Poland: Respect EU Court of Justice interim order and maintain Supreme Court judges in office

Poland: Respect EU Court of Justice interim order and maintain Supreme Court judges in office

The ICJ welcomes the interim measures prescribed today by the Court of Justice of the EU as a necessary step in stemming the evident erosion of the rule of law in Poland.

The Court provisionally ordered Poland to preserve the composition of its Supreme Court of 3 April 2018, before a law forcing into retirement a third of the Court’s members entered into force.

The ICJ urges the Polish authorities to comply with the EU Court order by maintaining in office the Supreme Court judges .

“In accordance with today’s court’s order, Polish authorities should immediately rescind all measures taken since April 2018 that modify the composition of the Supreme Court. They are obliged to do this under EU law as it is binding on Polish authorities and by the fundamental principle of the rule of law that decisions of the judiciary must be respected and implemented.” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.

On 10 October, President Andrzej Duda appointed 27 judges to the Supreme Court in place of those forcibly “retired” last July. The ICJ condemned this act of the President of Poland because it contravened an order of the Supreme Court suspending the law under which these appointments were made, pending a decision by the EU Court. Critically, the mass and forced retirement of sitting judges before the end of the established terms of tenure undermines their security of tenure, a key principle regarding the independence of the judiciary.

Background

The independence of the judiciary in Poland has been systematically undermined by the Polish executive and legislative authorities.

Earlier this year Poland issued a new law on the Supreme Court that attempts to force the “retirement” of one third of the Supreme Court judges, including the First President, by lowering the mandatory retirement age for its judges from 70 to 65. This measure clearly contravenes international human rights law and standards.

The European Commission has launched an infringement procedure for lack of compliance of this law with EU law.

In the absence of satisfactory reforms by Poland, on 24 September, the Commission referred Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and asked for interim measures to restore Poland’s Supreme Court to its situation before 3 April 2018. Today’s decision by the Court of Justice granted this interim measures request.

At the same time, the Supreme Court of Poland submitted a preliminary ruling request to the CJEU seeking its interpretation on the compliance of the legislation on retirement ages of judges with EU law, in particular with the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age under Directive 2008/78.

An ICJ letter of 11 July 2018, signed by 22 senior judges from all regions of the world, urged the Polish government to act immediately to reinstate the forcibly retired judges in office.

 

Russian Federation: criminal proceedings against lawyer raise concerns

Russian Federation: criminal proceedings against lawyer raise concerns

Today, the ICJ expressed concern at ongoing criminal proceedings against Mikhail Benyash, a lawyer practicing in Russia, who is charged with use of force against the police and impeding justice.

The lawyer has been detained until 23 November. The ICJ called on the responsible authorities to drop any criminal charge relating to his conduct of professional duties in the courtroom, and to ensure that the lawyer’s rights are protected and that allegations of his ill-treatment are fully investigated.

Benyash alleges that following his apprehension by the police on 9 September, the police beat him up in the car. According to the police report he inflicted the injuries on himself, contrary to demands of the police that he stop doing so.

He was charged with disobedience to the police, which according to the police report was due to “the fact that the police asked Benyash not to injure himself, but he continued self-beating”.  Benyash was convicted and sentenced to 14 days of imprisonment and 40 hours of correctional works.

On 23 September, the day of his release, Benyash was arrested again. He was charged with two further offences: violence against a representative of authority (Criminal Code Article 318(1)) based on an allegation, seemingly not raised at the time of his earlier charge and conviction in relation to the same incident, that in the course of his arrest on 9 September he allegedly bit a police officer and hit another.

On 23 September he was also charged with obstruction of justice (Criminal Code Article 294(1)), reportedly on the basis of an allegation that in a court hearing on 6 May 2018, Benyash had “repeatedly interrupted, gave instructions and objections to the decisions of the judge” and after he had been removed from the courtroom “continued unlawful behaviour”.

According to the lawyer, he was taken out of the courtroom by force due to his motions to allow certain members of the public to be present at the open hearing.

The ICJ is concerned that the criminal obstruction charge against Mikhail Benyash appears to relate at least in part to statements he made in court in the course of carrying out his professional duties of representation of his clients.

The fact that this charge was only laid following his recent arrest, some five months after the alleged incident occurred, also raises questions as to the motivation for bringing the charge forward now.

“Benyash is currently charged on account of his alleged attack on a police officer and obstruction of justice. While the first charge requires an impartial and independent inquiry, the second charge should be of concern to the entire lawyers’ community”, said Karinna Moskalenko, ICJ honorary member. “We fear that this may lead to lawyers in Russia being charged with obstruction of justice simply for actively expressing their position and objections in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law”, she added.

Furthermore, the ICJ emphasises that under international human rights law, states have obligations to investigate allegations of treatment that may amount to torture or inhuman or degrading in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as other international law norms binding on the Russian Federation.

The investigative authorities have duty to investigate allegations of ill-treatment of the lawyer by police following his arrest on 9 September promptly, effectively and impartially and any persons responsible should be brought to justice.

Read the ICJ’s full statement here: Russia-Statement on Benyash-News-Web Story-2018-ENG

Special hearing of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) on the role of the Guatemalan Commission against Corruption (CICIG)

Special hearing of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) on the role of the Guatemalan Commission against Corruption (CICIG)

The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) held a special hearing on the role of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) in Boulder, Colarado.

Ramón Cadena, the ICJ Director stated “We regret that the Government of Guatemala requested the IACHR to hold the hearing behind closed doors since all the points discussed were of public interest. The discussions should have been open to the press and the general public. We urge the authorities to ensure there will be no retaliations against the work carried out by human rights organizations and human rights defenders.”

The ICJ welcomed the participation of many NGOs  at the event  and the frank dialogue that took place on this crucial issue for human rights in that country. The Guatemalan government delegation claimed that the Inter-American System of Human Rights was not competent to consider the matter. However, the IACHR maintained it was competent, according to the American Convention of Human Rights and other regional human rights legislation. As an “external observer”, the IACHR  stated it was “surprised” by the latest decisions taken by government authorities at the highest level not to extend the CICIG mandate nor allow the entry of Commissioner Iván Velásquez into the country. It considered these decisions were “excessive” and in no way strengthened the rule of law in Guatemala.

The government delegation further argued that the CICIG acted as a “parallel prosecutor” which affects the internal order of the country. The NGO delegation stated that on the contrary the CICIG acted as a “complementary prosecutor”. The delegation further noted that before the CICIG mandate was approved, the Constitutional Court, in an opinion published in the official gazette on 8 May 2007 (document no 791-2007), considered that the CICIG did not violate the constitutional order nor the rule of law in Guatemala.

The Constitutional Court referred to the CICIG as having “the function of supporting, assisting and strengthening the state institutions responsible for investigating crimes committed by  illegal and clandestine security forces .. and does not exclude the possibility of receiving  support from other institutions in the collection of evidence, provided that the participation has been established in a legal manner, as in the present case.”

The IACHR considered that the essential question  was whether the State of Guatemala already had the judicial independence and strong  institutions necessary to  fight against corruption in Guatemala without the support of the CICIG. The NGO delegation considered, based on different arguments, that the presence of the CICIG in Guatemala was still necessary.

The IACHR also informed the government delegation that it was in their interest to invite an in-situ visit of the IACHR as soon as possible so as to better understand the human rights situation.

The ICJ Director for Central America Ramón Cadena participated in the hearing at the request of the Central American Institute for Social Democracy  Studies (DEMOS), the Committee for Peasant Development (CODECA) and the Network of Community Defenders. The Indigenous Peoples Law Firm had been requested to attend by these organizations but was unable to do so at the last moment.

Azerbaijan: Access to justice and the independence of lawyers and the legal profession (UN Statement)

Azerbaijan: Access to justice and the independence of lawyers and the legal profession (UN Statement)

The ICJ today put the spotlight the lack of independence of the legal profession in Azerbaijan speaking at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. 

The statement, made during the consideration of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Azerbaijan, read as follows:

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the acceptance by Azerbaijan of the recommendations by France (140.70), by Greece (141.12), Austria (141.13), Estonia (141.68), Slovenia (141.71), and Mexico (141.77), to respect the rights of lawyers.

The ICJ regrets, however, that Azerbaijan only noted and did not explicitly support the recommendations by Sweden (141.33), USA (141.39), Czechia (141.67) and Germany (141.76) and rejected the recommendation by the United Kingdom (141.60) to “End all interference in the work of lawyers through disbarment or other disciplinary measures on improper grounds such as expressing critical views.”

These recommendations call for the amendment of the Law on Advocates and Advocates’ Activities to ensure the effective independence of the Bar Association of Azerbaijan. They also call for the setting up of independent and transparent mechanisms for lawyers’ admission to practice, and disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, in conformity with the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.

The ICJ notes that Azerbaijan’s support of most recommendations is predicated on the assumption that the situation of the independence of the legal profession in Azerbaijan is in line with international law.

This, however, is not the situation in the country.

The ICJ expresses concern at the persistent lack of independence of the Bar Association of Azerbaijan; indeed, it has actually played a role in undermining the work of lawyers defending human rights. The situation is exacerbated by recent hasty reforms that prohibit lawyers from appearing in any court hearing unless they are members of this non-independent Bar association, furthermore without a sufficient and meaningful transition period. This seriously curtails access to justice for human rights violations in the country.

 

 

Translate »