Report | Doc. 14340 | 12 June 2017
Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
Summary
In its ninth report on implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has highlighted the progress made by certain member States in implementing the Court's judgments. Nevertheless, it has also pointed to serious structural problems experienced for over ten years now by the 10 member States (Italy, the Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, the Republic of Moldova and Poland) which have the highest number of non-implemented judgments against them. The Committee of Ministers is still supervising the implementation of some 10 000 judgments, although they are not all at the same stage of implementation. The difficulties in implementing certain judgments reveal “pockets of resistance” rooted in political problems.
The committee recommends, inter alia, swift implementation of the Court's judgments, condemnation of any kind of political statement aimed at discrediting the Court and the institution of parliamentary procedures to monitor the implementation of the obligations stemming from the European Convention on Human Rights. Among other things, the Committee of Ministers should give renewed consideration to the use of Article 46 paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention, co-operate more closely with civil society and ensure greater transparency of its supervision process.
A. Draft resolution 
(open)B. Draft recommendation
(open)C. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’, rapporteur
(open)1. Introduction
1.1. Procedure
In its last resolution on the
topic – Resolution 2075
(2015), it resolved to “remain seized of this matter and to
continue to give it priority”. Consequently,
on 2 November 2015, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
appointed me as the fourth successive rapporteur on this subject
after Messrs Erik Jurgens (Netherlands, SOC), Christos Pourgourides
(Cyprus, EPP/CD) and Klaas de Vries (Netherlands, SOC). My report
is the ninth one on the subject. At its meeting in Strasbourg on
23 June 2016, the committee held a hearing with the participation
of Mr Giorgio Malinverni, former judge of the Court and honorary
professor at the University of Geneva, Mr Guido Bellatti Ceccoli, Ambassador,
Permanent Representative of San Marino to the Council of Europe,
rapporteur of the Human rights rapporteur group of the Committee
of Ministers, and Ms Betsy Apple, Advocacy Director, Open Society Justice
Initiative, New York. In addition, at its meeting in Paris on 13
December 2016, the committee authorised me to carry out fact-finding
visits to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary and Ukraine, and, at its
meeting in Strasbourg on 24 January 2017, it also authorised me
to visit Poland. Owing to time constraints, I was unfortunately
unable to carry out all these visits. I did however visit Warsaw
(Poland) on 20 and 21 March 2017 and Budapest (Hungary) on 22 and
23 March. 1.2. Recent work by the Parliamentary Assembly
1.3. Pending issues
My immediate predecessor, Mr Klaas
de Vries, focused on the nine States Parties to the Convention having
the most judgments pending before the Committee of Ministers. In
this report, I will take those criteria into consideration but I
would also like to highlight a few examples of judgments whose implementation
raises complex problems and is not moving forward for political reasons.
That said, I wish to underline that there is more good news than
bad news of States reluctant to fully and promptly execute judgments
of the European Court of Human Rights. As pointed out in the document entitled
“Impact
of the European Convention on Human Rights in States Parties: selected
examples”, prepared by the Secretariat in 2015 at my request
(with the collaboration of the Human Rights Centre of the University of
Essex, United Kingdom) and published this year by Council of Europe
Publishing, a great many member States do implement the judgments
of the European Court of Human Rights fully and without major delays.2. Member States having the most judgments pending before the Committee of Ministers
and
Poland (225); they were followed by Croatia (180), Serbia (162)
and Azerbaijan (168), while the number of cases concerning the other
Council of Europe member States did not exceed the 100 mark. In
2014, as emphasised by Mr de Vries, the following countries had
the most cases pending before the Committee of Ministers: Italy (2 622
cases), Turkey (1 500 cases), Russian Federation (1 474 cases),
Ukraine (1 009 cases), Romania (639 cases), Greece (558 cases),
Poland (503 cases), Hungary (331 cases), Bulgaria (325 cases) and
Slovenia (302 cases). So there have been a few variations in these
rankings: the number of cases against Italy, Turkey, Ukraine, Romania,
Greece and Bulgaria fell, while the number of cases against the
Russian Federation, Hungary and the Republic of Moldova increased.
In 2016, there were only 49 cases against Slovenia pending before
the Committee of Ministers, following the closure of 264 cases of
the Lukenda group, relating to the excessive length
of civil, criminal or administrative proceedings or the excessive
length of implementation, and the lack of an effective remedy in
that regard (violations of Articles 6.1 and 13 of the Convention). It should also be noted
that those cases are at different stages of implementation but have
not been closed by a final resolution of the Committee of Ministers,
meaning that not all the implementation measures – individual and/or
general – have been adopted. At the end
of 2014, this ranking looked slightly different (of 69 900 pending
applications): Ukraine (19.5%), Italy (14.4%), Russian Federation
(14.3%), Turkey (13.6%), Romania (4.9%), Serbia (3.6%), Georgia
(3.3%), Hungary (2.6%), Poland (2.6%) and Slovenia (2.4%). This shows that since the
end of 2014 the percentage of pending applications against Hungary
has increased from 2.6% to 11.2% and that Serbia and Slovenia have
disappeared from this list, with Azerbaijan and Armenia now appearing
on it. While the number of applications pending before the Court
has increased by over 10 000, the percentage of applications against
Ukraine, the Russian Federation and Italy has fallen whereas that
of applications against Turkey and Romania has increased. The percentage
of applications against Poland remains more or less the same. Even
though these statistics represent a different “reality” than those
of the Committee of Ministers, they often illustrate the scale of
structural problems at domestic level, and therefore of problems
that should have been resolved within the framework of the process
of implementation of Court judgments. There have been real
steps forward with regard to the issue of overcrowding in prisons
and the lack of an effective remedy against poor conditions of detention
(Torreggiani and others v. Italy),
enabling the Committee of Ministers to close this group of cases. Furthermore,
the Committee of Ministers considered that Italy had taken all necessary
steps to execute the judgments concerning expulsions of foreigners
in violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Ben
Khemais v. Italy). While
no progress has been observed by the Committee of Ministers since
Mr de Vries' report in the cases of the Belvedere
Alberghiera S.R.L. group concerning “indirect expropriations”
or the Cirillo judgment concerning
the lack of appropriate medical care in prisons, the Italian authorities are making
concrete efforts to implement the judgment in the case of M.C. and others, concerning the
retrospective invalidation of an annual adjustment of an allowance
for families of victims of accidental contamination by viruses. as well as the cases concerning
the “supervisory review procedure” (nadzor)
violating the principle of legal certainty (Ryabykh
v. Russian Federation). Nevertheless, the other
problems remain unresolved and the Committee of Ministers still
awaits implementation measures in the cases concerning poor conditions
of remand detention, particularly in remand prisons (Kalashnikov group of cases and the
pilot judgment in the case of Ananyev
and others), excessive length of remand
detention and violations of Article 5 of the European Convention
on Human Rights (Klyakhin group
of cases), acts
of torture and ill-treatment during custody (Mikheyev group
of cases) and secret extraditions
to the former soviet republics of Central Asia (Garabayev group of cases). At the same time, there has been
insufficient progress in implementing the judgment in the Alekseyev case regarding the banning
of parades by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people and in the group of cases concerning
various human rights violations resulting from the actions of security
forces in the North Caucasus (Khashiyev
and Akayeva group of cases); this latter problem was also raised
by the Assembly in its Resolution
2157 (2017) and Recommendation
2099 (2017) “Human rights in the North Caucasus: what follow-up
to Resolution 1738 (2010)?”, adopted on 25 April 2017. In that resolution, the Assembly
noted that the implementation of the 247 judgments in that group
of cases “remains highly unsatisfactory” and that “the situation
in the North Caucasus region with regard to safeguarding human rights
and upholding the rule of law still remains one of the most serious
in the entire geographical area covered by the Council of Europe”.
In its Recommendation
2099 (2017), the Assembly urged the Committee of Ministers to “continue
paying the utmost attention to the development of the human rights
situation” in the region and, where the execution of the aforementioned
judgments was concerned, encouraged it to “continue insisting on individual
and general measures to end the climate of impunity, and in particular
to continue resisting the Russian authorities’ attempts to make
use of statutes of limitation and amnesty laws to cement the impunity
of the perpetrators of even the most egregious human rights violations”. Since my predecessor's last report, in
the Committee of Ministers has not examined the Hulki Güneş groups of cases (concerning
the unfairness of criminal law procedures and the impossibility
of reopening them) and the Űlke case
(concerning repeated imprisonment of conscientious objectors). Despite
a degree of progress, the Committee of Ministers is still waiting
for additional information on the measures taken or envisaged in
the groups of cases concerning violations of freedom of expression
following criminal convictions (Inçal group),
the ineffectiveness of investigations into the actions of security
forces in violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention
on Human Rights (Bati group)
and the excessive use of force to disperse peaceful protests (Oya Ataman group). In addition,
regarding the judgments relating to various human rights violations in
the northern part of Cyprus in the wake of Turkey's military intervention
in Cyprus in 1974, the Committee of Ministers took note in December
2016 of the progress made as regards investigations into the disappearance of
Greek Cypriots and members of their families. Nevertheless, the Turkish authorities
continue to refuse to pay the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants
by the Court in Varnava and others judgment
and the 33 cases in the Xenides-Arestis group, despite several calls by the Committee
of Ministers (see in particular Committee of Ministers Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)185, in which the Committee of Ministers stated that this
continuing refusal was “in flagrant conflict” with Turkey’s international
obligations). The situation is the same for the case of Cyprus v. Turkey. At their meeting
from 7 to 10 March 2017, the Committee of Ministers “strongly reiterated
their repeated calls on Turkey to abide by its unconditional obligation
to pay the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court in these
cases without further delay”. Besides
this, there are two other structural and/or complex problems, already
mentioned in my predecessor's report, which are under examination
by the Committee of Ministers (Söyler and Opuz judgments). despite
the readiness of the Ukrainian authorities to co-operate with the
Council of Europe. The Committee of Ministers is concerned that,
notwithstanding its previous decisions, the Ukrainian authorities
have neither started to implement the “three-step strategy” (already approved
by the authorities) nor formulated a global approach or strategy
for the settlement of cases pending before the Court (the number
of which is constantly growing). According to an expert report,
in order to implement the “three-step strategy”, the authorities
should focus on the following questions: methods of calculating
the total amount of the existing debt; removal of the legal and
institutional obstacles to the execution of domestic judicial decisions,
options for settling the debts arising from those decisions, legislative
measures for resolving the existing problem and the question of
how the amendments recently made to the Constitution regarding courts'
powers of supervision of the executions process could help to resolve
the problem. As for the other judgments of the Court, the Committee
of Ministers noted some progress made in implementing judgments
concerning ill-treatment inflicted by police officials (Afanasiyev and Kaverzin groups), the regulations
governing the use of detention on remand (Kharchenko judgment),
the lack of impartiality and independence of judges (Salov group of cases and Volkov judgment) as well as violations
of freedom of assembly (Vyerentsov group
of cases). Since Mr de Vries' report, cases
concerning excessive length of judicial proceedings (Svetlana Naumenko and Merit groups of cases), poor detention
conditions (Nevmerzhitsky and Kuznetsov groups of cases) and the
internal investigation in the Gongadze case (examined
by the Assembly in 2009) have not been examined by the Committee
of Ministers. as well as ill-treatment
inflicted by police officials (Barbu
Anghelescu group, which has also been closed by the Committee
of Ministers). Nevertheless, there has
been very little progress in the other groups of cases mentioned
in Mr de Vries' report (concerning the overcrowding and poor detention
conditions or
non-implementation of domestic court decisions). Other structural
and/or complex problems already mentioned in my predecessor's report
which are currently being examined by the Committee of Ministers
(Strain and Maria Atanasiu, Association
‘21 December 1989’ and Ţicu groups
and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf
of Valentin Câmpeanu, Bucur and Toma judgments). concluding that this was
a structural problem and asking the authorities to introduce an
effective domestic remedy without delay and by 16 October 2016 at
the latest or a combination of such remedies making it possible
to adequately resolve the question of excessive length of judicial
proceedings. In December 2016, the Committee of Ministers noted
with regret that this deadline had not been met and asked the authorities
to provide information, by 1 February 2017, on the content of the
draft legislation introducing a remedy for claiming compensation
for excessively lengthy proceedings before civil, criminal and administrative
courts. The Hungarian authorities submitted an action plan to the
Committee of Ministers on 1 February 2017. During my visit to Budapest, the authorities
confirmed that the government was reflecting on improvements to
remedies against excessively lengthy proceedings. With regard to
poor detention conditions, the authorities confirmed that a new
remedy intended to compensate prisoners for violations of their
rights had been introduced on 1 January 2017 and specified that
they had drawn up an action plan for building new prisons as well
as, in parallel, a system of non-custodial measures. I also raised
the question of the implementation of the Horváth
and Kiss judgment concerning the discriminatory placement
of children of Roma origin in schools for mentally disabled children during
their primary school education, and the authorities told me that
they were actively working on the issue of integration of these
children into Hungarian society on the basis of a long-term strategy
and had sufficient resources to that end. over
80 cases relating to criminal proceedings and over 50 cases relating
to civil proceedings. With regard to cases concerning the use
of lethal force and ill-treatment by members of law-enforcement
agencies (Makaratzis group
of cases), an action report is being examined by the Committee of
Ministers. However, progress is still awaited
in the groups of cases concerning conditions of retention of foreigners
and asylum procedures (M.S.S. v. Belgium
and Greece group) as well as violations of the right
to freedom of association resulting from the Greek authorities'
refusal to register associations promoting the idea of the existence
of an ethnic minority as distinct from the religious minorities
recognised by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne (Bekir-Ousta group);
in respect of the latter group of judgments dating from 2008, the
Committee of Ministers envisages adopting an interim resolution
at its 1294th meeting in September 2017 if no tangible results are
achieved in the meantime. The Committee of Ministers is also examining
two other groups of cases mentioned in my predecessor's report – Nisiotis (concerning the poor conditions
in prisons) and Beka-Koulocheri (concerning
the failure to execute domestic judicial decisions). The
questions yet to be resolved – namely the excessive length of proceedings
before overburdened courts and the lack of an effective acceleratory
remedy in criminal proceedings – are still under examination by
the Committee of Ministers in the framework of the Kitov and Djangozov group
of cases. Regarding the other problems raised in Mr de Vries' report,
some progress has been made in implementing the groups of cases
relating to poor conditions of detention (Kehayov group
of cases and Neshkov and others pilot
judgment) and ill-treatment by law-enforcement officials (Velikova group) but
more general measures are still awaited in these cases as well as
in the cases relating to expulsions of foreigners in violation of
their rights to respect for family life (C.G.
and others group). Moreover, the Committee of Ministers
is examining execution in other complex problem areas – in the Stanev, UMO Illinden and others and Yordanova and others cases – raised
by my predecessor. Finally, the Committee of Ministers is examining the
measures taken to remedy the existence of a systemic problem of
ineffectiveness of criminal investigations in the context of the S.Z. group. According to the last annual report
of the Committee of Ministers (2016), these problems are still topical despite
some progress. That annual report also mentions other complex problems
linked to the execution of certain other judgments (see Appendix
1). lack of appropriate
medical care in detention centres, the dangerous prisoner
regime and ill-treatment by law-enforcement
officials, the Bączkowski case
concerning discriminatory refusal to grant permission for a protest
march as
well as a number of old cases concerning length of judicial proceedings
(criminal and civil) and
administrative proceedings. The problem raised in these
old cases remains a major issue; the Committee of Ministers is still
examining cases of this type (within the framework of the Majewski, Bąk and Beller groups) as
well as the implementation of the pilot judgment in the case of Rutkowski and others (of 7 July
2015), in which the Court
stressed that it was a structural problem and that the domestic
remedy introduced in 2004 was not effective. During my visit to Warsaw,
the authorities informed me that a new law had been passed on 30
November 2016 with a view to bringing the existing remedy into line
with the requirements stemming from the Court's case law. A number
of my talking partners, including at the Supreme Court and the Ministry
of Justice, confirmed that the excessive length of judicial proceedings
(particularly in civil and criminal cases) remained a structural
problem; with some 15 million new cases lodged each year, Poland's
courts struggle to eliminate the backlog and, every year since 2013,
the number of new cases has constantly exceeded the number of cases
completed in the year. The judges of the Supreme Court believe that
certain judicial procedures should be simplified.3. General data on the implementation of the Court's judgments between 2015 and 2017
The 2016
report welcomes the reality of the political commitment to the Convention
and respect for the judgments of the Court, confirmed by the Brussels
Declaration adopted at the high-level conference on 26 and 27 March 2015
on the “Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights,
our shared responsibility”. Secondly,
the report also notes a number of problems in the payment of just
satisfaction to applicants, with a rise in payments outside deadline
in 2016 and payments awaiting confirmation for more than six months
(after the payment deadline). Furthermore, the Court's increased use
of the procedure before committees of three judges for repetitive
cases covered by well-established case law (WECL) is proving problematic
for the Committee of Ministers, as the very limited description
of the facts in some cases may make it difficult to identify individual
and general measures.4. Specific challenges for the execution of Court judgments: selected examples
4.1. General comments
The
2016 report refers explicitly to four major types of difficulty
facing the execution of Court judgments: 1)
important and complex structural problems; 2) the absence of a common
understanding of the scope of the execution measures required following
developments of the Court’s case law (in particular concerning interpretation
of the concept of “jurisdiction”); 3) slow or blocked execution
as a result of disagreement between national institutions, or amongst
political parties, as regards the substance of the reforms required
and/or the procedure to be followed; 4) refusal either to adopt,
notwithstanding strong insistence from the Committee of Ministers,
the individual measures required or to pay just satisfaction. Concerning
the first type, several structural problems have been discussed
above and appear in Appendix 1, but a good example of the problems
involved, particularly with regard to financial resources, in the
execution of such judgments is provided by the lack of progress
in the execution of the Zhovner v.Ukraine group.
The Catan and Others v. Russian Federation judgment
offers a very good illustration of the second type of problem. The Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina and Paksas v. Lithuania judgments (and
to a certain extent those of the Hirst
v. United Kingdom No. 2 group) are
representative of the third group of problems, while the Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan and OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya YUKOS v. Russian
Federation judgments, as well as those against Turkey
concerning the northern part of Cyprus (see above), are examples
of the fourth group, that of outright refusal to execute. The Al Nashiri and Husayn
v. Poland judgments are quite distinct from these four
groups and also merit close attention. concerning the
illegal detention of asylum seekers; the United Kingdom, where the Prime Minister,
Theresa May, has made several statements about certain Court judgments,
in particular in the case of Othman (Abu
Qatada) concerning
the deportation of a Jordanian imam suspected of terrorist acts,
or threatening to withdraw from the Convention; and Switzerland
where the UDC (the Swiss People's Party or Democratic Union of the
Centre) has launched a popular initiative entitled “Swiss law instead
of foreign judges”, following the Tarakhel v. Switzerland judgment
concerning the expulsion of an immigrant family. I am particularly
saddened by the fact that such attacks on the Court’s authority
often take place in my country, France, as was recently the case
during the election campaign. It was the subject of a brainstorming
session that I organised in the French National Assembly on 23 May
2016. French politicians regularly accuse the Court of impeding
effective counter-terrorism measures by preventing the expulsion
of persons suspected of terrorist acts. Another target of attacks
has been the Mennesson and Labassé judgments concerning
gestational surrogacy, for
whose execution France has still not introduced the required general
measures. The criticisms levelled by politicians often confuse the
European Court of Human Rights with the Court of Justice of the
European Union, a confusion that is not always fortuitous and forms
an integral part of the anti-European rhetoric. Those concerned
are deceiving the public and draw the media, which should be informing
the public about the European Court of Human Rights judgments, into
this misleading process.4.2. Judgments whose execution raises complex political issues
4.2.1. Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan
In
its judgment, the Court concluded that the detention of the applicant,
a member of the political opposition, had been politically motivated
and was incompatible with Articles 5.1.c and
18 of the Convention. The applicant had been arrested and remanded
in custody on 4 February 2013 and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment
by the court of first instance on 17 March 2014. When the Court’s
judgment became final his criminal conviction was not yet final. Mr Mammadov
lodged various appeals as a result of which the case was re-examined
by the Azerbaijani courts. On 18 November 2016, the Supreme Court,
acting as final court of appeal, confirmed his conviction. In January 2017, a
representative of the Council of Europe’s Secretary General visited
Baku as part of an inquiry into human rights compliance in Azerbaijan
initiated by the Secretary General in December 2015, based on Article
52 of the Convention. Following this visit, the Azerbaijani authorities
submitted a new action plan in February 2017, which states that on 10 February
2017 the President of Azerbaijan signed an executive order on the
liberalisation of penal policy. At their 1280th meeting (DH) in
March 2017, the Committee of Ministers “took note with interest
of the Azerbaijani authorities’ commitment to examine all avenues discussed
during the mission of the representative of the Secretary General
to execute the Ilgar Mammadov judgment, as well as of the recent
Presidential Executive Order which foresees promising measures for
the execution of this judgment”, and invited the Azerbaijani authorities
to inform the Committee of Ministers “of the concrete measures adopted
on the basis of this Executive Order and in particular of those
enabling the release of Ilgar Mammadov without further delay”. Mr Destexhe
had undertaken a fact-finding visit to Baku on 9 and 10 February
2017. Moreover, in its Resolution
2062 (2015) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan,
in which it referred specifically to this judgment, the Assembly
expressed concern “about the use of pretrial detention as a means
of punishing individuals for criticising the government” and called
on the Azerbaijani authorities to fully implement the judgments
of the European Court of Human Rights, in conformity with the resolutions
of the Committee of Ministers.4.2.2. The Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina group of cases
the
Court ruled, amongst others, that the country’s presidential election
procedure was discriminatory, since it prevented the applicants
from standing in these elections due to their refusal to declare
affiliation with a “constituent people” (namely the Bosniaks, Croats
or Serbs) or due to their failure to satisfy a combination of requirements
relating to ethnic origin and place of residence (violations of
Article 1 of Protocol No.12). The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina
made such a declaration of affiliation a condition of eligibility
to stand for election. In 2014 and 2016, the Court found similar violations
in three other cases. In the Zornić and Šlaku judgments, it stated, with reference to Article
46 of the Convention, that the violations were the direct result
of failure to introduce measures to ensure compliance with the judgment
in Sejdić and Finci. The Court
also noted in the Zornić judgment
that the time had come for every citizen to be entitled to stand
for election to the presidency without discrimination. The special
provisions on the “constituent peoples” had been necessary to maintain
the peace when the constitutional provisions were put in place,
namely at the time of the 1995 Dayton peace agreement, but were
now no longer justified. However,
no such group has been formed, because the two remaining caucuses
of the House of Peoples have not yet appointed their representatives.
At its 1273rd meeting (DH) in December 2016, the Committee of Ministers
noted with deep concern that no tangible progress had been made
in this case since June 2015, that the Court continued to deliver
judgments finding similar violations and that the constitutional
amendment process had been blocked as a consequence of the lack
of consensus between the leaders of the political parties. Since
the problem of failure to implement judgments was also being taken
into account in the negotiations on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s accession
to the European Union, the Committee
of Ministers invited the member States and the European Union to
raise the issue of the execution of judgments in their contacts
with Bosnia and Herzegovina. It decided to resume consideration
of the matter in June 2017.4.2.3. Paksas v. Lithuania
The applicant,
who is currently a member of the European Parliament, has been unable
to stand in the Seimas elections since 2004, including those of
October 2012 and October 2016. Despite two attempts to revise the Constitution,
to bring the legal situation into line with the requirements of
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the judgment has still not been executed.
In September 2013, a first draft law was laid before parliament,
but the latter did not act on it, on account of a judgment of the
Constitutional Court. A second draft law was presented to the Seimas
in March 2015; it was scheduled for approval in June 2015 but the
vote was postponed at the request of members of the applicant’s
party. In December 2015, the Seimas rejected it on its second reading. At
their 1273rd meeting (DH) in December 2016, the Committee of Ministers
expressed its deep concern over this turn of events, emphasised
that the authorities were under an unconditional obligation to take
steps to comply with the judgment, took note of the authorities’
continuing commitment to undertake all further efforts to ensure
execution and decided to resume consideration of the matter in June
2017.4.2.4. Al Nashiri and Husayn v. Poland
concerning
the CIA’s secret rendition and detention in Poland of the applicants,
who were suspected of terrorist acts (multiple violations of the
Convention, in particular Article 3, from both the procedural and
substantive standpoints, Article 6.1 and, in the case of Mr Al Nashiri,
Article 1 of Protocol No. 6). The Court found that the applicants’
transfer from Poland had exposed them to a real risk of a flagrant
denial of justice due to the possibility they would face trials
before United States military commissions using evidence obtained under
torture. It also found that Mr Al Nashiri, who had been charged
with capital offences before the military commissions, faced a real
risk of being subjected to the death penalty. The applicants are
currently detained in the internment facility at the United States
Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. The Committee of Ministers has
examined the issue of urgent individual measures at each of its
human rights meetings since March 2015 and expressed its deep concern
about the applicants’ situation. The Committee of Ministers has called
on the Polish authorities to seek, as a matter of urgency, assurances
from the United States authorities that Mr Al Nashiri will not be
subjected to the death penalty and that the applicants will not
be exposed to flagrant denials of justice. In February 2016, the
Polish authorities indicated that the United States authorities had
informed them that their request for diplomatic assurances could
not be supported, since the Court’s decisions did not reflect the
obligations of the United States under international law. Despite
repeated requests from the Polish authorities, and repeated calls
from the Committee of Ministers and Secretary General of the Council
of Europe to the United States (which has observer status with the
Council of Europe), the position of the American authorities remains
unaltered. At their 1280th meeting (DH) in March 2017, the Committee
of Ministers again expressed its concern about these refusals and
stressed “the urgency for the Polish authorities to continue actively
to use all possible means at the highest levels to seek to remove
the risks faced by the applicants”. They instructed the Secretariat
to prepare a draft interim resolution, in the event of the Polish authorities
offering “no indication of measures taken by [them] at the highest
levels in addition to the letters sent to the United States’ authorities”. In
the discussions I had with senior officials of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and of the President’s office (which, following the request
of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, also sent a letter to the United
States authorities, in July 2016), the officials concerned expressed
confusion as to how to secure execution of these judgments. They
maintain that this depends on the goodwill of the United States
authorities. The Polish authorities are unable to force them to
provide the diplomatic assurances required by the Committee of Ministers,
and the Council of Europe should give them more support in their
requests to the United States. Regarding the excessive length of
the investigation launched by the Cracow prosecutor’s office, the
Polish authorities state that the proceedings are still pending
and that a request for mutual judicial assistance has been rejected
by the United States authorities.4.2.5. Hirst v. United Kingdom (No. 2) group of cases
(final since 6 October
2005) and the Greens and M.T. v. United
Kingdom pilot judgment, the
Court found that the blanket ban on voting of imprisoned convicted offenders
was in violation of the Convention (violation of Article 3 of Protocol
No. 1). Between 2014 and 2016, following failure to implement the
two judgments, the Court handed down three similar judgments and numerous
other applications concerning this problem are pending before it.
In the Greens and M.T. case, the Court concluded that the authorities
should introduce legislative proposals to amend the blanket ban
on prisoner voting (provided for by section 3 of the Representation
of the People Act 1983). On 22 November 2012, the United Kingdom
authorities laid before parliament a draft bill to amend the electoral
legislation setting out three options for consideration by a joint
committee of the two houses of parliament. The
committee published its report on 18 December 2013, and its conclusions were welcomed
by the Committee of Ministers at its 1193rd meeting (DH) in March
2014. However, despite the general election of May 2015 and the upcoming
2017 election there has been no progress on this matter. As part of this dialogue, on 21
April 2016, the United Kingdom Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human
Rights and the Justice Committee of the House of Commons held discussions
with key stakeholders of the Council of Europe, including our committee.
On 25 October 2016, the United Kingdom authorities informed
the Committee of Ministers that the purpose of the dialogue was
to gather ideas and options on how to implement the relevant judgments
without amending section 3 of the Representation of the People Act
1983, and that parliament continued to oppose the passage of new
legislation. In light of the result of the referendum on Brexit
and the government’s work on its consequences, the United Kingdom
authorities were not yet in a position to fix a definitive timescale
for developing the options for implementing the judgments, which
required a further nine to twelve months. At its 1273rd meeting
(DH) in December 2016, the Committee of Ministers discussed the
subject with the Minister of State for Courts and Justice, noted
the information provided on the enhanced dialogue, reiterated the
authorities’ obligations under Article 46 of the Convention and
emphasised that they should submit concrete proposals to comply
with these judgments, together with an approximate timetable for
their implementation, by 1 September 2017 at the latest, before
the next examination of these judgments, which would be no later
than December 2017.4.2.6. OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya YUKOS v. Russian Federation
in which it held that there
had been various violations of the Convention (chiefly of Article
6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In its judgment on just satisfaction,
the Court awarded a total of over 1.8 billion euros to the shareholders
of the applicant company by way of just satisfaction for pecuniary
damages and said that the authorities must produce, in co-operation with
the Committee of Ministers, a comprehensive plan by 15 June 2015,
including a binding timeframe, for distribution of this award of
just satisfaction. At its 1222nd meeting (DH) in March 2015, the
Committee of Ministers invited the Russian authorities to comply
with this deadline and actively co-operate with the Secretariat.
However, no steps have been taken in this respect. An amendment to the
federal constitutional law was subsequently passed by the State
Duma on 4 December 2015 and approved by the Federation Council on
9 December 2015; according
to that text, the Constitutional Court is empowered to declare decisions
of international courts (including the European Court of Human Rights)
as “non-enforceable” on grounds of their incompatibility with the
“fundamentals of the constitutional order of the Russian Federation”
and “with the system of human rights established by the Russian
Federation Constitution”. Notwithstanding
this, on 19 April 2016, the Russian Constitutional Court applied
this new law in the context of implementing the Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia judgment relating to the general
prohibition on voting for prisoners; it ruled out any constitutional
amendment seeking to remove that prohibition in the wake of the European
Court of Human Rights' judgment but, at the same time, accepted
that a legislative change would be possible to relax existing restrictions
on the right to vote for prisoners serving sentences for less serious crimes. At
its session on 10 and 11 June 2016, the Venice Commission adopted
a final
opinion on the amendments to the federal constitutional law, confirming its earlier findings. concluded that it was impossible
to enforce the judgment in respect of the compensation for pecuniary
damage but, at the same time, a compromise had to be sought, given
the fundamental importance of the European system of human rights
protection, and that the government should reflect on compensating
the associates of YUKOS in the conditions set forth in paragraph
7 of its decision. The Committee of Ministers
decided to resume consideration of this case in September 2017 at
the latest.4.2.7. Catan and others v. Russian Federation
5. Assessment of recent reforms and other measures taken within the Council of Europe and in certain member States to improve the implementation of European Court of Human Rights judgments
Civil society is showing a
growing interest in the issue, and a number of NGOs (including the
Open Society Justice Initiative and Judgment Watch) have established
an umbrella organisation in Strasbourg – the European
Implementation Network. The question of the transparency
of the activities of the Committee of Ministers was also raised
by our expert, Ms Betsy Apple, at the hearing in June 2016. Ms Apple
thought that the activities of the Committee of Ministers and the Department
for the Execution of Judgments remained opaque and the language
of Committee of Ministers decisions and other documents was incomprehensible
to the general public, despite the steps forward taken with the
publication of annual reports of the Committee of Ministers since
2007. Ms Apple observed that, since 2013, in order to make NGOs'
voices heard and provide the Committee of Ministers with information
from non-governmental sources, her organisation – Open Society Justice
– had been organising briefings for the members of the Committee
of Ministers prior to DH meetings and highlighted that this initiative
had been highly successful. In the expert's view, the briefings
had allowed, on the one hand, the Committee of Ministers texts to
be more demanding and firmer in tone and, on the other hand, to
better reflect the stance of civil society. Even so, this had not
sustainably reinforced the role of NGOs in the process of supervision
of the implementation of judgments, as they still came up against
bureaucratic obstacles. Unfortunately,
such a structure is yet to see the light of day in France, despite
three recent initiatives (one launched by the rapporteur and the
other two – in 2011 and 2014 – by our colleagues Mr Jean-Claude
Mignon and Ms Marietta Karamanli respectively). I also raised these
questions during my visits to Poland and Hungary, where I praised
the efforts of both governments, which present their work to implement
judgments to parliament on an annual basis. In Warsaw, I further
welcomed the work of the inter-ministerial group for the execution
of the Court's judgments but also expressed disappointment that
the Sub-committee on the execution of judgments, set up in February
2014 under the auspices of the Justice and Human Rights Committee
and the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Sejm, had not been reconstituted
after the parliamentary elections of October 2015, a fact that is
all the more regrettable as the sub-committee had worked in close
collaboration with civil society. Recently, in
March and April 2017, seminars were run for Georgian and Ukrainian
members of parliament. These
judgments give the Committee of Ministers more or less detailed
indications as to the measures (individual and/or general) for implementing
the judgments. According to the former Court judge Mr Giorgio Malinverni,
they have enabled the national authorities to satisfy the requirements
of the Court and the Committee of Ministers, and the pilot judgment procedure
is considerably lightening the Court's workload by reducing the
number of repetitive cases. However, this practice should not encroach
on States' freedom to choose execution measures. It would be useful
to have more frequent exchanges between the Department for the Execution
of Judgments and the judges and/or lawyers of the Court to improve
the quality and targeting of judgments. It
might be more productive to first “test” the procedure provided
for in Article 46.3 of the Convention, whereby the Committee of
Ministers can refer a judgment to the Court for interpretation.6. Conclusions
The
2016 report of the Committee of Ministers also stressed the considerable
improvement of the effectiveness of domestic remedies.Appendix – Major problems encountered in the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights identified in the 2015 report by Mr de Vries and the Committee of Ministers 2016 Annual Report in respect of 10 States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights
(open)|
State party |
Leading case |
Case description |
Status of execution* |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Bulgaria |
Djangozov v. Bulgaria (group) (application no. 45950/99, judgment of 8 October 2004) Kitov v. Bulgaria (group) (application No. 37104/97, judgment of 3 July 2003) Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria (pilot judgment) (application no. 48059/06, judgment of 10 May 2011) Finger v. Bulgaria (pilot judgment) (application no. 37346/05, judgment of 10 May 2011) |
Excessive length of judicial proceedings and lack of an effective remedy. |
Djangozov v. Bulgaria (civil proceedings) and Kitov v. Bulgaria (criminal proceedings) cases under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1236th (DH) meeting, 22-24 September 2015. Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria (criminal proceedings), Finger v. Bulgaria (civil proceedings) and 54 cases from Djangozov v. Bulgaria and Kitov v. Bulgaria groups closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)154. 34 cases concerning criminal proceedings closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)57. |
|
Velikova v. Bulgaria (group of 35 similar cases) (application no. 41488/98, judgment of 18 May 2000) Nachova and others v. Bulgaria (application no. 43577/98, judgment of 6 July 2005) S.Z. v Bulgaria (group), judgment of 3 March 2015, application no.29263/12 |
Cases principally concerning ill-treatment or deaths which took place under the responsibility of the forces of order; ineffective investigations. Systemic problem of ineffective investigations (into crimes committed by private individuals). |
Velikova v. Bulgaria cases under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1265th (DH) meeting, 20-21 September 2016. Nachova and others v. Bulgaria case closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)97. Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1273rd (DH) meeting, 6-8 December 2016. |
|
|
C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria (group of 7 similar cases) (application no. 1365/07, judgment of 24 April 2008) |
Violations of the right to respect for family life due to deportation/order to leave the territory. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
|
Kehayov v. Bulgaria (group of 27 similar cases) (application no. 41035/98, judgment of 18 January 2005) Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria (pilot judgment) (application no. 36925/10+, judgment of 27 January 2015) |
Inhuman and degrading treatment of the applicants due to poor conditions of detention in investigative detention facilities and prisons. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
|
Stanev v. Bulgaria (group of 2 similar cases) (application no. 36760/06, judgment of 17 January 2012) |
Placement in social care homes of persons with mental disorders. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1259th (DH) meeting, 7-8 June 2016. |
|
|
UMO Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (group of 2 similar cases) (application no. 59491/00, judgment of 19 January 2006) |
Unjustified refusals to register an association aiming at achieving “the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria”. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1273rd (DH) meeting 6-8 December 2016. |
|
|
Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria (group of 2 similar cases) (application no. 25446/06, judgment of 24 April 2012) |
Eviction of persons of Roma origin. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1259th (DH) meeting, 7-8 June 2016. |
|
|
Greece |
Manios v. Greece (group) (application no. 70626/01, judgment of 11 March 2004) Diamantides v. Greece (No. 2) (group) (application No. 71563/01, judgment of 19 May 2005) Konti-Arvaniti v. Greece (group) (application no. 53401/99, judgment of 10 April 2003) Vassilios Anthanasiou and Others v. Greece (pilot judgment) (application no. 50973/08, judgment of 21 December 2010) Michelioudakis v. Greece (pilot judgment) (application no. 54447/10, judgment of 3 April 2012) Glykantzi v. Greece (pilot judgment) (application no. 40150/09, judgment of 30 October 2012) |
Excessive length of judicial and administrative proceedings, and lack of an effective remedy in this respect. |
All cases have been closed; see: Manios v. Greece and Vassilios Anthanasiou and Others (administrative proceedings) and 204 similar cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)230; Diamantides v. Greece (No. 2) and Michelioudakis v. Greece (criminal proceedings) and 81 similar cases; and Konti-Arvaniti v. Greece and Glykantzi v. Greece (civil proceedings) and 56 similar cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)231. |
|
Makaratzis v. Greece (group of 11 similar cases) (application no. 50385/99, judgment of 20 December 2004) |
Use of lethal force and ill-treatment by law-enforcement officials and lack of effective investigation into such abuses. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1236th (DH) meeting, 22-24 September 2015. |
|
|
M.S.S v. Belgium and Greece (group of 14 similar cases) (application no. 30696/09, judgment of 21 January 2011, Grand Chamber) S.D. v Greece (group) (application no. 73554/2011, judgment of 11 June 2009) |
Conditions of detention of irregular migrants and shortcomings in asylum procedure; lack of effective remedy in this respect. |
M.S.S v. Belgium and Greece cases under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1243rd (DH) meeting, 8-9 December 2015. S.D. v Greece cases have been partially closed for issues under Article 5.1 and for the remaining issues - transferred under standard supervision procedure, last examined at 1265th (DH) meeting, 20-21 September 2016. |
|
|
Bekir-Ousta and others v. Greece (group of 3 similar cases) (application no. 35151/05, judgment of 11 October 2007) |
Violations of the right to freedom of association due to the Greek authorities’ refusal to register associations and to the dissolution of an association of promoting the idea of an ethnic minority. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
|
Nisiotis v. Greece (group of 22 similar cases) (application no. 34704/08, judgment of 10 February 2011 |
Inhuman and degrading treatment on account of poor conditions in prisons. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1230th (DH) meeting, 9-11 June 2015. |
|
|
Beka-Koulocheri v. Greece (group of 25 similar cases) (application no. 38878/03, judgment of 6 July 2006 |
Failure or considerable delay in the enforcement of final domestic judgments and absence of effective remedy. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1250th (DH) meeting, 8-10 March 2016. |
|
|
Hungary |
Timár v. Hungary (group of 272 similar cases) (application no. 36186/97, judgment of 25 February 2003) Gazsó v. Hungary (pilot judgment) (application no. 48322/12, judgment of 16 July 2015) |
Excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1273rd (DH) meeting, 6-8 December 2016. |
|
Istvan Gabor Kovacs v. Hungary (group of 18 similar cases) (application no. 15707/10, judgment of 17 January 2012) Varga and Others v. Hungary (pilot judgment) (application no. 14097/12+, judgment of 10 March 2015) |
Ill-treatment, mainly due to overcrowded detention facilities. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1250th (DH) meeting, 8-10 March 2016. |
|
|
Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary (application no. 11146/11, judgment of 29 January 2013) |
Discriminatory assignment of Roma children to special schools for mentally handicapped children. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1243rd (DH) meeting, 8-9 December 2015. |
|
|
Italy |
Saadi v. Italy (group) (application no. 37201/06, judgment of 28 February 2008) Ben Khemais v. Italy (group) (application no. 246/07, judgment of 6 July 2009) Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (application no. 27765/09, judgment of 23 February 2012) Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece (application no. 16643/09, judgment of 21 October 2014) |
Non-respect of Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court and violations of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment due to the expulsion of foreign nationals. Interception at sea and collective expulsion to Libya by the Italian military authorities of a group of Somalians and Eritreans. Collective expulsion of asylum seekers to Greece, lack of access to asylum procedure and risk of deportation to Afghanistan. |
Saadi v. Italy and 9 similar cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)215, and Ben Khemais v. Italy and 3 similar cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)204. Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy case closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)221. Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1265th (DH) meeting, 20-21 September 2016. |
|
Sulejmanovic v. Italy (application no. 22635/03, judgment of 16 July 2009) Torreggiani and Others v. Italy (pilot judgment) application no. 43517/09+, judgment of 8 January 2013) Cirillo v. Italy (application no. 36276/10, judgment of 29 January 2013) |
Poor detention conditions (mainly due to overcrowding in detention centres). Lack of adequate medical care in detention centres. |
Sulejmanovic v. Italy and Torreggiani and Others v. Italy cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)28. Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1179th (DH) meeting, 24-26 September 2013. |
|
|
Ceteroni v. Italy (group of 1275 similar cases concerning civil proceedings) (application no. 22461/93, judgment of 15 November 1996) Ledonne v. Italy (no.1) (group of 163 similar cases concerning criminal proceedings) (application no. 35742/97, judgment of 12 May 1999) Abenavoli v. Italy (group of 45 similar cases concerning administrative proceedings) (application no. 25587/94, judgment of 2 September 1997) Luordo v. Italy (group of 25 similar cases concerning bankruptcy proceedings) (application no. 32190/96, judgment of 17 July 2003) |
Four groups concerning excessive length of judicial and administrative proceedings. |
Ceteroni v. Italy (civil proceedings) cases under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1243rd (DH) meeting, 8-9 December 2015. 149 cases concerning civil proceedings under the jurisdiction of first instance courts and 28 cases concerning divorce and legal separation proceedings closed by final Resolutions CM/ResDH (2015)247 and CM/ResDH (2015)246. Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1273rd (DH) meeting, 6-8 December 2016. Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1273rd (DH) meeting, 6-8 December 2016. 75 cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH (2016)358. Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1172nd (DH) meeting, 4-6 June 2013. |
|
|
Mostacciuolo Giuseppe v. Italy (No. 1) (group of 131 similar cases) (application no. 64705/01, judgment of 29 March 2006) Gaglione and Others v. Italy (quasi-pilot judgment) (application no. 45867/07, judgment of 21 December 2010) |
Delays in the payment of compensation awarded in the context of a compensatory remedy available since 2001 to victims of excessively lengthy proceedings and insufficient amounts of such compensation. . |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1236th (DH) meeting, 22-24 September 2015. 34 cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)155. |
|
|
Belvedere Alberghiera S.R.L v. Italy (group) (application no. 31524/96, judgments of 30 May 2000 and of 30 October 2003) |
Unlawful deprivation of land by local authorities because of a judge-made rule, the “constructive-expropriation rule”, which precludes restitution if works commenced in the public interest have been completed. |
Under standard supervision procedure. |
|
|
Italy (cont’d) |
M.C. and Others v. Italy (pilot judgment) (application no. 5376/11, judgment of 3 September 2013) |
Legislative intervention which cancelled retrospectively and in a discriminatory manner the benefit of an annual adjustment of a compensation allowance for having suffered accidental viral contamination. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1243rd (DH) meeting, 8-9 December 2015. |
|
Poland |
Orchowski v. Poland (application no. 17885/04, judgment of 22 October 2009), and Sikorski Norbert v. Poland (application no. 17599/05, judgment of 22 October 2009) Kaprykowski v. Poland (application No. 23052/05, judgment of 3 February 2009) |
Poor conditions of detention (mainly due to overcrowding). Lack of adequate medical care in detention centres. |
Orchowski v. Poland and Sikorski Norbert v. Poland and 5 similar cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)254. Kaprykowski v. Poland and 7 similar cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)278. |
|
Dzwonkowski v. Poland (group) (application no. 46702/99, judgment of 12 April 2007) |
Ill-treatment inflicted by the police as well as in two cases unintentional killing by the police and lack of effective investigation in this respect. |
Dzwonkowski v. Poland and 7 similar cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)148. |
|
|
Horych v. Poland (group) (application no. 13621/08, judgment of 17 April 2014) |
The “dangerous detainee” regime. |
Horych v. Poland and 4 similar cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)128. |
|
|
Bączkowski and Others v. Poland (application no. 1543/06, judgment of 3 May 2007) |
Violation of the right to freedom of assembly and lack of effective remedy in this respect. |
Closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)234. |
|
|
Podbielski v. Poland (group) (application no. 27916/95, judgment of 30 October 98) Kudła v. Poland (group) (application no. 30210/96, judgment of 26/10/00, Grand Chamber) Fuchs v. Poland (group) (application no. 33870/96, judgment of 11 May 2003) Majewski v. Poland (group) (application no. 5269/99, judgment of 11 January 2006) Bąk v. Poland (group) (application no. 7870/04, judgment of 16 April 2007) Rutkowski and Others (pilot judgment), application no. 72287/10, judgment of 7 July 2015 Beller v. Poland (group) (application no. 51837/99, judgment of 6 June 2005) |
Excessive length of civil, criminal and administrative proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in this respect. |
Podbielski v. Poland (civil proceedings) and Kudła v. Poland (criminal proceedings) and 203 similar cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)248. Fuchs v. Poland (administrative proceedings) and 33 similar cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)359. Majewski v. Poland (civil proceedings) and Bąk v. Poland (criminal proceedings) cases under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1243rd (DH) meeting, 8-9 December 2015. Beller v. Poland (administrative proceedings) cases under enhanced supervision procedure last examined at 1273rd (DH) meeting, 6-8 December 2016. |
|
|
Al Nashiri v. Poland (group of 2 similar cases) (application no. 28761/11, judgment of 24 July 2014) |
Various violations related to secret detention and rendition operations. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
|
Republic of Moldova |
Ciorap v. the Republic of Moldova (group of 23 similar cases) (application no. 39806/05, judgment of 19 June 2007) Becciev v. the Republic of Moldova (group of 4 similar cases) (application no. 9190/03, judgment of 4 October 2005) Paladi v. the Republic of Moldova (group of 2 similar cases) (application no. 12066/02, judgment of 10 July 2007) |
Poor conditions of detention in facilities under the authority of the Ministries of the Interior and Justice, including lack of access to adequate medical care; absence of an effective remedy. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1265th (DH) meeting, 20-21 September 2016. |
|
Corsacov v. the Republic of Moldova (group of 29 similar cases) (application no. 18944/02, judgment of 4 April 2006) Levinta v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 17332/03, judgment of 16 December 2008) |
Ill-treatment and torture during police detention; ineffective investigations; absence of an effective remedy. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1273rd (DH) meeting, 6-8 December 2016. |
|
|
Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova (group of 4 similar cases) (application no. 3564/11, judgment of 28 May 2013) |
Failure to provide protection from domestic violence. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1243rd (DH) meeting, 8-9 December 2015. |
|
|
Genderdoc-M v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 9106/06, judgment of 12 June 2012) |
Unjustified bans on gay marches; lack of an effective remedy; discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
|
Luntre v. the Republic of Moldova (group of 55 similar cases) (application no. 2916/02, judgment of 15 June 2004) |
Non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
|
Muşuc v. the Republic of Moldova (group of 6 similar cases) (application no. 42440/06, judgment of 6 November 2007) Guţu v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 20289/02, judgment of 7 June 2007) Brega v. the Republic of Moldova (group of 2 cases) (application no. 52100/08, judgment of 20 April 2010) |
Arbitrary arrest and detention in the context of criminal and administrative proceedings; unlawful entry by the police on private premises; absence of effective remedies. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1259th (DH) meeting, 7-8 June 2016. |
|
|
Sarban v. the Republic of Moldova (group of 17 similar cases) (application no. 3456/05, judgment of 4 October 2005) |
Violations mainly related to unlawful detention on remand (lawfulness, duration, justification). |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1214th (DH) meeting, 2-4 December 2014. |
|
|
Taraburca v. the Republic of Moldova (group of 3 similar cases) (application no. 18919/10, judgment of 6 December 2011) |
Ill-treatment by the police in connection with violent post-election demonstrations and ineffective investigations. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1259th (DH) meeting, 7-8 June 2016. |
|
|
Romania |
Vlad and Others (group) (application No. 40756/06, judgment of 26 November 2013) (formerly Nicolau v. Romania (group) (application No. 1295/02, judgment of 3 July 2006) Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania (group) (application no. 77571/01, judgment of 4 November 2004)) |
Excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1259th (DH) meeting, 7-8 June 2016. Nicolau v. Romania and Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania and 78 similar cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)151. |
|
Barbu Anghelescu v. Romania (group) (application no. 46430/99, judgment of 5 October 2004) |
Ill-treatment by police and lack of effective investigations. |
Barbu Anghelescu v. Romania and 34 similar cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)150. |
|
|
Străin and Others v. Romania (group) (application No. 57001/00, judgment of 30 November 2005) Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania (pilot judgment) (application no. 30767/05, judgment of 12 October 2010) |
Failure to restore or compensate for nationalised property. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1214th (DH) meeting, 2-4 December 2014. 84 cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)274. |
|
|
Sacaleanu v. Romania (group of 35 similar cases) (application no. 73970/01, judgment of 6 December 2005) Ruianu v. Romania (application 34647/97, judgment of 17 June 2003) Strungariu v. Romania (application no. 23878/02, judgment of 29 September 2005) |
Non-enforcement or delays in the enforcement of domestic final judicial decisions. |
Sacaleanu v. Romania group of cases under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. Ruianu v. Romania; and Strungariu v. Romania under standard supervision procedure. |
|
|
Bragadireanu v. Romania (group of 140 similar cases) (application no. 22088/04, judgment of 6 March 2008) |
Overcrowding and poor conditions in detention centres. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1222nd (DH) meeting, 11-12 March 2015. |
|
|
Association ‘21 Decembre 1989’ and Maries v. Romania (group of 11 similar cases) (application no. 33810/07, judgment of 24 May 2011) |
Ineffectiveness of investigations into violent crackdowns in 1989 on anti-government demonstrations. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1201st (DH) meeting, 3-5 June 2014. |
|
|
Centre for Legal resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania (application no. 47848/08, judgment of 17 July 2014, Grand Chamber) |
Lack of appropriate judicial protection and medical and social care of a vulnerable person with mental disabilities who died in a psychiatric hospital. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
|
Ţicu v. Romania (group of 2 similar cases) (application no. 24575/10, judgment of 1 April 2014) |
Inadequate management of psychiatric conditions of detainees in prison. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1273rd (DH) meeting, 6-8 December 2016. |
|
|
Bucur and Toma v. Romania (application no. 40238/02, judgment of 8 January 2013) |
Conviction of a whistle-blower for having disclosed information on the illegal secret surveillance of citizens by the intelligence service; lack of safeguards in the statutory framework governing secret surveillance. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1273rd (DH) meeting, 6-8 December 2016. |
|
|
Russian Federation |
Burdov v. Russia (No. 2) (pilot judgment) (application no. 33509/04, judgment of 15 January 2009) Timofeyev v. Russia (group) (application no. 58263/00, judgment of 23 October 2003) Gerasimov and Others v. Russia (application no. 29920/05, judgment of 1 July 2014) |
Non-enforcement of domestic final judgments and lack of effective remedy in this respect. |
Burdov (No. 2) v. Russian Federation and Timofeyev v. Russia and 233 similar cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)268. Gerasimov and Others v. Russia case under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1243rd (DH) meeting, 8-9 December 2015. |
|
Ryabykh v. Russian Federation (group pf 113 similar cases) (application no. 52854/99, judgment of 24 July 2003) |
Violation of the principle of legal certainty on account of the quashing of final domestic judgments through the supervisory review procedure. |
Ryabykh v. Russian Federation and 112 similar cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)83. |
|
|
Kalashnikov v. Russian Federation (group of 170 similar cases) (application no. 47095/99, judgment of 15 July 2002) Ananyev and others v. Russia (pilot judgment) (application no. 42525/07, judgment of 10 January 2012) |
Poor conditions in detention centres and lack of an effective remedy in this respect. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1201st (DH) meeting, 3-5 June 2014. |
|
|
Klyakhin v. Russia (group of 160 similar cases) (application no. 46082/99, judgment of 30 November 2004) |
Different violations of Article 5 mainly related to detention on remand (lawfulness, procedure and length). |
Klyakhin v. Russia cases under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. 13 cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)249. |
|
|
Mikheyev. v. Russia (group) (application no. 77617/01, judgment of 26 January 2006) |
Ill-treatment in police custody and lack of an effective investigation in this respect. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1222nd (DH) meeting, 11-12 March 2015. |
|
|
Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia (group of 252 similar cases) (application no. 57942/00, judgment of 24/02/2005) |
Various violations of the Convention resulting from and/or relating to the actions of the security forces in the Chechen Republic (mainly unjustified use of force by members of the security forces, disappearances, unacknowledged detentions, torture and ill-treatment, unlawful search and seizure and destruction of property). |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
|
Garabayev v. Russia (group of 69 similar cases) (application no. 38411/02, judgment of 30 January 2008) |
Various violations of the Convention related to extradition (Articles 3, 5, 13 and 34 of the Convention). Risk of ill-treatment in cases of extradition and disregard of interim measures indicated by the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
|
Alekseyev v. Russia (application no. 4916/07, judgment of 21 October 2010) |
Violation of the freedom of assembly due to repeated bans of LGBT marches and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1273rd (DH) meeting, 6-8 December 2016. |
|
|
Catan and Others v. Russia (application no. 43370/04, judgment of 19 October 2012) |
Violation of the right to education of children and parents from Latin script schools in the Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
|
Turkey |
Halise Demirel v. Turkey (group) (application no. 39324/98, judgment of 28 January 2003) |
Excessive length of detention on remand. |
Halise Demirel v. Turkey and 195 similar cases closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)332. |
|
Hulki Güneş v. Turkey (group of 4 cases) (application no. 28490/95, judgment of 19 June 2003) |
Lack of judicial independence and impartiality, unfairness of judicial proceedings, ill-treatment inflicted in police custody. |
Under standard supervision procedure, last examined at 1172nd (DH) meeting, 4-6 June 2013. |
|
|
Ülke v. Turkey (application no. 39437/98, judgment of 24 January 2006) |
Degrading treatment of the applicant as a result of his repeated convictions and imprisonment for having refused to perform military service. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1157th (DH) meeting, 4-6 December 2012. |
|
|
Inçal v. Turkey (group of 102 similar cases) (application no. 22678/93, judgment of 9 June 1998) Gözel and Özer v. Turkey (group of 4 similar cases) (application no. 43453/04, judgment of 6 July 2010) |
Unjustified interferences in the freedom of expression. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1265th (DH) meeting, 20-21 September 2016. |
|
|
Bati and Others v. Turkey (group of 130 similar cases) (application nos. 33097/96, and 57834/00, judgment of 3 June 2004) Okkali v. Turkey (group) (application no. 52067/99, judgment of 17 October 2006) |
Ill-treatment by the police and the gendarmerie; ineffective investigations. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1265th (DH) meeting, 20-21 September 2016. |
|
|
Cyprus v. Turkey (inter-State case) (application no. 25781/94, judgments of 10 May 2001 and 12 May 2014, Grand Chamber) Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (application no. 46347/99, judgments of 22 December 2005 and 7 December 2006) Varnava and Others v. Turkey (application no. 16064/90+, judgment of 18 September 2009, Grand Chamber) |
Various violations of the Convention relating to the situation in the northern part of Cyprus following a Turkish military operation in 1974 (missing persons, living conditions of Greek Cypriots in the northern part of Cyprus, the rights of Turkish Cypriots living in the northern part of Cyprus, and homes and property of displaced persons). |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
|
Oya Ataman v. Turkey (group of 55 similar cases) (application no. 74552/01, judgment of 5 December 2006) |
Abusive use of force by security forces in dispersing peaceful demonstrations. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1259th (DH) meeting, 7-8 June 2016. |
|
|
Söyler v. Turkey (group of 2 similar cases) (application no. 29411/07, judgment of 17 September 2013) |
Ban on convicted prisoners’ voting rights. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure. |
|
|
Opuz v. Turkey (group of 5 similar cases) (application no. 33401/02, judgment of 9 June 2009) |
Failure to provide protection against domestic violence. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
|
Ukraine |
Zhovner v. Ukraine (group of 418 similar cases) (application no. 56848/00, judgment of 29 June 2004) Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov. v. Ukraine (pilot judgment) (application no. 40450/04, judgment of 15 January 2010) |
Non-enforcement of domestic final judgments and lack of an effective remedy in this respect. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine (group of 191 cases) (application no. 41984/98, judgment of 9 November 2004) Merit v. Ukraine (group of 48 cases) (application no. 66561/01, judgment of 30 March 2004) |
Excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings. |
Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine (civil proceedings) and Merit v. Ukraine (criminal proceedings) cases under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1179th (DH) meeting, 24-26 September 2013. |
|
|
Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (group of 19 similar cases) (application no. 54835/00, judgment of 9 September 2004) |
Poor conditions of detention on remand. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1144th (DH) meeting, 4-6 June 2012. |
|
|
Afanasyev. v. Ukraine (group of 39 similar cases) (application no. 387722/02, judgment of 5 April 2005) Kaverzin v. Ukraine (group of 16 cases) (application no. 23893/03, judgment of 15 May 2012) and 2 other similar cases |
Ill-treatment by police and lack of procedural safeguards. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
|
Kharchenko v. Ukraine (group of 45 similar cases) (application no. 40107/02, judgment of 10 February 2011) Chanyev v. Ukraine (application no. 46193/13, judgment of 9 October 2014) and another similar case |
Problems regarding the legal framework governing and the use of pretrial detention. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
|
Salov v. Ukraine (group of 4 similar cases) (application no. 65518/01, judgment of 6 November 2005) Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine (application no. 21722/11, judgment of 9 January 2013) |
Lack of independence and impartiality of tribunals. Violations of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing on account of his unlawful dismissal from his post as a judge at the Supreme Court of Ukraine. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1280th (DH) meeting, 7-10 March 2017. |
|
|
Gongadze v. Ukraine (application no. 34056/02, judgment of 8 November 2005) |
Failure to protect life, failure to carry out an effective investigation into a death, lack of an effective remedy in this respect, attitude of the investigatory authorities towards the applicant and her family amounting to degrading treatment. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1172nd (DH) meeting, 4-6 June 2013. |
|
|
Vyerentsov v. Ukraine (group of 2 similar cases) (application no. 20372/11, judgment of 11 April 2013) |
Violation of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. |
Under enhanced supervision procedure, last examined at 1273rd (DH) meeting, 6-8 December 2016. |
* For more information on the progress in the implementation of these judgments, see Committee of Ministers 9th (2015) and 10th (2016) Annual Reports on the supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (Appendix 5), the Committee of Ministers search engine HUDOC-EXEC and the country factsheets of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.