Print
See related documents
Resolution 1914 (2013) Final version
Ensuring the viability of the Strasbourg Court: structural deficiencies in States Parties
1. The Parliamentary Assembly considers
that the viability of the human rights protection system based on the
European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5, “the Convention”)
falls within the scope of the shared responsibility, alongside the
Committee of Ministers, of both States Parties and the European
Court of Human Rights (“the Court”). However, it is the primary
responsibility of States Parties to ensure that the Convention is applied
effectively at national level.
2. The Assembly recalls its previous work on this subject, in
particular its Resolutions
1516 (2006) and 1787 (2011) and Recommendations
1764 (2006) and 1955 (2011) on the implementation of judgments of the European
Court of Human Rights, and its Resolution 1856 (2012) on guaranteeing the authority and effectiveness
of the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. The Assembly deplores the fact that the Court is still overloaded
with a large number of repetitive cases revealing widespread dysfunctions
in national legal systems. Most of them relate to structural issues
identified by well-established case law, such as the excessive length
of judicial proceedings, chronic non-enforcement of domestic judicial
decisions, deaths and ill-treatment attributable to law-enforcement
officials and lack of effective investigation thereof, and unlawful
detention on remand and its excessive length. In addition, there are
specific systemic/structural deficiencies in States Parties. Some
of them only exist within one national legal system. The judge from
the relevant State Party should be empowered to identify cases raising
important and systemic legal issues so as to prioritise them and
secure their prompt consideration in order to terminate a continuing
violation.
4. The Assembly confirms, as underlined in Resolution 1787 (2011), that, inter alia,
Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, the Republic of Moldova, Poland, Romania,
the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine face major structural problems
which lead to delays in the execution of the Court's judgments.
The Assembly notes also the progress achieved in respect of some
of these countries.
5. The Assembly insists on the fact that, where the Strasbourg
Court has identified major and complex structural deficiencies in
States Parties, regular and stringent national supervision must
be ensured to adequately deal with them, in addition to their examination
by the Committee of Ministers under the latter's “enhanced supervision
procedure”.
6. The Assembly is deeply concerned about this situation, which
undermines the effectiveness of the Convention system and prevents
the Court from focusing on new and important questions of interpretation
and application of the Convention.
7. The Assembly therefore calls on States Parties to:
7.1. strengthen their efforts to
execute fully and rapidly the Court’s judgments, including through
the implementation of the Interlaken Declaration and Action Plan
of 19 February 2010 as well as the Izmir Declaration of 27 April
2011 and the Brighton Declaration of 20 April 2012, and in particular:
7.1.1. set up, as a matter of priority,
comprehensive strategies aimed at solving structural problems, and
co-ordinate these strategies at the highest political level;
7.1.2. rapidly provide action plans to the Committee of Ministers;
7.1.3. consider establishing a national body responsible solely
for the execution of the Court’s judgments, in order to avoid a
conflict of responsibilities with the agent representing the government
before the Court;
7.2. amend legislation according to standards stemming from
the case law of the Court and ensure that the Convention is implemented
by all relevant national authorities;
7.3. put in place effective domestic remedies, primarily in
areas affected by structural problems;
7.4. take comprehensive measures with a view to raising awareness
of the Convention standards as interpreted by the Court. In States
Parties with major structural problems, these measures could consist, in
particular, in:
7.4.1. creating a
publicly available database containing the Court’s case law, including judgments
pertinent to the State Party concerned in official translation;
7.4.2. improving legal education with a view to deepening knowledge
about the Convention among legal professionals;
7.4.3. establishing permanent, non-governmental information centres
for potential applicants in order to advise them on Convention standards;
7.5. strengthen national authorities’ co-operation with civil
society, bar associations, experts and national human rights institutions;
7.6. strengthen legal guarantees of independence of the Court's
judges and secure their immunity by:
7.6.1. providing them and their families with diplomatic immunity
for life, including immunities, exemptions and facilities accorded
to diplomatic envoys and to national judges of the highest level;
7.6.2. securing that, after the replacement of a judge on the
Court, the former judge be entitled to a similar position, if he
or she has not yet reached retirement age;
7.6.3. including a judge's term of office at the Court in his
or her national employment record in judicial or other occupations;
7.6.4. securing that, when the former judge reaches retirement
age, he or she is entitled to a pension equivalent to that of judges
of the highest courts or that of State agents of a similar position.
8. The previous work of the Assembly has shown the need for an
increased role of national parliaments in monitoring the effective
implementation of the Convention standards at national level. The
Assembly therefore:
8.1. reiterates
its call on States Parties to put into practice the basic principles
for parliamentary supervision in this field, as set out in its Resolution 1823 (2011) on national parliaments: guarantors of human
rights in Europe;
8.2. invites parliaments to ensure that their committees monitoring
compliance with human rights obligations are actively involved in
the execution of the Court’s pilot judgments and other judgments revealing
structural problems;
8.3. invites the members of the Assembly, in their capacity
as national parliamentarians, to question regularly their governments
regarding execution of the Court’s judgments.