Overview of Rule 9 Submissions in view of the Committee of Ministers' Deputies Human Rights Meeting March 2022

From 8-10 March 2022, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Minister’s Deputies will meet for their quarterly Human Rights Meeting. This meeting will examine several judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that are still pending implementation. The agenda consists of 43 cases from 21 members of the Council of Europe.

36 EIN members/partners, other civil society actors, lawyers and applicants have made the following submissions for 21 cases under consideration. The list below sets out an overview of these submissions related to cases on the current agenda.

Overview of Submissions

SHARXHI AND OTHERS v. Albania (Application No. 10613/16) 

Violation: Demolition of the applicants’ flats and business premises in disregard of an interim court order restraining the authorities from taking any action that could breach property rights 

Last Examination: First examination - Case under standard procedure

Submissions:

 Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (17/01/2022) in the case of Sharxhi and Others v. Albania (Application No. 10613/16)  

SEJDIC AND FINCI v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (Application No. 27996/06)  

Minority Rights Group International

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: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-7 - November - December 2021

Submissions:

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Minority Rights Group International) (13/01/2022) in the case of SEJDIC AND FINCI v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (Application No. 27996/06)

United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others group v. Bulgaria (Application No. 59491/00)

Violation: Unjustified refusals by the courts to register an association aiming at achieving "the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria".

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-9 - June 2021

 Submissions:

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Bulgaria Helsinki Committee) (21/01/2022) in the UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria (Application No. 59491/00) and reply from the authorities (04/02/2022) [anglaisuniquement] [DH-DD(2022)135-rev]

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicants (10/02/2022) in the cases of UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS, Vasilev and Society of the Repressed Macedonians in Bulgaria Victims of the Communist Terror and Macedonian Club for EthnRadonov v. Bulgaria (Applications No. 59491/00, 23702/15, 67197/13) [Anglaisuniquement] [DH-DD(2022)185]

 M.A. GROUP v.  FRANCE (Application No. 9373/15)

Violation: Expulsion to Algeria in presence of a real and serious risk of ill-treatment (M.A.) and failure to comply with the Court’s interim measure (M.A. and A.S. cases). 

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-10 - June 2021

Submissions:

Règles 9.2 et 9.6 - Communication d'une ONG relative à l'affaire M.A. c. France (requête n° 9373/15) et réponse des autorités (28/01/2022)

MOUSTAHI v. FRANCE (Application No. 9347/14)

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-11 - June 2021 

Submissions:

Règle 9.2 - Communication d’une INDH (Défenseur des droits - République Française) (27/01/2022) relative à l'affaire Moustahi c. France (requête n° 9347/14) [French only] [DH-DD(2022)186]

Règle 9.2 - Communication d’une ONG (Groupe d'information et de soutien des immigré-e-s (GISTI)) (17/01/2022) relative à l'affaire Moustahi c. France (requête n° 9347/14) [French only] [DH-DD(2022)123]

Règle 9.2 - Communication d’une ONG (La Cimade) (17/01/2022) relative à l'affaire Moustahi c. France (requête n° 9347/14) [French only] [DH-DD(2022)122]

MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA (Application No. 72508/13)

Violation: Failure of the domestic courts to give sufficiently reasoned decisions for the continued pre-trial detention of the applicant, a former Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, and use of the pre-trial detention during this period by the Chief Public Prosecutor for the illegitimate purpose of pressuring the applicant into providing information on matters unrelated to the criminal case against him.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-13 (September 2021)

Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (20/01/2022) in the case of Merabishvili v. Georgia (Application No. 72508/13) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)137]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender of Georgia) (20/01/2022) in the case of Merabishvili v. Georgia (Application No.72508/13) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)136]

 TSINTSABADZE GROUP v. GEORGIA (Application No. 35403/06)

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: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1390/H46-10 (December 2020)

 Submissions:

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NHRI (Public Defender of Georgia) (21/01/2022) in the case of Tsintsabadze group v. Georgia (Application No. 35403/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)142]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) and European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC)) (21/01/2022) in the case of Tsintsabadze group v. Georgia (Application No. 35403/06) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)141]

 NISIOTIS v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08)

Violation: Prison overcrowding and other poor conditions in prison and lack of effective remedy.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2020)1390/H46-11 - December 2020

Submissions:

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hellenic League for Human Rights) (27/01/2022) in the case of NISIOTIS v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08)

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Hellenic Action for Human Rights “Pleiades”) (31/01/2022) in the case of NISIOTIS v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08) and reply from the authorities (04/02/2022)

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Hellenic League for Human Rights) (13/01/2022) in the case of NISIOTIS v. Greece (Application No. 34704/08) and reply from the authorities (21/01/2022)

BAKA v. HUNGARY (Application No. 20261/12)

Amnesty International Hungary

 Violation: Lack of access to a court as regards the premature termination of the applicant’ s mandate as President of the Supreme Court which also led to a violation of his right to freedom of expression.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-16 - September 2021

 Submissions:

Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Amnesty International) (28/01/2022) in the case of BAKA v. Hungary (Application No. 20261/12) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)158]

SZABO AND VISSY v. HUNGARY (Application No. 37138/14)

 Violation: Absence of sufficient guarantees against abuse in legislation on secret surveillance.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2017)1302/H46-14 - December 2017

Submissions:

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Hungarian Civil Liberties Union) (26/01/2022) in the case of SZABO AND VISSY v. Hungary (Application No. 37138/14) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)157]

ABU ZUBAYDAH v. LITHUANIA (Application No. 46454/11) 

Violation: Various violations related to the secret detention and "extraordinary rendition” of the applicant. As a result, the applicant is exposed to continued arbitrary detention and ill-treatment at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-21- September 2021

 Submission:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (21/01/2022) in the case of Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania (Application No. 46454/11) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)114]

AL NASHIRI GROUP v. POLAND (Application No. 28761/11)

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: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-24 - September 2021

Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (21/01/2022) in the cases of AL NASHIRI and HUSAYN (ABU ZUBAYDAH) v. Poland (Applications No. 28761/11, 7511/13) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)113

SĂCĂLEANU GROUP[1] v. ROMANIA (Application No. 73970/01)

 Violation: Failure or substantial delay in the enforcement of final domestic judicial decisions against the State and State-owned enterprises

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-23 - March 2021

Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant in the case of Omegatech Enterprises Ltd. v. Romania (Application No. 24612/07) (judgment S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. v. Romania (No. 20752/07) (Sacaleanu group (73970/01) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)145]

LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS GROUP v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Application No. 57818/09+)

Violation: Different violations mainly related to the right to freedom of peaceful assembly (reactions to notifications of planned assemblies, reactions to peaceful assemblies, unlawful arrests).

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-29 - June 2021

 Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (18/01/2022) in the case of Razvozzhayev v. Russia and Ukraine and and Udaltsov v. Russia (Application No. 75734/12) (Lashmankin group, 57818/09) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)94]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre de la protection internationale) (24/01/2022) in the case of Lashmankin group v. Russia (Application No. 57818/09) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)138]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from 11 NGOs (18/01/2022) in the case of Lashmankin and Others v. Russian Federation (Application No. 57818/09) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)126] 

TOMOV AND OTHERS GROUP v.  RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Application No. 18255/10) 

Violation: Transport of detained in poor conditions.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-28 - March 2021

Submissions:

 Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre de la protection internationale) (24/01/2022) in the case of Tomov and Others v. Russia (Application No. 18255/10) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)139]

OAO NEFTYANAYA KOMPANIYA YUKOS v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Application No. 14902/04)

Violation: Violations concerning tax and enforcement proceedings brought against the applicant oil company, leading to its liquidation in 2007.

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-33 - September 2021

 Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (25/01/2022) in the case of OAO NEFTYANAYA KOMPANIYA YUKOS v. Russian Federation (Application No. 14902/04) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)118] 

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

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-38 - November-December 2021

Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (27/01/2022) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)130]

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (24/01/2022) in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application No. 28749/18) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)110]

ÖNER AND TÜRK GROUP v. TURKEY (Application No.51962/12), NEDİM ŞENER GROUP (Application No. 38270/11), ALTUĞ TANER AKÇAM GROUP (Application No. 27520/07), ARTUN AND GUVENER GROUP (Application No. 75510/01), and IŞIKIRIK GROUP (Application No. 41226/09)

Violation: Unjustified interferences with freedom of expression, in particular through criminal proceedings, including defamation, and the consequent chilling effect. Unforeseeable conviction of membership of an illegal organisation for the mere fact of attending a public meeting and expressing views there.

Last Examination:

CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-35 - June 2021

CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-34 - June 2021

Submissions:

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Media and Law Studies Association (Medya ve Hukuk Çalışmaları Derneği - MLSA) (17/01/2022) in the Altug Taner Akcam, Nedim Sener, Isikirik, Oner and Turk and Artun and Guvener groups v. Turkey (Applications No. 27520/07, 38270/11, 41226/09, 51962/12, 75510/01) and reply from the authorities (25/01/2022) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)116-rev]

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği (İFÖD – Freedom of Expression Association)) (19/01/2022) in the case of Isikirik v. Turkey (Application No. 41226/09) and reply from the authorities (25/01/2022) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)127]

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği (İFÖD – Freedom of Expression Association)) (19/01/2022) in the case of ARTUN AND GUVENER v. Turkey (Application No. 75510/01) and reply from the authorities (25/01/2022) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)120]

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (22/12/2021) in the case of Dickinson v. Turkey (No. 25200/11) (Artun and Guvener group) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)17]

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (22/12/2021) in the case of Dickinson v. Turkey (No. 25200/11) (Artun and Guvener group, 75510/01) and reply from the authorities (03/01/2022) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)17-rev]

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

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

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-39 - November-December 2021

Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (12/01/2022) in the case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey (no. 2) (No. 14305/17) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)63]

 KAVERZIN v. UKRAINE (Application No. 23893/03), AFANASYEV GROUP v. UKRAINE (Application No. 38722/02), and BELOUSOV v. UKRAINE (Application No. 4494/07) 

Violation: Ill-treatment/torture by police and lack of effective investigations.

Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-35 - March 2021

Submission:

Rules 9.2 and 9.6 - Communication from an NGO (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group) in the case of KAVERZIN v. Ukraine (Application No. 23893/03) and reply from the authorities (09/02/2022) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)167]

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

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

 Last Examination: CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-44 - November-December 2021

 Submissions:

Rule 9.1 - Communication from the applicant (16/02/2022) in the case of KELLY AND OTHERS v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 30054/96) (MCKerr group, 28883/95) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)215]

Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Relatives for Justice) (04/02/2022) in the case of MCKERR group v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 28883/95) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)217]

EIN Statement Following Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

EIN expresses its solidarity with our members, partners, colleagues and friends in Ukraine. Our thoughts are with them, their families, and all the people of Ukraine.

The act of aggression committed by Russia against Ukraine not only undermines the prohibition of use of force under the UN Charter, but also the object and purpose of the Council of Europe. All human rights fall victim to aggressive use of force, armed conflict and occupation.

On 25th February 2022, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe held that Russia had seriously violated the Statute of the Council of Europe through its act of aggression in Ukraine and voted to suspend Russia’s rights of representation in the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. EIN welcomes this necessary step.

The Russian Federation continues to be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and is subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. It is also still bound to implement judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that are pending implementation. In the event that the Russian Federation withdraws or is expelled from the Council of Europe, it will still be bound by existing judgments pending implementation. 

The Russian Federation should immediately cease hostilities in Ukraine and provide reparations for all unlawful acts it has committed. 

EIN Chair Professor Başak Çalı

February 2022 Training: NGOs and NHRIs on their role in supporting ECtHR implementation

Last week, EIN hosted a training seminar in Strasbourg on raising awareness and educating NGOs, NHRIs, and professional organisations on their role in supporting the implementation of ECHR judgments.

The training started with a presentation of the objectives of the seminar and a round table discussion between participants led by George Stafford, EIN Director.

Next, the focus shifted to NGOs and NHRIs and how they can participate in the supervisory process concerning the execution of ECtHR judgments, which contributes to protecting the rule of law in the EU. Geanina Munteanu, lawyer at the Department for the Execution of Judgments, Council of Europe, provided participants with useful insights into the supervision process of ECtHR judgments, a participatory process in which NGOs and NHRIs have their place.

The following session enabled participants to listen to testimonies by other NGOs on their respective involvement in the execution of ECtHR judgments.  Dr. Nóra Novoszádek, Senior Legal Officer, Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Hugues de Suremain, Litigation Coordinator, European Prison Litigation Network, and Dr. Krassimir Kanev, Director, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, shared their experience with their colleagues.

After lunch, attendees were divided into break out groups to discuss how to approach the process of the execution of ECHR judgments in practice. This activity was composed of real cases currently pending implementation and how participants would/could best engage with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Participants gained new insights on how to proper draft submissions and strategies to have maximum impact on the execution process of a judgment and, ultimately, to contribute to better protection of human rights in the EU.

The training concluded with a presentation by Agnès Ciccarone, Programme Manager, on mistakes NGOs should avoid when drafting their submissions.

Thank everyone who participated in the training, especially those who presented and accepted to moderate breakout sessions , and we look forward to reading your future submissions.

Photo Credit: EIN

EIN would also like to thank the city of Strasbourg for co-funding this event.

February 2022 Conference: Proposals for the EU to take into account the non-implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Last week, EIN co-hosted a conference and debate along with the Carré de Malberg Research Institute (IRCM) in Strasbourg on 17 February 2022. The Conference debate, organised under the scientific responsability of Professor Christos Giannopoulos, focused on mainstreaming the execution of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments in the European Union’s processes. The Conference included an Appeal by EIN and its partners for EU institutions to consider the execution of ECtHR judgments in the review mechanisms of the rule of law. 

The Conference began with warm welcomes by Peggy Ducoulombier, Professor at the University of Strasbourg, who also provided a short presentation on the context of rule of law backsliding in Europe.

 Next, George Stafford, EIN Director, presented on “What is the situation today regarding the consideration of ECHR judgments, and their execution, in the EU's rule of law review mechanisms?”

After George’s presentation, a panel discussion took place. Panellists included Dr. Nóra Novoszádek, Senior Legal Officer, Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Fredrik Sundberg, former Head of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and Katarina Barley, Vice-President of the European Parliament and member of the plenary assembly of the Conference on the future of Europe . EIN Board members Krassimir Kanev, chair of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, and Marcin Szwed, from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland) contributed to the exchange through video messages. You can find Mr Kanev’s video here, and Mr Szwed’s contribution here.

The Conference then turned to a public debate on the place of the ECHR judgments in the EU rule of law review mechanisms.

The final presentation was given by Agnès Ciccarone, EIN Programme Manager, on EIN’s Appeal for the European Union to take into account the execution of ECHR judgments (see the French version of the Appel here). George Stafford and Professor Christos Gioannopoulos concluded the Conference for the evening. 

Thanks to everyone who participated in the Conference, including those who followed us online. We especially thank those who presented and organized the event.

Photo Credit: EIN

EIN would also like to thank the city of Strasbourg for co-funding this event.

EIN concerned about charges against the Greek Helsinki Monitor

EIN expresses concern about the charges and upcoming trial brought by the Greek authorities against Mr. Panayote Dimitras and Ms. Andrea Gilbert, the leaders of the Greek Helsinki Monitor, which is an EIN member. 

In 2017, GHM filed a complaint against the Bishop Seraphim of Piraeus for public incitement to violence or hatred, as well as abuse of an ecclesiastical office, with respect to the pubic statements the Bishop made on 27 April 2017. According to GHM’s complaint, the Bishop's statements were antisemitic, inciting discrimination, hatred or violence against Jewish people in a way that endangered public order or posed a threat to lives, liberty or physical integrity.

The Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece had also criticised the Bishop's public statements. However, GHM's complaint was archived, whilst the prosecution initiated charges against Mr. Dimitras and Ms. Gilbert for false accusations.

On 15 February 2022, they are expected to stand trial.

These proceedings are of great concern for EIN, raising important questions about the use of sanctions to punish and silence legitimate human rights work.

Colloque de formation sur l'exécution des arrêts de la CEDH

Le vendredi 18 février 2022, de 9h à 15h30, le réseau EIN organise à Strasbourg un Colloque de formation sur l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour Européenne des droits de l’Homme et comment ONH, INDH et avocats peuvent participer à ce processus essentiel pour l’Etat de droit en Europe.

Ce Colloque est organisé avec le soutien de la Ville de Strasbourg, dans le contexte de la Conférence sur l’avenir de l’Europe. Vous trouverez ici la brochure du Colloque . L’événement aura lieu principalement en français, mais nous bénéficierons également de l’interprétation simultanée en anglais pour les interventions des experts.

Le Colloque sera précédé d’une Conférence-débat publique, le 17/02 de 17h à 19h, à l’Université de Strasbourg, en présence de Madame Katarina Barley, Vice-Présidente du Parlement européen. Une pré-inscription en ligne sur le site de l’Université est nécessaire. L’entrée est libre dans la limite des places disponibles. Il sera également possible de suivre la Conférence-débat à distance. Vous pouvez trouver plus d’informations sur cette Conférence, dont le programme, sur notre site web.