EU: Roundtable discussion on the impact of counter-terrorism laws on children and on minority ethnic and religious groups

EU: Roundtable discussion on the impact of counter-terrorism laws on children and on minority ethnic and religious groups

Today, in Brussels, the ICJ held a roundtable discussion on the impact of counter-terrorism laws on specific groups, including children, and ethnic and religious groups.

The roundtable brought together 34 judges, lawyers, NGOs and other experts from countries including Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Romania, and Spain to discuss how the rights of children and of ethnic and religious minorities can be best protected in applying counter-terrorism legislation in the courts, especially in light of the EU Directive 2017/541 on Combatting Terrorism.

This was the last of four roundtables held by the ICJ and its partner organizations between April and November 2019 in the framework of the EU funded project “Judges Uniting to Stop Terrorism with International, Constitutional and European law (JUSTICE).

The discussion in the first session of the roundtable addressed the disproportionate impact of counterterrorism laws on ethnic and religious groups. It focused on compliance with the principle of non-discrimination, through safeguards in legislation, in the judicial application of counter-terrorism laws, and in investigation and evidence gathering.

The second session of the roundtable addressed the particular impact of counter-terrorism legislation on children, including the challenges involved in protecting the human rights of children of “foreign fighters” and ensuring the primacy of their best interests in decisions on their return to EU countries. Participants also discussed protection of the human rights of returned children of “foreign fighters” both as victims of terrorism and where they are accused of crimes of terrorism.

See the agenda here.

 This workshop was carried out with the financial support of the European Union and the Open Society Foundations. Its contents are the sole responsibility of ICJ and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or the Open Society Foundations.

 

 

Poland: joint third party intervention in the case of Jan Grzęda v Poland

Poland: joint third party intervention in the case of Jan Grzęda v Poland

The ICJ and Amnesty International have submitted a joint third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Judge Jan Grzęda.

Judge Grzęda’s mandate as a member of the Polish National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) was prematurely terminated by legislation that entered into force in 2018. Under this law, the mandates of the judicial members of the NCJ appointed under previous legislation were automatically brought to an end once new members were appointed.

Judge Grzęda applied to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that he had been denied access to a tribunal to challenge the termination of his mandate and had been denied an effective remedy for the violations of his rights.

In their third party intervention, the ICJ and Amnesty International analyze international standards on judicial independence and self-governance, including as regards the role national councils for the judiciary, and the consequences of these standards for the right of access to court under Article 6.1 ECHR. The intervention also analyses the role of the NCJ in safeguarding judicial independence in Poland, and recent legislative and policy developments that have seriously undermined the independence of the Polish judiciary.

Read the full intervention text here.

ICJ welcomes EU Court of Justice ruling finding Poland violated independence of the judiciary, protection against gender-based discrimination

ICJ welcomes EU Court of Justice ruling finding Poland violated independence of the judiciary, protection against gender-based discrimination

The ICJ welcomed today’s ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union finding that Poland violated the independence of the judiciary by lowering in 2017 the pension age of Polish judges and giving the power to maintain them in office to the Minister of Justice.

The Court also found that the new law creating widely disparate retirement ages between women and men who are ordinary court judges or prosecutors – 60 and 65 respectively – constituted unlawful discrimination

“The Court of Justice has upheld the cardinal principle of the rule of law that the terms of judges cannot be determined controlled on an ad hoc basis by political powers,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.

“This judgment confirms that these retirement laws were a direct blow to the principle of separation of powers, the bedrock of the rule of law,” he added.

The Court of Justice held as contrary to the principle of independence of the judiciary under article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU as series of laws lowering the age of retirement for ordinary judges, prosecutors and Supreme Court judges from 70 to 65 years for men and 65 to 60 for women. These laws allowed the Minister of Justice to decide which judges are to be reinstated.

“Poland should scrap these laws entirely and reinstate fully the situation of the judiciary prior to their enactment,” Frigo said.

“These laws were but a part of the systemic attack to the independence of the judiciary that the Polish government should stop,” he added.

The ICJ also called on Poland to bring the retirement ages of men and women back into parity.

The case was brought by the European Commission in an infringement proceeding against Poland for violation of the obligation to provide access to justice for EU law violations under article 19 TFEU.

Contact:

Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41 22 979 3805 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org

More information on Massimo Frigo’s blog

 

Threats to the rule of law in Europe

Threats to the rule of law in Europe

The ICJ today highlighted rising threats to the rule of law in Europe, specifically mentioning Poland, Hungary, Turkey, and Kazakhstan in a statement to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The statement read as follows:

“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) adopted a Declaration on Reinforcing the Rule of Law last March at its 19th World Congress in Tunis.

The Tunis Declaration (link) stresses that not only are human rights and the Rule of Law indispensable to the betterment of the human condition, but to address such contemporary challenges as catastrophic climate change and the effects of digital technology.

Against these standards, however, the ICJ is concerned at the increasing and serious threats to the Rule of Law and those who defend it around the world, including across Europe.

In Poland, the attacks on the judiciary continue under the guise of disciplinary proceedings against judges who took recourse to EU institutions to defend the Rule of Law.

Hungarian authorities, while pausing their reforms of administrative courts, have not abandoned unjustified restrictions on the judiciary’s independence and on civil society.

Finally, in Turkey, the judiciary continues to have no guarantees in law to guarantee its independent functioning.

Across Central Asia, lawyers may face disciplinary or criminal persecution for discharging their profession independently. For example, in Kazakhstan, Sergey Sizintsev was disbarred on arbitrary grounds for criticizing a problematic reform of the legal profession.

The ICJ urges the Council to give attention to these developments of extreme concern.

Threats to the rule of law in Turkey, Poland, Hungary, Azerbaijan and South Sudan (UN statement)

Threats to the rule of law in Turkey, Poland, Hungary, Azerbaijan and South Sudan (UN statement)

The ICJ today highlighted threats to the rule of law in Turkey, Poland, Hungary and Azerbaijan, and the need to address corporate complicity in South Sudan, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.The statement, delivered during general debate, read as follows:

“The situation remains grave for the rule of law and legal protection of human rights in Turkey and Poland.

In Turkey, constitutional reforms in 2017 that undermined the independence of the judiciary should be abolished. Civil society members are prosecuted under overbroad and vague terrorism offences.

In Poland, the Legislature is trying arbitrarily to remove one third of the Supreme Court, a measure that is on hold only temporarily. Unjustified disciplinary proceedings are also being pursued against Polish judges for having sought a ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU.

Elsewhere, in Hungary civil society is ostracized and subject to legislation that risks criminalizing their legitimate activities. In Azerbaijan, as one example of a broader pattern of interference with lawyers and other human rights defenders, lawyer Elchin Sadigov was reprimanded for advising in a confidential manner to his client in detention to complain about torture to which he allegedly had been subjected.

The ICJ is also concerned at the findings by the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan (A/HRC/40/69, A/HRC/40/CRP.1) that point to the oil industry as a “major driver” in the continuation of the armed conflict and resulting human rights violations. Potential corporate complicity with crimes under international law demand investigation and a strong monitoring mechanism for the use of oil revenues should be established.”

Translate »