Mar 17, 2021 | News
All children regardless of their age must have access to procedural rights when they are accused of criminal acts, the Council of Europe’s European Committee of Social Rights decided in a landmark case (No. 148/2017) brought by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) with support from the Prague-based Forum for Human Rights.
The ICJ and Forum lodged a complaint challenging the failure of the Czech Republic to provide for legal assistance to children under the age of 15 (the age of criminal responsibility in the Czech Republic) in the pre-trial stage of proceedings and failure to provide alternatives to formal judicial proceedings for them.
The European Committee of Social Rights, which is responsible for oversight of the European Social Charter of 1961, found the Czech Republic was violating the rights of children under 15, who face proceedings in the child justice system but are below the age of criminal responsibility. The Committee found that the failure to provide these due process safeguards violated the rights of the children to social protection under Article 17 of the 1961 Charter. Human rights protected under the European Social Charter are legally binding on States party to it.
“The Committee’s decision is ground-breaking in many ways, yet two implications are revolutionary. First, it clearly emphasises the inter-dependence between fair-trail rights and child’s well-being. In modern human rights law, there is no such a thing as a clear-cut division between civil and political rights and social rights. But most importantly, the decision undermines paternalistic attitudes towards young children who enter the juvenile justice system and makes clear that all children – regardless their age – must be ensured adequate procedural protection in the course of the whole proceedings, based on the restorative justice principles,” said Maroš Matiaško, senior legal consultant of Forum.
The decision of the European Committee on Social Rights should lead to fundamental changes in the Czech child justice system, Forum for Human Rights and the International Commission of Jurists said today.
“We brought this case to ensure that children below the age of criminal responsibility do not have lower standards of protection of their rights compared to the older children in the child justice system,” said Karolína Babická, ICJ Legal Adviser. “We expect the Czech Republic to swiftly implement the decision of the Committee and ensure that all children regardless their age have access to procedural rights and alternative procedures like settlements and conditional termination or withdrawal of prosecution.”
Background
The legal findings come following a collective complaint submitted to the European Committee on Social Rights by Prague-based Forum for Human Rights and the International Commission of Jurists in 2017.
The Committee’s decision is built on two legal grounds, (I) mandatory legal representation for all children in conflict with the law regardless of age already in the pre-trial stage and (II) their access to alternatives in line with restorative justice principles.
On the first ground, the Committee found that the State must ensure mandatory legal assistance to children below the age of criminal responsibility already in the pre-stage of the proceedings. The reasoning is built on four grounds:
–Children below the age of criminal responsibility are not always able to understand and follow pre-trial proceedings due to their relative immaturity. It cannot therefore be assumed that they are able to defend themselves in this context.
–Children below the age of criminal responsibility should be assisted by a lawyer in order to understand their rights and the procedure applied to them, so as to prepare their defence. The failure to ensure legal assistance for children below the age of criminal responsibility in the pre-trial stage of proceedings is likely to impact negatively on the course of the proceedings, thereby increasing the likelihood of their being subjected to measures such as deprivation of liberty.
–Legal assistance is necessary in order for children to avoid self-incrimination and fundamental to ensure that a child is not compelled to give testimony or to confess or acknowledge guilt.
–The assistance of a lawyer is also necessary in situations where parents/legal guardians have interests that may conflict with those of the child and where it is in the child’s best interest to exclude the parents/legal guardians from being involved in the proceedings. Therefore, the Committee concluded that mandated separate legal representation for children is crucial at the pre-trial stage of proceedings.
In relation to the second legal ground, the Committee emphasised that diversion (alternatives to proceedings, such as settlement or conditional termination or withdrawal of criminal proceedings) from judicial proceedings should be the preferred manner of dealing with children in the majority of cases and diversion options should be available from as early as possible after contact with the system, before a trial commences, and throughout the proceedings. The principle applies to an even greater degree to a situation in which children below that age can still be engaged in the child justice system.
It may be left to the discretion of States Parties to decide on the exact nature and content of diversion measures, and to take the necessary legislative and other measures for their implementation, though there are relevant standards that should be taken into account, especially those developer by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Collective complaints alleging violations of obligations under the European Social Charter, may be brought against States which have ratified the 1995 Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter. On the basis of the European Committee on Social Rights’ decision on a collective complaint, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers may recommend that the State take specific measures to implement the decision.
Read the full decision here.
See more information about the case here.
Watch our talk on the case and its importance:
Contact:
Karolína Babická, Legal adviser Europe and Central Asia Programme; karolina.babicka(a)icj.org
Mar 1, 2021 | News
The Turkish government’s failure to comply with a binding European Court of Human Rights order to release the human rights defender Osman Kavala should prompt Council of Europe action against Turkey, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project said today.
The three nongovernmental organizations presented the recommendation in a submission to the Committee of Ministers, the Council of Europe’s intergovernmental body responsible for overseeing the implementation of European Court of Human Rights judgments. The committee is to review Turkey’s noncompliance with the Strasbourg court’s judgment on Kavala’s case for the fourth time at its March 9-11, 2021 session. Kavala has been held in pretrial detention since November 2017.
“Turkey’s flagrant disregard for the European Court of Human Rights order to release Osman Kavala should trigger the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to start infringement proceedings against Turkey,” said Aisling Reidy, senior legal adviser at Human Rights Watch. “It is crucial for the Committee of Ministers, at its March session, to leave the Turkish government in no doubt that European Court of Human Rights judgments are binding on Turkey and that persistent failure to implement the ruling in Osman Kavala’s case constitutes a serious breach requiring exceptional measures.”
The Committee of Ministers may opt to take infringement proceedings against a Council of Europe member state that refuses to implement European Court of Human Rights judgments. It was used for the first time in 2017 when the government of Azerbaijan continuously refused to secure the unconditional release of a wrongfully jailed opposition politician, Ilgar Mammadov.
Infringement proceedings are provided for under Article 46/4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Their commencement requires the vote of two-thirds of the Committee of Ministers. Once the process is triggered, the case is referred back to the European Court of Human Rights for a further opinion on the legally binding obligation to comply. If the Court confirms that Turkey has failed to implement the ruling, the Committee of Ministers may then take additional measures, including ultimately suspending Turkey’s voting rights or membership of the Council of Europe.
The Committee of Ministers has already considered the status of Turkey’s compliance with the judgment on multiple occasions, issuing two decisions and, in December 2020, an interim resolution that each strongly urged Turkey to comply with the court’s judgment by unconditionally releasing Kavala.
However, since the December resolution, local courts in Turkey have prolonged Kavala’s detention four more times. A court of appeal has overturned his acquittal in the Gezi Park protests trial, and Turkey’s Constitutional Court has also flouted the European Court of Human Rights judgment by finding no violation of Kavala’s right to liberty.
“The Kavala case is emblematic of the crisis facing civil society and the rule of law in Turkey,”. said Helen Duffy of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project. “We recognize that infringement proceedings are exceptional, but if there is a case where they are justified, it is this one.”
“Turning a deaf ear to the Strasbourg court’s clear order to release and the Committee of Minister’s repeated calls for compliance, Turkey’s government and courts have worked hand in glove to prolong and deepen the crisis and the violation of Mr. Kavala’s rights. Infringement proceedings against Turkey provide the strongest legal mechanism to signal the shame of not complying with European Court of Human Rights’ binding judgments.”
The organizations said in their submission that, throughout the criminal proceedings against him, judges and prosecutors involved have abused criminal procedural rules to unlawfully extend Kavala’s detention based on allegations that he organized and financed the 2013 Istanbul Gezi Park protests and that he was involved in the July 15, 2016 attempted military coup.
A key aspect of this effort has been the practice of different courts over the three years and four months of Kavala’setention successively joining, separating, and rejoining case files against Kavala to justify prolonging his incarceration.
At the most recent local court hearing against Kavala, on February 5, 2021, the Istanbul 36th Assize Court ruled that the case against him concerning the coup attempt should be joined with the Gezi Park protests case, which is before the Istanbul 30th Assize Court. A hearing of the newly joined cases will take place on May 21.
The organizations said in their submission that the decision to merge the proceedings against Kavala voids Turkey’s repeated argument before the Committee of Ministers that Kavala’s current detention is connected to a separate prosecution not covered by the Strasbourg court judgment. The groups also said that the Turkish government needs to address the structural problems raised in the Kavala judgment by revising its action plan to implement the ruling.
“Separating cases or merging them again will not correct the injustice to which Turkey’s courts and government have subjected Osman Kavala for over three years,” said Róisín Pillay, Europe and Central Asia director of the International Commission of Jurists. “This case is part of a systemic practice in which the Turkish courts, which are not independent, apply criminal law and procedures arbitrarily against critics of the government. The action plan needs to address these structural failings in the judicial system.”
The European Court of Human Rights judgment in Kavala v. Turkey is particularly significant because it is the first final ruling of the European Court of Human Rights against Turkey in which the court determined that, in interfering with an individual’s rights, the Turkish judicial authorities served ulterior political motivations, contrary to Article 18 of the ECHR.
The court said that by holding Kavala in pretrial detention since November 2017 and prosecuting him, the Turkish authorities had “pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to silence him as human rights defender.” The court found violations of articles 18 and 5 of the ECHR.
Find the submission here: Turkey-Kavala_v_TurkeyExecution-JointSubmission3-HRWICJTHRLP-2021-ENG
For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Turkey, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/europecentral-asia/turkey
For more ICJ work on Turkey, please visit:
https://www.icj.org/search/?fwp_search=Turkey&submit=Search
For more on TLSP work, please see:
https://www.turkeylitigationsupport.com/
Türkiye: Osman Kavala’nın haklarının ihlali ağırlaşıyor
Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi Türkiye’ye Yönelik İhlal Prosedürünü Başlatmalıdır
İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü, Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu ve Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi, Türkiye hükümeti tarafından Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin insan hakları savunucusu Osman Kavala’nın serbest bırakılması kararına uyulmamasının, Avrupa Konseyi tarafından Türkiye’ye yönelik işlem yapılmasını gerektirdiğini belirtti.
Üç sivil toplum kuruluşu, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararlarının uygulanmasını denetlemekten sorumlu Avrupa Konseyi hükümetler arası organı olan Bakanlar Komitesi’ne tavsiyeler içeren bir bildirimde bulundu. Bakanlar Komitesi, 9-11 Mart 2021 tarihli oturumunda Türkiye’nin AİHM’in Kavala başvurusuna ilişkin kararını uygulamamasını dördüncü kez gözden geçirecek. Kavala, Kasım 2017’den bu yana tutuklu.
İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü Kıdemli Hukuk Danışmanı Aisling Reidy, “Türkiye’nin, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Osman Kavala’nın serbest bırakılması kararını açıkça göz ardı etmesi, Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi’ni Türkiye’ye karşı ihlal prosedürünü başlatmaya yöneltmelidir” dedi. Reidy, “Bakanlar Komitesi’nin Mart ayında yapacağı oturumda, Türkiye hükümetinde şüpheye yer bırakmayacak şekilde Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararlarının Türkiye için bağlayıcı olduğunu ve Osman Kavala başvurusunda kararın yerine getirilmemesinin istisnai önlemler gerektiren ciddi bir ihlal teşkil ettiğini ortaya koyması çok önemlidir.” dedi.
Bakanlar Komitesi, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararlarını yerine getirmeyi reddeden bir Avrupa Konseyi üyesi devlete karşı ihlal prosedürünü başlatmayı tercih edebilir. İhlal prosedürü ilk olarak 2017’de, haksız yere hapsedilen muhalif politikacı Ilgar Mammadov’un koşulsuz olarak serbest bırakılmasının Azerbaycan hükümeti tarafından sürekli olarak reddedilmesi üzerine uygulanmıştı.
Bu prosedür, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin (AİHS) 46/4. maddesinde düzenlenmekte olup,başlatılması Bakanlar Komitesi’nin üçte ikisinin oyunu gerektirmekte. Prosedür başlatıldıktan sonra, dava hukuken bağlayıcı olan karara uyma yükümlülüğü hakkında görüş sunması için Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’ne geri gönderilir. Mahkeme, Türkiye’nin kararı yerine getirilmediğini doğrularsa, Bakanlar Komitesi Türkiye’nin nihayetinde oy haklarını veya Avrupa Konseyi üyeliğini askıya almaya varan ek önlemler alabilir.
Bakanlar Komitesi, halihazırda Türkiye’nin kararı uygulayıp uygulamadığını birden fazla kez değerlendirerek bu konuda iki karar verdi. Komite bu kararlarında ve Aralık 2020’de verdiği ara kararda Türkiye’yi AİHM’nin Kavala’nın koşulsuz olarak serbest bırakılması kararına uymaya çağırdı.
Ancak Aralık’ta verilen ara karardan bu yana Türkiye’deki yerel mahkemeler Kavala’nın tutukluluğunu dört kez daha uzattı. İstinaf mahkemesi, Gezi Parkı protestoları davasında Kavala hakkında verilen beraat kararını bozdu. Türkiye’nin Anayasa Mahkemesi de Kavala’nın özgürlük hakkının ihlal edilmediğine karar vererek Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararını dikkate almamış oldu.
Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi’nden Helen Duffy, “Kavala davası, Türkiye’de sivil topluma ve hukukun üstünlüğüne yönelik krizin bir simgesidir” dedi. Duffy, “İhlal prosedürünün istisnai olduğunu kabul ediyoruz, ancak bu prosedürün işletilmesini haklı kılacak bir dava varsa, Kavala davası odur. Türkiye hükümeti ve mahkemeleri, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Kavala’nın serbest bırakılması kararını ve kararın yerine getirilmesi konusunda Bakanlar Komitesi’nin tekrar eden çağrılarını görmezden gelerek bu krizi ve Osman Kavala’nın haklarının ihlalini sürdürmek ve derinleştirmek için birlikte hareket etmiştir. Türkiye aleyhine işetilecek bir ihlal prosedürü, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin bağlayıcı kararlarına uymama utancına işaret eden en güçlü yasal mekanizmayı sunmaktadır.” dedi.
Sivil toplum kuruluşları bildirimlerinde, Osman Kavala’ya karşı açılan ceza davaları süresince ilgili hâkim ve savcıların, 2013 İstanbul Gezi Parkı protestolarını düzenlediği ve finanse ettiği, 15 Temmuz 2016 askeri darbe girişimine müdahil olduğu iddialarına dayanarak Kavala’nın tutukluluğunu hukuka aykırı bir şekilde uzatmak için ceza muhakemesi kurallarını kötüye kullandıklarını ifade etti.
Bu çabanın önemli bir yönü, farklı mahkemelerin Kavala’nın üç yıl dört ay boyunca tutukluluğunun sürdürülmesini meşrulaştırmak için ona karşı açılan dava dosyalarını birleştirmesi, ayırması ve tekrar birleştirmesi uygulaması oldu.
Osman Kavala’nın en yakın tarihli yerel mahkeme duruşması olan 5 Şubat 2021’de, İstanbul 36. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi, Kavala’ya açılan darbe girişimine ilişkin davanın, İstanbul 30. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi’nde görülen Gezi Parkı protestoları davasıyla birleştirilmesi gerektiğine karar verdi. Birleşen davaların duruşması 21 Mayıs’ta yapılacak.
Sivil toplum kuruluşları, bildirimlerinde Osman Kavala aleyhindeki davaların birleştirilmesi kararının, Türkiye’nin Bakanlar Komitesi önünde Kavala’nın mevcut tutukluluğunun AİHM kararı kapsamında olmayan ayrı bir dava dolayısıyla olduğu argümanını geçersiz kıldığını belirtti. Kuruluşlar ayrıca, Türkiye hükümetinin, Kavala kararını uygulamak için hazırladığı eylem planını gözden geçirerek kararda değerlendirilen yapısal sorunları ele alması gerektiğini ifade etti.
Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu Avrupa ve Orta Asya Direktörü Róisín Pillay, “Davaları ayırmak veya yeniden birleştirmek, Türkiye mahkemelerinin ve hükümetinin üç yıldan fazla süredir Osman Kavala’yı maruz bıraktıkları adaletsizliği düzeltmeyecektir” dedi. Pillay, “Bu dava, bağımsız olmayan Türkiye mahkemelerinin, hükümeti eleştirenlere karşı ceza yasalarını ve ceza muhakemesi usulünü keyfi olarak kullandığı sistematik uygulamanın bir parçasıdır. Eylem planının yargı sistemindeki bu yapısal bozuklukları ele alması gerekiyor.” dedi.
Kavala/Türkiye kararı, AİHM’in Türkiye yargı makamlarının, bir bireyin haklarına müdahale ederken AİHS’in 18. maddesine aykırı olarak, örtülü siyasi amaçlara hizmet ettikleri tespitinde bulunduğu kesinleşme tarihi bakımından ilk karar olması dolayısıyla özel bir önem taşımaktadır.
Mahkeme kararında, Osman Kavala’yı Kasım 2017’den bu yana özgürlüğünden mahrum bırakıp kovuşturmakla, Türk makamlarının “insan hakları savunucusu olan Kavala’yı susturmak yönünde bir örtülü amaç taşıdıklarını” ifade ederekAİHS’in 18. ve 5. maddelerinin ihlal edildiğini tespit etmişti.
İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü’nün Türkiye hakkında daha fazla raporu için:
http://www.hrw.org/europecentral-asia/turkey
Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu’nun Türkiye hakkındaki diğer faaliyetleri için:
https://www.icj.org/search/?fwp_search=Turkey&submit=Search
Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi’nin çalışmaları için:
https://www.turkeylitigationsupport.com/
Feb 16, 2021 | Agendas, Events, News
Today, the ICJ in collaboration with Forum for Human Rights (FORUM) is holding an online training seminar on the rights of children who are suspected or accused of violating the law within the European Union.
The training (16-18 February 2021) focuses on the right of a child in conflict with the law to an individual assessment, under Article 7 of EU Directive 2016/800 on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings. The individual assessment of the particular circumstances and needs of the child provides an important guarantee which, if implemented through a rights-based approach, can ensure that the best interests of the child are protected and that the child’s rights are upheld throughout the criminal justice process.
The training brings together some of the key professionals involved in implementing individual assessments in the Czech Republic and Slovakia – over 20 lawyers and 20 social workers from both countries working in the field of child justice. Speakers at the training will consider the approach to the individual assessment in light of international human rights law as well as experiences from other EU Member States. They will explore the potential of the restorative justice approach to ensure that the child has practical and effective opportunity to actively participate in the proceedings.
Speakers include Mikiko Otani, ICJ Commissioner and member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Dainius Puras, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, as well as judges and academics other EU Member States and from the European Forum on Restorative Justice, FORUM and ICJ.
See the full agenda here:
in English
in Czech
in Slovak.
This project was funded by the European Union’s Rights, Equality, and Citizenship Programme (2014-2020). The content of this publication represents the views of ICJ only and is its sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.
Jan 18, 2021 | News
Soltan Achilova, Loujain AlHathloul and Yu Wensheng, three outstanding human rights defenders based in authoritarian states are nominated for the 2021 Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders. The ICJ is member of the MEA Jury.
In isolated Turkmenistan, Soltan Achilova documents human rights violations and abuses through photojournalism.
Imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, Loujain AlHathloul is a leading advocate for gender equality and women’s rights.
A lawyer, Yu Wensheng defended human rights cases and activists before his conviction and imprisonment in China.
The Finalists distinguish themselves by their bravery and deep commitment to the issues they defend, despite the many attempts to silence them by respective governmental authorities.
“Every year thousands of human rights defenders are persecuted, harassed, imprisoned, even killed. The Martin Ennals Foundation is honored to celebrate the 2021 Finalists, who have done so much for others and whose stories of adversity are emblematic of the precarity faced by the human rights movement today,” said Isabel de Sola, Director of the Martin Ennals Foundation.
“Authoritarian states tend to believe that by jailing or censoring human rights defenders, the world will forget about them. During the COVID-pandemic, it seemed like lockdowns would successfully keep people from speaking out. This year’s Finalists are a testament to the fact that nothing could be further from the truth,” added Hans Thoolen, Chair of the Jury.
Nothing can stop us from celebrating human rights defenders
Each year, the Martin Ennals Award honors human rights defenders from around the world who distinguish themselves by their strong commitment to promoting our fundamental rights – often at the risk of their own lives.
The 2021 Martin Ennals Award Ceremony will celebrate their courage on 11 February during an online ceremony hosted jointly with the City of Geneva which, as part of its commitment to human rights, has for many years supported the Award.
The 2021 Finalists
In Turkmenistan, one of the world’s most isolated countries, freedom of speech is inexistant and independent journalists work at their own peril. Soltan Achilova (71), a photojournalist, documents the human rights abuses and social issues affecting Turkmen people in their daily lives. Despite the repressive environment and personal hardships, she is one of the very few reporters in the country daring to sign independent
In Saudi Arabia, women still face several forms of gender discrimination, so much so, that the Kingdom ranks in the bottom 10 places according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2020. Loujain AlHathloul (31) was one of the leading figures of the Women to drive movement and advocated for the end of the male guardianship system. She was imprisoned in 2018 on charges related to national security together with several other women activists. Tortured, denied medical care, and subjected to solitary confinement, Loujain was sentenced to 5 years and 8 months in prison on 28 December 2020.
In China, more than 300 human rights activists and lawyers disappeared or were arrested in 2015 during the so called 709 Crackdown. A successful business lawyer, Yu Wensheng (54) gave up his career to defend one of these detained lawyers, before being arrested himself. Detained for almost three years now, Yu Wensheng’s right hand was crushed in jail and his health is failing.
Contact
Olivier van Bogaert, Director Media & Communications, ICJ representative in the MEA Jury, t: +41 22 979 38 08 ; e: olivier.vanbogaert(a)icj.org
Chloé Bitton, Communications Manager, Martin Ennals Foundation, t +41 22 809 49 25 e: cbitton(a)martinennalsaward.org
MEA Finalists Bios-2020-ENG (full bios of finalists, in PDF)
MEA Finalists Bios-2020-ARA (full story and bios of finalists in Arabic, PDF)
Jan 15, 2021 | Agendas, Events, News
Today, the ICJ in collaboration with Greek Council of Refugees (GCR) is holding the second part of the training for Greek judges and lawyers on asylum procedures and detention of third country nationals.
The first part of the training, which has been held on 18 December 2020, addressed administrative detention of third-country nationals. The second training will consider issues related to fair and effective asylum procedures. Over 60 national judges and 10 Greek lawyers will participate in the training.
Speakers (from the Administrative Court of Appeal, First Instance Administrative court and the Court of Justice of the EU) will discuss Directive 2011/95/EE (inclusion clause in refugee protection status); the asylum procedure and procedural guarantees; case-law of the CJEU on asylum and common issues in asylum applications, including credibility and safe third country.
See the agenda for both parts of the training in English and in Greek.
This training is a part of FAIR PLUS project. It was carried out with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of ICJ and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.
Dec 18, 2020 | Agendas, Events, News
The ICJ and the Greek Council for Refugees (GCR) today hold the first part of the online training for Greek judges and lawyers on asylum procedures and detention of third country nationals as a part of the FAIR PLUS project.
The training brings together experts from the Greek Administrative Court of Appeal, Administrative Court of First Instance, European Court of Human Rights, GCR, ICJ and academics for a discussion on administrative detention on third-country nationals with a focus on the current situation in Greece.
Among the topics to be discussed today are domestic remedies to detention of third-country nationals; as well as deportation and detention of third country nationals in light of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), EU law and Greek constitutional and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law regarding immigration detention.
The second part of the training, on fair and effective asylum procedures, is planned for 15 January 2021, and will focus on Directive 2011/95/EE (inclusion clause in refugee protection status); asylum procedure and procedural guarantees; case-law of the CJEU on asylum and common issues of asylum applications – credibility and safe third country.
This is the third training delivered as part of this project, the first two having been held in person this January in Dublin and last December in Pisa.
See the agenda for both parts of the training in English and in Greek.
This training is a part of FAIR PLUS project. It was carried out with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of ICJ and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.
