherlands Helsinki Committee held a training workshop and conference for Ukrainian civil society focusing on increasing their capacity to advocate for the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This training took place on Tuesday 26th and Wednesday 27th October 2021 in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Photo Credit: EIN

The first day of the training was introduced by Antanina Maslyka, Programme Officer at the Netherlands Helsinki Committee. The training was then chaired by EIN Vice-Chair Professor Philip Leach, Director of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) and Professor of Human Rights Law at Middlesex University.

The first day focused on the implementation process of ECtHR judgments and Ukraine’s implementation record. George Stafford, EIN Director, discussed the non-implementation challenge and why advocating for the implementation of ECtHR judgments can be a key to making progress in human rights protection in Ukraine. The second presentation of the day was about how NGOs can get involved in the ECtHR implementation process, focusing on the basics of the system. This presentation was given by Olga Dubinska, Legal Officer at the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe.

The second day of training focused on how to best advance ECtHR implementation in Ukraine: both domestically and through the Council of Europe. Agnès Ciccarone, EIN Programme Manager, held a presentation on best practices for NGO submissions. Next, Ioana Iliescu, EIN Law and Advocacy Officer, discussed the possibilities of expanding the arsenal of advocacy tools by combining Rule 9 submissions and domestic advocacy, by giving examples of good practices from other states.

Photo Credit: EIN

Next, Mykhailo Tarakhkalo, Strategic Litigation Center Director, Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (UHHRU), and Hanna Ovdienko, Legal Expert, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group presented their experiences of work on ECtHR implementation and lessons learned. A roundtable discussion followed the presentation, with participants discussing opportunities and challenges in implementing ECtHR judgments in Ukraine.

The next session looked at possibilities for moving forward by examining individual cases. Three breakout groups were organized on three selected ECtHR cases pending implementation: Shmorgunov and others v. Ukraine, which concerns multiple violations to stop Maidan protests in 2013-2014 and a lack of effective and independent investigations; Ignatov v. Ukraine, which concerns unlawful arrests and detention on remand; and Sedletska v. Ukraine, which concerns disproportionate interference with journalistic sources. During the breakout sessions, the participants brainstormed and applied the training to the selected cases. Participants shared their lessons learned from the brainstorming session and their approach to how to engage with the implementation process. The third session was closed with a final discussion among participants.

Photo Credit: EIN

We thank the Netherlands Helsinki Committee for collaborating with us on this training event and, of course, all participants who joined the training session. We hope to do more of these sessions in person again soon.

For more information on Ukraine’s implementation record, visit our country map here

For information about the NHC, visit their website at https://www.nhc.nl/ and/or follow them on Twitter @NHC_nl, Facebook or LinkedIn, and subscribe to their newsletter.

Implementation Map Updated

In 2020 EIN launched a new resource on the implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), mapping out the compliance of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe. Since then, we regularly update this implementation map to reflect member states’ implementation records.

By clicking on individual countries on the implementation map, you can find key information about ECtHR implementation in each state. This includes: the overall number of leading judgments that are pending implementation; the average time leading judgments have been pending, and the percentage of leading cases from the last ten years still pending. EIN aims to update this information twice per year.

Since our last implementation map update earlier this year, here are the new overall statistics on member states’ implementation records: 

• There are around 1,300 leading judgments pending overall 

• 47% of leading judgments from last ten years are pending implementation

• The average time leading judgments have been pending is six years and three months. 

It is not easy to present data about the non-implementation problem in a clear and accessible way. We use these figures not because they are perfect but because they are the best available. For more information on our data, please see the bottom of our Implementation Map page. The data is valid as of August 2021.

Turkey Implementation Training with ETKINIZ - May 2021

Last week, EIN and ETKİNİZ hosted a 3-day training workshop on advocating for full and effective implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Turkey. ETKİNİZ is a European Union Programme that offers Civil Society Organisations capacity-building support to monitor human rights practices and engage in advocacy. 

The first session was introduced and moderated by Prof. Dr Başak Çalı, EIN Chair, Professor of International Law, Director of the Centre for Fundamental Rights at the Hertie School. This was followed by a four presentations on the functioning of the implementation process. Each of the presentations were accompanied by a question-and-answer session in order for participants to deepen their understanding of the implementation process.

The first discussion of the day provided participants with an overview of the ECtHR implementation process. Ayse Bingol, Co-Director of the Turkey Litigation Support Project, discussed how NGOs can get involved in the ECtHR implementation process. Ms. Bingol specifically outlined the importance of engaging with the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers (CM) and what to include in submissions to the CM. Next, Prof. Dr Başak Çalı presented best practices for CM submissions and discussed the shortcomings related to prior experiences in making submissions. The session concluded with George Stafford, EIN Director, who discussed infringement proceedings under Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The second day of training focused on Turkish NGOs and the experience of Turkish human rights lawyers with engaging in ECtHR implementation. The session was introduced and moderated by Ayse Bingol, who introduced three brief presentations. The first was by Emma Sinclair-Webb, Turkey Director of Human Rights Watch, who focused on CM submissions as an advocacy tool. Next, Özlem Zingil from Hafiza Merkezi Turkey (Truth Justice Memory Center) talked about the activities of her organisation in impunity and disappearance cases, including the importance of making submissions to the Council of Europe and in forming alliances with other organisations at the national level. The final presentation was made by Benan Molu, an independent human rights lawyer, addressing the need for more lawyers to be involved in the implementation process. These presentations gave participants valuable information on ECtHR implementation and lessons learned thus far by those involved in the process. The session concluded with a roundtable discussion on opportunities and challenges in implementing ECtHR judgments in Turkey in particular.

George Stafford introduced and moderated the final training session, which focused on practical discussions in selected cases. This last day of training took the form of three breakout sessions, allowing participants to discuss how they would approach specific ECtHR judgments pending implementation in Turkey. The cases selected concerned the absence of any review mechanism in Turkish legislation for an aggravated life imprisonment sentence (Gurban v. Turkey group); freedom of expression on account of the seizure and confiscation of magazines considered to infringe on public morals (Kaos GL v. Turkey); and the authorities’ failure to comply with principles of the Hague Convention in international child abduction cases (Ozmen v. Turkey group).

The session concluded with presentations from each breakout group explaining their approach to tackling the implementation process of their case. This allowed participants to apply the knowledge gained in all three days of training.

We thank all moderators and participants for attending the training session, especially ETKİNİZ for supporting this training event, as well as the excellent interpreters.

EIN and Netherlands Helsinki Committee are hosting another Turkey training session in June/July if you missed this event. More information about the training session here.

Online Workshop - Execution of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: Taking stock and thinking forward

Last week, EIN participated in the “Execution of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: Taking stock and thinking forward” workshop, organised by the Hertie School Centre for Fundamental Rights, Middlesex University of London, and the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection.

The workshop focused on three main challenges often faced when advocating for the implementation of ECtHR judgments: namely delayed execution, deficient execution, and resistance to execution. Individuals who work in the various areas of implementation participated in the workshop to take stock of the challenges of implementing ECtHR judgments and discuss possible solutions. The workshop concluded with a roundtable discussion on thinking forward on the execution of ECtHR judgments.

The presentation by EIN Director George Stafford focused on solutions to improve implementation through the participation of local civil society, and by increasing the role of the European Union.

A video of the conference should be available shortly.

Training: Implementation of ECtHR Judgments in Russia

Last week, EIN held a three-day online training session on Implementing Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Russia. These sessions aimed to equip NGOs and lawyers with practical knowledge and insight into engaging with the CM judgment execution process when advocating for the full and effective implementation of ECtHR judgments.

The training took place over three sessions. The first session aimed to provide civil society organizations with an overview of NGO engagement in the ECtHR implementation process, focusing on NGO submissions. The second session addressed ECtHR implementation in Russia from the perspective of opportunities and challenges experienced by Russian NGOs working on the subject - including a session dedicated to violations of the right to freedom of expression. Finally, the third session focused on a practical application of the training material in selected cases, with parallel breakout rooms to enable participants to discuss how to approach particular cases on interest.

The first session provided an overview of NGO engagement in the ECtHR implementation process through several presentations by civil society organisations. Anna Maralyan, Deputy Director for Program and Development at the Centre de la Protection Internationale, gave the first presentation on her experience and perspective in engaging in the implementation process. Next, Adela Katchaounova, Legal Defense Programme Director at the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, presented on how NGOs can get involved in the ECtHR implementation process. Finally, EIN Director George Stafford concluded the session with a presentation on infringement proceedings. 

Professor Philip Leach, Professor of Human Rights Law, Director of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, School of Law, Middlesex University, introduced the second session on civil society experiences and challenges with the ECtHR implementation process in Russia. The first presentation of the day was by Barbora Bukovska, Senior Director for Law and Policy, Article 19, on the State of play and NGO involvement in Freedom of Expression cases in Russia. Next, Grigor Avetisyan, Implementation Director at Stichting Justice Initiative, Kirill Koroteev, Head of international practice at Agora International Human Rights Group, and Denis Shedov, OVD-Info Lawyer, all shared their organisations’ experiences and lessons-learnt. The training session concluded with a roundtable discussion involving speakers and participants.

During the final training session, Musa Khasanov and Ekaterina Malareva, lawyers at the Department for the Execution of Judgments (DEJ), set out key aspects for NGO submissions. The session then focused on a practical approach to selected cases through breakout rooms, enabling participants to discuss how to approach cases of particular interest. The selected cases were the Roman Zakharov v. Russia case, which concerns shortcomings in the legal framework governing interception of mobile telephone communications; the Mikheyev v. Russia group of cases, which concern deaths, torture or inhuman and degrading treatment while in police custody and the lack of effective investigations into these incidents; and the Pirogov case (allocated to the Chemodurov group), which concerns the criminal conviction of a journalist following public criticism a politician.

The training involved lively discussions about the opportunities and challenges of work on the implementation of ECtHR judgments in Russia. It concluded with a desire expressed by participants to continue joint work on this topic - with ongoing support from EIN.

EIN's 5th Anniversary

EIN has been advocating for the full and timely implementation of ECtHR judgments since 2016, when the constitutive General Assembly took place with the adoption of the EIN Statute. Over the last five years, we have grown and expanded throughout Europe, providing more training, advocacy support, and resources relating to implementation. You can read more on our work over the last five years below. 

2016 - 2017

The first meeting of the Network took place in Istanbul on 11-12 April 2016. It was attended by 30 human rights lawyers from 23 litigating NGOs in 14 Council of Europe countries. Participants discussed their efforts on implementation at the national level and with Strasbourg-based institutions. These discussions would later develop EIN’s future strategy’s and pave the way for fundraising.

In 2017 we registered as a not-for-profit association in Strasbourg. We also received our first grant from the Oak Foundation and Open Society Foundations (more on our funders here). In 2017, our network grew to 21 members, almost tripling in size, and the first member of staff was appointed.

2018

At the start of 2018, we were able to open the EIN Secretariat office in the building of the International Institute for Human Rights (René Cassin Foundation,) in Strasbourg. In February EIN carried out its inaugural training on the implementation process, in Warsaw - as well as two further training events in Strasbourg.

In July EIN published its Handbook on the Implementation of Jugdments of the European Court of Human Rights - the only guide to the ECtHR implementation process for NGOs, lawyers, activists and human rights victims. In 2018 we had another increase in our network, with a further ten members joining.

2019

At the start of 2019, EIN began its programme of notifying organisations across Europe of relevant developments in the implementation process. Along with capacity building and resource-creation, this has helped faciltate a steady rise in the level of civil society participation in the implementation process of European Court of Human Rights judgments.

EIN carried out two training events in Zagreb, as well as capacity building in Turkey, Strasbourg and Warsaw.

At the end of 2019, the network counted 34 members and 4 partners from 24 European countries. The EIN Board adopted a new membership policy, which introduced a new “official partners” category, and sought to ensure that the network remain a manageable size.

2020

In early 2020, EIN published online mapping of the level of ECtHR judgment implementation across Council of Europe states, highlighting the extent of the implementation issue. We also published a Guide to Domestic Advocacy for the Implementation of ECtHR Judgments, along with further resources on making written submissions to the Council of Europe. Trainings were held in Yerevan, and then continued online for North Macedonia, Russia, Georgia, and NHRIs from across Europe.

At the end of 2020, the network had a total of 38 members and 10 partners from 25 European countries - including many of the most significant national human rights organisations across the continent. More information on our members and partners can be found here. 

2021

EIN looks to the future, with six training events planned for the year, a project to promote the EU’s role in the implementation of ECtHR judgments, and an expanding level of support for implementation work across Council of Europe states.

Some of our key achievements since 2016:

• We organised 27 civil society briefings to Permanent Representations of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers before quarterly judgment execution meetings.

• Our work helped to almost triple the annual number of civil society submissions to the implementation monitoring process, as well as improve the timing and quality of submissions. 

• We carried out ECtHR implementation training for almost 400 participants from 28 countries.

• We raised awareness of the ECtHR implementation problem, through resources, publications, and events. In early 2021 the Council of Europe made the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights its top priority in its strategy for 2021-2024.

New Project: Combatting violence against women and domestic violence by supporting the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Violence against women and domestic violence (VAW/DV) constitute grave violations of human rights and are a form of discrimination. In June 2020, the UN warned of a "shadow pandemic" alongside COVID-19: a global rise in domestic violence. Increased levels of domestic violence have already been recorded in many European states.

Recent events have also highlighted the power of groups who oppose positive reforms on this issue: in particular, President Erdoğan’s announcement that Turkey would be withdrawing from Europe’s leading treaty on VAW/DV, the Istanbul Convention.

The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have an invaluable role to play to highlighting ongoing problems with VAW/DV - and in promoting much-needed change.

Judgments of the Strasbourg Court identify widespread and systemic failures of authorities in states to combat and prevent VAW/DV. These findings are made by an international institution that has a high level of authority. They also initiate an implementation procedure which requires the state to carry out necessary reforms. For example, in Lithuania fundamental reforms were made to the police and prosecution services, after a librarian who had been attacked by her partner won a case at the European Court of Human Rights.

At the time of writing, there are ECtHR judgments pending implementation on this topic concerning Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. These states have a total population of over 375 million, meaning that reforms in them have the capacity to prevent or diminish the violence experienced by tens or hundreds of thousands of victims.

However, reforms are only ensured if the Council of Europe’s judgment implementation process functions effectively. There is always a risk that the ECtHR judgment implementation monitoring process can be closed, without effective reforms having taken place. For example, the government of Moldova requested that monitoring of the country’s leading case on violence against women should be closed - although local rights groups believed that effective reforms were yet to take place. A Moldovan NGO, the Women’s Law Centre, helped avoid premature closure of the implementation process by providing vital information to the Council of Europe, showing how the problem persisted and that further reforms were required. Following this, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers kept the implementation monitoring process open, and requested information to show progress on the key issues raised by the WLC.

This demonstrates how important it is that local organisations specialising in violence against women are able to contribute to the ECtHR implementation monitoring process. However, the process is often hard to engage with for organisations that have no experience of it.

With the generous support of the Government of Luxembourg, EIN is starting a new project to open up the ECtHR implementation monitoring process to organisations that know the most about VAW/DV at the natinal level - the specialist organisations doing daily work to protect victims. EIN will aim to provide comprehensive support to local NGOs that specialise in this area, to ensure that they can effectively contribute to the ECtHR implementation monitoring system, in every country where there is an ECtHR judgment concerning domestic violence pending implementation.

The activities for this project will include:

• Engaging specialist organisations who are not currently familiar with the monitoring process in countries where there are cases pending implementation.

• Providing bespoke advice, resources, and support in liaising with the Council of Europe, and assistance with drafting written submissions.

• Organising an online event to share lessons-learnt and best practices across organisations from different states.

• Delivering briefings on cases concerning violence against women to delegates of the Committee of Ministers.

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

Overview of Rule 9 Submissions in view of the Committee of Minister’s Deputies Human Rights Meeting November/December 2021

From the 30th of November to the 2nd of December the Council of Europe’s Committee of Minister’s Deputies will meet for their quarterly Human Rights Meeting. This meeting will examine several judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that are still pending implementation. The agenda consists of 42 cases from 21 members of the Council of Europe.

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

Overview of Submissions

 GAFGAZ MAMMADOV group v. AZERBAIJAN (Application No. 60259/11) 

Violation: This group concerns numerous breaches of the applicants’ freedom of assembly through the dispersal of unauthorised peaceful demonstrations in 2010-2014 and their ensuing arrest and administrative conviction to short periods of detention for having participated in the demonstrations or criminal convictions for public disorder. It also concerns a violation of the right of individual petition on account of the seizure from the office of the applicants' representative of the entire case file relating to the applicants’ pending cases before the Court, together with all his other case files.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-1 (March 2021)

Submissions:

• Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (17/09/2021) in the case of GAFGAZ MAMMADOV v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 60259/11) 

MAMMADLI group v. AZERBAIJAN (Application No. 47145/14) 

Human Rights House Foundation

Violation: This group concerns the arrest and pre-trial detention to punish the applicants for his activities in the area of electoral monitoring (Mammadli) or for their active social and political engagement (Rashad Hasanov and Others) in breach of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-3 (September 2021) 

Submissions:

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Election Monitoring and Democratic Studies Centre) (11/10/2021) in the case of Mammadli v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 47145/14)

• Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (24/11/2021) in the case of Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan (No. 2) (Application No. 68817/14) (Mammadli group)

• Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (24/11/2021) in the case of Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 68762/14) (Mammadli group)

• Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (25/11/2021) in the case of Rashad Hasanov (Zaur Gurbanli) v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 48653/13) (Mammadli group)

• Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (25/11/2021) in the case of Rashad Hasanov (Rashad Hasanov) v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 48653/13) (Mammadli group)

• Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (25/11/2021) in the case of Rashad Hasanov (Rashadat Akhundov) v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 48653/13) (Mammadli group)

• Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (25/11/2021) in the case of Rashad Hasanov (Uzeyir Mammadli) v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 48653/13) (Mammadli group)

MURADOVA GROUP, MAMMADOV (JALALOGLU) GROUP, MIKAYIL MAMMADOV GROUP v. AZERBAIJAN (Application No. 22684/05, 34445/04, 4762/05)

Violation: Excessive use of force by the security forces and lack of effective investigations.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377bis/H46 (1-3 September 2020)

Submissions:

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (International Partnership for Human Rights) (28/10/2021) in the cases of MURADOVA, MAMMADOV (JALALOGLU) and MIKAYIL MAMMADOV v. Azerbaijan (Applications No. 22684/05, 34445/04, 4762/05)

• Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (24/11/2021) in the case of Yagublu and Ahadov v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 67374/11) (Muradova group)

KOLEVI v. BULGARIA (Application No. 1108/02)

Violation: Systemic problem of ineffective criminal investigations with regard to shortcomings which affect investigations concerning both private individuals and law enforcement agents and lack of guarantees for the independence of criminal investigations against the Chief Prosecutor.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-6 (March 2021)

Submissions:

• Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) (15/10/2021) in the cases of KOLEVI and S.Z. v. Bulgaria (Applications No. 1108/02, 29263/12) and reply from the authorities (26/10/2021)

VELIKOVA GROUP v. BULGARIA (Application No. 41488/98)

Violation: Excessive use of force by law enforcement agents; ineffective investigations.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1383/H46-3 (29 September – 1 October 2020)

Submissions:

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) (19/10/2021) in the case of VELIKOVA v. Bulgaria (Application No. 41488/98)

STATILEO GROUP v. CROATIA (Application No. 12027/10)

Violation: Statutory limitations on use of property by landlords, including through the rent control scheme for flats subject to protected leases.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-7 (March 2021)

Submissions:

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Association of Ownership and Possession of Apartment Owners with Protected Tenants (UVP)) (11/10/2021) in the case of STATILEO v. Croatia (Application No. 12027/10)

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Association of private owners of houses and apartments in Split-Dalmatia county ‘Proljeće’) (11/10/2021) in the case of STATILEO v. Croatia (Application No. 12027/10)

X  v. FINLAND (Application No. 34806/04)

Violation: Extensions of a confinement in mental hospital and forcible administration of medication without adequate legal safeguards.

First Examination

Submissions:

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Finnish National Human rights Institution) (21/10/2021) in the case of X v. Finland (Application No. 34806/04)

KHAN v. France (Application No. 12267/16)

Violation: Lack of care and protection of an unaccompanied foreign minor given his living conditions in the Calais “lande” and the non-enforcement of the order of the juvenile judge aimed at protecting him.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1390/H46-9 (December 2020)

Submissions:

• Règle 9.2 - Communication d’ONG (Utopia 56 et Safe Passage International) (19/10/2021) relative à l'affaire Khan c. France (requête n° 12267/16)

• Règle 9.3 - Communication d’une OIG (UNICEF France) (18/10/2021) relative à l'affaire Khan c. France (requête n° 12267/16)
  

IDENTOBA AND OTHERS GROUP v. GEORGIA (Application No. 73235/12)

 Violation: Lack of protection against homophobic attacks during demonstrations.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1383/H46-5 (29 September – 1 October 2020) 

Submissions:

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (European Human Rights Advocacy Centre and the Women's Initiatives Support Group) (25/10/2021) in the case of Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia (Application No. 7224/11) (Identoba group, 73235/12)

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Social Justice Center and ILGA-Europe) (26/10/2021) in the case of IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12)

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender's Office Georgia) (18/10/2021) in the case of IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) 

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association) (11/10/2021) in the case of IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12)

GUBACSI GROUP v. HUNGARY (Application No. 44686/07)

 Violation: Inhuman and degrading treatment by law enforcement officers and/or the lack of adequate investigations in this respect. 

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1383/H46-9 (29 September – 1 October 2020) 

Submissions:

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Helsinki Committee) (18/10/2021) in the case of GUBACSI v. Hungary (Application No. 44686/07)

ILIAS AND AHMED v. HUNGARY (Application No. 47287/15)

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-14 (June 2021)

Submissions:

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Helsinki Committee) (12/10/2021) in the case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (Application No. 47287/15)

TONELLO (SHAW GROUP) v. HUNGARY (Application No. 46524/14)

 Violation: Authorities’ failure to enforce court decisions ordering the return to the applicants of their children.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1390/H46-13 (December 2020)

Submissions:

• Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (15/11/2021) in the case of Tonello v. Hungary (Application No. 46524/14) (Shaw group) 

KHLAIFIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY (Application No. 16483/12) 

Violation: Absence of clear and accessible legal basis for the detention of irregular migrants arrived on the Italian coasts in 2011 as part of the events related to the “Arab Spring” in Tunisia; lack of domestic judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention and of the conditions of reception.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-13 (March 2021) 

Submissions:

• Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from NGOs ((Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI), A Buon Diritto Onlus, and Coalizione Italiana Libertà e Diritti Civili (CILD)) (22/10/2021) in the case of KHLAIFIA AND OTHERS v. Italy (Application No. 16483/12) and reply from the authorities (28/10/2021)

• Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from NGOs (Joined submission: Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI), A Buon Diritto Onlus, and Coalizione Italiana Libertà e Diritti Civili (CILD)) (16/11/2021) in the case of KHLAIFIA AND OTHERS v. Italy (Application No. 16483/12) and reply from the authorities (26/11/2021)

OZDIL AND OTHERS v. REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application No. 42305/18) 

Violation: In the present case, the Court found violations of Articles 5 § 1 and 8 of the Convention on account of the extra-legal transfer of all five applicants[1] from the Republic of Moldova to Turkey in September 2018, which circumvented all guarantees offered to them by domestic and international law. 

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-15 (March 2021)

Submissions:

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender's Office Georgia) (18/10/2021) in the case of IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12)

SARBAN v. REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application No. 3456/05) 

Violation: Various violations mainly arising from pre-trial detention. 

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377/H46-22 (June 2020) 

Submissions:

•  Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Legal Resources Centre from Moldova (LRCM)) (12/10/2021) in the case of SARBAN v. Republic of Moldova (Application No. 3456/05) 

X v. North Macedonia (Application no. 29683/16)

Violation: Lack of legislation governing the conditions and procedures for changing on birth certificates the registered sex of transgender people.

Last examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1369/H46-18 (March 2020)

Submissions:

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Transgender Europe, ILGA Europe, Coalition Margins and Transforma) (04/11/2021) in the case of X. v. North Macedonia (Application No. 29683/16)

TYSIĄC, R.R., and P. AND S. v. Poland (Applications No. 27617/04, 5410/03, 57375/08)

Violation: Absence of an adequate legal framework for the exercise of the right to therapeutic abortion in the event of disagreement between the patient and the specialist doctor (Tysiac) and lack of access to prenatal test enabling to take an informed decision on whether to seek an abortion (R.R.). Failure to provide effective access to reliable information on the conditions and procedures to be followed to access lawful abortion lawful abortion (P. and S.). 

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-18 (March 2021) 

Submissions:  

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Center for Reproductive Rights and the Federation for Women and Family Planning) (21/10/2021) in the cases of R.R., TYSIAC and P. and S. v. Poland (Applications No. 27617/04, 5410/03, 57375/08) 

BUCUR AND TOMA v. ROMANIA (Application No. 40238/02)

Violation: Conviction of a whistle-blower for having disclosed information on the illegal secret surveillance of citizens by the Intelligence Service; lack of safeguards in the statutory framework governing secret surveillance.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2016)1273/H46-21 (December 2016)

Submissions:

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (APADOR-CH) (13/10/2021) in the case of BUCUR AND TOMA v. Romania (Application No. 40238/02) 

M.C. AND A.C. v. ROMANIA (Application No. 12060/12)

Violation: Lack of an effective investigation into ill-treatment by private parties including into possible homophobic motives behind the attack.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2019)1355/H46-30 (September 2019) 

Submissions:

•   Coming soon

S.C. POLYINVEST S.R.L. AND OTHERS (applications concerning S.C. POLYINVEST S.R.L. (No. 20752/07)

and OMEGATECH ENTERPRISES LTD. (No. 24612/07)) & SEVEN OTHER SIMILAR APPLICATIONS

Violation: Non-implementation of court’s or arbitral awards ordering State-controlled companies to pay various sums to the applicants/applicant companies.

Last examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-28 (September 2021)

Submission:

• Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (29/11/2021) in the case of Omegatech Enterprises Ltd. v. Romania (Application No. 24612/07) (judgment S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. v. Romania (No. 20752/07) (Sacaleanu group (73970/01)

KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Application No. 29492/05)

Violation: Dismissal from judicial office for making critical media statements about the judiciary. 

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-28 (June 2021)

Submissions:

• Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (25/10/2021) in the case of KUDESHKINA v. Russian Federation (Application No. 29492/05)

MIKHEYEV GROUP v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Application No. 77617/01)

Violation: Torture or inhuman/degrading treatment in police custody with a view to extracting confessions and lack of effective investigations; arbitrary and/or unacknowledged arrest and detention in police custody. Use in criminal proceedings of confessions obtained in breach of Article 3 and lack of an effective remedy to claim compensation for ill-treatment. 

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2019)1362/H46-26 (December 2019)

CM/Del/Dec(2020)1383/A2 (29 September – 1 October 2020)

 Submissions:

• Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (04/11/2021) in the MIKHEYEV group v. Russian Federation (Application No. 77617/01)

SVINARENKO AND SLYADNEV GROUP v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Application No. 32541/08)

 Violation: Degrading treatment on account of confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during criminal proceedings or in the remand prison for the purposes of participation, by means of a video link, in the hearings concerning detention.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1383/H46-20 (29 September – 1 October 2020)

 Submissions:

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Citizens Watch) (27/10/2021) in the case of SVINARENKO AND SLYADNEV v. Russian Federation (Application No. 32541/08) 

CUMHURİYETÇİ EĞİTİM VE KÜLTÜR MERKEZİ VAKFI GROUP and ZENGIN HASAN AND EYLEM GROUP v. TURKEY (Application No. 32093/10, 1448/04)

Violation: Structural and administrative problems leading to various differences in treatment between followers of the Alevi faith and adherents of the majority branch of Islam, including compulsory religious education classes. 

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2019)1362/H46-32 (December 2019)

Submissions:

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Alevi Philosophy Centre (ADO)) (08/11/2021) in the cases of ZENGIN,MANSUR YALCIN AND OTHERS, CUMHURIYETCI EGITIM VE KULTUR MERKEZI VAKFI and IZZETTIN DOGAN AND OTHERS v. Turkey (Applications No. 1448/04, 21163/11, 32093/10, 62649/10)

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Norwegian Helsinki Committee and İnanç Özgürlüğü Girişimi (Freedom of Belief (Initiative)) (11/10/2021) in the cases of ZENGIN, MANSUR YALCIN AND OTHERS, CUMHURIYETCI EGITIM VE KULTUR MERKEZI VAKFI and IZZETTIN DOGAN AN

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Alevi Philosophy Centre (ADO)) (11/10/2021) in the cases of ZENGIN, MANSUR YALCIN AND OTHERS, CUMHURIYETCI EGITIM VE KULTUR MERKEZI VAKFI and IZZETTIN DOGAN AND OTHERS v. Turkey (Applications No. 1448/04, 21163/11, 32093/10, 62649/10)

GURBAN GROUP v. TURKEY (Application No. 4947/04)

Violation: Absence of any mechanism to review “aggravated” life imprisonment sentence, and conditions of detention 

First Examination

 Submissions:

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Association of Lawyers for Freedom (Özgürlük için Hukukçular Derneği) Human Rights Association (İnsan Hakları Derneği), and Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı)) (12/10/2021) in the GURBAN group

KAVALA v. TURKEY (Application No. 28749/18) 

Photo Credit: Kerem Zzel/dpa/Picture Alliance

Violation: Unjustified and extended detention of the applicant without reasonable suspicion and with the ulterior purpose of reducing him to silence.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-37 (September 2021) 

Submissions:

• Rule 9.1 Communication from the applicant (13/10/2021) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18)

• Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (İFADE ÖZGÜRLÜĞÜ D İFADE ÖZGÜRLÜĞÜ DERNEĞİ (İFÖD)) (15/11/2021) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18) and reply from the authorities (22/11/2021)

• Rule 9.1 - COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPLICANT (25/11/2021) IN THE CASE OF KAVALA V. TURKEY (APPLICATION NO. 28749/18)

• Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (29/11/2021) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18)
  
  

  SELAHATTİN DEMİRTAŞ (No 2) v. TURKEY (Application No. 14305/17) 

Human Rights Watch

Violation:  Unjustified detention of the applicant without reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence, with the ulterior purpose of stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate; unforeseeable lifting of parliamentary immunity and subsequent criminal proceedings to penalise the applicant for political speech.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-39 (September 2021) 

Submissions:

• Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (08/11/2021) in the case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey (No. 2) (Application No. 14305/17)

• Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (20/10/2021) in the case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey (No. 2) (Application No. 14305/17)

LEVCHUK v. UKRAINE (Application No. 17496/19)

Violation: Failure to ensure the applicant’s protection from domestic violence

First Examination

Submissions:

• Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (15/11/2021) in the case of Levchuk v. Ukraine (Application No. 17496/19) and reply from the authorities (23/11/2021)

KEBE AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application No. 12552/12)

Violation: Lack of adequate safeguards in the border-control procedure to protect against arbitrary removal and lack of effective remedy.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2018)1331/H46-32 (December 2018)

Submissions:

• Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (16/11/2021) in the case of Kebe and Others v. Ukraine (Application No. 12552/12) and reply from the authorities (23/11/2021)

McKERR GROUP v. UNITED KINGDOM (Application No. 28883/95)

Violation: Actions of security forces in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s; failure to conduct Article 2 - compliant investigations.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-38 (March 2021)

Submissions:

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Malone House Group) (23/09/2021) in the case of McKerr v. United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95)