Aug 19, 2019 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The International Commission of Jurists, the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project and Human Rights Watch have jointly intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Taner Kiliç, former Chair of the Board of Amnesty International Turkey.
Taner Kiliç is a Turkish human rights defenders. He had been Chair of the Board of Amnesty International Turkey since 2014.
He was arrested on 6 June 2017 on reportedly unsubstantiated charges of “membership of a terrorist organisation” and was released on bail on 15 August 2018 after having spent 14 months in detention.
His case before the European Court of Human Rights challenges the lawfulness of his pre-trial and on remand detention, the violations of his right to judicial review of his detention, and of his freedom of expression and association, considering his arrest linked to his work as leader of a NGO.
As the interveners have written to the Court, this case epitomises some of the most fundamental human rights challenges in Turkey today.
These involve widely documented restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and assembly of human rights defenders (HRDs) and rapidly closing civil society space.
The interveners have submitted observations on:
- the factual context in respect of the situation facing HRDs in Turkey;
- international standards governing obligations towards HRDs of relevance to the Court’s interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the limits prescribed by Article 18;
- key principles necessary for a rule of law approach to the application of the criminal law, against the legal and practical pattern of excessive resort to criminal law against HRDs in Turkey today.
Turkey-ECtHR-icj&others-Kilic-Advocacy-legal submission-2019-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Photo credit: Amnesty International
Jun 20, 2019 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
The International Commission of Jurists, jointly with Amnesty International and the Turkey Litigation Support Project intervened today before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of a Turkish public servant, Hamit Pişkin, who was dismissed by executive decrees during the State of Emergency.
The case is key with regard to the situation in Turkey now and under the State of Emergency, because it raises significant questions regarding procedural rights in employment proceedings leading to the dismissal of an employee working with or for a State agency on grounds related to national security, including under a State of Emergency, as well as the application of the principles of legality and legal certainty and non-retroactivity as applied to national security, including in counter-terrorism.
During the State of Emergency in Turkey, that lasted two years from 2016 to 2018, almost 130,000 employees in the public sector were dismissed under emergency legislation. Their dismissal however remained in force also after the end of the State of Emergency.
In the submission, the interveners provide the European Court of Human Rights with observations concerning:
- the applicability of the criminal limb of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to judicial proceedings leading to dismissal of an employee of a public institution;
- the lack of procedural guarantees in the dismissal process necessary to comply with Article 6 of the ECHR, in particular with the presumption of innocence Article 6(2), in such proceedings;
- the application of the principles of legal certainty and non- retroactivity to such decisions (by addressing the problems arising from the application of State of Emergency decrees to events that occurred before the declaration of the State of Emergency).
The full intervention can be downloaded here: Piskin_v_Turkey-ECtHR-TPI-ICJAITLSP-2019-eng
Oct 1, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ made submissions today to the European Court of Human Rights in support of the right of association of Azerbaijan’s lawyers representing applicants before the Court and highlighting the situation of harassment of the legal profession in the country.
The ICJ intervened today in the cases of Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre v. Azerbaijan and Mustafayev and Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre v. Azerbaijan.
In these cases, lawyer Asabali Mustafayev and its NGO challenged the compliance of the freezing of their assets and criminal proceedings for financial offences as arbitrary interferences with their work as human rights defenders and in representation of clients before the European Court of Human Rights itself.
The ICJ has intervened to highlight the case-law regarding the right to individual application before the Court under article 34 ECHR and its application to the work of lawyers and legal NGOs.
It further examined the systemic practice in Azerbaijan of harassment of lawyers and of NGOs established by lawyers for the purpose of providing legal advice or representation, including representation of applicants before the European Court of Human Rights.
Finally, the ICJ analyzed the implications of such practices with regard to the State’s obligations under article 18 ECHR read together with article 11 ECHR.
Azerbaijan-icj-DHRRC&other-Advocacy-legal submission-2018-ENG (download the submission)
“Defenseless Defenders: Systemic Problems in the Legal Profession of Azerbaijan” – ICJ report in Azeri, Russian and English.
Question to the parties: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-184179
Jun 12, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and others intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in a case of thirteen undocumented children held in a hotspot in Italy.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), the Dutch Council for Refugees and the AIRE Centre jointly intervened in the case of Trawalli and others v. Italy.
In this case, the European Court of Human Rights is called to rule, among other issues, on whether their detention and reception conditions were lawful and/or constituted an inhuman or degrading treatment under the European Convention on Human Rights.
In their third party intervention, the three human rights organizations submitted the following arguments:
a) Taking into consideration migrant children’s status as persons in situations of vulnerability and the principle of the best interests of the child, article 5 ECHR should be read in light of the rising consensus in international law towards a prohibition of detention of children on immigration grounds, in particular based on the consolidated and clear position of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. This applies to all instances of deprivation of liberty irrespective of their classification under domestic law.
b) In addition to the above, detention under article 5.1 ECHR will in any event be unlawful and arbitrary where it lacks a clear and accessible legal basis, outlining the permissible grounds of detention as well as the relevant procedural guarantees and remedies available to detainees, including judicial review and access to legal advice and assistance. In light of the obligations of EU Member States under EU law, the interveners submit that detention of asylum seeking children falling within the scope of the recast Reception Conditions Directive will result in a breach of the Convention standards also where it is not used as a measure of last resort, but rather is imposed without consideration of less onerous alternative measures and where the child’s best interests assessment has not been carried out and reflected in this decision.
c) Due to children’s extreme vulnerability, their detention for immigration purposes risks leading to a violation of Article 3 ECHR because of inadequate living conditions and/or to a violation of Article 8 ECHR because of a disproportionate and unnecessary interference with their development and personal autonomy, as protected under Article 8. In this sense, Article 8 must be regarded as affording protection from conditions of detention which would not reach the level of severity required to engage Article 3.
d) When the authorities deprive or seek to deprive a child of her or his liberty, they must ensure that he/she effectively benefits from an enhanced set of guarantees in addition to undertaking the diligent assessment of her/his best interest noted above. The guarantees include: prompt identification and appointment of a competent guardian; a child-sensitive due process framework, including the child’s rights to receive information in a child-friendly language, the right to be heard and have her/his views taken into due consideration depending on his/her age and maturity, to have access to justice and to challenge the detention conditions and lawfulness before a judge; free legal assistance and representation, interpretation and translation. The Contracting Parties must also immediately provide the child access to an effective remedy.
e) In order to fully comply with their obligations under the Convention, Contracting Parties must guarantee that asylum seeking children are accommodated in reception facilities which are adapted to their specific needs and provide adequate material conditions adapted to their age, condition of dependency and enhanced vulnerability. To do otherwise results in a failure by States to comply with their obligations under Article 3 ECHR and their specific obligations under EU law.
Italy-icj&others-Trawalli&others-Advocacy-legal submission-2018-ENG (download the intervention)
Apr 17, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
The ICJ and other NGOs jointly intervened before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in a case against Spain on the denial of entry of asylum seekers in the enclave of Melilla.
The ICJ, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, the AIRE Centre, Amnesty International and the Dutch Refugee Council argued that the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits refusal of entry, and/or return of a person to face serious violations of human rights, including of the right to life, the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or flagrant denial of justice and of the right to liberty.
They submitted that these refusals of entry are also contrary to the rights set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) and the prohibition on non-refoulement found in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention).
The joint interventions presents the argument that, for these prohibitions to be practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory, Contracting Parties must have in place effective systems for identifying people within their jurisdiction who are entitled to benefit from the prohibition on refusing entry.
Spain-ICJ&others-AmicusBrief-ND&NT-ECtHR-GC-legalsubmission-2018 (download the thirty party intervention)
