EU Commission Rule of Law Report 2023 & Non-Implementation of ECtHR Judgments

/

Last week, the EU Commission published its 2023 Rule of Law Report, analysing four areas concerning the rule of law: the justice system, the anti-corruption framework, media pluralism and freedom, and other institutional issues related to checks and balances, and examining developments within each of the 27 EU countries. 

EIN is pleased that the Commission is now systematically including the non-implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in its 2023 Rule of Law report. The report states:

“Included in the Rule of Law report for the first-time last year, the track record of implementing leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is an important indicator for the functioning of the rule of law in a country. The country chapters therefore again include systematic indicators on the implementation of ECtHR leading judgments by all Member States, showing also the change compared to last year. Performance continues to vary between Member States. Overall, around 40% of the leading judgments of the ECtHR relating to EU Member States from the last 10 years have not been implemented, similar to last year’s figure.”

Furthermore, individual country chapters on the rule of law situation in member states include EIN’s key data sets: the percentage of pending leading judgments over the last ten years, the average time lending judgments have been pending, and the number of leading judgments pending implementation.

Over the last two years, EIN has worked closely with Democracy Reporting International (DRI) in advocating for the EU’s Rule of Law Report to take into account the non-implementation of European Courts’ judgments, and to use other tools to tackle the failure of certain Member States to fully implement reforms in line with the European Court’s judgments. On the 3rd of July 2023, we launched our latest report ‘Justice Delayed and Justice Denied: Non-Implementation of European Court Judgments and the Rule of Law’, which shows that the non-implementation of ECtHR judgments is slightly worsening from year to year. As of 1 January 2023, there were 616 leading ECtHR judgments pending implementation in EU states, 40 % of leading judgments from the last ten years are pending implementation in EU states, and the average length of time that leading ECtHR judgments concerning EU states have been pending implementation was 5 years and 1 month.

For future editions of the European Commission’s Rule of Law Report and the EU’s ongoing work on the rule of law, we set out the following recommendations to the European Commission and to EU institutions:

Recommendations

1. The future editions of the European Commission Rule of Law Report should also include specific recommendations for (a) states with particularly concerning records of ECtHR implementation overall; and (b) states with ECtHR and CJEU judgments pending implementation concerning the areas covered by the Report, especially those of independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

2. The European Commission should consistently use other tools available, including infringement procedures and financial pressure, to tackle the failure of certain Member States to fully implement reforms in line with the CJEU and ECtHR judgments. 

3. The EU institutions should raise the issue of ECtHR and CJEU judgment non-implementation and the data in the Justice Delayed and Justice Denied report in discussions with Member State governments and national parliaments.

4. The EU should fund civil society activities designed to enhance ECtHR and CJEU judgement implementation, as well as Council of Europe activities designed to enhance ECtHR judgement implementation.

We welcome this continued development in the EU Commission’s rule of law reporting, which enhances both the EU’s rule of law procedures and sheds light on the overall record of implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. We are grateful to the EU Commission for its open engagement on this issue.

For more on individual countries’ implementation records, see our implementation country map.

Webinar Registration: From Court to Practice: Implementing European Court of Human Rights Rulings

/

In the past years, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has delivered several leading judgments concerning the rights of transgender people and their right to legal gender recognition. These cases concern the lack of a clear and predictable legal framework governing the conditions and procedures relating to gender reassignment, as well as the refusal of national authorities to recognise the real identity of transgender persons. How can these legal wins also translate into real change for transgender people? 

Implementation of ECtHR judgments - and the positive developments it brings - often requires civil society involvement in order to ensure that governments implement Court judgments effectively and in full. This is particularly relevant where general measures are needed, and the government must enact new laws and public policies. For instance, when a Strasbourg judgment requires the government to establish clear and accessible procedures for legal gender recognition.

On July 13th, from 10:00 to 11:30 CEST, EIN will be co-hosting an online training event alongside Transgender Europe on implementing judgments of the European Court of Human Rights relating to legal gender recognition and how NGOs and lawyers can be involved in the process.

During this webinar participants will learn how to: 

  • navigate the implementation process;

  • hold their country accountable for human rights violations;

  • get the most out of European Court of Human Rights rulings.

Who is this webinar for?

This webinar is of particular interest for lawyers and activists from countries that currently have cases in the implementation process. This includes Bulgaria, Georgia, Hungary, Lithuania, North Macedonia, and Romania. It is also for lawyers and activists thinking about bringing cases to the European Court of Human Rights and, of course, those with pending cases. 

I am not a lawyer, can I still attend?

We invite trans activists without legal training to attend the webinar. Wherever possible, we will use plain language and avoid legal jargon.

If you still have questions, email richard@tgeu.org

The webinar will be in English and will provide Russian – English simultaneous interpretation.

We look forward to seeing you at this online event.

Justice Delayed and Justice Denied: Report on the Non-Implementation of European Judgments and the Rule of Law

/

The European Implementation Network (EIN) and Democracy Reporting International (DRI) are delighted to present “Justice Delayed and Justice Denied: Non-Implementation of European Courts’ Judgments and the Rule of Law,” a joint report on the non-implementation of European Court judgments in EU states.

The attacks on fundamental European values in recent years has continued to raise concern for European stakeholders – governments, the media, and citizens alike. The EU has introduced a series of policy measures designed to halt and reverse this phenomenon, ranging from the new annual rule of law review cycle, to targeted measures, such as withholding structural funds from countries with severe infringements of the rule of law.

In 2022, following civil society calls for the EU’s rule of law reporting to take into account the non-implementation of judgments from the two key European courts – the ECtHR and the CJEU (hereafter, “the European Courts”) – the EU Commission has included this type of data in its annual Rule of Law Report. This development allowed the EU to identify longer-term problems with the rule of law across all Member States that had previously been overlooked.

As of 1 January 2023, there were 616 leading ECtHR judgments waiting to be implemented across the EU. Each of these represents a human rights problem that has not been resolved – and which, therefore, is likely to recur.

Some 40 % of leading judgments concerning EU states from the last ten years are yet to be implemented. This means that the systemic human rights issues these judgments identify have not yet been resolved; it indicates that national authorities in Europe are not sufficiently active in dealing with a significant proportion of human rights issues identified by the ECtHR.

The average length of time that leading ECtHR judgments concerning EU states have been pending implementation is 5 years and 1 month. Some cases require extensive reforms that can – and should – take many years to implement. It should, however, be possible to implement the majority of leading judgments in a relatively short period of time. The longer leading judgments have been pending, the greater the concern that implementation is not being carried out.

In view of these recommendations, EIN and DRI set out the following recommendations to the European Commission and to EU institutions:

Report Recommendations

1. The European Commission should analyse the level of implementation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgments in European Union (EU) Member States in its annual Rule of Law Report. The Report should also include specific recommendations for (a) states with particularly concerning records of ECtHR implementation overall; and (b) states with ECtHR and CJEU judgments pending implementation concerning the areas covered by the Report, especially those of independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

2. The European Commission should consistently use other tools available, including infringement procedures and financial pressure, to tackle the failure of certain Member States to fully implement reforms in line with the CJEU and ECtHR judgments. 

3. The EU institutions should raise the issue of ECtHR and CJEU judgment non-implementation and the data in this report in discussions with Member State governments and national parliaments.

4. The EU should fund civil society activities designed to enhance ECtHR and CJEU judgement implementation, as well as Council of Europe activities designed to enhance ECtHR judgement implementation.

For more on individual countries’ implementation records, see our implementation country map.

EIN General Assembly 2023

/

Photo de Sigmund sur Unsplash

On 27th June, EIN organised its yearly General Assembly. This year, the event was held online.

The meeting was the opportunity to go through institutional matters and adopt the EIN 2022 accounts as well as budget for 2023 and 2024. Members were informed by EIN Treasurer Krassimir Kanev and our independent auditor about the very positive funding situation of EIN.

EIN Chair Başak Çalı gave an overview of the achievements since June 2022, and presented the new projects launched by EIN in 2023 - a project about the rule of law (follow-up to the 2021-2022 project), and a project about freedom of expression - and invited all members to take an active part in these activities.

The new Director of EIN, Ioulietta Bisiouli, who will take up her functions on 7th August, was also present to introduce herself and exchange with members.

The General Assembly concluded with a partial renewal of the EIN Board: we are very happy to announce that Anna-Katrin Speck, doctoral researcher, and Kerem Altiparmak, individual member, both joined the EIN Board. The first meeting of the new EIN Board will take place end September 2023.

Call for Interest - Supporting Freedom of Expression Through ECtHR Implementation

/

On 1st June, EIN launched a new project aimed at protecting freedom of expression by supporting ECtHR implementation, which will last for two years. The project aims at mapping ECtHR judgments pending implementation and NGOs working on freedom of expression, and helping them to use the ECtHR judgments implementation avenue to push for freedom of speech in Europe.

A two-day event will be organised in the second half of November (20-21 November, Mediencampus, Leipzig) for partners in the project. Activities will include assistance with drafting written submissions to the Council of Europe’s implementation monitoring process, and advice on advocacy best practices at national level to promote ECtHR implementation; briefings on cases concerning freedom of expression or media freedom to delegates of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe; training and a conference to share lessons-learnt and best practices among stakeholders, and reporting on the overall state of implementation of ECtHR judgments concerning free speech.

EIN has a limited number of grants to allocate to NGOs committed to take part in our project.

Applications from NGOs which are specialized in the defense of freedom of expression but do not work yet on the implementation of ECtHR judgments are welcome. If your NGO already works on the implementation of FoE pending judgments, you might also benefit from our support.  At this stage, if your organisation is interested in applying for a grant, we kindly ask you to fill in this form by the end of July: https://forms.gle/jrd4bH2RqbLXcShMA.

Partners who will receive a grant from EIN in the frame of the project “Promoting Free Speech with European Judgments” will be considered Beneficiaries and will sign a subgrant agreement with EIN. For more information about the eligible activities, please see the Guidelines for beneficiaries.

The expertise of your organizations would be a valuable contribution to advocacy efforts for the implementation of ECHR judgments on free speech and can help turn judgments from the ECHR into real changes.

Save the Date: Rule of Law 2023 Report Launch Virtual Event

/

The European Implementation Network (EIN) and Democracy Reporting International (DRI) would like to invite you to join us for the virtual launch of our 2023 report on the non-implementation of regional courts’ judgments.

The launch will be held as an online panel debate on Monday, 3 July between 16:00 and 17:30 ECT with our distinguished speakers:

Ambassador Vesna Kos, Head of the EU Delegation to the Council of Europe, European External Action Service;

Prof Jörg Polakiewicz, Director of Legal Advice and Public International Law, Council of Europe and

Dr Marcin Szwed, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights.

The report will be presented by 

Ms Ioana Iliescu, Law and Advocacy Officer, EIN and

Dr Nino Tsereteli, Research Officer, DRI.

The debate will be moderated by Jakub Jaraczewski, Research Coordinator, DRI.

 

About the launch event:
The launch event will be opened with a presentation of the report’s findings and recommendations, followed by a moderated panel debate on how the EU and the Council of Europe can cooperate better on enforcing the implementation of the judgments of the two European courts. As part of this, concrete examples from national cases will also be introduced to be explored by the panel. We will close the debate with a Q&A session with the online audience.

The participation is free of charge and open to all interested stakeholders.

Overview of Rule 9 Submissions in view of the Committee of Ministers' Deputies Human Rights Meeting in June 2023

/

From 5th -7th June 2023, the Committee of Ministers will meet for their quarterly Human Rights Meeting. During this meeting, the Committee of Ministers will examine 41 leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that are pending implementation.

EIN members and partners, other civil society actors, lawyers and applicants have made the 36 Rule 9 submissions for 24 cases under consideration. The list below sets out an overview of these submissions related to cases on the current agenda.

 Overview of Submissions

Oganezova v. Armenia

Violation: Lack of protection against homophobic attacks and hate speech; failure to carry out effective investigation; absence of effective domestic criminal-law mechanism for investigating discrimination complaints.

First Examination.

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from NGOs (Pink Armenia and EHRAC) (02/05/2023) in the case of Oganezova v. Armenia (Application No. 71367/12) and reply from the authorities (17/05/2023)

Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan 

Violation: Failure to continue to enforce prison sentence for ethnic hate crime committed abroad, after transfer to Azerbaijan.

First Examination.

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (18/04/2023) in the case of Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 17247/13)

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (29/03/2023) in the case of Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 17247/13)

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Democracy Development Foundation, Protection of Rights without Borders, Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor, Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center, Law Development and Protection Foundation) (17/04/2023) in the case of Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 17247/13)

Mammadli group v. Azerbaijan

 Violation: Arrest and pre-trial detention to punish the applicants for activities in the area of electoral monitoring or for their active social and political engagement in breach of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5.

 Last Examination: March 2023 -  CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-3

 Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from IGOs (Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Center) (28/04/2023) in the case of Mammadli v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 47145/14)

Sejdić and Finci Group v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

Violation: Ethnic-based discrimination on account of the ineligibility of persons not affiliated with one of the “constituent peoples” (Bosniaks, Croats or Serbs) to stand for election to the House of Peoples and the Presidency. 

Last Examination: March 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-36

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.4 - Communication from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (24/04/2023) in the case of SEJDIC AND FINCI v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (Application No. 27996/06)

Statileo Group v. Croatia

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

 Last Examination: 30 November – 2 December 2021- CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-11

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Association of Ownership and Possession of Apartment, Owners with Protected Tenants) (18/04/2023) in the case of STATILEO v. Croatia (Application No. 12027/10)

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Udruga Proljeće) (31/03/2023) in the STATILEO group of cases v. Croatia (Application No. 12027/10)

1459th meeting (March 2023) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (17/02/2023) following a communication from an NGO (Association of Ownership and Possession of Apartment Owners with Protected Tenants) (02/02/2023) in the case of STATILEO v. Croatia (Application No. 12027/10)

Moustahi v. France

Violation: Detention and rapid return of two foreign unaccompanied minors from Mayotte to the Comoros, without an examination of their individual situation

Last Examination: March 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1428/H46-10

Latest Submissions:

1468e réunion (juin 2023) (DH) - Règle 9.2 - Communication d'une INDH (Défenseur des droits) (14/04/2023) dans l’affaire Moustahi c. France (requête n° 9347/14)

1468e réunion (juin 2023) (DH) - Règle 9.2 - Communication d'ONG (GISTI, Avocats pour la Défense des Droits des Etrangers (ADDE) et Syndicat des avocats de France (SAF)) (19/04/2023) dans l’affaire Moustahi c. France (requête n° 9347/14)

1468e réunion (juin 2023) (DH) - Règle 9.2 - Communication d'une ONG (La Cimade) (18/04/2023) dans l’affaire Moustahi c. France (requête n° 9347/14)

Tsintsabadze Group v. Georgia

Violation: Lack of effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment or violations of the right to life; excessive use of force by the police in the course of arrest and/or while detaining suspects.

Last Examination: March 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1428/H46-12

Latest Submissions:  

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (GYLA and EHRAC) (21/04/2023) in the case of TSINTSABADZE v. Georgia (Application No. 35403/06)

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender of Georgia) (25/04/2023) in the case of TSINTSABADZE v. Georgia (Application No. 35403/06)

Bekir-Ousta and Others Group v. Greece

Violation: Refusal of domestic courts to register associations or dissolution of the applicants’ associations.

Last Examination: December 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)/1451/H46-15

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Greek Helsinki Monitor) (17/04/2023) in the cases of BEKIR-OUSTA AND OTHERS and HOUSE OF MACEDONIAN CIVILIZATION AND OTHERS v. Greece (Applications No. 35151/05, 1295/10)

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Federation of Western Thrace Turks in Europe) (21/03/2023) in the group of cases BEKIR-OUSTA AND OTHERS v. Greece (Application No. 35151/05)

Sy and Itraro and Molino v. Italy

Violation: Detention in ordinary prison of persons mentally ill (Sy) and failure to protect their right to life (Citraro and Molino).

First Examination.

Latest Submission:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (StraLi for Strategic Litigation) (09/05/2023) in the case of Sy v. Italy (Application No. 11791/20)

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (StraLi for Strategic Litigation) (09/03/2023) in the case of Sy v. Italy (Application No. 11791/20)

Sarban Group v. Republic of Moldova

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

Last Examination: 30 November – 2 December 2021 - CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-23

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (LRCM) (21/04/2023) in the case of SARBAN v. the Republic of Moldova (Application No. 3456/05) and reply from the authorities (28/04/2023)

T.M and C.M Group v. Republic of Moldova

Violation: Authorities' failure to provide protection from domestic violence

 Last Examination: March 2020 - CM/Del/Dec(2021)1369/H46-17

 Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Submisison Women’s Law Centre) (15/03/2023) in the case of T.M. and C.M. v. the Republic of Moldova (Application No. 26608/11)

Reczkowicz Group, Broda and Bojara, and Grzęda v. Poland

 Violation: Tribunal not established by law due, inter alia, systemic dysfunction in the judicial appointments procedure.

 Last Examination: December 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1451/H46-25

Grzęda - First examination

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (20/04/2023) following a communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights) (31/03/2023) in the cases of Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o., Reczkowicz group, Grzeda, Broda and Bojara, Juszczyszyn and Zurek v. Poland (Applications No. 4907/18, 43447/19, 43572/18, 26691/18, 35599/20, 39650/18)

 Tysiąc, R.R., and, P. and A. v. Poland

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: September 2022 CM/Del/Dec(2022)1443/H46-19 

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Foundation for Women and Family Planning and the Center for Reproductive Rights) (18/04/2023) in the cases of R.R., TYSIAC and P. and S. v. Poland (Applications No. 27617/04, 5410/03, 57375/08)

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Foundation for Women and Family Planning and the Center for Reproductive Rights) (18/04/2023) in the cases of R.R., TYSIAC and P. and S. v. Poland (Applications No. 27617/04, 5410/03, 57375/08)

Xero Flor W Polsce SP. Z O.O. v. Poland

 Violation: Insufficient reasons of courts for refusal to refer a legal question to the Constitutional Court. Tribunal not established by law due to grave irregularities in the election of one of the Constitutional Court's judges examining the applicant company’s constitutional complaint.

Last Examination: December 2022 CM/Del/Dec(2022)1451/H46-34

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Reply from the authorities (20/04/2023) following a communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights) (31/03/2023) in the cases of Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o., Reczkowicz group, Grzeda, Broda and Bojara, Juszczyszyn and Zurek v. Poland (Applications No. 4907/18, 43447/19, 43572/18, 26691/18, 35599/20, 39650/18)

Centre for Legal Resources on Behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu & N. (no. 2) v. Romania

Violation: Deficiencies in the legal protection and medical and social care afforded to vulnerable persons.

Lack of legal safeguards allowing an incapacitated person to have a say in the proceedings leading to the change of a legal guardian.

Last Examination: June 2019 - CM/Del/Dec(2019)1348/H46-20

N. (no. 2) v Romania - First examination

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre for Legal Resources) (21/04/2023) in the cases of CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU and N. v. Romania (no. 2) (Applications No. 47848/08, 38048/18)

N. v. Romania and R.D. and I.M.D. v. Romania

Violation: Unlawful psychiatric confinement as security measures and deficiencies in the judicial review proceedings. Absence of a legal basis for compulsory administration of medical treatment to such patients.

Last Examination: March 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1428/H46-23

R.D. and I.M.D - First examination 

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre for Legal Resources) (21/04/2023) in the cases of R.D. and I.M.D., and N. v. Romania (Applications No. 35402/14, 59152/08)

Parascineti & Cristian Teodorescu Group v. Romania

Violation: Issues related to the living conditions and treatment of patients subjected to involuntary placements in psychiatric hospitals and to the procedure and safeguards for such placements.

Last Examination: June 2020 - CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377/H46-28

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre for Legal Resources) (21/04/2023) in the cases of CRISTIAN TEODORESCU and PARASCINETI v. Romania (Applications No. 22883/05, 32060/05)

Finogenov and Others v. Russian Federation

Violation: Loss of life and injuries caused during a mass hostage-rescue operation at the “Nord-Ost” theatre in Moscow and lack of effective investigation.

Last Examination: September 2016 - CM/Del/Dec(2016)1265/H46-23

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant 21/04/2023) in the case of FINOGENOV AND OTHERS v. Russia (Application No. 18299/03)

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre de la protection internationale) (21/04/2023) in the case of Tagayeva and Others v. Russia (Application No. 26562/07) (Finogenov and Others group, 18299/03)

Navalnyy and Ofitserov Group v. Russian Federation

Violation: Criminal convictions based on an unfair trial and an arbitrary application of criminal law (violations of Articles 6 and 7).

Last Examination: March 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-22

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (12/04/2023) in the case of NAVALNYY AND OFITSEROV v. Russia (Application No. 46632/13)

Cumhuriyetçi Eğitim ve Kültür Merkezi Vakfi Group & Hasan and Eylem Zengin Group v. Türkiye

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: 30 November – 2 December 2021- CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-36 & December 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1451/A2b

Latest Submissions:

468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Alevi Philosophy Center Association) (19/04/2023) in the cases of ZENGIN, CUMHURIYETCI EGITIM VE KULTUR MERKEZI VAKFI and IZZETTIN DOGAN AND OTHERS v. Turkey (Applications No. 1448/04, 32093/10, 62649/10) and reply from the authorities (27/04/2023)

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Norwegian Helsinki Committee’s Freedom of Belief Initiative) (18/04/2023) in the cases of ZENGIN, CUMHURIYETCI EGITIM VE KULTUR MERKEZI VAKFI and IZZETTIN DOGAN AND OTHERS v. Turkey (Applications No. 1448/04, 32093/10, 62649/10)

Selahattin Demirtaş (no. 2) v. Türkiye

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 the parliamentary immunity and subsequent criminal proceedings to penalise the applicant for his political speeches. (Individual measures)

Last Examination: March 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-26

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA)) (14/04/2023) in the case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey (No. 2) (Application No. 14305/17)

Kavala v. Türkiye

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

Last Examination: December 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1451/H46-40

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant's legal representatives (20/04/2023) in the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (Application No. 28749/18) and reply from the Director General of DGI (09/05/2023)

Ülke Group v. Türkiye

Violations: Repetitive convictions and prosecutions for refusing to carry out compulsory military service on account of religious beliefs or convictions as pacifists and conscientious objectors.

Last Examination: June 2020 - CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377/H46-40

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses) (26/04/2023) in the cases of ULKE, BULDU AND OTHERS, ERCEP and FETI DEMIRTAS v. Turkey (Applications No. 39437/98, 14017/08, 43965/04, 5260/07) and reply from the authorities (12/05/2023)

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (The Conscientious Objection Watch, War Resisters’ International, The European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, Connection e.V and International Fellowship of Reconciliation) (17/04/2023) in the case of ULKE v. Turkey (Application No. 39437/98)

Mckerr Group v. United Kingdom

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

Last Examination: March 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1459/H46-35

Latest Submissions:

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Committee on the Administration of Justice) (05/05/2023) in the case of MCKERR v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95)

 

New EIN Project: Protecting Freedom of Expression by Supporting ECtHR Implementation

/

This week, EIN is launching a new project which aims to protect free speech in Europe in every country where there is a relevant ECtHR judgment pending implementation. It will do so by empowering civil society to engage with the implementation process of these judgments, by providing them with training, resources, and mentoring.

Violations of the right to free speech are central to the crisis of democratic backsliding in European states. The healthy functioning of democracies is being curtailed (and sometimes undermined) by a mixture of: draconian defamation laws that silence journalists through court proceedings; the undermining of free debate through the excessive ownership of media outlets by the state or those linked to it; and even widespread violence against reporters.

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) has issued 330 leading judgments finding a violation of the right to free speech. These judgments concern the most critical free speech issues in Europe today, including defamation laws, media ownership, and journalists’ safety.

However, at the time of writing, 50% of the leading free speech judgments handed down by the ECtHR in the last 10 years are still pending implementation. There are currently 105 leading ECtHR judgments on free speech pending implementation overall.  

EIN will promote free speech reforms across Europe by giving civil society the training, resources, and mentoring they need to push forward the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

The project is set to run for 2 years (June 2023 - May 2025). Project activities would include:

Photo by Maayan Nemanov on Unsplash

  • Reaching out to NGOs, lawyers, and journalists specialising in media freedom in all countries where there are relevant ECtHR cases pending implementation, and ensuring that as many cases as possible are being monitored or engaged with by a local partner;

  • Inviting the target group to a capacity-building conference, to be provided with extensive training and resources about how to promote ECtHR judgment implementation in their country;

  • The creation of a research note on best practices, to be circulated to all relevant stakeholders;

  • Ongoing mentoring for partners through legal advice, liaison with the Council of Europe, assistance with drafting written submissions to the Council of Europe’s implementation monitoring process, and advice on advocacy best practices at national level to promote ECtHR implementation;

  • In the second year of the project, a second conference to share lessons-learnt and best practices among stakeholders;

  • Briefings on cases concerning freedom of expression or media freedom to delegates of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe;

  • Reporting on the overall state of implementation of ECtHR judgments concerning free speech, to be distributed to all relevant partners and institutions throughout Europe.

The project will be kindly funded by the Swedish Postcode lottery, Fritt Ord Foundation and the Isocrates Foundation.

EIN Civil Society Briefing May 2023: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Romania

/

On the 25th May 2023, EIN held the latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, ahead of the 1468th Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting on 7th – 9th June 2023. The event was held in person in Strasbourg, facilitated by Ioana Iliescu, EIN Law and Advocacy Officer.

The Briefing focused on the following cases:

  • The Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina case, which concerns ethnic-based discrimination on account of the ineligibility of persons not affiliated with one of the “constituent peoples” (Bosniaks, Croats or Serbs) to stand for election to the House of Peoples and the Presidency. This presentation was given by Chelsea Gonzalez, Legal Project Officer, from Minority Rights Group International.

  • The Cristian Teodorescu v. România group and Parascineti v. România judgment concern: a) ill-treatment in psychiatric hospitals due to overcrowding, poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, including the absence of an individual bed, and the impossibility to spend time outdoors due to staff shortages; and b) legislative deficiencies as regards the procedure and safeguards for involuntary placement in psychiatric hospital facilities and general failure of the competent authorities to apply this procedure. This presentation was given by Georgiana Pascu, Program Manager from the Centre for Legal Resources.

  • The N. v. România and R.D. and I.M.D. v. România cases concern: a) unlawful psychiatric confinement as security measures and deficiencies in the judicial review proceedings and b) the absence of a legal basis for compulsory administration of treatment to such patients. This presentation was given by Georgiana Pascu, Program Manager from the Centre for Legal Resources.

  • The Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Campeanu v. Romania case concerns: a) deficiencies in the legal protection and medical and social care afforded to vulnerable persons; b) the ineffectiveness of criminal investigations into deaths of persons with disabilities in mental health institutions; and c) safeguards and remedies regarding placement in residential social care facilities and psychiatric hospitals. This presentation was given by Georgiana Pascu, Program Manager from the Centre for Legal Resources.

    Elisabeta Moldovan, self-representative and Co-president of the Ceva de Spus Association, made a statement regarding her personal experience of a placement in a mental health hospital, with translation support from Alina Ursoi, psychologist and support staff member at the UnLoc Association.

Sejdic And Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina case concerns discrimination against the applicants on account of their ineligibility to stand for election to the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina due to their lack of affiliation with a constituent people (i.e. Bosniaks, Croats or Serbs) or due to their failure to meet a combination of the requirements of ethnic origin and place of residence (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12).

Minority Rights Group International provided participants with explanations regarding the Dayton Accords and Electoral Quotas, explaining the effects of the quota system, which disenfranchises minorities, discriminates against constituent peoples living in ‘wrong’ entity and facilitates the trickling down of discrimination to local level.

Minority Rights Group International discussed the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Rule 9 Submission from April 2023, setting out the Commissioner’s primary concerns regarding the recent developments at national level:

  • “[N]o clarity as to what [the changes to the Constitution and electoral legislation] entail”.

  • Legislative reform discussions: “legitimate representation of constituent people”.

  • Special rights for constituent peoples, excluding minorities.

  • “Even if this only means preserving the existing situation, this implies that being just a citizen is considered to be of a lower status, as opposed to being a member of one constituent people, which would be contrary to the principle of non-discrimination.”

    The CoE Commissioner argues that the failure to execute these judgments is leading to a deterioration of situation in BiH, and to amplified ethnic tensions. The system based on ethnic discrimination leads to increased threats to stability; the rise of hate speech; the glorification of war criminals; and genocidal denial. Furthermore, she argues that:

  • “[F]ull elimination of ethnic discrimination from both the Constitution and the electoral legislation”.

  • “It is imperative that the authorities place focus on building a state based on the equality of citizens, rather than on further embedding ethnic discrimination in the Constitution and the electoral legislation.”

Minority Rights Group International outlined to participants the case’s current status of implementation:

  • There has been no progress in 14 years.

  • The discriminatory provisions remain in Constitution and electoral legislation.

  • There have been 4 general elections under discriminatory framework and 4 Interim Resolutions by CoM.

  • There has been no outreach to non-constituent minorities or the plaintiffs, and recent legislative reforms do not address implementation.

Minority Rights Group International set out their their current concerns regarding the case to participants:

  • The lack of outreach to non-constituent minorities to ensure changes from implementation

  • 2021 Interim Resolution (CoM), March decision (CoM) and BiH authorities do not reference participation of non-constituent minorities in legislative reform

  • Ongoing exclusion of minorities from bodies tasked with enacting reforms

Minority Rights Group International provided their recommendations, asking the Committee of Ministers to:

  • Appeal to Member States to request action to ensure implementation with judgments.

  • Issue an Interim Resolution stipulating that process of amending the Electoral Law and Constitution must be participatory and involve robust consultation of non-constituent minorities, which should address the Constitutional, Electoral Law amendments, judgment implementation, requesting:

    • Timeline for implementation with time for meaningful consultation of minorities

    • Representatives from minority groups named to any oversight body

    • Meaningful consultation of plaintiffs in Sejdić and Finci group of cases

    • Specific mechanisms to ensure minority and CSO participation

    • BiH to share draft amendments with CoM prior to adoption.


      Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

The Parascineti v. România concerns the ill-treatment suffered by the applicant during his involuntary placement in the psychiatric unit of the Sighetu Marmaţiei Hospital between 5 and 13 July 2005, due to overcrowding, poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, including the absence of an individual bed, and the impossibility to spend time outdoors due to staff shortages (violation of Article 3).

Centre for Legal Resources România outlined the conditions in psychiatric hospitals in Romania to participants:

  • 16,073 psychiatric beds nationwide

  • 4 security (forensic) psychiatric hospitals

  • Chronic wards accommodate more than 8000 patients

Centre for Legal Resources România reminded participants of their findings of their visit to the institutions in 2019 & 202:

  • 8 residents locked in 6 cages

  • Tied with shirts and strips of cloth

  • Lack of specialized staff and significant underfunding

  • Situations with a high risk of injury, self-harm and aggression

Centre for Legal Resources România explained to participants the lack of adequate health care services and staff and Inefficient investigations of the causes of deaths in Botoșani:

  • 24 March 2023: An 87-year-old patient died in the hallway of the medical unit without anyone jumping to his aid.

    • On Thursday morning, around 5am, a nurse found him dead in the main hallway on the ground floor. Three hours earlier, a nurse had administered the treatment in a ward on the third floor - in the "Medical" section.

    • What happened to the patient in the meantime, no one in the hospital knows. The manager shrugs when asked when the old man left the ward

  • 24 May 2023: A man aged just 47, brought in to withdraw, died before doctors' eyes. They called an ambulance, but it was too late. The man was in ethanolic withdrawal at the psychiatric ward - acute ward.

  • 28 Nov. 22: patient died after choking on food

  • 15 June 2022: an 18-year-old patient stabbed himself in the chest with a knife. He had several admissions to psychiatrists. The ambulance with emergency doctors could not save him

Cristian Teodorescu v. România

The Cristian Teodorescu v. România case concerns the unlawful placement of the applicants in psychiatric hospitals, or in one case (Ulisei Grosu) the applicant’s arrest by police with a view to such placement, without compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Mental Health Act and without any justification relating to their mental health condition (violations of Article 5 § 1(e)).

CLR reminded participants of the main issues in the case:

  • Failure to comply with Mental Health Act procedure and placement without justification relating to mental health condition.

  • Failure to comply with the legal requirement to obtain consent for medical treatment.

  • Inconsistent knowledge among healthcare professionals about the relevant procedures.

The NGO provided an overview of the unlawful involuntary placements in psychiatric hospitals:

  • There is no mental health department within the Ministry of Health.

  • The Ministry of Health has not requested EU budget for the mental health community services (Cohesion Policy budget)

  • The latest communication (March 2023) from authorities does not refer to the living conditions and rights of persons in psychiatric hospitals.

  • No public data on involuntary placements in psychiatric hospitals and the transfers between social and psychiatric system

  • In 2018, CLR collected some data from several psychiatric hospitals through freedom of information requests (only some hospitals responded):

    • Out of 524 involuntary admissions, only 112 were referred to the courts for judicial review.

    • There was not even a single case in which court overturned the decision of involuntary placement.

    • 206 people involuntarily placed in psychiatric hospitals came from residential centers for people with disabilities.

    • There were 2139 "social cases”.

  • There is a lack of progress at national level.

  • The lack of community-based mental health and social care services leads to involuntary placements and to de facto involuntary placements, which are being used as measure of “first resort” instead of a measure of last resort (as Article 5 of the European Convention requires). This leads to an overload of the system of mental health hospitals and to overcrowding and low compliance with procedural guarantees.

  • There is no independent body with monitoring, control and sanctioning powers.

  • CLR’s cooperation protocol with the Ministry of Labour and Social Solidarity was recently rescinded due to reports and criminal complaints filed by CLR following abuses in social care private homes financed with local authority money.

CLR provided their recommendations, asking the Committee of Ministers to:

  • Urge the national authorities to provide a concrete action plan for the implementation of these judgments.

  • Increase the frequency of examination of these cases.

  • Instruct the Secretariat to prepare an interim resolution.

  • Request data on the number of patients with mental disabilities treated in emergency wards of county hospitals

  • Request the authorities to equip psychiatric wards with equipment for emergency medical interventions.

  • Request the authorities to:

    • Provide recent disaggregated statistics on non-voluntary admission procedures in psychiatric hospitals and units since 2018.

    • Adopt a concrete legislative framework on access to justice of non-voluntary hospitalizations and investigate the causes of deaths.

    • Urgently allocate of a concrete budget plan for the community psychiatry system.

    • Appoint a coordinator at government level for the execution of the obligations arising from the judgments of the ECtHR against Romania in the field of psychiatry and mental health.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

NGO Communications

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre for Legal Resources) (21/04/2023) in the cases of CRISTIAN TEODORESCU and PARASCINETI v. Romania (Applications No. 22883/05, 32060/05) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)539]

CM Decisions

1377 meeting (DH) June 2020 - H46-28 Parascineti and Cristian Teodorescu group v. Romania (Applications Nos. 32060/05 and 22883/05) [CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377/H46-28]

1362 meeting (DH) December 2019 - H46-18 Parascineti and Cristian Teodorescu group v. Romania (Applications Nos. 32060/05 and 22883/05) [CM/Del/Dec(2019)1362/H46-18]

1265 meeting (September 2016) - H46-22 Parascineti group v. Romania (Application No. 32060/05) and group Cristian Teodorescu (Application No. 22883/05) / 1265e réunion (septembre 2016) - Parascineti c. Roumanie (Requête n° 32060/05) et groupe Cristian Teodorescu (Requête n° 2883/05) [CM/Del/Dec(2016)1265/H46-22]

N. v. Romania and R.D. and I.M.D. v. Romania

The N. v. Romania case concerns the psychiatric confinement of the applicant, who has been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. Although the detention was first imposed in 2001 as a security measure during criminal investigations, the Court only examined the situation, as the complaints about the earlier period were out of time.

The R.D. and I.M.D. v. Romania case concerns the non-voluntary confinement of the applicants in a psychiatric hospital for the purpose of compelling them to undergo medical treatment and about the obligation to undergo that medical treatment.

CLR provided an overview of the main issues in the N v. Romania case:

  • Unlawful psychiatric confinement as a security measure for the purpose of compelling them to undergo medical treatment.

  • Measure imposed following criminal proceedings condemning the applicants to compulsory psychiatric treatment, based on medical reports of expertise dated 3 years before the date of confinement in the psychiatric hospital without proper examination by the domestic courts of the degree of social danger justifying the safety measure or of the degree of social danger of the criminal offense.

  • Absence of a legal framework concerning the obligation to undergo medical treatment: Criminal Code does not offer to people diagnosed with a psychiatric condition sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness as concerns the administration of medical treatment.

The NGO outlined the challenges of non-voluntary psychiatric confinement:

  • No legislative provisions to set clear limits on when and under what conditions a non-voluntary psychiatric confinement (as security measure) can be taken.

  • Many involuntary placement measures which are not legal, are arbitrary and unjustified.

  • Lack of safeguards: persons with mental health conditions who commit criminal acts without discernment and are placed in forensic psychiatric hospitals receive a “life sentence”.

  • On June 2020, 1,424 persons were admitted to psychiatric and security measures hospitals. Approximately 14% had a disability certificate (the majority having mental disabilities). 80% of the people admitted were reported as having a mental disability. However, without disability certificates they cannot receive procedural adaptations.

  • Inconsistencies between the relevant legislative provisions and the factual situation

    • Provisions of the Criminal Code in force (art. 109 and 110) stipulate that both the obligation to medical treatment and hospitalization are taken "until recovery or until an improvement is obtained that removes the state of danger" - in this situation the Romanian authorities have not yet identified a solution that is applicable to persons with intellectual disabilities.

    • Persons with intellectual or psycho-social disabilities under involuntary confinement security measures risk being detained for life. 

  • Medical confinement: there is no clear procedure applicable for the re-examination or changing of measures for medical confinement, as regards the periodicity of medical examinations. There is no legislative framework to ensure legal aid in this area.

  • No dedicated spaces and services for the needs of persons with mental health conditions who are currently detained in forensic psychiatric hospitals, and whose detention review would lead to their release.

CLR provided their recommendations, asking the Committee of Ministers to request the Romanian authorities to:

  • Adopt of a legislative framework to regulate in concrete terms the situation of persons subjected to security measures (involuntary confinements in forensic psychiatric hospitals and medical confinements) and the need for periodic reassessments, in order to ensure that they do not remain in psychiatric hospitals indefinitely.   

  • Enact a clear legislative framework to regulate the situation of persons subjected to security measures and to ensure legal assistance for persons with mental health conditions subjected to security measures (and all mental health institutions). 

  • Amend the Criminal Code to identify a solution applicable to persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities, for whom "the full recovery" is not possible, and to provide them with sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness in the administration of medical treatment. 

  • Carry out regular monitoring visits to forensic psychiatric hospitals and communicate the conclusions of the monitoring visits to the Committee of Ministers in order to have a close observation of the developments on the ground. 


Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

NGO Communications

1468th meeting (June 2023) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre for Legal Resources) (21/04/2023) in the cases of R.D. and I.M.D., and N. v. Romania (Applications No. 35402/14, 59152/08) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2023)538]

CM Decisions in N. v. România:

1428th meeting (DH), March 2022 - H46-23 N. v. Romania (Application No. 59152/08) [CM/Del/Dec(2022)1428/H46-23]

1411th meeting (DH), 14-16 September 2021 - H46-27 N. v. Romania (Application No. 59152/08) [CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-27]

1331 meeting (DH) December 2018 - H46-22 N. v. Romania (Application No. 59152/08) [CM/Del/Dec(2018)1331/H46-22]

The Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Campeanu v. Romania case concerns the authorities’ failure to protect the right to life of Mr Câmpeanu, a young man of Roma origin, orphaned, HIV-positive and with “severe intellectual disability” (substantial violation of Article 2).

CLR outlines to participants the several human rights violations of the case:

  1. Authorities’ failure to protect the right to life of a young man, orphaned, HIV-positive and with “severe intellectual disability”.

  2. Ineffectiveness of the investigation and the court proceedings into his death 

  3. Lack in domestic law of a legal framework suited to the specific needs of people with mental disabilities and allowing for the examination of the allegations concerning the violation of Mr Câmpeanu’s right to life by an independent authority. The Court stated that Romania must adopt measures to ensure that “persons with mental disabilities in a situation comparable to that of Mr Câmpeanu are afforded independent representation, enabling them to have Convention complaints relating to their health and treatment examined before a court or other independent body”.

CLR provided information on recent developments on legal protections for vulnerable adults:

  • Law no. 140/2022 which regulates the protection measures for people with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities was enacted, but there are important concerns regarding its' implementation.

  • There are approx. 90.000 cases involving the judicial protection of ”incapable” adults, for which this law will be applied.

  • Concerns regarding the implementation Law no. 140/2022 :

    • Lack of training of the professionals working with persons with disabilities.

    • Methodology is hindering the process: high costs and expenses are not supported from the national health fund.

    • Lack of concrete and clear information regarding the mechanism for conducting medical and psychosocial evaluation reports.

    • The norm which states that the institution of the personal representative will be regulated by a special law has still not been drafted, thus persons in situations comparable with Valentin Campeanu remain without protection.

CLR discussed data on the effectiveness of criminal investigations into deaths in mental health institutions:

  • Data provided by the authorities refers to the number of suspicious death case files but not the number of deaths in institutions.

  • There is no information on the number of convictions

  • CLR provided data on deaths in mental health institutions in 2019:

    • 336 deaths in 67 psychiatric units with 8064 beds; out of which only 215 notification of deaths (54 of them to the Monitoring Council, 183 to Police and Prosecutors, 15 to other institutions).

    • Causes of death: Lung disease (73); Asphyxia (17); Heart disease (175); Tumors (7); Suicide (4); Other causes (60).

    • In 2022, there were 1029 reported deaths in social care homes.

  • Examples of ongoing similar cases: young woman with mental disabilities with broken femur for months at Zătreni social care home.

The NGO outlined challenges to the safeguards and remedies regarding placement in residential social care facilities and psychiatric hospitals:

  • The manner and extent to which its decisions can be appealed, the so-called “grey area of consent”

  • Non-transparent procedure of transfers between social homes to psychiatric units – social homes and back.

  • Lack of informed consent.

  • The Monitoring Council is still not fully operational (Law no. 8/2016).

CLR provided their recommendations, asking the Committee of Ministers to request the national authorities to:

  • Elaborate the law that regulates the institution of the personal representative and the provision of the necessary funds so that this can effectively contribute to access to justice for vulnerable persons and to the deinstitutionalization process;

  • Allocate the necessary budget for carrying out psychiatric and psychological assessments of persons in need of supported-decision measures (which are mandatory requested by the national courts).

  • Ensure, through the institutions responsible for the ongoing training of magistrates and lawyers, at least one training course per year in the field of adequate communication with persons with intellectual disabilities /or psychosocial disabilities. 

  • Allocate adequate resources for staff and logistics of the Monitoring Council so that the institution can ensure the effective representation of persons with disabilities in the defense of their fundamental rights and freedoms and ensure their access to justice.  

  • Establish proper collaboration with the human rights NGOs and self-representatives and allow unrestricted access to public and private residential social centers and hospitals or psychiatric wards so that the objective monitoring of the respect for the rights of persons with disabilities can be carried out.

  • Regulate and develop social services in the community and community psychiatry in order to effectively prevent the medical and social neglect of vulnerable patients in psychiatric hospitals and social care homes and to achieve the deinstitutionalization indicator foreseen in Law 7/2023, and ensure that sufficient funding is allocated to communities and local authorities to support these services and the implementation of Law no. 7/2023.  

  • Systematically collect and publish data on cases involving persons with disabilities by the responsible authorities (the National Union of Romanian Bar Associations, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Courts of Appeal, the Monitoring Council, psychiatric hospitals and residential social care centres).

  • Develop concrete and standard complaint mechanisms accessible to people with disabilities institutionalized.

Please see the slides for the full Briefing.

Relevant Documents:

The Reykjavik Declaration: Re-committing to the Convention system and to implementation of judgments of the European Court

/

Last week, following the Fourth Summit of the Council of Europe, the Heads of State and Government have recommitted to the Convention System, underlining the “shared responsibility” between the states, the Court and the Committee of Ministers, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the Convention system.

Through the Reykjavik Declaration, Member States recalled the responsibility for complying with the judgments of the Court which is incumbent on the “executive, national and local authorities, national courts and national parliaments”.  The ECtHR judgment implementation process is addressed in the Declaration’s Appendix IV “Recommitting to the Convention System as the cornerstone of the Council of Europe’s protection of human rights”.

Member States commit to tackling the non-implementation of judgments of the European Court by developing a more “co-operative, inclusive and political approach based on dialogue”. For this purpose, they have undertaken to:

  • Affirm the need for a co-operative and inclusive approach, based on dialogue, in the supervision process to assist States in the execution of the Court’s judgments;

  • Scale up co-operation programmes to assist member States in the implementation of judgments, which may involve, as appropriate, States facing the same or similar issues in implementation, and increase synergy between the Department for the Execution of Judgments and the Council of Europe co-operation programmes;

  • Call for greater synergy between Council of Europe monitoring and advisory bodies, the Department for the Execution of Judgments and other relevant Council of Europe departments, as appropriate, to facilitate the exchange of good practice and expertise among member States, and underline the importance of holding an annual meeting with national co-ordinators for the execution of judgments and the Department for the Execution of Judgments;

  • Call for a strengthening of the institutional dialogue between the Court and the Committee of Ministers on general issues related to the execution of judgments;

  • Invite the President of the Committee of Ministers, the Secretary General, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly and the President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities to strengthen their political dialogue with their respective national interlocutors on the implementation of judgments;

  • Invite national authorities, as appropriate, to strengthen co-operation with local and regional authorities in order to facilitate the process of executing the judgments which concern them;

  • Call for a strengthening of political dialogue in the event of difficulties in the implementation of judgments and encourage the participation of high-level representatives from the respondent State;

  • Call on the Committee of Ministers to continue their work enhancing the tools available in the supervision of the execution of judgments with clear and predictable, gradual steps in the event of non-execution or persistent refusal to execute the final judgments of the Court, in an appropriate and flexible way, that takes into account the specificities of each case.

We are glad to see the renewed commitment of the Council of Europe to the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Many of these undertakings are in line with EIN’s proposals in its call for Reforms to Improve the Implementation of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in view of the Fourth Summit. EIN will closely monitor the execution of these important undertakings and put the expertise of its network at the disposal of all relevant stakeholders to advance the full, timely and effective implementation of ECtHR judgments.