Joint statement on implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights

Joint statement on implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights

In advance of the Brussels Conference on implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, our shared responsibility, the ICJ and nine other NGOs issued a statement on the Conference’s draft Declaration.

The statement welcomes a number of aspects of the draft Declaration, which addresses the need for more effective implementation of the Convention and the full, rapid execution of European Court of Human Rights judgments.

It raises concerns at several elements of the draft Declaration, including recommendations to the Court which could undermine its independence, and the lack of recognition of the role of civil society in the effective execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (photo).

Europe-NGO Statement on Brussels Draft Declaration-Advocay-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)

EU Court Opinion a major setback for human rights in Europe

EU Court Opinion a major setback for human rights in Europe

Today’s Opinion by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg on the European Union’s (EU) accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a regrettable setback for human rights in Europe, said Amnesty International, the ICJ and the AIRE Centre.

EU Court’s ruling on asylum claims based on sexual orientation

EU Court’s ruling on asylum claims based on sexual orientation

Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in the joint cases of A, B and C v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie.

It affirms the need for national authorities to undertake individualized credibility assessments in asylum cases involving claims of persecution based on sexual orientation.

The ruling concerned a request for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands, through its Council of State, to the CJEU.

The cases arose from three applications for asylum in the Netherlands by three men claiming a well-founded fear of persecution in their countries of origin based on their alleged same-sex sexual orientation.

The Dutch authorities rejected each asylum claim on the basis that each applicant had failed to prove his same-sex sexual orientation.

The Council of State asked the CJEU what limits the EU Qualification Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in particular article 3 (right to the integrity of the person) and article 7 (respect for private and family life), impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and whether these limits are different from those applying to the assessment of credibility in asylum claims based on other grounds.

Interpreting the Qualification Directive in light of articles 3 and 7 of the Charter, as well as article 1, i.e. human dignity, the Court held that EU law does impose certain requirements on refugee status determination authorities.

The ICJ welcomes the Court’s determination that the competent domestic authorities must ensure that any credibility assessment method must allow for an individualized consideration of each applicant’s claim, having regard to its specific features, and that it is the duty of the State to cooperate with the applicant in the context of the assessment of all the relevant elements of her or his claim.

The ICJ welcomes a number of other aspects of the ruling, including:

  • The emphasis on the Netherland’s need to comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
  • The fact that the Court firmly came down against seemingly intrusive and lewd questioning of an applicant’s sexual practices and proclivities, which it held to be contrary to respect for private and family life; and,
  • The Court’s awareness of the particular challenges relating to the disclosure of one’s sexuality. The court noted that an applicant may be understandably reticent in revealing intimate aspects of his or her life and that therefore late disclosure of same-sex sexual orientation should not necessarily undermine the applicant’s credibility.

See also the ICJ’s commentary on the CJEU judgment in X, Y and Z v. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel.

ICJ and ILGA-Europe joint submissions in Milica Đorđević and others v. Serbia

ICJ and ILGA-Europe joint submissions in Milica Đorđević and others v. Serbia

On 17 November 2014, the ICJ and ILGA-Europe filed their joint written submissions with the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Milica Đorđević and others v. Serbia (Application Nos. 5591/10, 17802/12, 23138/13 and 25474/14).  

The case concerns the authorities’ decision in 2009 to relocate the applicants’ “Pride Parade” to promote the equality and visibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people away from central Belgrade, Serbia, and the authorities’ repeated banning of Pride Parades in central Belgrade in 2011, 2012 and 2013.

The ICJ and the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe)’s submissions to the Court focus on:

  • the essential role of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in a democratic society, and the scope of discretion afforded to States in determining measures required to prevent disorder at an assembly where counter-demonstrators threaten violence against groups most at risk; and
  • the nature and scope of the State’s obligation in relation to the right to freedom of peaceful assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, focusing in particular on States’ duty to adopt legislative and administrative measures in order to fulfil their legal obligations.

 SERBIA-ECHR amicus Dordevic-Advocacy-Legal Submission-2014-ENG (full text in PDF)

ICJ, AIRE Centre and ECRE joint intervention in F.G. v Sweden

ICJ, AIRE Centre and ECRE joint intervention in F.G. v Sweden

Today, the AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe), the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and the ICJ presented joint written observations to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of F.G. v. Sweden (Application No. 43611/11).

The case arises from the Swedish authorities’ dismissal of an asylum application. The submissions focus on:

  • the obligation for Parties to the ECHR to ensure that the risk upon removal is addressed in such a way as to guarantee that the Convention’s protection is practical and effective;
  • whether requiring coerced, self-enforced suppression of a fundamental aspect of one’s identity, which enforced concealment of one’s religion entails, is compatible with Convention obligations;
  • the relevance and significance of the EU asylum acquis and Court of Justice of the EU’s jurisprudence on these matters; and
  • the relevance and significance of the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention.

SWEDEN-ECHR amicus FG vs Sweden-Advocacy-Legal Submission-2014-ENG (full text in PDF)

Translate »