Nov 17, 2020 | News
The ICJ today denounced the renewed threat of criminal proceedings by prosecutorial authorities against Judge Igor Tuleya on charges arising from the judge’s independent exercise of his judicial functions, as his case is appealed before a panel of the Supreme Court Disciplinary Chamber.
Judge Tuleya faces prosecution for having allowed the presence of media in a sensitive case concerning the investigations on the 2017 budget vote in the Polish House of Representatives (Sejm) that took place without the presence of the opposition.
He has been charged with ‘failing to comply with his official duties and overstepping his powers’ for having allegedly disclosed a secret of the investigation to ‘unauthorized parties’.
The accusations stem from the initiative of the judge to allow media and the public in the courtroom while issuing his ruling. Usually rulings on investigations are issued behind closed doors in Poland, but the criminal procedure code allows judges to make the hearing public “in the interest of justice”.
“Judge Tuleya’s immunity should be maintained. Actually he should not face any criminal proceedings to begin with as its decisions were in accordance with the law and the principles of transparency and public trials,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“His case is a further demonstration of the relentless attacks against the independence of judges ongoing in Poland.”
The Disciplinary Chamber, in a single-judge formation, upheld Judge Tuleya’s immunity on 9 July but the prosecution appealed the ruling that will be now decided by the same Chamber before a three-judge panel, Tomasz Przelawski, Slawomis Niedzielak and Jaroslaw Sobutka.
These proceedings are the first case of implementation the draconian Act amending the Law on the Common Courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and Some Other Laws, signed into law on 4 February and widely known as the ‘Muzzle Act’, which has given competence to waive judicial immunity to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.
“Immunity claims against a judge should be decided only by an independent body,” Massimo Frigo added.
“As EU Court of Justice held, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court is not independent and is open to undue influence or interference by political authorities. It should therefore not rule on this case.”
Background
On 19 November, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a ruling in the case A.K. and others (C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18), on a preliminary question by the Supreme Court of Poland. The preliminary question asked whether the recently established Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court could be considered to be independent.
The CJEU ruled that a court cannot be considered independent “where the objective circumstances in which that court was formed, its characteristics and the means by which its members have been appointed are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of that court to external factors, in particular, as to the direct or indirect influence of the legislature and the executive and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it and, thus, may lead to that court not being seen to be independent or impartial with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society must inspire in subjects of the law.”
Based on this ruling, the Labour, Criminal and Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court declared that the Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court were not properly constituted and independent.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, judges are entitled to a fair hearing in all disciplinary proceedings (principle 17). In order for such a hearing to be fair, the decision-maker must be independent and impartial.
International and European standards on the independence of the judiciary provide that judges should have immunity from criminal prosecution for decisions taken in connection with their judicial functions in the absence of proof of malice, and any procedure for removing immunity must itself be independent (see for instance, UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, paras 65-67 and 98; Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, para 68; Consultative Council of European Judges, para 20; ICJ Practitioners Guide no 13, pp. 27-30).
On 26 February 2020, the Polish Prosecutor’s Office requested a waiver of Judge Tuleya’s immunity in order to press criminal charges which might lead to imprisonment. The waiver was rejected on 9 June 2020 by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court appointed by the government, in a single-judge formation. The Prosecutor’s Office appealed the ruling. The case will be now considered by the same Disciplinary Chamber in a three-judge formation. A first hearing was scheduled for 5 October 2020 but was postponed. It will take place on 18 November.
In an open letter of 5 February 2020, 44 ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members denounced the recent legislative changes adopted by the Polish government threatening the role and the rights of judges and denouncing the risks faced by legal practitioners when fighting for the rule of law. Two weeks later, the risks highlighted by the letter have become reality for an increasing number of Polish judges, including Judge Tuleya.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, Europe and Central Asia Programme, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41 797499949
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 12, 2020 | Agendas, Events, News
The International Commission of Jurists and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) invite you to a Zoom workshop where Turkish and international experts will discuss the legacy of the 2016-2018 state of emergency in Turkey for access to justice today.
To participate, please register by writing an email to ihop@ihop.org.tr (the Human Rights Joint Platform)
Join our great panel of speakers:
– Professor Sarah Cleveland, ICJ Commissioner
– Dr. Dilet Kurban, Hertie School
– Lawyer Ziynet Özçelik, Ankara Bar Association
– Dinçer Demirkent, Human Rights School
– Roisin Pillay, Director of ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme
– Kerem Altiparmak, ICJ Turkey Legal Adviser
The workshop will address how state of emergency measures, such as dismissals and closures of legal entities, still impact on the human right of people in Turkey today.
The experts will discuss whether the remedies set up by Turkish authorities are up to standard with Turkey’s international human rights law obligations.
IHOPICJ-ZoomWorkshop-StateofEmergency-Agenda-2020-ENG (download the agenda in English)
IHOPICJ-ZoomWorkshop-StateofEmergency-Agenda-2020-TUR (download the agenda in Turkish)
The event is part of the REACT project: implemented jointly by ICJ and IHOP, this project seeks to support the role of civil society actors in turkey in ensuring effective access to justice for the protection of human rights. This project is funded by the European Union. The views expressed in the event do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the EU.
Oct 27, 2020 | Agendas, Events, News
The International Commission of Jurists and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) invite you to a conversation on the past and current situation of the fight against impunity in Turkey with eminent international and Turkish expert.
Registation is on a first come first served basis by writing to: ihop@ihop.org.tr
Join our speakers:
– Juan Mendez, former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
– Wilder Taylor, Former Secretary-General of ICJ and chair of Uruguary NPM
– Luciano A. Hazan, Member of the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearance
– Melis Gebeş, Lawyer, Truth Justice and Memory Center:
– Feray Salman, General Coordinator of Human Rights Joint Platform
IHOPICJ-ZoomConference-ImpunityTurkey-Agenda-2020-ENG (download the agenda in English)
IHOPICJ-ZoomConference-ImpunityTurkey-Agenda-2020-TUR (download the agenda in Turkish)
The event is part of the REACT project: implemented jointly by ICJ and IHOP, this project seeks to support the role of civil society actors in turkey in ensuring effective access to justice for the protection of human rights. This project is funded by the European Union. The views expressed in the event do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the EU.
Oct 26, 2020 | News
A new bogus indictment against human rights defender and businessman, Osman Kavala, and US academic, Henri Barkey, for allegedly spying and attempting to overthrow Turkey’s constitutional order is politically motivated and bereft of legal credibility, Human Rights Watch and the ICJ said today.
The indictment, alleging the two were involved in the July 15, 2016, attempted military coup, demonstrates Turkey’s blatant refusal to abide by a European Court of Human Rights judgment, finalized in May 2020, which ordered Kavala’s release, and not only prolongs ongoing violations of his rights but gives rise to new ones.
An Istanbul court on October 8 accepted the indictment and has scheduled a first trial hearing against Kavala, who was been in Istanbul’s Silivri Prison since November 2017, and Barkey, who lives in the US, for December 18.
“The new case against Osman Kavala and Henri Barkey demonstrates the Turkish authorities’ flagrant misuse of the courts for political ends and their fundamental disregard for the basic principles of criminal justice,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch.
“Defying the European Court of Human Rights order to release Kavala has confirmed the Court’s conclusion that Turkey is using detention and prosecution to silence a human rights defender.”
The 64-page prosecutor’s indictment, dated September 28, accuses Kavala and Barkey of “securing for purposes of political or military espionage information that should be kept confidential for reasons relating to the security or domestic or foreign policy interests of the state” (under Turkish Penal Code article 328), punishable with up to 20 years in prison, and “attempting through force and violence to overthrow the constitutional order of the Republic of Turkey or introduce a different order or prevent this order” (article 309), punishable with life in prison without parole.
The indictment recycles unsubstantiated accusations, which previously circulated in the pro-government Turkish media, that Kavala and Barkey were involved in espionage and in the 2016 attempted military coup. The indictment provides no credible evidence linking them with any criminal activities. (Further details about the content of the indictment are provided below.)
In a December 2019 judgment, which became final on May 11, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the evidence on which Kavala was detained for the Gezi protests and the 2016 coup attempt was insufficient and agreed that Kavala’s detention and the charges against him “pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to silence him as a human rights defender.”
On September 3, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, acting in its supervisory capacity for the implementation of European Court judgments, issued a decision ordering the Turkish government to ensure Kavala’s release, pointing to “a strong presumption that his current detention is a continuation of the violations found by the Court.”
On September 29, pro-government media reported that the Istanbul prosecutor’s office had prepared the new indictment against Kavala and Barkey. On the same day, Turkey’s Constitutional Court postponed its review of Kavala’s application regarding the legality of his continuing detention, which had been scheduled for that day.
On October 1, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers issued a second decision calling on Turkey to ensure Kavala’s immediate release, expressing “deep concern that the applicant has still not been released” and announcing that an interim resolution would be issued at the Committee of Ministers’ December 1-3 session if Kavala had not yet been released.
“Turkey is bound by the ruling from European Court to free Kavala immediately, and the ruling covers his detention under the latest case against him,” said Roisin Pillay, director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“The new indictment presents no new grounds to justify his detention, and it is imperative that Turkey ends the persecution campaign against him by releasing him and dropping all charges.”
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
Contact
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41-22-979-3800; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Turkey-Kavala case-News-press release-2020-ENG (story with additional information, in PDF)
Oct 21, 2020 | News
The ICJ condemned the dismissal of eight judges and three prosecutors by Turkey’s Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) on 14 October 2020, for alleged membership of or connections with the Gülenist movement as a violation their right to a fair trial.
The ICJ calls on the CJP to revoke its order. In case any further is to be taken, the cases should be re-examined under the ordinary dismissal procedures. The ICJ also urges the Turkish Government and Parliament to modify the constitutional rules on the CJP to ensure its full independence.
“This decision not only affects the rights of the judges and prosecutors at stake, but also the Turkish population as whole, which damages the functioning of a fair and independent justice system bound by the rule of law,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser with the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
The decision by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is particularly problematic because it was not accompanied by any reasoning on the individual situation of each judge and prosecutor.
International law provides that judges may be dismissed only through a fair hearing before an independent authority. The lack of individual reasoning in dismissal decisions strikes at the heart of the right to a fair hearing.
As the ICJ demonstrated in the 2018 report Justice Suspended, within the current constitutional framework, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is itself not provided with the guarantees necessary to ensure its institutional independence.
Despite the state of emergency having been lifted since July 2018, extraordinary powers given to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors to dismiss judges and prosecutors during the State of Emergency still apply, having been extended for three years by Law no. 7145.
“It is unacceptable in a State governed by the rule of law that judges and prosecutors – whatever charges may be against them – be dismissed without a fair procedure, in disregard of international law,” added Massimo Frigo.
Background
On 14 October the Council of Judges and Prosecutors made use of special powers to dismiss judges and prosecutors without complying with the ordinary procedure, invoking extraordinary powers enacted by Law No 7145 of 31.07.2018. The decision was issued in the Official Gazette on 30 October 2020. This legislation inserted into ordinary law several powers that had previously applied under the state of emergency legislation. More than 30 judges have so far been dismissed under this procedure since the end of the state of emergency.
One of the amendments made by Law No 7145 of 31.07.2018 was to the Decree Law No 375 dated 1989. A Temporary Article (Article 35) was added to the Decree. On the basis of this article, the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court, the Presidency Councils of Court of Appeal, the Council of State, the General Assembly of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, a Commission set up by the Ministry of National Security, and the Presidency of the Court of Audit, were each authorized to take dismissal decisions for public officials/judges and prosecutors under their mandate for three years from the date of the endorsement of the law No 7145
The decision to dismiss the nine judges and two prosecutors was made on 14 October 2020 and published in the Official Gazette on 20 October 2020. After recalling Law no 7145 that enables the dismissal of judges and prosecutors by the Board, the decision states that all defendants have asked to submit their written defences. The decision also indicates that this is not a criminal conviction. The decision is based on complaints received and refers to investigations on their social environment, criminal investigations and prosecutors conducted by judicial authorities in general on the Gülenist organisation/FETÖ, minutes of hearings, contents of the communication app Bylock, statements by witnesses and suspects. However, the decision does not include any reasoning relating to the individual situation of each judge or prosecutor.
International law and standards provide that disciplinary proceedings should be conducted by an independent authority or a court with all the guarantees of a fair trial and provide the judge with the right to challenge the decision and sanction. Disciplinary sanctions should be proportionate.
The UN Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary set out international standards for discipline, suspension and removal of judges, including in order to ensure impartiality and independence of courts and tribunals as required by international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Basic Principles state that a “charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge.”
The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) adds that “a Head of State, Minister of Justice or any other representative of political authorities cannot take part in the disciplinary body.”
Contact
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for the Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41 22 979 3805, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
