Nov 16, 2020 | Advocacy
On 15 October 2020, Polish lawyer Roman Giertych was detained by the Central Anticorruption Bureau (CBA) on accusations of money laundering. His house and office were searched and prosecutors imposed preventive measures, including suspension of his right to practice law.
Lawyers for Lawyers, the ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association are concerned that the manner in which these measures were taken is inconsistent with international standards on the independence of the legal profession.
Roman Giertych has worked on a series of high-profile cases against the governing Law and Justice party. He has also represented various prominent opposition figures, including Donald Tusk, the former Polish prime minister and head of the Civic Platform opposition party, and former president of the European Council.
Mr. Giertych’s arrest happened one day before the scheduled detention hearing in another politically significant high-profile case, concerning Leszek Czarnecki, in which Roman Giertych was appointed as defence counsel.
According to the information available to Lawyers for Lawyers (L4L), the ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association, Mr. Giertych was arrested merely to serve him with charges. He was not given a chance to appear voluntarily.
On 22 October 2020, Mr Giertych’s defense lawyers filed four complaints with the court about the actions of the Poznań prosecutor’s office relating to his arrest and the search of his home and office.
Professional lawyers’ associations such as the National Council of Attorneys-at Law, the Association of Attorneys-At-Law “Defensor Iurius”, the Polish Bar Council and the Council of the Warsaw Bar Association of Advocates have expressed “great concern” about Mr. Giertych’s detention, the search of his house and office, and the preventive measures that were taken against Mr. Giertych.
Lawyers for Lawyers, the ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association are concerned about the circumstances of Mr. Giertych’s arrest, in particular the fact that the arrest seems to have only been made in order to present him with charges.
L4L, ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association are also concerned by the fact that the searches of his house and office were conducted without proper safeguards of attorney-client privilege and by the suspension of Mr. Giertych’s right to practice his legal profession by a public prosecutor. We will continue to monitor the case of Mr. Giertych closely.
Download
Poland-Roman Giertych-Advocacy-2020-ENG (full statement with additional information, in PDF)
Nov 16, 2020 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ calls on the Ukrainian authorities to abandon a draft law which would dismiss the judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, as a means of retaliation for a decision adopted by the Court and in order to circumvent the decision.
The authorities should also refrain from any other actions, including harassment of judges, which undermine the independence of the Constitutional Court.
“This draft law constitutes a direct attack on the ability of the judiciary to exercise its functions independently. It is incompatible with basic principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers, and with international standards on the independence of the judiciary,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“By the nature of their role, the judiciary, and especially constitutional courts may be required to decide on controversial matters. It is however essential that particularly in such cases, courts are able to operate without fear of retaliation or repression for the decisions they take,” she added.
The draft law on Restoring Public Confidence in the Constitutional Court, submitted by President Zelensky to the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada), aims to pronounce a decision of the Constitutional Court on anti-corruption legislation “void” and without legal consequences.
This runs contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution according to which “[d]ecisions and opinions adopted by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine shall be binding, final and may not be challenged” (Article 151-2).
The draft law would terminate the mandate of the judges of the Constitutional Court, in contravention of the Constitution of Ukraine as well as basic principles of independence of the judiciary, governing appointments, dismissal and security of tenure of judges.
The draft law provides that the powers of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in force at the time of the decision on the anti-corruption law would be terminated from the date of entry into force of the law.
According to the explanatory note to the Draft Law, one reason the adoption of the law would be justified is because there had not been a “proper substantiation” of its judgment on the anti-corruption law. The note alleges that Court’s decision was adopted in the private interests of judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, that its proper substantiation was not provided and that it contradicts the principle of the rule of law and denies the European and Euro-Atlantic choice of the Ukrainian people. The ICJ considers these allegations are inappropriate as they directly interfere with the judicial function of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, contrary to the national legislation and international law on the independence of the judiciary.
On 2 November 2020, Oleksandr Tupitsky, the President of the Constitutional Court was summoned for interrogation by the State Investigation Bureau in connection with allegations against him of committing crimes as part of an organized group. The ICJ fears that this may be a form of pressure in relation to the Constitution Court’s decision.
Following these incidents, the Constitutional Court has stopped working as four of the judges refuse to take part in its sessions. The Court therefore lacks the necessary quorum to operate.
The ICJ calls on Ukraine to withdraw the draft law, and to refrain from any further reprisals against judges for their decisions.
Download
Ukraine-draft law constitutional court-News-ENG-2020 (full statement with background information)
Nov 3, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ, jointly with Human Rights Watch and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project presented a submission to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers on the Execution of the judgment Kavala v. Turkey by the European Court of Human Rights.
The ICJ, Human Rights Watch and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project have reported to the Committee of Ministers that new charges against Osman Kavala lack concrete evidence and have been brought in disregard of the ECtHR’s judgment whose execution the Committee is supervising.
The three NGOs have invited the Committee of Ministers to:
- consider adopting the relevant recommendations formulated in their submission of 29 May 2020;
- take further steps to end immediately Mr. Kavala’s ongoing detention, which has now exceeded three years;
- recognise at its 1390th 1-3 December 2020 meeting that the continuing detention of Osman Kavala violates Article 46 of the Convention concerning the binding nature of final judgments of the ECtHR and may trigger Article 46(4) infringement proceedings against Turkey; and
- take the necessary general measures identified in the NGOs submission of 29 May 2020 to implement the ECtHR’s ruling concerning Article 5 and 18 of the Convention in Kavala v. Turkey and its findings in relation to human rights defenders.
In their initial submission dated 29 May 2020, the NGOs underlined that decisions taken to prolong Mr. Kavala’s detention had been guided by political expediency and there had been a concerted political effort by the Turkish authorities to prevent Mr. Kavala’s release. These bases for their action are evident in the sequence of court orders prolonging Mr. Kavala’s detention, the actions of the executive and prosecutors in relation to the judicial procedures against him, and the lack of due consideration of the ECtHR’s findings and objective deliberation as to the legality of any deprivation of liberty. The NGOs made several recommendations to the Committee of Ministers, on the issues of the general and individual measures, to ensure full implementation of the ECtHR’s judgment and Mr. Kavala’s immediate release on the ground that the Court’s judgment clearly applies to his ongoing detention.
In its judgment on Kavala v. Turkey, the EUropean Court of Human Rights, on 10 December 2019, found violations of Article 5(1) (right to liberty and security), Article 5(4) (right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention) and Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken together with Article 5(1). The Court required the Government of Turkey to take measures to end the detention of human rights defender Osman Kavala and to secure his immediate release. The Court stated that any continuation of Mr. Kavala’s detention would prolong the violations and breach the obligation to abide by the Court’s judgment in accordance with Article 46(1) of the Convention. The judgment became final on 11 May 2020.
Despite the Court’s clear findings and mandatory order, Mr. Kavala remains in detention as of the date of this submission.
Turkey-Kavala_v_TurkeyExecution-JointSubmission2-HRWICJTHRLP-2020-ENG
Nov 2, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ submitted today a third party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights in a key case challenging the independence of the Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of Poland’s Supreme Court.
In the case of Reczkowicz and Others v. Poland, the European Court of Human Rights will consider whether the recently established Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court of Poland may be considered an “independent and impartial tribunal” in order to satisfy the requirements of the right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
In its third party intervention, the International Commission of Jurists has submitted that a court cannot be considered as independent whenever the body that has appointed its members lacks guarantees of independence from the executive and legislative powers as enshrined in standards of the Council of Europe and the United Nations, including that at least half of its members be judges elected by their peers.
It further concluded that a court composed by judges appointed by a non-independent body or via a non-independent procedure will not be capable of constituting an independent and impartial tribunal under article 6 ECHR.
Poland- ECtHR-Reczkowicz and Others v Poland – TPI – ICJ – 2020 -ENG (download the third party intervention)
Oct 27, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International have presented today a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the premature dismissal of Judge Waldemar Zurek from his position in the National Judicial Council.
In the case Zurek v. Poland, the ICJ and Amnesty International presented submissions on the scope of application of the right to a fair trial under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in cases relating to the role of an independent judiciary and its members through self-governance mechanisms (such as the National Council of the Judiciary) in light of international standards on judicial councils, judicial appointments, the judicial career and security of tenure; of the Court’s Convention jurisprudence; and of general principles on the rule of law and the role and independence of the judiciary.
They further submitted obervations on the scope of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR as applied to judges, including those engaged in the administration of the judiciary.
ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Zurek_v_Poland-Advocacy-Legal-Submission-2020-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Oct 5, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted the need for accountability for crimes under international law in Libya, and concerns for the independence of lawyers in Ukraine, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The oral statement, delivered in the general debate on technical cooperation and capacity building, read as follows:
“Madame President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the oral updates on Ukraine and Libya.
Technical assistance and capacity building objectives in Libya can only be achieved if the protection of human rights, entrenchment of the rule of law and pursuit of accountability are prioritized.
States should support the Fact-Finding Mission by extending its reporting mandate, increasing contributions to the UN budget necessary to establish the Mission’s secretariat, and fully cooperating with it.
States should also support the Berlin Process working groups, ensuring that the political and accountability pillars work in unison and making meaningful commitments to implement their recommendations.
Across all of Ukraine, lawyers continue to be associated with their clients and may face consequences for representing them by private individuals and also through abuse of legal proceedings. High-profile cases bear risks for independent lawyers who choose to diligently represent their clients.
The decline in security of lawyers in and outside of courts, and the problem of threats, harassment, and attacks against lawyers, should be addressed as a matter of priority, including through technical cooperation. Measures should be taken to build the capacity of law enforcement agencies and court security personnel to ensure that lawyers and others involved in court proceedings can work in an atmosphere free from intimidation, harassment, and improper interference.
Thank you.”
