Nov 18, 2019 | News
The ICJ today called on the Hungarian authorities to desist from instigating disciplinary proceedings threatened against Judge Csaba Vasvári, a judge of the Central District Court of Pest and a member of the Hungarian National Judicial Council.
The imminent threat of disciplinary action is a consequence of a preliminary reference Judge Vasvári made to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
“Judge Vasvári faces disciplinary action as a direct result of his request for a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU on the very question of judicial independence in Hungary. This is an extremely concerning attempt to interfere with the independence of a judge in discharging his judicial function which, if it proceeds any further, will set a dangerous precedent.” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia programme.
A motion to begin disciplinary proceedings against Judge Vasvári was brought by the Acting President of the Budapest Regional Court in October, following Judge Vasvári’s request in criminal proceedings before him last July, for a preliminary ruling the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
In the request to the CJEU, Judge Vasvári raised questions regarding compliance with the principle of judicial independence under Article 19.1 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU), in particular the appointment procedures for court presidents, and remuneration for judges, as well as questions regarding the right to interpretation in court.
Following a decision of the Hungarian Supreme Court in September that the reference was contrary to Hungarian law since it was irrelevant to the case, disciplinary action against judge Vasvári was sought on the grounds that in making the reference, he violated the requirement to conduct himself with dignity and refrain from action which would undermine the dignity of the judiciary.
The motion for disciplinary proceedings is now expected to be considered by a panel of the Service Court, which will decide if disciplinary proceedings will commence.
“The actions of Judge Vasvári in making a preliminary reference to the CJEU were an entirely legitimate exercise of his judicial functions in accordance with EU law. It is essential that judges are able to use all appropriate judicial avenues to address and uphold the rule of law, including to protect the right to a fair trial and the independence of the judiciary” said Róisín Pillay. “It is also necessary for the proper application of EU law, that judges are able refer questions to the CJEU under Article 267 of the Treaty without undue hindrance.”
The ICJ recalls that under international standards on the independence of the judiciary, judges must decide matters before them impartially, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason (Principle 2, UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary). Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 12 of the Committee of Ministers specifies that “the interpretation of the law, assessment of facts or weighing of evidence carried out by judges to determine cases should not give rise to civil or disciplinary liability, except in cases of malice and gross negligence.”
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of Judiciary (principle 8) also affirm that “members of the judiciary are like other citizens entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; provided, however, that in exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.”
Nov 11, 2019 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
Today, the ICJ, the AIRE Centre, ECRE and DCR have submitted a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of a 2017 rescue operation of migrants, including refugees, in the Mediterranean Sea that involved the SeaWatch rescue vessel.
The case, S.S. and Others v. Italy, concerns the facts occurred during a rescue operation coordinated by the Maritime Research and Rescue Centre of Italy in Rome in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea.
It is currently litigated before the European Court of Human Rights where the victims of human rights violations at the hand of the Libya Coast Guard during the operation are suing Italy for breach of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
During the operation, the involved the rescue boat SeaWatch, a French navy vessel and a Libyan Coast-Guard boat. It is reported certain migrants were taken and ill-treated by the Libyan Coast Guard and sent back to Libya.
It is also alleged that actions undertaken by the Lybian Coast Guard boat during the rescue operation caused the death of several persons to be rescued, including children.
The ones rescued by the SeaWatch vessel could join safety on Italian shores.
The interveners have submitted that, in accordance to the Court’s jurisprudence under the European Convention on Human Rights, other sources of international human rights law and international maritime law standards, Italy had jurisdiction for the purpose of the Convention and had, therefore, to ensure that persons involved in the rescue operation would not be exposed to serious violations of their human rights.
ECtHR-SS_v_Italy_final-JointTPI-ICJECREAIREDCR-English-2019 (download the joint third party intervention)
Video
Watch our interview with ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Massimo Frigo as he further defines S.S. and Others v. Italy and what ICJ intends to do.
Nov 5, 2019 | News
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
Nov 1, 2019
Today, the ICJ and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) published the briefing paper on the enjoyment of the freedoms of movement and assembly in Turkey.
This briefing paper, entitled Restricted at discretion: The enjoyment of the freedoms of movement and assembly in Turkey during and after the State of Emergency, reports on the law and practice of Turkish authorities relating to governors’ powers to restrict freedom of movement and assembly in the country.
During the state of emergency many restrictions on meetings and demonstrations were based on broad and vague decisions with insufficient reasoning to meet standards of legality, necessity and proportionality, including the banning of LGBTI events.
The ICJ and IHOP concluded that the current Law on Provincial Administration does not provide a sufficient basis of restrictions of these rights as the governors’ powers are not sufficiently well described in law to be foreseeable or to prevent arbitrary, disproportionate or discriminatory application.
Download
Turkey-FoMA brief-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG (PDF, English)
Turkey-FoEA-Advocacy-analysis brief-2019-TUR (PDF, Turkish)
Oct 19, 2019 | Events, News
On 18 October, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Juezas y Jueces para la Democracia and the ICJ held a a closed-door roundtable discussion in Madrid on the impact of the application of counter terrorism legislation on freedom of expression and association: implementing the EU Directive 2017/541 on combating terrorism.
The discussion took place in the framework of the EU funded project “Judges Uniting to Stop Terrorism with International, Constitutional and European law (JUSTICE) project”.
Judges, prosecutors and lawyers from 10 EU countries shared their practices and experiences in the implementation of the EU Directive 2017/541 on combating terrorism and the application of counter-terrorism legislation and its impact on freedom of expression and association, including humanitarian work within the different legal systems of the European Union (EU) Member States.
The discussion covered the offences of glorification of terrorism and apology for terrorism and its different implementation in various jurisdictions and how legal certainty and proportionality can be ensured. The roundtable further focused on the freedom of expression on-line and the impact of the application of counter-terrorism law on freedom of association and legitimate activities, including humanitarian assistance. These practices were be assessed in light of international human rights law principles in order to identify best practices that could be promoted throughout the EU.
This was a third out of four round-tables organized within this project between April and November 2019 by the ICJ and partners.
See the agenda here.
