Overview of Rule 9 Submissions in view of the Committee of Ministers' Deputies Human Rights Meeting in June 2025 

/

From the 10th to the 12th of June 2025, the Committee of Ministers is meeting for their quarterly Human Rights Meeting. During the meeting, the Committee of Ministers will examine 66 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 38 Rule 9 submissions in 36 leading cases under consideration. The list below sets out an overview of these submissions related to cases on the current agenda. 

 

Overview of Submissions 

 
 
 
 

Namazov v. Azerbaijan group 

Violation: Lack of procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings, having led to the applicants’ disbarment for breach of professional ethics following verbal altercations with a judge. 

Latest Examination: June 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1501/H46-5 

Latest Submission(s): 1531st meeting (June 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, Independent Lawyers Network and Free Voices Collective) (29/04/2025) in the Namazov group of cases v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 74354/13) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)575] 

 

Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan 

Violation: Impossibility for persons displaced during the active military phase (1992-1994) of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to gain access to their homes and properties in the region; lack of effective remedies. 

Latest Examination: December 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1514/H46-10 

Latest Submission(s): 1531st meeting (June 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (18/03/2025) in the case of SARGSYAN v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 40167/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)323]

 

Koilova and Babulkova v. Bulgaria 

Violation: Lack of a specific legal framework providing for the recognition and protection of the applicants' union as persons of the same sex. 

Latest Examination: First examination 

Latest Submission(s): 1531st meeting (June 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (LGBTI Organisation Deystvie and ILGA-Europe) (20/02/2025) in the case of Koilova and Babulkova v. Bulgaria (Application No. 40209/20) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)298] 

 

Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria 

Violation: Disciplinary proceedings and sanctions against the President of the judges’ association in retaliation against her criticism of the Supreme Judicial Council and the executive. 

Latest Examination: June 2024 -CM/Del/Dec(2024)1501/H46-9 

Latest Submission(s): 1531st meeting (June 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) (10/04/2025) in the cases KOLEVI v. Bulgaria (Application No. 1108/02) and Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria (Application No. 40072/13) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)469] 

 

Kolevi v. Bulgaria 

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. 

Latest Examination: June 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1501/H46-10 

Latest Submission(s): 1531st meeting (June 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) (10/04/2025) in the cases KOLEVI v. Bulgaria (Application No. 1108/02) and Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria (Application No. 40072/13) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)469] 

 

M.H. and Others v. Croatia 

Violation: Lack of effective investigation into the death of the applicants’ daughter at the Croatian border; inadequate conditions of detention of migrant children; lack of administrative and court diligence and expedition concerning asylum seeking applicants’ detention and asylum proceedings; collective expulsion; violation of the right of individual application. 

Latest Examination: September 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1475/H46-14 

Latest Submission(s): 1531st meeting (June 2025) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN)) (22/04/2025) in the case of M.H. and Others v. Croatia (Application No. 15670/18) and reply from the authorities (07/05/2025) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)504-rev] 

 
 
 
 

Bekir-Ousta and Others v. Greece group 

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

Latest Examination: December 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1514/H46-17 

Latest Submission(s): 1531st meeting (June 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicants (25/04/2025) in the case of BEKIR-OUSTA AND OTHERS v. Greece (Application No. 35151/05) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)473] 

 

László Magyar v. Hungary group 

Violation: Life sentence without parole in combination with the lack of an adequate review mechanism, life sentence with parole after 40 years. 

Latest Examination: September 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1507/H46-12 

Latest Submission(s): 1531st meeting (June 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Helsinki Committee) (22/04/2025) in the Laszlo Magyar group of cases v. Hungary (Application No. 73593/10) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)506]

 
 

Talpis v. Italy group 

Violation: Failure to comply with the positive obligation to properly assess the risk to life in domestic violence cases and to secure a timely and adequate response. Sexism in the perception of the phenomenon of violence against women, including in court decisions, leading to secondary victimisation. Impunity for domestic violence acts due to a combination of judicial passivity and intervening changes to the prescription regime. 

Latest Examination: September 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1475/H46-19 

Latest Submission(s): 1531st meeting (June 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (D.i.Re Donne in Rete contro la violenza) (29/04/2025) in the Talpis group of cases v. Italy (Application No. 41237/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)553] 

 

Corallo v. The Netherlands 

Violation: Poor conditions of detention on remand in Sint Maarten (Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands) pending extradition proceedings. 

Latest Examination: December 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1483/H46-21 

Latest Submission(s): 1531st meeting (June 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Netherlands Institute for Human Rights) (30/04/2025) in the case of Corallo v. the Netherlands (Application No. 29593/17) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)554] 

 
 
 

Parascineti v. Romania, Cristian Teodorescu v. Romania group, N. v. Romania & R.D. and I.M.D. v. Romania 

Violation: Overcrowding and inadequate living conditions, treatment and care afforded to patients in psychiatric establishments; unlawful or arbitrary involuntary psychiatric placements and insufficient safeguards against such deprivations of liberty; systematic failure to seek consent to psychiatric treatment and absence of minimum legal safeguards attending the forcible administration of psychiatric treatment to involuntary patients. 

Latest Examination: June 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1501/H46-26 

Latest Submission(s): 1531st meeting (June 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre for Legal Resources) (02/05/2025) in the cases of B. (No. 2), Cristian Teodorescu group, Ticu, Parascineti, R.D. and I.M.D. (N. group), N. (No. 2), Centre for legal resources Valentin Campeanu, Atudorei and N. v. Romania (Applications No. 1285/03, 22883/05, 24575/10, 32060/05, 35402/14, 38048/18, 47848/08, 50131/08, 59152/08) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)559]

1531st meeting (June 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre for Legal Resources) (02/05/2025) in the cases of B. (No. 2), Cristian Teodorescu group, Ticu, Parascineti, R.D. and I.M.D. (N. group), N. (No. 2), Centre for legal resources Valentin Campeanu, Atudorei and N. v. Romania (Applications No. 1285/03, 22883/05, 24575/10, 32060/05, 35402/14, 38048/18, 47848/08, 50131/08, 59152/08) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)558] 

 

Străin and Others v. Romania group & Văleanu and Others v. Romania 

Violation: Ineffectiveness of the mechanism put in place to allow the restitution of or compensation for nationalised property. Continuing ineffectiveness of this restitution mechanism. 

Latest Examination: June 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1501/H46-27 

Latest Submission(s): 1531st meeting (June 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Association for Private Property) (19/05/2025) in the cases of Strain and Others group and Valeanu and Others v. Romania (Applications No. 57001/00, 59012/17) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)654]

 
 
 
 
 

Xenides-Arestis v. Türkiye 

Violation: Continuous denial of access to property in the northern part of Cyprus (individual measures and just satisfaction). 

Latest Examination: September 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1507/H46-38 

Latest Submission(s): 1531st meeting (June 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (09/05/2025) in the Xenides Arestis group of cases v. Turkey (Application No. 46347/99) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)538] 

Overview of Rule 9 Submissions in view of the Committee of Ministers' Deputies Human Rights Meeting in March 2025

/

📅 From the 4th to the 6th of March 2025, the Committee of Ministers will meet for their quarterly Human Rights Meeting. During the meeting, the Committee of Ministers will examine 48 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 49 Rule 9 submissions in 28 leading cases under consideration. The list below sets out an overview of these submissions related to cases on the current agenda.

 

Overview of Submissions

 
 

Mammadli v. Azerbaijan group 

Violation(s): Arrest and pre-trial detention to punish the applicants for his 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. 

Latest Examination: December 2024 - [CM/Del/Dec(2024)1514/H46-7] 

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Free Voices Collective (FVC), the Independent Lawyers Network (ILN) and the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC)) (15/01/2025) in the Mammadli group of cases v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 47145/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)89]

 

Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina group 

Violation(s): 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. 

Latest Examination: June 2024 - [CM/Del/Dec(2024)1501/H46-7] 

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs ((Human Rights Watch, Minority Rights Group) (14/01/2025) in the SEJDIC AND FINCI group of cases v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (Application No. 27996/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)83] 

 
 

United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria group 

Violation(s): Unjustified refusals by the courts to register an association aiming at achieving “the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria”. 

Latest Examination: September 2024 - [CM/Del/Dec(2024)1507/H46-7] 

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) (14/01/2025) in the group of cases UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria (Application No. 59491/00) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)80]

 

Y. and Others v. Bulgaria & A.E. v. Bulgaria 

Violation(s): Failure to protect a woman's life in the context of repeated incidents of domestic violence. 

Failure to provide adequate protection to a minor victim of domestic violence; discrimination on account of the authorities' failure to adequately address domestic violence against women. 

Latest Examination: First examination 

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from NGOs (Bulgarian Fund for Women, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and PULSE Foundation) (31/01/2025) in the cases of A.E. and Y and Others v. Bulgaria (Applications No. 53891/20, 9077/18) (Y and Others group) and reply from the authorities (13/02/2025) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)155-rev] 

 

Khan v. France 

Violation(s): 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. 

Latest Examination: December 2022 - [CM/Del/Dec(2022)1451/H46-12] 

Latest Submission(s): 1521e réunion (mars 2025) (DH) - Règle 9.2 - Communication d'ONG (ECPAT France, GISTI, Médecins du Monde, Médecins Sans Frontières, Safe Passage International France et Utopia 56) (20/12/2024) dans l’affaire Kahn c. France (requête n° 12267/16) [French only] [DH-DD(2025)22] 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Locascia and Others v. Italy 

Violation(s): Prolonged inability to ensure the proper functioning of the waste collection, treatment and disposal service in Campania, lack of an effective remedy in this respect and interference with the applicants' personal well-being due to the pollution caused by a landfill site. 

Latest Examination: First examination 

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (17/02/2025) in the case of Locascia and Others v. Italy (Application No. 35648/10) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)200] 

 
 
 

Tysiąc v. Poland, R.R. v. Poland, P. and S. v. Poland & M.L. v. Poland 

Violation(s): 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 (Tysiąc v. Poland) and lack of access to prenatal test enabling to take an informed decision on whether to seek an abortion (R.R. v. Poland) 

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. v. Poland) 

Impossibility to perform lawful abortion in Poland due to foetal abnormalities in consequence of a Constitutional Court’s judgment of October 2020, adopted in a composition not complying with the rule of law requirements and in circumstances disclosing the lack of foreseeability (M.L. v. Poland) 

Latest Examination: March 2024 - [CM/Del/Dec(2024)1492/H46-25] / First examination of M.L. v. Poland

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Foundation for Women and Family Planning (FEDERA) and Center for Reproductive Rights) (22/01/2025) in the cases of TYSIAC, R.R., P. and S. and M.L. v. Poland (Applications No. 5410/03, 27617/04, 57375/08, 40119/21) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)118] 

 

C. v. Romania 

Violation(s): Failure to protect the applicant’s personal integrity due to significant flaws in the criminal investigation concerning alleged sexual harassment at the workplace. 

Latest Examination: First examination  

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Association for Liberty and Equality of Gender (A.L.E.G.) and supported by 21 national NGOs and trade unions) (14/01/2025) in the case of C. v. Romania (Application No. 47358/20) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)96] 

 

Catan and Others v. Russia group 

Violation(s): Violation of the right to education of children and parents using Latin-script schools in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova. 

Latest Examination: March 2024 - [CM/Del/Dec(2024)1492/H46-29] 

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Promo-Lex) (20/01/2025) in the CATAN AND OTHERS group of cases v. Russia (Application No. 43370/04) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)128] 

 
 

Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) 

Violation(s): Multiple violations of the Convention regarding events in Crimea, starting on 27/02/2014 and until 16/09/2022, when Russia ceased to be a contracting Party to the Convention. Violations concern: right to life, prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, right to liberty and security, right to a fair trial, no punishment without law, right to respect for private and family life, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, prohibition of discrimination, limitation on use of restrictions on rights, protection of property, right to education, freedom of movement. 

Latest Examination: First examination.  

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Center for Civil Liberties, Regional Center for Human Rights, and Kharkiv Human Rights Protection group) (10/02/2025) in the case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (Application No. 20958/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)189] 

1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Protection for Prisoners of Ukraine, Russland hinter Gittern e.V. and European Prison Litigation Network) (03/02/2025) in the case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (Application No. 20958/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)179] 

1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO ((Memorial Human Rights Defence Centre) (28/01/2025) in the case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (Application No. 20958/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)138] 

 

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland 

Violation(s): Authorities' failure to mitigate climate change and in particular the effects of global warming. 

Latest Examination: First examination.  

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Our Children’s Trust, Oxfam International and Centre for Child Law, University of Pretoria) (13/02/2025) in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (Application No. 53600/20) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)236] 

1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Verein KlimaSeniorinnen) (10/02/2025) in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (Application No. 53600/20) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)201] 

1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Greenpeace International and Climate Litigation Network) (17/01/2025) in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (Application No. 53600/20) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)101] 

1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Verein KlimaSeniorinnen) (17/01/2025) in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (Application No. 53600/20) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)100] 

1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (L’Institution suisse des droits humains) (17/01/2025) in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (Application No. 53600/20) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)102] 

 
 
 

Selahattin Demirtas No. 2 v. Türkiye group 

Violation(s): Unjustified detention of the applicants without reasonable suspicion that they 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 applicants for their political speeches. (General and individual measures) 

Latest Examination: December 2024 - [CM/Del/Dec(2024)1514/H46-38] 

Latest Submission(s): 1521st meeting (March 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch) (17/01/2025) in the cases of Selahattin Demirtas (No. 2) v. Turkey and Yuksekdag Senoglu and Others v. Türkiye (Applications No. 14305/17, 14332/17) (Selahattin Demirtas (No. 2) group) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2025)97] 

 
 
 

EIN Civil Society Briefing February 2025 - Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Romania & France

/

On February 21st, 2025, EIN held its latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, the second of a series of two briefings ahead of the 1521st Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting which will be held between 4th – 6th March 2025. The briefing focused on the following cases:

  • Bălșan v. Romania case, presented by Andreea Bragă, Legal Coordinator, Centrul FILIA, member organisation of the Rețeaua pentru prevenirea și combaterea violenței împotriva femeilor (Network for Preventing and Combating Violence against Women)

  • Khan v. France case, presented by Aurélia Lamiroy, Legal Coordinator, Plateforme des Soutiens aux Migrant.e.s (PSM)

 

This group of cases concerns discrimination in electoral eligibility for the Presidency and House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which prevents individuals from running unless they belong to one of the three ‘constituent peoples’ (Bosnians, Croats, or Serbs), or meet specific ethnic and residency requirements (violations of Art. 1 of Prot. No. 12 and, in most cases, of Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 3 of Prot. No. 1). The Court acknowledged that these provisions were originally intended to stabilise the post-war context, but ruled that, more than eighteen years later, such restrictions were no longer justified, calling for democratic reforms to ensure equal political rights for all citizens.

As highlighted by Stefania Carrer, the implementation of the Sejdić and Finci judgment remains stagnant, with discriminatory provisions in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Constitution and electoral law still barring non-constituent minorities from key political roles. Four general elections under this framework later and despite five interim resolutions by the Committee of Ministers, no substantive reforms have been made over the past 15 years. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has warned that by favoring only the three constituent peoples, the system undermines equality and fuels ethnic tensions undermining stability. Although high-level discussions and meetings have taken place, confirming deliberations on amending the Constitution and Election Law, concrete actions to implement these changes remain elusive. Furthermore, the lack of meaningful consultations with non-constituent minorities and plaintiffs continues to hinder progress toward a more inclusive political system, and this is reflected in the increasing number of cases highlighting unaddressed structural discrimination.

Recommendations for the implementation Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina group of cases:

Minority Rights Group and Human Rights Watch ask the Committee of Ministers to:

  1. Appeal to Member State to request action to ensure implementation with judgments with strict approach on deadlines;

  2. Request the Member State to provide detailed reports of institutional meetings discussing implementation (as per its last Communication);

  3. Provide safe space for meaningful consultations of plaintiffs and national minorities in the implementation process;

  4. 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.

 

This group of cases concerns the unjustified refusals of the courts to register associations the aim of which is to achieve the recognition of and protect the interests of "the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria” (violation of Art. 11). The refusals were based on considerations of national security, protection of public order and the rights of others (goals aiming at “the recognition of the Macedonian minority” and alleged separatist ideas) and on the constitutional prohibition on associations pursuing political goals, as well as failure to meet formal legal requirements.

As highlighted by Krassimir Kanev, the progress in Umo Ilinden and Others remains stalled. Since 2006, Bulgarian authorities have persistently refused to register associations representing ethnic Macedonians, with 20 new applications submitted as recently as February 2024. Kanev explains that the state’s refusals rest on two grounds: concerns over national security, public order, and constitutional limits on political aims; and technical deficiencies in founding documents, such as missing details on the assembly’s timing and ambiguous membership rules. Under the Non-Profit Legal Entities Act and the Trade and Non-Profit Associations Register Act, applications undergo a multi-tiered review, yet conflicting legal interpretations and administrative overreach have led to inconsistent decisions.

Recommendation for the implementation Umo Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria group of cases

The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC) observes that the Government considers that it has fulfilled its obligations for execution of the judgments in this group and does not plan any further measures. The positions of the Committee of Ministers and the Bulgarian authorities seem therefore to be irreconcilable. Considering this situation, BHC considers that the only option appears to be an infringement procedure.

 

This case concerns the failure of Romanian authorities to protect the applicant from repeated domestic violence by her then-spouse. The ECtHR found a violation of Art. 3, as the authorities dismissed her complaints, attributing the violence to provocation, lack of seriousness, or insufficient evidence, and denying her a court-appointed lawyer and protective measures. The Court found that she had been the victim of gender-based discrimination, highlighting systemic passivity in addressing domestic violence in Romania, where impunity for aggressors and judicial inaction persisted despite legal reforms (violation of Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 3).

As highlighted by Andreea Braga, the implementation of the Bălșan judgment remains partial. Although the Revised Action Plan 2025 introduced an electronic monitoring system, only one in ten aggressors has been fitted with an electronic bracelet due to limited resources, insufficient victim awareness, and a shortage of devices. Furthermore, the network of social services falls short of Istanbul Convention standards—with shelter capacities 34% below requirements and chronic underfunding—and the criminal justice system struggles with restrictive legal definitions that rely on victim-initiated complaints. Enhanced resources, training, and legal reforms are urgently needed to fully protect domestic violence victims.

Recommendations for the implementation Bălșan v. Romania case

The Network for Preventing and Combating Violence against Women asks the Committee of Ministers to call on the Romanian authorities to implement the following general measures:

  1. Modify the definition of ”family member” in the Criminal Code in order to be in accordance with the Istanbul Convention;

  2. Introduce mandatory risk assessments for judges called to decide on domestic violence cases, either in civil or criminal procedures;

  3. Allow victims to introduce criminal complaints for all offences of domestic violence without any time limitation;

  4. Modify the criminal law in order to set an obligation for prosecutors and judges to take into consideration the domestic context of the violence either as a distinct offence or as an aggravating circumstance;

  5. Set up legal rules and time limits to allow prompt and coordinated investigation and prosecution of all criminal offenses involving forms of domestic violence;

  6. Introduce initial training modules of professionals on gender based violence and intersectionality;

  7. Ensure public and continuous funding services for victims of domestic violence (emergency centers, shelters, information centers, rape crises centers) in accordance with provisions of the Istanbul Convention;

  8. Collect and publish regularly disaggregated data on domestic violence, number of requests for legal assistance, number of orders breached and the consequences of such breaches, both in terms of violence suffered by the women and sanctions imposed on the perpetrators.

 

This case concerns the degrading treatment of a 12-year-old unaccompanied minor in transit to the UK due to the French authorities’ failure to provide him with care and protection. From September 2015 to March 2016, he lived in unsafe, unsanitary conditions in the Calais "Jungle" camp, with authorities failing to identify or protect him. The ECtHR found a violation of Art. 3, ruling that the State had failed in its duty to safeguard one of society’s most vulnerable individuals.

As highlighted by Aurélia Lamiroy, the implementation of the Khan judgment remains critically insufficient. Despite recommendations from the Committee of Ministers and the adoption of new laws and guidelines, practical measures to protect unaccompanied minors at the border have not met expectations. In Calais and Dunkerque, under-resourced identification systems and delays in emergency housing procedures have led to high refusal rates and prolonged waiting times, leaving vulnerable minors without timely support. Furthermore, the state’s reliance on non-mandated associations—without adequate financial backing for organisations like the Red Cross and Utopia 56—exacerbates these shortcomings. Persistent issues, such as inconsistent age assessments and inadequate outreach efforts, continue to deny minors essential care and information. Without decisive reforms and improved resource allocation, the structural failures in the system will continue to jeopardise the safety and rights of unaccompanied minors.

Recommendations for the implementation Khan v. France case

The NGOs, represented by the Platforme des Soutiens aux Migrant.e.s (PSM), ask the Committee of Ministers to call on the French authorities to implement the following general measures:

  1. Improve the identification system of minors by strengthening the outreach systems & creating a daytime center;

  2. Improve access to emergency housing & to stop refusing minors’ request for emergency housing;

  3. Improve the shelter system;

  4. Increase resources, tools and skills for the identification and protection of minors who are victims of trafficking.

 

EIN Civil Society Briefing January 2025

/

On January 29th, 2025, EIN held its latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, the first of a series of two briefings ahead of the 1521st Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting which will be held between 4th – 6th March 2025. The briefing focused on the following cases: 

 

Kavala v. Türkiye group of cases 

The Kavala v. Türkiye case concerns Osman Kavala, a businessperson and human rights defender, arrested in 2017 for allegedly attempting to overthrow the government during the 2013 Gezi Park protests and the constitutional order after the 2016 coup attempt. In 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled his detention unlawful, finding no reasonable suspicion for the charges and determining that it aimed to silence him, violating Articles 5 and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court ordered his immediate release, emphasising that continued detention would further violate his rights. 

Despite this ruling, Türkiye did not release Mr. Kavala. Instead, he was convicted in 2022 and sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment based on the same accusations. The Committee of Ministers referred the case to the ECtHR, which, in its Grand Chamber judgment, found Türkiye in breach of its obligations under Article 46§4. The Court concluded that Türkiye acted in bad faith, undermining Mr. Kavala’s rights and violating the Convention’s principles, raising serious concerns about human rights and judicial independence. 

Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) provided insightful updates concerning the status of implementation of the Kavala v. Türkiye group of cases, highlighting that Kavala’s conviction and aggravated life sentence were upheld by Turkish courts in September 2023, cementing his continued detention in violation of the Convention. Since 2019, Turkish authorities have used various tactics to avoid compliance with the Kavala judgment, illustrating a deliberate effort to prolong his detention for political purposes, undermining the rule of law and intimidating other human rights defenders. These systemic delays and resistance from the authorities continue to obstruct progress, despite the Committee of Ministers repeatedly condemning these violations. 

As highlighted by civil society, the Kavala case now symbolises broader structural failings within Türkiye’s judiciary. The Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP), tasked with ensuring judicial independence, remains dominated by political appointees loyal to the ruling coalition. This control compromises the impartiality of judicial processes and facilitates politically charged decisions. Judicial interference extends beyond the Kavala case, impacting the broader protection of human rights and democratic standards in Türkiye. Government officials have systematically stifled political debate and dissent, weaponising criminal proceedings against human rights defenders and critics. Legitimate human rights advocacy is increasingly criminalised, reinforcing a climate of fear and repression. 

Recommendations for the implementation of the Kavala v. Türkiye group of cases 

Concerning general measures, the NGOs  jointly request the CM to: 

  • Urge the authorities to ensure judicial independence by:

    • Reforming the CJP in line with the Venice Commission’s recommendations and international standards;

    • Requiring all decisions concerning judicial careers to adhere to objective, transparent, and lawful criteria, subject to review by an independent judicial body;

    • Ensuring that recruitment of judges and prosecutors is independent from the executive, following a merit-based, transparent, and fair process;

    • Reducing the President’s role in appointments to the Constitutional Court;

  • Call on the authorities to secure an enabling environment for political debate and pluralism through comprehensive measures to address systemic failures in safeguarding Convention rights, by refraining from political interference in judicial proceedings, and by amending problematic national security legislation.

Concerning individual measures, Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists request the Committee of Ministers (CM) to: 

  • Call for the immediate release of Osman Kavala and exhaust all actions that can be taken within the remit of the Committee's and individual member States' competences to ensure his immediate release;

  • Stress that the ECtHR’s two judgments clearly apply to Mr. Kavala’s conviction and aggravated life sentence;

  • Strongly condemn Türkiye’s ongoing failure to implement these judgments, stressing that Mr. Kavala’s prolonged detention, conviction and life sentence are fundamentally incompatible with the values of the Convention;

  • Call for the quashing of Osman Kavala’s conviction and sentence in line with the ECtHR’s judgments;

  • Intensify efforts to ensure that CoE institutions and member and observer states continue to engage with this case. 

 

Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) v. Türkiye group of cases and Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and Others v. Türkiye case 

The Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) v. Türkiye group of cases concerns the politically motivated prosecution and prolonged pre-trial detention of opposition politicians from the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) following the 2016 constitutional amendment that lifted parliamentary immunity. 

Demirtaş, an HDP leader and member of the National Assembly, was arrested in 2016 on terrorism-related charges based on his political statements, particularly regarding the 2014 Kobani protests. Similarly, Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and 12 other HDP MPs faced detention and prosecution for their political actions. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found multiple violations, ruling that their detention lacked reasonable suspicion, aimed to stifle political pluralism, and resulted from an unforeseeable removal of parliamentary immunity.  

The latest developments in these cases show continued non-compliance by Turkish authorities with ECtHR judgments. Despite the Court’s findings that the detention of the applicants violated their rights and was politically motivated, both remain incarcerated—Demirtaş facing a 42-year sentence and Şenoğlu over 30 years. The Turkish government has resisted full implementation of the ruling, using shifting legal justifications and judicial tactics to delay proceedings, such as sham release orders followed by re-detention and initiating multiple overlapping criminal cases. Cooperation with the CoE has been procedural rather than substantive, with submissions failing to address the core violations. The Committee of Ministers has repeatedly called for their release, and the case remains under enhanced supervision. Concerns persist over judicial independence, parliamentary immunity, and broader repression of opposition politicians. 

Recommendation for the implementation of the Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) v. Türkiye group of cases and Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and Others v. Türkiye case 

The NGOs also request the Committee of Ministers (CM) to urge the Turkish authorities to implement the following general measures: 

  • Ensure the annulment of criminal proceedings based on the arbitrary lifting of MPs’ parliamentary immunity by the constitutional amendment of May 2016 or by judicial authorities;

  • End the widespread judicial practice of issuing requests to Parliament to lift parliamentarians’ inviolability based on their exercise of Convention rights;

  • Ensure that judicial authorities genuinely and effectively apply constitutional and Convention safeguards protecting opposition politicians’ freedom of expression, including by implementing the Committee’s and Venice Commission’s recommendations on anti-terrorism laws and other laws used to stifle freedom of expression of politicians;

  • Provide adequate remedies and safeguards, including through access to the investigation file to challenge pre-trial detention, respect for fair trial rights, and implementation of Constitutional Court case-law on parliamentary immunity;

  • Address obstacles to opposition politicians’ exercise of their elected mandates in a free and safe environment, such as the “trustee” system of local governance, abusive proceedings against the HDP, administrative parliamentary sanctions for legitimate expression, and attacks on politicians representing the opposition and Kurdish and other minority rights.

Concerning individual measures, Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and the International Federation for Human Rights request the Committee of Ministers (CM) to:  

  • Call once more for the immediate release of Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu;

  • Condemn Türkiye’s ongoing attempts to avoid executing the judgments;

  • Highlight that sustained failure to implement the Court’s judgments, the arbitrary detention of Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu for over eight years, and their convictions and sentences are contrary to the values of pluralism and freedom of political debate underpinning the Convention;

  • Use all available tools to ensure their immediate release, including the initiation of infringement proceedings against Türkiye under Article 46(4) of the Convention; 

  • Call for the speedy examination of their appeal of their convictions and sentences, as well as their applications to the Constitutional Court;

  • Call for a Convention-compliant decision concerning their appeal and their immediate acquittal in line with the ECtHR’s judgments;

  • Emphasise that restitutio in integrum requires the ceasing of the judicial harassment of the applicants based on the same or a similar context as examined by the Court;

 

 Taner Kılıç (Nº 2) v. Türkiye case

The Taner Kılıç (Nº 2) v. Türkiye case is a repetitive case under Nedim Sener v. Türkiye group of cases which concerns unjustified and disproportionate interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression on account of criminal proceedings for having expressed opinions that did not incite hatred or violence, and the consequent chilling effect on society as a whole. Taner Kılıç, a human rights lawyer and former Chair of Amnesty International Türkiye, was arrested in June 2017 on unfounded charges of “membership in a terrorist organisation.” He remained in pre-trial detention until August 2018. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in October 2022 that his detention was unlawful, violating Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. The Court found that the charges were based solely on Kılıç’s peaceful human rights work, with no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. His detention was deemed an arbitrary interference with his right to liberty and freedom of expression, underscoring the risks faced by human rights defenders in Türkiye and the broader issue of judicial manipulation. 

The Turkish Government requested the closure of the Committee of Ministers' supervision, citing the payment of compensation as fulfillment of its obligations. However, civil society the case argue that compliance with the ECtHR's findings cannot be limited to compensation, and that Türkiye must take concrete actions to restore Kılıç's situation to what it was before his unlawful detention.  

Recommendation for the implementation of the Taner Kılıç (Nº 2) v. Türkiye case

Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists and Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project kindly ask the Committee of Ministers to:  

  • Examine the Taner Kılıç (Nº 2) v. Turkey judgment under enhanced supervision and as a leading case pursuant to the Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)11;

  • Reject the government request for the closure of the supervision of individual measures and request that the Turkish authorities take concrete measures to ensure the conclusion of domestic proceedings against Taner Kılıç in a manner consistent with the spirit and findings of the Court’s judgment;

  • Strengthen the protection and promotion of the space for civil society in line with the Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec (2018)11; 

  • Provide information to the Committee on measures taken to address the chilling effect identified by the Court;

  • Prevent violations of the rights of human rights defenders;

  • Ensure the independent and effective investigation of threats and attacks against human rights defenders and civil society organisations;

  • Drop abusive criminal prosecutions and release human rights defenders who have been imprisoned simply for exercising their rights. 

 

Pişkin v. Türkiye case

The Pişkin v. Türkiye case concerns inadequate judicial review of the dismissal of Mr. Pişkin, a public employee under Türkiye's emergency legislative decree, citing alleged links to a terrorist organisation. The ECtHR found that Legislative Decree No. 667 allowed dismissals without adversarial proceedings or procedural safeguards, requiring only vague claims of affiliation with ‘illegal structures.’ The Court held that domestic courts failed to thoroughly examine the appeal, disregard evidence, and provide valid reasons for dismissing the applicant's arguments. This lack of proper judicial review violated Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (right to respect for private life), as the applicant was not protected against arbitrary action and the dismissal did not meet the strict standards required during a state of emergency. 

Following the Pişkin judgment, significant developments have highlighted ongoing challenges in addressing the mass dismissals under the state of emergency. Türkiye has continuously failed to provide effective reparation to dismissed workers, and the applicant has not been reinstated. The Inquiry Commission’s systemic issues, such as its lack of independence, vague standards, and weak evidence, remain unaddressed. Additionally, domestic courts continue to reject most dismissal challenges, with thousands of cases still unresolved, reflecting inefficiency in providing redress. The Constitutional Court has not yet reviewed any dismissal cases, despite the considerable time passed. NGOs emphasise the urgent need for judicial reforms to ensure timely, fair, and effective remedies, including clear procedures, consistent interpretations of the law, and guarantees of non-repetition. Furthermore, they urge the government to provide comprehensive data on dismissed workers and address the long-standing delays in the judicial process. 

Recommendation for the implementation of the Pişkin v. Türkiye case

  • Urge Türkiye to ensure administrative and labour courts adopt consistent interpretations aligned with the principles of legality, foreseeability and non-arbitrariness in dismissal cases, as required by the ECtHR’s judgment;   

  • Request Türkiye to revise its Action Report and clearly define steps to ensure independence and impartiality of labour courts, administrative courts and other domestic administrative and judicial avenues, ensuring an effective judicial review of dismissal cases; 

  • Outline how the domestic avenues, including the Constitutional Court, provide for effective remedies for the breaches of the rights of those dismissed under the state of emergency; 

  • Invite Türkiye to incorporate in its revised action plan the issues raised by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights in her February 2020 report and by the NGOs in this submission and their previous two submissions; 

  • Urge Türkiye to adopt a clear and binding time-limit within which the domestic authorities must conclude fair and effective determinations of challenges to the dismissal decisions, taking into account the lapse of some eight years since the first dismissals took place; and  

  • Ensure that Mr. Pişkin and the other dismissed public sector workers who obtained decisions recognising violations or reinstatement are provided with full reparation, including restitution and appropriate compensation, and guarantees of non-repetition. 

Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project and Amnesty International ask the Committee of Ministers to call on the Turkish authorities to implement the following individual and general measures: 

Regarding individual measures, the NGOs urge the Committee of Ministers to: 

  • Request Türkiye to confirm whether the applicant has been reinstated to their former position, addressing the lack of clarity despite the references to the labour court’s decision in the Government’s submissions;

  • Call for transparency regarding the implementation of the Labour Court's decision, including specific information about the actual reinstatement or compensation provided, ensuring that reparation is meaningful and effective;

  • Urge Türkiye to address the discretion employers have under Article 21 of the Turkish Labour Code, which allows them to refuse reinstatement despite a labour court ruling the dismissal invalid, ensuring that this discretion does not undermine restitution (restitutio in integrum);

  • Demand that Türkiye take steps to ensure that the labour court’s decision leads to genuine restitution (restitutio in integrum), providing either reinstatement or appropriate compensation in line with the principles of reparation. 

Regarding general measures to address and implement the ECtHR’s findings (Articles 6 and 8), the NGOs urge the Committee of Ministers to: 

  • Emphasise the need for robust legislative and judicial reforms to align domestic law with the Convention, preventing further violations of fair trial rights and the right to respect for private life of public sector workers dismissed under the state of emergency; 

  • Request Türkiye to provide comprehensive factual information, including: 

    • The exact number of public sector workers dismissed under the state of emergency; 

    • Procedures and criteria used for dismissals; 

    • Institutions from which public sector workers were dismissed;  

    • The number of cases successfully challenged before labour courts, the Inquiry Commission, administrative courts, or other domestic tribunals; 

    • Actions taken following decisions in favour of the applicants, including reinstatement or other remedies; 

    • The number of public sector workers reinstated, reassigned, or whose challenges were rejected; 

    • The number of those who were placed in different positions or workplaces;  

    • The number of public sector workers whose appeals are still pending before the domestic courts; 

 

Overview of Rule 9 Submissions in view of the Committee of Ministers' Deputies Human Rights Meeting in December 2024

/

📅 From the 3rd to the 5th of December 2024, the Committee of Ministers will meet for their quarterly Human Rights Meeting. During this meeting, the Committee of Ministers will examine 55 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 38 Rule 9 submissions in 28 leading cases under consideration. The list below sets out an overview of these submissions related to cases on the current agenda.

 

Overview of Submissions

 

X and Others v. Albania 

Violation: Failure to implement swift and comprehensive desegregation measures in an elementary school attended almost exclusively by Roma and Egyptian children. 

Last examination: First examination 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (The European Roma Rights Centre) (21/10/2024) concerning the case of X and Others v. Albania (Application No. 73548/17) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1252] 

 

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. 

Last examination: June 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1468/H46-1 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from NGOs (Pink Armenia, EHRAC, ILGA Europe) (21/10/2024) concerning the case of Oganezova v. Armenia (Application No. 71367/12) and reply from the authorities (29/10/2024) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1244]

 

Mammadli group v. Azerbaijan 

Violation: Arrest and pre-trial detention to punish the applicants for his 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: September 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1507/H46-4 

Latest submission(s): 1507th meeting (September 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Free Voices Collective (FVC), Independent Lawyers Network (ILN), European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) and International Partnership of Human Rights (IPHR)) (08/08/2024) concerning the group of cases Mammadli v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 47145/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)941]

 

Namat Aliyev group v. Azerbaijan 

Violation: Various irregularities in the context of the 2005 and 2010 parliamentary elections and lack of safeguards against arbitrariness. 

Last examination: March 2020 - CM/Del/Dec(2020)1369/H46-4 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Free Voices Collective) (17/10/2024) concerning the NAMAT ALIYEV group of cases v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 18705/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1240]

 
 

Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan 

Violation: Impossibility for persons displaced during the active military phase (1992-1994) of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to gain access to their homes and properties in the region; lack of effective remedies. 

Last examination: September 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1507/H46-5 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (22/10/2024) concerning the case of SARGSYAN v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 40167/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1220]

 
 
 
 
 

Basu v. Germany 

Violation: Lack of independent effective investigation into arguable allegations of racial profiling by the police during identity check on a train. 

Last examination: First examination 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NHRI (German Institute for Human Rights) (09/10/2024) in the case of Basu v. Germany (Application No. 215/19) and reply from the authorities (18/10/2024) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1202-rev]

 
 

Cordella and Others group v. Italy 

Violation: Lack of reaction on the part of the authorities to air pollution by steelworks, to the detriment of the surrounding population’s health and lack of an effective remedy to obtain decontamination of the affected areas. 

Last examination: June 2022 - CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-11 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (StraLi for Strategic Litigation) (25/10/2024) concerning the group of cases Cordella and Others v. Italy (Application No. 54414/13) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1284]

 
 
 
 

Al Nashiri group v. Poland 

Violation: Various violations related to the secret detention and "extraordinary rendition” of the applicant. As a result, the applicant was exposed to a serious risk of further ill-treatment and conditions of detention in breach of Article 3 as well as of further secret detention. He faces a risk of capital punishment in a trial before a United States military commission in which, according to the European Court's judgment, evidence obtained under torture might be used. 

Last examination: September 2023 - CM/Del/Dec(2023)1475/H46-23 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Human Rights in Practice) (23/10/2024) concerning the cases of HUSAYN (ABU ZUBAYDAH) v. Poland (Application No. 7511/13) (Al Nashiri group, 28761/11) and Abu Zubaydah group v. Lithuania (Application No. 46454/11) and reply from Poland (31/10/2024). [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1309]

 
 
 
 
 

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: September 2024 - CM/Del/Dec(2024)1507/H46-37 

Latest submission(s): 1514th meeting (December 2024) (DH) - Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (25/11/2024) concerning the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (Application No. 28749/18) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2024)1415] 

 

Reflecting on the EPLN-EIN Conference: Addressing Structural Problems in Prisons and Prospects for European Intervention 

/

On 18 and 19 November 2024, the European Prison Litigation Network (EPLN) and the European Implementation Network (EIN) jointly organised, under the auspices of the Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Council of Europe,  a pivotal conference to address critical issues plaguing European prison systems. Bringing together over 90 leading experts, policymakers, representatives of institutions and civil society actors, the event tackled systemic challenges in prisons as identified by judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, such as overcrowding, informal prisoner hierarchies, mental health neglect, and the practical enforcement of international standards, notably the effective implementation of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments. Over two days of in-depth discussions, participants examined the intersection of these deeply rooted problems with European institutional mechanisms, identifying both the barriers to meaningful reform and the opportunities for fostering improved prison conditions through cooperative European intervention. 

Understanding the Depth of the Problem: Overcrowding and Beyond 

Prison overcrowding emerged as one of the most pressing issues discussed. In her opening speech, Ambassador Tanja Gonggrijp, Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Council of Europe, highlighted recent data revealing that overcrowding has worsened in several European countries, with a 2% increase in inmate populations between 2022 and 2023, leading to degrading conditions and systemic human rights violations. Overcrowding not only violates the dignity of detainees but also exacerbates informal hierarchies, limits access to healthcare, and undermines rehabilitation efforts. 

Annie Kensey, from the Research Centre for Sociology of Law and Penal Institutions, underscored the complexity of the issue, distinguishing between overpopulation, where facilities exceed capacity, and prison inflation, a relative increase in detainees compared to the general population. Both phenomena reflect deeper structural problems, such as reliance on pre-trial detention, lengthy sentences, and a lack of alternatives to imprisonment.  

Participants also debated the minimum standards for humane detention, particularly regarding the sufficiency of personal space per detainee. While the discussions on space requirements reflected broader systemic challenges, they underscored the importance of addressing the root causes of Article 3 violations to foster long-term solutions. In addition, mental health inadequacies were discussed. In many systems, prisoners with severe mental illnesses are confined without adequate care, further highlighting systemic neglect. For instance, Xabier Etxebarria Zarrabeitia, Professor at the Complutense University of Madrid and Board member of EPLN, discussing the Spanish case, emphasised the dire consequences of failing to integrate prison healthcare into national healthcare systems, noting that this leads to lower standards of care and perpetuates stigma. 

Addressing Root Causes with Sustainable Solutions 

The conference repeatedly stressed the importance of addressing the root causes of structural problems rather than merely treating their symptoms, highlighting punitive sentencing policies, excessive reliance on incarceration, and insufficient rehabilitation efforts. Alternatives to detention—such as community sanctions, reduced pre-trial detention, and shorter sentences—were identified as critical tools. However, these solutions come with challenges. For instance, participants noted the unintended consequences of some reforms, such as increased suicide rates among detainees placed in alternative custody arrangements. Additionally, the rise of penal populism in several countries also poses a significant barrier to reform. As noted by Maciej Nowicki, President of the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights and Chair of EIN, political narratives that prioritise punitive measures over evidence-based policies perpetuate systemic problems. Harsh penalties, restrictions on conditional release, and the stigmatisation of inmates as undeserving of humane treatment exacerbate the cycle of overcrowding and neglect. 

Professor Sonja Snacken, Emer. Professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, called for a paradigm shift in penal policies, urging national authorities to prioritise imprisonment as a last resort in order to prevent overcrowding and the resulting consequences. She argued for decriminalisation of minor offenses and greater investment in rehabilitation over punitive measures. The Portuguese system, with its 25-year cap on sentences and emphasis on community sanctions, was highlighted as a model for progressive penal reform. 

Implementation Challenges: ECtHR Judgments and Preventive Measures 

A recurring theme throughout the conference was the gap between the pronouncements of European institutions and their implementation at the national level. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), as outlined by ECtHR Judge Kateřina Šimáčková, has been instrumental in defining states' obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, the effective implementation of ECtHR judgments remains a critical challenge, with many pilot cases struggling to yield substantive reforms.  

In this regard, Pavlo Pushkar, Head of Division at the Department for the Execution of judgments of the ECtHR, stressed the important role of the Committee of Ministers in supervising the execution of judgments, particularly in addressing Article 3 violations related to inhumane detention conditions. Participants emphasised that funding and resource constraints pose major challenges, impacting not only national authorities but also international institutions responsible for monitoring the implementation of these judgments. They underscored the urgent need to minimise delays in execution while prioritising reforms that are both sustainable and contextually relevant. An additional critical point of discussion was the persistent gap between legislation and practice, with a strong call for coordinated efforts to transform theoretical commitments into tangible, real-world outcomes. 

Case studies from Romania and Italy illustrated the complexities of implementing ECtHR judgments. While Romania’s compensatory remedy law and pilot judgment Rezmives v. Romania initially spurred reforms, political resistance and inconsistencies in action plans have undermined sustained progress. Similarly, Italy’s reliance on compensatory remedies in the Torregiani v. Italy case has failed to address underlying structural deficiencies, perpetuating overcrowding and inadequate conditions. Speakers repeatedly highlighted the interplay between political will, resource allocation, and judicial interpretations in hindering the execution of judgments. Subsidiarity, while a cornerstone of European jurisprudence, often results in inconsistent application of standards across member states, undermining efforts to harmonise prison conditions. 

Preventive measures were a prominent topic, with advocates emphasising their importance in mitigating human rights violations before they occur. Julien Attuil, Head of the Transversal Division of the CPT, detailed the harmful impacts of informal prison hierarchies, which perpetuate violence, exploitation, and corruption. He outlined the CPT’s preventative framework and recommendations for dismantling such hierarchies, emphasising the need for structural reforms, professional training, and increased monitoring within prison systems. However, concerns were raised about the misuse of preventive remedies, particularly in contexts like Ukraine, where such measures may obscure systemic failures rather than resolve them. Despite these challenges, the value of prevention was reaffirmed, with participants stressing the need for greater transparency and institutional accountability.  

Finally, the discussion also explored transitional measures as a mechanism to protect rights during reform processes. While these measures were recognised as valuable interim solutions, participants cautioned against complacency, warning that transitional steps must not replace genuine systemic reforms. Their role, it was argued, should be to complement and accelerate broader changes rather than become a substitute for them. 

The Role of Empathy and Collaboration 

Throughout the conference the importance of empathy in addressing human rights violations in prisons was stressed. As several speakers emphasised, incarceration itself is inherently punitive, and inhumane conditions should not serve as an additional punishment. Testimonies from detainees and their families underscored the often-overlooked collateral suffering endured by those affected by systemic neglect. 

The conference also highlighted the need for fostering synergies between the ECtHR, the CPT, and EU mechanisms. Although criminal justice primarily falls within national jurisdictions, the EU can influence penitentiary standards indirectly through funding programs and judicial mechanisms, such as the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Julia Burchett, Post-Doctoral Researcher at the Université Libre de Brussels, pointed out that while the EU’s role in addressing systemic issues is limited, its cooperation frameworks offer opportunities for meaningful interventions. Harmonising messages from these institutions is critical to providing clear, actionable guidance for national authorities. Fragmented or inconsistent messaging can undermine progress and provide justification for inaction. Additionally, increased funding was also identified as key to addressing systemic issues more effectively. 

A Call for Collective Action 

The EPLN-EIN Conference underscored the urgency of reforming European prison systems in line with human rights principles. Structural problems such as overcrowding, mental health neglect, and informal hierarchies remain deeply entrenched, but the discussions reaffirmed the importance of a multifaceted, cooperative approach to addressing these challenges. 

As the conference concluded, participants reaffirmed the unique and indispensable value of the Convention system in addressing human rights violations. Despite its occasional shortcomings, the system’s unparalleled role in addressing human rights violations was emphasised, including as an effective tool for combating injustice in prisons. The discussions emphasised the urgency of transforming prisons into spaces of dignity and rehabilitation rather than suffering and stagnation. 

Looking ahead, the implementation of ECtHR judgments and the establishment of sustainable reforms must remain a priority. As highlighted by Judge Kateřina Šimáčková, “The European Convention does not stop at the prison gate.” It is incumbent upon European institutions, national governments, civil society and legal professionals to deepen their collaboration and work toward a shared goal: to ensure that no individual is subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment within Europe’s prisons. 

This call to action resonates with the emotional testimony shared during the conference by Volodymir Panasenko a former life prisoner whose life was transformed by the ECtHR. Describing the Court as a “court that changes lives,” his story served as a powerful reminder of what is possible when justice systems function as intended. 

Empathy, sustained collaboration, and collective responsibility remain the cornerstones of achieving meaningful progress. By addressing the root causes of systemic problems and fostering synergies among international and national actors, European prison systems can become exemplars of dignity and humanity.

Conference - Structural Problems in Prisons: Prospects for European Intervention

/

On November 18-19th, the European Prison Litigation Network, together with the European Implementation Network, are organising an international conference ‘Structural Problems in Prisons: Prospects for European Intervention’.

Since the early 2000s, increased intervention by Council of Europe (CoE) bodies has led to the definition of a legal status for prisoners, increasingly precise obligations for states to guarantee their fundamental rights, and guidance on prison and penal policy. Similarly, since 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) has considered systemic deficiencies in prison conditions as an obstacle to judicial cooperation between EU member states.

Yet European prison systems continue to suffer from structural problems: prison overcrowding remains acute in more than a quarter of CoE countries, and the average European incarceration rate rose in 2023 for the first time in a decade.

Based on these observations, the European Prison Litigation Network and its partners have conducted a study in nine countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Romania) to assess the effectiveness of European interventions in addressing systemic problems in prison systems.

  • What penological model emerges from the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights and the guidance provided by other bodies of the Council of Europe to Member States?

  • What is the impact of European intervention on national penal and prison policies?

  • Could greater synergies between the CoE and the EU offer stronger levers of reform at national level to tackle structural problems in prisons?

  • Will the control that the EU intends to exercise over prison and judicial reform in EU candidate countries such as Ukraine or Moldova strengthen the Union’s demands for Member States overall in the long term?

This conference brings together representatives of European and national institutions involved in penal and prison policy, academics, and representatives of civil society to discuss the key challenges for tackling structural problems in prisons and for the effective implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in European prisons.

With speakers from European and national institutions, academia, and civil society, including:

  • Marc Nève President of the EPLN, President of the CCSP (Belgian NPM for Prisons), former Vice-President of the CPT

  • Ioulietta Bisiouli Director of the EIN

  • Kateřina Šimáčková ECtHR Judge

  • Mykola Gnatovskyy ECtHR Judge, former President of the CPT

  • Gilberto Felici ECtHR Judge

  • Martin Mühleck European Commission, DG NEAR

  • Simon Creighton Vice-President of the EPLN, Solicitor specialising in prison law and tribunal judge with expertise in mental health issues

  • Georgiana Gheorghe Executive Director of APADOR-CH

  • Zsófia Moldova Director of the Justice Programme, Hungarian Helsinki Committee

  • Oleh Tsvilyi Former prisoner, Head of Protection for Prisoners of Ukraine

  • Annie Kensey Researcher, CESDIP

  • Sonja Snacken Professor, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

As well as many other speakers! Full programme to be announced soon.

 

In partnership with:

With the support of:

Funded by:

 
 

Independence of the Judiciary in Poland: The Venice Commission against the possibility of a blanket removal of all neo-judges 

/

On October 14th, the Venice Commission (VC) and Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law of the Council of Europe (“DGI”) issued a landmark joint Opinion on European standards regulating the status of judges, on the basis of four questions raised by the Minister of Justice of Poland on the issue of neo-judges in Poland. This issue stems from the appointment of over 2,500 judges through a politicised National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), reconstituted in 2017 in the context of far-reaching judicial reforms introduced by the then ruling Law and Justice party (PiS), which had been found by the VC, in a 2017 Opinion, to “enable the legislative and executive powers to interfere in a severe and extensive manner in the administration of justice, and thereby pose a grave threat to the judicial independence as a key element of the rule of law”. In the same vein, European and Polish courts had continued addressing fundamental concerns raised about judicial independence in Poland, ruling on multiple occasions that neo-judges do not meet independence standards.

In July 2024, the Polish Minister of Justice, Adam Bodnar seized the Venice Commission with four questions linked to two models to address the issue of neo-judges, with a view to reducing the risk that the chosen solution may conflict with the ECHR and EU law. Without assessing directly the models proposed, the assessment of the Venice Commission concludes that a wholesale invalidation ex tunc of all the appointment decisions of the Polish NCJ (and thus a blanket return of all neo-judges to their previous positions) does not fit into the rule of law concept, as it would among others fail the proportionality test and the principle of separation of powers. Instead, the VC recommends adopting a case-by-case approach (which does not necessarily mean an individual approach, but can also involve considering grouped categories (“cohorts”) of similar appointments, in any event on the basis of pre-established criteria), giving the right to affected judges to seek judicial review against the invalidation of their nomination or promotion in case the decisions on invalidation are not taken by a judicial body.

While reaffirming the importance of legal certainty, the Opinion acknowledges that there may be circumstances in which the reassignment of a judge to another position (including the possibility of delegating judges to the courts where they served prior to the enactment of the impugned law) is unavoidable. Yet, transitional arrangements that may be needed have to be surrounded by adequate guarantees. The Opinion finally concludes that a number of safeguards should be put in place to guarantee an adequate balance between the principles of court established by law as element of fair trial and res judicata as element of legal certainty. These include, inter alia, the provision of a mechanism that would be suitable for a fairly rapid settlement of the issue and would introduce time limits to the cases that can be challenged.

Relevance of the VC Opinion for the implementation of ECtHR cases related to the independence of the Polish judiciary

During the EIN Rule of Law Conference which took place in The Hague last June, the issue of the independence of the Polish Judiciary was discussed alongside the role that the VC could play in Poland carrying out the judicial reform in accordance with European standards. Dr. Bodnar had discussed the status of reforms and measures required for the implementation of European Court judgments concerning the independence of the Polish judiciary, as well as the important challenges that need to be overcome along the way.

He notably stressed out the need for guidelines to shape rule of law-upholding efforts and the importance of involving all legal and political forces in this process, including civil society and international actors. In Dr. Bodnar’s view, the binding nature of the Convention standards and the Court’s case-law cannot be disregarded. It is a fundamental obligation of members states, and Poland must take into account existing jurisprudence of the ECtHR and their implementation in the context of the judicial reform. The Venice Commission echoes this position by linking its Opinion first and foremost with Poland’s obligation to execute the judgments of the ECtHR, while respecting international and constitutional standards.

Further, the Opinion of the Venice Commission reflects the thrust of the recommendations formulated by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in relation with the Reczkowicz v. Poland group of cases during the September 2024 EIN civil society briefing, in particular concerning the introduction of a fair procedure for individual verification of appointments before an independent NCJ, with a right of appeal to court. This group of cases concerns the procedurally flawed judicial appointments, undermining the independence and legality of the judicial bodies involved in deciding the applicants' cases. It is one of the most important rule of law-related cluster of Polish cases currently supervised by the Committee of Ministers (CM) of the Council of Europe. At the September 2024 CM-DH meeting, the Committee of Ministers – having called for a comprehensive reform addressing the status of deficiently appointed judges and the status of judgments adopted with their participation – noted that the authorities were seeking advice from the Venice Commission and called on them to elaborate and adopt the reform without further delay, to ensure the required urgent remedial action and address the grave underlying problems.

The Opinion of the VC is therefore of strong importance in a twofold manner: It does not only serve as a guide for the planned judicial reform in Poland, which is expected to set an important precedent, and must therefore succeed in striking a fair balance between the rule of law and legal certainty principles; it is furthermore bound to help avoid future ECtHR violations by setting a roadmap to ensure that the balance between these two principles is maintained in a Convention-compliant manner, should similar concerns arise in other jurisdictions. Importantly, the Opinion ultimately reiterates the fundamental importance of respect for the binding nature of Article 46 of the Convention, even in the face of acute legal and political dilemmas, and serves as yet another reaffirmation of the role of the Venice Commission as a highly specialised international body that can assist the member States in navigating their responsibilities deriving from the Convention in the light of the subsidiary nature of the ECtHR judgments.