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
Jun 13, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ called on the authorities in Tajikistan to immediately release a prominent lawyer who is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 28 years on dubious charges.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) published a decision in Mr Yorov’s case on (date), finding that “the trials of Mr. Yorov were carried out in total disregard for the guarantees encapsulated in article 14 of the Covenant, being of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty of Mr Yorov an arbitrary character […].”
The Working Group recommended that the government remedy the situation of Yorov without delay and to this end “release Mr. Yorov immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law”.
The ICJ has previously expressed concern that Buzurgmehr Yorov’s conviction may constitute a reprisal for his defense work in high-profile political trials in connection with his representation of thirteen leaders of the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT).
The ICJ earlier expressed concerns at the conviction of the lawyer to a 28 year sentence in prison, which is based on clearly improper charges related to the defense of his clients.
The ICJ welcomes the decision of the WGAD and calls on the Tajikistan authorities to fully implement the decision and to take all necessary measures to protect lawyer Yorov, his family and his lawyers against any threats to their security, or any intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference with their performance of their professional functions as lawyers.
In this regard, the ICJ notes recent protests by dozens of individuals who took part in a rally against Yorov in front of the representative offices of the United Nations and the European Union in Tajikistan, soon after the decision of the WGAD.
Posters of the demonstrators called on the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights to “take her hands off Tajikistan” and named organisations that had defended Mr Yorov or brought the petition on behalf of Yorov to the UN WGAD.
In this context, it is imperative that the Tajikistan government immediately publicly affirm the legitimacy of the decision of the WGAD and make clear its commitment to complying with it, the ICJ underlined.
Background
Buzurgmekhr Yorov was arrested two years ago on 28 September 2015, on charges of “fraud” and “forgery of documents.” Later, he was accused of violating three more articles of the Criminal Code, including in relation to alleged “public calls for extremist activity.”
On 6 October 2016, The Dushanbe City Court sentenced Yorov to 23 years imprisonment in a strict regime prison.
In March 2017, Yorov was sentenced to an additional two years’ deprivation of liberty for “contempt of court and insulting the representative of power.” In August 2017, he received a further three years sentence on charges of “insulting the president.”
The ICJ has, on a number of occasions, expressed its serious concerns over the arrest and conviction of Buzurgmehr Yorov and other lawyers in Tajikistan.
On 24 May 2019, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, a group of independent experts established in 1991 whose members are appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, published an Opinion finding a number of violations of human rights of Yorov protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and recommended as a remedy his immediate release, payment of compensation or other reparation and conducting an investigation into the violation of Yorov’s rights.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers require that the Governments ensure that lawyers “are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference ”. Under these Principles “where the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities.” The right to “offer and provide professionally qualified legal assistance or other relevant advice and assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms” is guaranteed by the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 9.3(c)).
Jun 12, 2019 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern at recent developments in Moldova, which are effectively paralyzing governance in the country.
During the past week, the Constitutional Court has ordered the dissolution of Parliament, suspended its functioning and invalidated its subsequent acts, including the appointment of a government and speaker, and has triggered the removal of the President.
The ICJ is particularly concerned at the excessively swift procedure through which the Constitutional Court reached its decisions to dissolve Parliament, remove a sitting President of the Republic and replace him with the Prime Minister. The ICJ calls attention to the unhelpful timing of the Constitutional Court ruling that was issued on the very day it identified as the end of the Parliamentary term, depriving Parliament of the clarity needed to exercise its powers.
These developments occur against the background of the manifest deficiencies in the institutional independence of the Moldova judiciary which were documented in a recent ICJ report.
In the report issued in March 2019, the ICJ highlighted the problematic appointment in 2018 of three judges of the Constitutional Court in circumstances that did not ensure a sufficient level of transparency, during an electoral campaign and without an open competition process. The report noted that the three appointed judges have previously been Prosecutor General, director of the intelligence service and chair of the legal committee of Parliament, part of the then ruling political majority.
The ICJ welcomes the announcement by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that the Venice Commission has been asked to issue an urgent opinion on the constitutional crisis.
“The rule of law is the common ground on which constitutional conflicts must be solved”, said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the Europe Programme of the ICJ. “We call on all institutions and parties in Moldova to seek a solution that squarely complies with the rule of law and the international law and standards to which Moldova has subscribed. In this regard, we urge all parties concerned to wait for the opinion by the Council of Europe Venice Commission in this matter and to reconsider the situation in light of its findings.”
Background
The Constitutional Court, in decisions issued on 7, 8 and 9 June 2019, held that Parliament should be dissolved for having been unable to establish a government within three months of the end of the previous Government’s term of office.
The decisions triggered the removal from office of the President of the Republic, Igor Dodon, for having refused to dissolve Parliament. This led to the interim appointment of Pavel Filip, as acting President of the Republic.
The Court also declared unconstitutional and void any act issued by Parliament after 7 June.
Neither Parliament nor President Dodon have accepted the decisions of the Constitutional Court on their removal or on the validity of their acts, nor do they consider as legitimate the appointment of Pavel Filip as acting President.
Parliamentary factions constituting the current majority in Parliament had reached a deal to form a coalition government and appointed a speaker and Prime Minister.
According to the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of article 85 of the Constitution, these agreements failed to respect the three-month deadline.
Others have put forward different interpretations of when the deadline of the three months period to appoint a Government would elapse, and of the obligation of the President of the Republic to dissolve Parliament.
Article 85 of the Constitution states:
(1) In the event of impossibility to form the Government or in case of blocking up the procedure of adopting the laws for a period of three months, the President of the Republic of Moldova, following consultations with parliamentary fractions, may dissolve the Parliament.
(2) The Parliament may be dissolved, if it has not accepted the vote of confidence for setting up of the new Government within 45 days following the first request and only upon declining at least two requests of investiture.
(3) The Parliament may be dissolved only once in the course of one year.
(4) The Parliament may not be dissolved within the last six months of the term of office of the President of the Republic of Moldova nor during a state of emergency, martial law or war.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser: t: +41 22 979 3805; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Jun 7, 2019
The ICJ has presented its response to a European Commission consultation on how to strengthen protection of the rule of law in EU Member States through promotion, prevention mechanisms and measures to hold States accountable for rule of law violations.
In its response to the European Commission consultation , the ICJ highlights the declarations of ICJ Congresses from the Act of Athens in 1955 to the Tunis Declaration of 2019, which have helped to define and explain the rule of law. The ICJ’s long experience of working to advance the rule of law around the world has shown the need both for institutional and procedural safeguards for the rule of law, and for developing strong national rule of law cultures. The EU has an important role to play in supporting these protections in EU Member States, but it does not act alone in this field. The EU’s work on rule of law should be carefully positioned to take account of UN and Council of Europe standards and mechanisms, in the interests of the most effective possible strategies to protect the rule of law in Europe. Furthermore, for the EU to be credible in the action it takes to protect and promote the rule of law, the EU institutions themselves met be above reproach in their compliance with Rule of Law principles.
As regards the promotion of the rule of law, the ICJ underlines the importance of a shared understanding and commitment to the rule of law amongst legal and political communities, and the general public. The EU can make a significant contribution to supporting such understanding, through support and funding for civil society in its defence and promotion of the rule of law, through building the capacity of legal professionals including judges, prosecutors and lawyers to uphold the rule of law, and through support for building the engagement of national parliaments on rule of law issues.
In order to prevent threats to the rule of law, the ICJ supports the development of regular, uniform rule of law reviews by which EU Member States’ laws and practices are measured against objective standards by independent experts. Such assessments should be removed from political influence and should be conducted through an open and transparent process, and should be co-ordinated with existing initiatives of the EU and mechanisms of the UN and Council of Europe. The reviews could be conducted by a new independent, specialised Agency on the rule of law, or in co-operation with the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
It is vital that there are effective EU mechanisms to respond to violations of the rule of law in EU Member States. Both the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU are essential to this response. The EU should therefore do all in its power to support the European Court of Human Rights and the implementation of its judgments. Infringement proceedings before the CJEU should be initiated regularly and promptly where the Commission identifies rule of law problems that violate EU law or affect the application of EU legislation. Institution of Article 7 TEU proceedings in appropriate cases is also vital to uphold the credibility of any rule of law assessment mechanism, and in the long term, consideration should be given to amending the treaties to strengthen this mechanism.
The full ICJ submission can be read here.
Jun 4, 2019 | News
The ICJ, European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and the Greek Council for Refugees (GCR) welcome the decision of the European Committee on Social Rights that Greece should take “immediate measures” to protect the rights of migrant children as required under the European Social Charter.
The Greek government should now take urgent steps to comply with the Committee’s decision, to prevent serious and irreparable injury or harm to the children concerned, including damage to their physical and mental health, and to their safety.
The Committee’s decision, issued on 23 May, requires the government to immediately provide migrant children with appropriate shelter, food, water, education and medical care; to remove unaccompanied migrant children from detention and from Reception and Identification Centers (RICs) at the borders, place them in suitable accommodation for their age and appoint effective guardians.
The Committee noted that “immediate measures” were exceptional, but found that they were necessary in this case given the government’s failure to dispel serious concerns about the gravity and urgency of the situation of migrant children in Greece.
This decision is in response to a collective complaint brought before the Committee by ICJ, ECRE and GCR, alleging systemic violations of migrant children’s rights on mainland Greece and the North Eastern Aegean islands. The complaint catalogues the numerous ways in which Greece has failed to fulfill its obligations under the European Social Charter to protect the rights migrant children, leaving them in conditions of squalor, insecurity and violence.
In addition to indicating immediate measures, the Committee found the complaint itself admissible. The complaint now awaits examination and determination on the merits by the European Committee on Social Rights.
Read the statement on the decision here in English and in Greek and full complaint here.
