Jan 8, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
The ICJ and other organizations have intervened today before the European Court of Human Rights challenging expulsions of asylum seekers from Hungary to Serbia.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and the Dutch Council for Refugees have submitted today a third party intervention before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary.
The case challenges the systematic practice by the Hungarian authorities to send back to Serbia foreign nationals asking for asylum under the pretention that Serbia is a safe third country in which to ask for international protection.
The intervening organizations have argued before the Court that:
- a removal that exposes an applicant to the risk of refoulement and deprives them of protections under international and EU law, is prohibited regardless of whether the decision was taken on the basis of the safe third country concept or the country was included in a “safe third country” list.
- International law requires, inter alia, a rigorous scrutiny of the applicant’s arguable claim of potential prohibited treatment, access to an effective remedy following a negative decision, and access to the rights under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
- Application of the safe third country concept for EU Member States is contingent on the applicant being admitted to the territory and having effective access to a fair asylum procedure in the safe third country
- An assessment of whether restrictions on the freedom of movement of migrants, imposed in a border or international zone, amount to deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR must be based on the impact of these measures on the individuals concerned.
Hungary-ECtHR-amicusbrief-cases-Ilias&Ahmed-ICJ&others-2018-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Background
Ilias Ilias and Ali Ahmed, both Bangladeshi nationals, fled their home country in arrived at the Hungarian-Serbian border on 15 September 2015 after having briefly crossed through Serbia during their trip.
Having asked immediately for asylum in Hungary, they were confined for days in a transit zone, a ” a confined area of some 110 square metres, part of the transit zone, surrounded by fence and guarded by officers”.
Their applications were rejected on the very same day of their application on the grounds that they could have asked for asylum in Serbia, considered by Hungary a safe third country, and appeals were rejected.
They were removed to Serbia on 8 October 2015.
Oct 6, 2017 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and other human rights organisations intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in a case challenging the returns of migrants and refugees from Greece under the EU-Turkey deal.
The ICJ, the AIRE Centre, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and the Dutch Council for Refugees have submitted a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of J.B. v. Greece. The case concerns the decision of Greek authorities to return a Syrian refugee to Turkey under the legal assumption that Turkey is a safe third country for refugees, that has been introduced following the EU-Turkey deal reached in reaction to the “refugee crisis”.
The interveners challenge the implementation of the rule of safe third country in these situations with regard to Greece’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Specifically, the intervention focuses on:
- The principle of non-refoulement under the ECHR;
- The safe third country concept in international refugee law and EU law;
- The respect of the right to an effective remedy in cases of returns to Turkey under the safe third country rule.
Greece-JB_v_Greece-ECtHR-amicus-ICJ&others-final-eng-2017 (download the intervention)
Oct 5, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ made a submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Azerbaijan.
The submission brings to the attention of the members of the Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the UPR issues concerning:
- Azerbaijan’s legislation governing the legal profession;
- the situation of lawyers in practice;
- the lack independence of the legal profession;
- the role of the Bar Association with regard to attacks on lawyers;
- international human rights instruments.
With respect to each of the above-mentioned concerns, the ICJ calls upon the Working Group on the UPR and the Human Rights Council to make a number of recommendations to the authorities of Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan-UPR-Advocacy-non-legal submissions-2017-ENG (download the submission)
Oct 3, 2017 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
On 2 October, the ICJ and Amnesty International submitted an intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case Ecodefence and others v the Russian Federation, Application no. 9988/13 and 48 other applications, which concern labeling NGOs as foreign agents.
In this submission, the applicants provided the Court with an analysis, based on international law sources, of:
a) the scope of application of rights to freedom of expression and association guaranteed under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention) to restrictions on the activity of non-governmental organisations (NGOs);
b) application of the principle of legality to such restrictions;
c) the legitimacy of the aim, necessity and proportionality of measures regulating NGOs, including restrictions on funding, burdensome reporting requirements, sanctions and the stigmatizing effect of labelling NGOs as “foreign agents”; and
d) the scope of permissible restrictions under Article 18 of the ECHR, particularly the question of interferences used for purposes other than those which fall under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.
The submission addresses the obligations of State parties to the ECHR with account taken of the other international law obligations, such as those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as other relevant standards under international law.
Russia-ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Ecodefence-legalsubmissions-2017-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Sep 22, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ spoke today at the UN, on behalf of its Dutch national section NJCM and the civic rights organization Kompass, addressing the need for the Netherlands to adopt concrete measures to implement commitments it has accepted under the Universal Periodic Review process.
The statement, delivered in the discussion by the UN Human Rights Council of the outcome of the third cycle UPR of the Netherlands, read as follows:
The ICJ makes this statement with the support of our Dutch section NJCM (Nederlands Juristen Comité voor de Mensenrechten) and civic rights organization Kompass, who together coordinated the report ‘Bringing Human Rights Home’ on behalf of 23 Dutch organizations that contributed to the UPR of the Netherlands.
Some aspects of the Netherlands’ engagement with the UPR have been positive: the Foreign Ministry as well as UPR-info organized valuable interactions in Geneva for NGOs and delegates. Dutch politicians attended the UPR sessions, setting an important precedent. The Dutch Parliament discussed the UPR process for the first time ever.
Other aspects have been disappointing. The Dutch Foreign Minister has used the term “check-box diplomacy” in reference to States that formally engage with the UPR in Geneva but do not take the necessary steps to implement human rights at home. We fear that, ironically, the phrase could well be applied to the Netherlands itself, where the Government’s “National Action Plan” does not accord with relevant OHCHR guidance, and is commonly referred to by Dutch civil society as the “No Action Plan”. Indeed, Dutch civil society have yet to see any new action by the Government designed to implement the UPR recommendations.
We therefore encourage the future Minister of Interior to put an end to this passive attitude and start investing in the national coordination of the implementation of human rights, including in relation to accepted UPR recommendations, and to engage with the Dutch Parliament on priorities and meaningful actions for the New National Action Plan.
National Action Plans and UPR recommendations are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Human Rights and the UPR are about taking action and reforming laws, policies and practices at home, not paper pushing and bureaucracy. With the Netherlands’ accepted UPR recommendations now in hand, Dutch civil society’s message is (to paraphrase a saying from Rotterdam): “enough talk, let’s get to work!”
Responding to these and similar remarks from other stakeholders, the delegation of the Netherlands stated that the government would convene, in November, a multi-stakeholder conference on UPR follow up, consisting of plenary and workshop sessions to discuss how to follow up the process at the national level.
The delegation also noted in its final remarks that the Netherlands views this third cycle of the UPR as being about implementation, specifically referencing the ICJ/NJCM/Kompass statement, saying, “in other words, as one of the NGO speakers put it, let’s get to work!”
The statement may be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC36-OralStatement-UPR-Netherlands-2017
Sep 14, 2017 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
On 13 September, the European Committee of Social Rights decided on the admissibility of the collective complaint submitted by the ICJ and Forum for Human Rights, against the Czech Republic.
The Committee assessed the admissibility conditions set out in the Protocol and the Committee’s Rules and the Government’s objections on admissibility and declared the complaint admissible. The Czech Government has now two months to make written submissions on the merits of the complaint.
The complaint argues that the Czech Republic fails to ensure equal legal protection and participation of children below the age of criminal responsibility in the pre-trial stage of juvenile justice procedures.
The ICJ and FORUM submit that serious systemic flaws in the Czech juvenile justice system deprive a specific group of particularly vulnerable individuals – children below the age of criminal responsibility – of an adequate level of social protection and leave them at risk of inappropriate or unfair procedures leading to arbitrary punitive measures, in violation of Article 17 of the European Social Charter, both alone and read in conjunction with the principle of equality in the preamble to the Charter.
Europe-ECSR-ICJvCzechRepublic-ChildrenJustice-AdmissibilityDecision-2017 (download the Committee’s decision)
