Nov 20, 2019
On 18 November, the ICJ, together with 35 other non-governmental organizations, addressed an open letter to the members of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, expressing deep concern at ongoing legislative attempts to roll back on the reproductive rights of women in Slovakia.
At this time the Slovak Parliament is debating new draft legislation that would require women seeking abortion care to undergo a mandatory ultrasound scanning, to view and obtain the ultrasound image of the embryo or the foetus, and where technically possible, to also listen to the “heartbeat of the embryo or the foetus.” The proposed legislation also seeks to prohibit “advertising” on abortion and to impose a fine of up to 66,400 Euros on those who order or disseminate it.
In the letter, the signatory organizations raised concern that, if adopted, this legislation would harm women’s health and well-being, obstruct their access to safe abortion care and violate Slovakia’s international human rights obligations.
Download
Slovakia-Reproductive rights-Advocacy-Open Letter-2019-ENG (letter available in PDF)
Nov 18, 2019
Today, the ICJ and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) published the briefing paper assessing the reforms proposed in the Judicial Reform Strategy to promote judicial independence.
The briefing paper concludes that any judicial reform will be meaningless if implemented in the context of a judiciary which has been taken control of by the executive.
The lack of institutional independence of the judiciary, and the chilling effect of the mass dismissals of judges in the last years are serious threats to the rule of law. These factors clearly undermine the capacity of the judiciary as a whole to provide an effective remedy for human rights violations, both in regard to measures taken under the state of emergency, and in general.
The new Judicial Reform Strategy should be read against this background. Considering that problems relating to the independence of judiciary in Turkey are structural and that the situation has even further deteriorated due to recent amendments, the ICJ considers that the new Strategy will not be able to achieve its stated objectives unless it is amended or supplemented to address these structural problems.
In their briefing paper, the ICJ and IHOP note the commitment of the Turkish authorities to reform the systems of discipline, transfer, accession, promotion and ethics of judges and prosecutors in line with international standards.
However, these measures are deemed insufficient to restore judicial independence in Turkey without essential further reforms:
- reform of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors,
- reform of the Criminal Peace Judgeships system and
- repeal of Law no. 7145 that still allows for arbitrary dismissals of judges and prosecutors, among other civil servants
- introduction of judicial review for all decisions of the CJP
- introduction of a transparent and fair process of selection and appointment of judges and prosecutors ensuring the independence of the committee and process from the executive.
The briefing paper is a comment on the chapter of the Judicial Reform Strategy on judicial independence and it does not provide a full assessment of the situation of Turkish judiciary for which reference should be had to the ICJ reports Justice Suspended and Justice in Peril.
Download
Turkey-Justice Reform Strat-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG (PDF, English)
Turkey-Justice Reform Strat-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-TUR (PDF, Turkish)
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
