Print
See related documents
Resolution 1787 (2011)
Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
1. The Parliamentary Assembly considers
itself duty-bound to contribute to the supervision of the effective implementation
of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”),
on which the authority of the Court primarily depends.
2. Although, according to Article 46 of the European Convention
on Human Rights (“the Convention”), it is the Committee of Ministers
which supervises the execution of Court judgments, the Assembly
and national parliaments must now play a much more proactive role
in this respect; if this is not done, the key role of the Convention,
its supervisory mechanism and the Council of Europe as a whole,
in guaranteeing the effective protection of human rights in Europe,
is likely to be put in jeopardy.
3. The Assembly has therefore decided to give priority to the
examination of major structural problems concerning cases in which
extremely worrying delays in implementation have arisen, currently
in nine states parties: Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Moldova, Poland,
Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine. Special in situ visits have been carried
out by the rapporteur and chairperson of its Committee on Legal
Affairs and Human Rights to most of these states in order to examine
with national decision makers the reasons for dilatory execution
and/or non-compliance and to stress the urgent need to find solutions
to these problems.
4. In a number of other states (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and Serbia, among others), the issue
of non-compliance and solutions to outstanding problems should also
be made a priority.
5. The Assembly notes with grave concern the continuing existence
of major systemic deficiencies which cause large numbers of repetitive
findings of violations of the Convention and which seriously undermine
the rule of law in the states concerned. These problems relate in
particular to:
5.1. excessive length
of judicial proceedings leading to ineffective protection of a wide
range of substantial rights (endemic notably in Italy);
5.2. chronic non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions
(widespread, in particular, in the Russian Federation and Ukraine);
5.3. ill-treatment by law-enforcement officials – sometimes
causing death – and a lack of effective investigations thereof (particularly
apparent in the Russian Federation and Moldova);
5.4. unlawful detention and excessive length of detention on
remand (in Moldova, Poland, the Russian Federation and Ukraine).
6. The Assembly deplores the above-mentioned implementation problems
and intends to do its utmost, in co-operation with national parliaments,
to assist States Parties to the Convention and the Committee of Ministers
to eradicate the disgraceful situation of non-compliance with Court
judgments.
7. The Assembly, in particular, urges the following states to
give priority to specific problems:
7.1. Bulgaria must now adopt outstanding measures in order
to avoid, in the future, cases similar to those reported in the
past with respect to deaths and ill-treatment of persons placed
under the responsibility of law-enforcement officials. Progress
is also needed to complete the reform aimed at ensuring that procedures
for the deportation of foreigners fully comply with the Convention
(inter alia, the Court’s judgment
in Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria of
20 June 2002). Moreover, Bulgaria
must also pursue its efforts to solve the problem of excessive length
of court proceedings;
7.2. the excessive length of judicial proceedings, especially
before administrative courts, and abusive use of force by police
officers remain key issues that Greece must tackle;
7.3. Italy must now take measures to address the excessive
length of judicial proceedings. This has been a problem for decades,
despite various interim resolutions adopted by the Committee of
Ministers. A further issue of concern is the policy of non-respect
of Court interim measures in a number of cases concerning foreigners;
7.4. Moldova must promptly take measures to ensure the enforcement
of domestic final judgments, in particular in so-called social housing
cases (the Court’s pilot judgment in Olaru
and Others v. Moldova of 28 July 2009). Moreover, it
should also strengthen its efforts in order to avoid further cases
of ill-treatment in police custody and ensure effective investigations
into such abuses. Additional measures should also be taken with
a view to improving conditions in detention facilities and filling
lacunae in procedures concerning arrest and detention on remand,
revealed by the Court’s judgments. Lastly, it is essential that
an effective domestic remedy is introduced in response to the pilot
judgment in Olaru and Others;
7.5. the excessive length of procedures before courts and administrative
authorities, as well as that of detention on remand, are key issues
that Poland must tackle;
7.6. the issue of restitution of – or compensation for – nationalised
property has to remain a priority for Romania (see the Court’s pilot
judgment in Maria Atanasiu and Others
v. Romania of12
October 2010). The problem of excessive length of judicial proceedings
and non-enforcement of final court decisions must now also be tackled.
As regards the case of Rotaru v. Romania (judgment
of 4 May 2000), concerning abuses in holding and making use of private
information by the Romanian Intelligence Service, despite the Committee
of Ministers’ insistence, legislative reform is still outstanding,
more than ten years after the Court’s judgment;
7.7. the Russian Federation must tackle pressing issues, in
particular:
7.7.1. relating to the functioning of the administration
of justice and the prison system: the authorities must ensure that
the reform adopted in May 2010 to address the non-enforcement of domestic
judicial court decisions (see the Court’s pilot judgment in Burdov v. Russia (No. 2) of 15 January
2009) is finally implemented and is effective, seven years after
the original Burdov v. Russia judgment
of 7 May 2002. The Assembly notes, in this context, the coming into
effect of Federal Law No. 68-FZ of 30 April 2010, which provides
for compensation for the violation of the right to trial within
a reasonable time or the right to the execution of the decision
within a reasonable time. Regarding the quashing of final judgments
through the supervisory review procedure (the so-called “nadzor”
system, see the judgment in Ryabykh v.
Russia of 24 July 2003), a third attempt at effective
reform to limit the use of this procedure must now be ensured. Continuing
efforts to solve the major issues of poor conditions and overcrowding
in remand centres, ill-treatment in police custody, excessive length
of detention on remand and several procedural deficiencies related
to the latter, are insufficient and must be increased in order to bring
Russian practice into line with Convention requirements;
7.7.2. related to the action of security forces in the Chechen
Republic: the greatest concern relates to repetitive grave human
rights violations in this region. Regrettably, the alleged recent structural
improvements of domestic investigation procedures have not as yet
led to any tangible results; it is understood that the President
of the Russian Federation has recently submitted to the Federal
Assembly draft legislation on an integrated reform of the Ministry
of the Interior. The actual elucidation of at least a significant
part of these cases is indispensable in order to end the climate
of impunity in this region;
7.7.3. related to the numerous judgments of the Court finding
grave and repeated violations of human rights in the North Caucasus
region: the Assembly reiterates that the Russian Federation must,
just like the other States Parties to the Convention, implement
the individual measures required to put an end to the violations
found, address their consequences, and take the necessary general
measures to effectively prevent similar violations in the future;
7.8. the most prevalent problems in Turkey currently concern,
in addition to the urgent need to ensure the proper functioning
of the judicial system, the failure to re-open proceedings after
a Court judgment that declared the initial proceedings to be in
violation of the Convention in the case of Hulki
Güneş v. Turkey (judgment of 19 June 2003), and the repeated
imprisonment of Mr Osman Murat Ülke for conscientious objection
to military service (see Ülke v. Turkey,
judgment of 24 January 2006). Concerning the former, significant
pressure from the Committee of Ministers – including three interim resolutions
– has still not borne fruit;
7.9. as a matter of urgency, Ukraine must adopt a comprehensive
strategy to tackle the situation in which a considerable number
of domestic final judgments remain unenforced, despite significant pressure
from the Committee of Ministers, and to implement an effective domestic
remedy in response to the pilot judgment in Yuriy
Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (15 October 2009). Ukraine
must also accelerate domestic judicial proceedings, reform criminal
procedure and ensure the full independence and impartiality of judges.
In addition, measures are needed to combat the abuse of force by
police officers and ensure effective investigation into allegations
of such ill-treatment. The continued impunity of the instigators
and organisers of the murder of the journalist Georgiy Gongadze
(Gongadze v. Ukraine,judgment of 8 February 2006) is
still a matter of great concern (see the Assembly’s Resolution 1466
(2005) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine,
and Resolution 1645 (2009) andRecommendation
1856 (2009) on the investigation of crimes allegedly committed by
high officials during the Kuchma rule in Ukraine – the Gongadze
case as an emblematic example);
7.10. the United Kingdom must put an end to the practice of
delaying full implementation of Court judgments with respect to
politically sensitive issues, such as prisoners’ voting rights (see,
on this subject, the Court’s judgment in Greens
and M.T. v. the United Kingdom of 23 November 2010).
8. The Interlaken Declaration and Action Plan of February 2010
specified that priority should be given to full and expeditious
compliance with the Court’s judgments. In line with the aims of
the Interlaken process, the Assembly considers that it too should
remain seized of this matter in order to ensure regular and rigorous parliamentary
oversight of implementation issues, at the same time as the Committee
of Ministers – both at the European and national levels. The role
of national parliaments can be crucial in this respect, as has been illustrated
by parliamentary scrutiny mechanisms set up in the Netherlands and
in the United Kingdom.
9. A major reason for deficient compliance with the Court judgments
is the lack of effective domestic mechanisms and procedures to ensure
swift implementation of requisite measures, often requiring co-ordinated
action by national authorities.
10. In view of the foregoing, the Assembly:
10.1. strongly urges national parliaments which have not yet
done so to introduce specific mechanisms and procedures for effective
parliamentary oversight of the implementation of the Court’s judgments;
10.2. calls upon the member states to set up, either by legislation
or otherwise, effective domestic mechanisms as recommended in the
Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)2 on efficient
domestic capacity for rapid execution of judgments of the European
Court of Human Rights, and ensure that a decision-making body at
the highest political level takes full responsibility for the co-ordination
of all aspects of the domestic implementation process;
10.3. urges the authorities of the states referred to in this
resolution to take all necessary measures to resolve the outstanding
implementation problems identified in the Assembly report;
10.4. calls upon the chairpersons of national parliamentary
delegations – together, if need be, with the relevant ministers
– of states in which in situ visits
were undertaken to present the results achieved in solving substantial
problems highlighted in this resolution;
10.5. reserves the right to take appropriate action should the
state concerned continuously fail to take appropriate measures required
by a judgment of the Court, or should the national parliament fail
to exert appropriate pressure on the government to implement the
judgments of the Court;
10.6. in view of the imperative need for States Parties to the
Convention to accelerate the execution of, and fully comply with
judgments of the Court, and in the light of major problems encountered
in this respect in several states, resolves to remain seized of
this matter and to continue to give it priority.