Apr 13, 2021 | News
Today, the ICJ called on the Belarus Ministry of Justice and other relevant authorities to end the recent practice of using legal proceedings against lawyers in retaliation for discharging their professional duties and to reinstate those already disbarred.
In recent months, in the context of widespread violations of the human rights of those protesting against the outcome of the disputed 2020 presidential election, there has been an unprecedented increase of cases of disbarment of lawyers especially those who comment on violations of the human rights of their clients. Among the most recently disbarred lawyers are Konstantin Mikhel, Maxim Konon, Mikhail Kirilyuk and Yulia Ivanchuk.
“This recent wave of criminal and disciplinary proceedings against lawyers is highly worrying and it constitutes an attack on the independence of the legal profession. These proceedings, be they of criminal, administrative or disciplinary nature, should be discontinued or reconsidered as being contrary to the international human rights law concerning the independence of the legal profession,” said Temur Shakirov, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
There is a clear pattern of the misuse of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers who represent political opponents of the government or those who openly criticize the government on issues of public significance.
Disciplinary proceedings in Belarus are not independent of the executive, since they are conducted by the Qualification Commission which operates under the Ministry of Justice.
Notably, disciplinary proceedings are pending against lawyer Dmitry Layevski, allegedly following his public comments on a pending Draft Law on advocates’ activities.
Dmitry Layevski is a lawyer representing Victor Babaryko, an opposition leader in Belarus currently in detention, and Maxim Znak, former legal representative of Maria Kolesnikova, another detained opposition leader.
Earlier, a number of lawyers, including Aleksandr Pylchenko, former legal representative of Viktor Babaryko and Maria Kolesnikova, and Lyudmila Kazak, former legal representative of Maria Kolesnikova, faced disciplinary sanctions, and Lyudmila Kazak incurred an administrative fine, as a result of discharging their professional functions.
Several lawyers involved in human rights cases have been called by the Qualification Commission to undergo an examination to re-certify their qualification to practice law and have failed the exam. This procedure appears to target lawyers working to defend human rights, as a means of harassment or reprisal.
For example, following comments in mass media, Sergey Zikraskiy, a lawyer who often represented Belarusian journalists, was called to pass extraordinary re-examination which he failed. The certification is carried out by the Qualification Commission.
Criminal cases are still pending against lawyers Ilya Saley and Maxim Znak, who appear to have suffered consequences as a result of their representation of opposition leaders Maria Kolesnikova and Victor Babaryko.
“These disbarments have a significant chilling effect on work of the legal profession and undermine the ability of lawyers to defend human rights of their clients in accordance with international standards on the role of lawyers,” Shakirov said.
Background
International law and standards
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, the State authorities must guarantee that lawyers are able carry out their professional functions without hindrance, intimidation, harassment or fear of retaliation (Principle 16). The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers affirm that lawyers “shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.” (Principle 16.c) They further stipulate that lawyers must not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions (Principle 18).
International standards also require the institutional independence of the legal profession. The executive body of the professional associations of lawyers must be elected by its members and must exercise its functions without external interference (Principle 24, The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers).
Nov 17, 2020 | News
The ICJ today denounced the renewed threat of criminal proceedings by prosecutorial authorities against Judge Igor Tuleya on charges arising from the judge’s independent exercise of his judicial functions, as his case is appealed before a panel of the Supreme Court Disciplinary Chamber.
Judge Tuleya faces prosecution for having allowed the presence of media in a sensitive case concerning the investigations on the 2017 budget vote in the Polish House of Representatives (Sejm) that took place without the presence of the opposition.
He has been charged with ‘failing to comply with his official duties and overstepping his powers’ for having allegedly disclosed a secret of the investigation to ‘unauthorized parties’.
The accusations stem from the initiative of the judge to allow media and the public in the courtroom while issuing his ruling. Usually rulings on investigations are issued behind closed doors in Poland, but the criminal procedure code allows judges to make the hearing public “in the interest of justice”.
“Judge Tuleya’s immunity should be maintained. Actually he should not face any criminal proceedings to begin with as its decisions were in accordance with the law and the principles of transparency and public trials,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“His case is a further demonstration of the relentless attacks against the independence of judges ongoing in Poland.”
The Disciplinary Chamber, in a single-judge formation, upheld Judge Tuleya’s immunity on 9 July but the prosecution appealed the ruling that will be now decided by the same Chamber before a three-judge panel, Tomasz Przelawski, Slawomis Niedzielak and Jaroslaw Sobutka.
These proceedings are the first case of implementation the draconian Act amending the Law on the Common Courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and Some Other Laws, signed into law on 4 February and widely known as the ‘Muzzle Act’, which has given competence to waive judicial immunity to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.
“Immunity claims against a judge should be decided only by an independent body,” Massimo Frigo added.
“As EU Court of Justice held, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court is not independent and is open to undue influence or interference by political authorities. It should therefore not rule on this case.”
Background
On 19 November, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a ruling in the case A.K. and others (C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18), on a preliminary question by the Supreme Court of Poland. The preliminary question asked whether the recently established Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court could be considered to be independent.
The CJEU ruled that a court cannot be considered independent “where the objective circumstances in which that court was formed, its characteristics and the means by which its members have been appointed are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of that court to external factors, in particular, as to the direct or indirect influence of the legislature and the executive and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it and, thus, may lead to that court not being seen to be independent or impartial with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society must inspire in subjects of the law.”
Based on this ruling, the Labour, Criminal and Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court declared that the Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court were not properly constituted and independent.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, judges are entitled to a fair hearing in all disciplinary proceedings (principle 17). In order for such a hearing to be fair, the decision-maker must be independent and impartial.
International and European standards on the independence of the judiciary provide that judges should have immunity from criminal prosecution for decisions taken in connection with their judicial functions in the absence of proof of malice, and any procedure for removing immunity must itself be independent (see for instance, UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, paras 65-67 and 98; Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, para 68; Consultative Council of European Judges, para 20; ICJ Practitioners Guide no 13, pp. 27-30).
On 26 February 2020, the Polish Prosecutor’s Office requested a waiver of Judge Tuleya’s immunity in order to press criminal charges which might lead to imprisonment. The waiver was rejected on 9 June 2020 by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court appointed by the government, in a single-judge formation. The Prosecutor’s Office appealed the ruling. The case will be now considered by the same Disciplinary Chamber in a three-judge formation. A first hearing was scheduled for 5 October 2020 but was postponed. It will take place on 18 November.
In an open letter of 5 February 2020, 44 ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members denounced the recent legislative changes adopted by the Polish government threatening the role and the rights of judges and denouncing the risks faced by legal practitioners when fighting for the rule of law. Two weeks later, the risks highlighted by the letter have become reality for an increasing number of Polish judges, including Judge Tuleya.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, Europe and Central Asia Programme, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41 797499949
Oct 8, 2020 | News
The ICJ today called for reinstatement of Tanzania lawyer Fatma Karume, characterizing a permanent prohibition from her practicing law as a violation of her rights and the independence of the legal profession.
In September 2019, the High Court of Tanzania issued an order suspending senior lawyer Fatma Karume from practising law in mainland Tanzania.
The High Court directed the Advocates’ Disciplinary Committee of Tanzania to conduct a disciplinary hearing and make a final determination on whether Fatma Karume, a former president of Tanganyika Law Society, which is the Bar association of mainland Tanzania, should be allowed to practice law.
Allegations of misconduct against Fatma Karume arose from her written submissions in a constitutional challenge to President Magufuli’s appointment of Professor Adelardus Kilangi as the Attorney General of Tanzania.
The State’s counsel complained that the language used by Fatma Karume in her submissions was unprofessional and disrespectful of the Attorney General, who was the subject of the constitutional challenge.
A year later, on 23 September 2020, the Advocates’ Disciplinary Committee found Fatma Karume guilty of the alleged misconduct and directed that she be permanently disbarred from practising law in Tanzania.
“The ICJ views the decision to permanently disbar Fatma Karume from legal practice, as a grave violation of Tanzania’s domestic, regional and international legal obligations relating to Fatma Karume’s right to be heard, her right to work and a violation of the independence of lawyers,” said ICJ Africa Director, Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh.
“Fatma Karume’s right to be heard was violated in many ways. First, the complaint of misconduct was made in the State’s rejoinder submissions and Ms Karume was not afforded an opportunity to respond on record, before the High Court made the decision to temporarily suspend her from practice. Secondly, her right to a speedy hearing was violated because it took the Advocate’s Disciplinary Committee of Tanzania a year to make a final determination in her case,” she added.
The ICJ also considers that the substance of the charges of misconduct against Fatma Karume was inconsistent with international and regional standards, in so far as they were based on written submissions made in good faith as part of the due discharge of her professional functions.
The ICJ urges the authorities in Tanzania to rescind the decision to disbar Fatma Karume from legal practice and restore her right to work and in particular, her right to practice law.
In the meantime, ICJ welcomes the decision of the Tanganyika Law Society to support Fatma Karume to appeal against her disbarment.
Background
Articles 21 and 13 (6) (a) of the Constitution of Tanzania guarantee every person with the right to work and the right to a fair hearing respectively. In terms of regional law, Article 7(1) of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights obliges governments to respect and protect the right of every individual to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal; the right to present a defense; and, the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal. Similar rights are recognised in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In addition, Principle 27 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (UN Basic Principles) states that “Charges or complaints made against lawyers in their professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under appropriate procedures. Lawyers shall have the right to a fair hearing, including the right to be assisted by a lawyer of their choice.”
Principle 20 of the UN Basic Principles provides that “Lawyers shall enjoy civil and penal immunity for relevant statements made in good faith in written or oral pleadings or in their professional appearances before a court, tribunal or other legal or administrative authority.” Similar provisions are included in Part I of the African Principles and Guidelines.
Contact
Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, Director of ICJ’s Africa Regional Programme, c: +27845148039, e: Kaajal kaajal.keogh@icj.org
Feb 28, 2020 | News
The ICJ and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) urge the Turkish Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) to stop their investigation into the three judges of the Istanbul 30th Heavy Penal Court who, on 18 February 2020, acquitted the defendants in the Gezi Park trial due to a lack of evidence.
According to a statement from 30 Turkish bar associations, the sole reason for the investigation was the acquittal in the Gezi Park trial. The Council of Judges and Prosecutors, the body of self-governance of the judiciary, has the power to launch and take disciplinary action against judges, including disciplinary proceedings leading to removal from office.
“The launch of such an investigation is a further sign of the grave decline of the rule of law in Turkey”, said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme “The disciplinary proceedings against these judges appear to be a direct interference in their decision-making power and will have a chilling effect on the independence of all members of the judiciary.”
“The role of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors should be to protect the independence of the judiciary – not to be an instrument of control and pressure against individual judges” said Massimo Frigo.
IBAHRI Co-Chair, the Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG, commented: “The IBAHRI and the ICJ jointly welcomed the acquittal of Osman Kavala and the other 15 defendants. Now, we condemn the re-arrest of Mr Kavala, continue to stand with the defendants, and call for Mr Kavala’s immediate release. We implore the Turkish Council of Judges and Prosecutors to reconsider the hugely damaging impact their inspection of the judges will have on the principles of judicial independence and the rights of lawyers, and to cease all action in this respect.”
The launch of this investigation occurred immediately after the acquittals in the Gezi trial, spurred by the vehement public protests by President Erdogan against the verdict.
30 Turkish Bar Associations have issued a statement calling for the resignation of the members of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors and considered this investigation as a violation of the principle of judicial independence under the Turkish Constitution.
Background
The defendants in the Gezi trial – with the exception of those not present in Turkey who will be tried separately – were acquitted on 18 February for lack of evidence. The ICJ and IBAHRI welcomed the acquittal after having observed all hearings of the trial. The very evening of the verdict, one of the defendants, Osman Kavala, was re-arrested on suspicion of “attempting to disrupt the constitutional order” connected to the failed coup attempt of 2016.
Osman Kavala has been in detention since 18 October 2017 pending trial on charges connected to the Gezi Park protests. The Gezi Park protests began in May 2013 as an effort by a group of environmentalists to save a park in central Istanbul from being rezoned, but soon grew into nationwide demonstrations. Police quelled the protest in Taksim Square with the use of tear gas and water cannons.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser – e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org – t: +41229793805
Feb 5, 2020 | Advocacy, News, Open letters
ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members today denounced the rapidly escalating rule of law crisis in Poland, after a new law was passed that would result in harassment of judges upholding the independence of the judiciary.
A group of 44 ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members, including senior judges, lawyers and legal scholars from around the world said in their statement “it is clear that the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the capacity of Polish judges to uphold the rule of law are now severely compromised. Judges’ freedom of expression, association and assembly are under immediate threat.”
The statement
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), its Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (CIJL) and the undersigned Commissioners and Honorary Members of the ICJ are alarmed at the rapidly escalating rule of law crisis in Poland.
It is clear that the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the capacity of Polish judges to uphold the rule of law are now severely compromised. Judges’ freedom of expression, association and assembly are under immediate threat.
The passing by the Sejm on 23 January of the amendments to the laws on the judiciary, and their signing into law on 4 February, means that judges will be prohibited from questioning the legitimacy or institutional independence of any Polish court, even where its members have been appointed through a politically controlled process, in violation of EU and international law. Judges will face disciplinary action for denying the validity of any judicial appointment.
This law is an attempt to prevent any Polish court from upholding the independence of the judiciary, in the face of repeated legislative and government attacks on judicial independence in recent years.
This is directly contrary to the obligations of judges under the EU treaties to apply EU law, and would therefore lead to violations of Poland’s EU law obligations. It would also lead to violations of Poland’s obligations under international human rights law, since it would require judges to act contrary to their duty to uphold the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.
As the Venice Commission noted in its recent opinion on the amendments, they are clearly “designed to have a nullifying effect” on recent judgments and resolutions of the Court of Justice of the EU and the Polish Supreme Court, which have called into question the validity of recent judicial appointments. As such, they do severe damage to the rule of law in Poland.
These developments follow recent legislation which has politicised the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) and imposed executive control of the appointment process for judges of the Supreme Court, court presidents and other judges. A powerful new Extraordinary Chamber as well as a Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, appointed under this new system, has further entrenched political control of the judiciary.
The ICJ, its undersigned Commissioners and Honorary Members, applaud the continued resolute defence of the rule of law by sections of the Polish judiciary. This has been evident in the resolution of the Supreme Court (Civil, Criminal, Labour and Social Security Divisions) of 23 January which found that recent judicial appointments meant that some Polish courts were not sufficiently independent to be legitimately constituted.
We deplore the response by President Adrzej Duda in which he suggested that judges opposing the judicial reforms on the judiciary acted out of improper self-interest.
The undersigned ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members affirm their solidarity with Polish judges, in particular those who are currently facing abusive disciplinary or criminal proceedings for carrying out their judicial functions in accordance with the principle of judicial independence, or for exercising their freedom of expression, association or assembly as a means to defend the rule of law.
We recall that international human rights law and international standards on the judiciary require all branches of government to respect the independence of the judiciary. Furthermore, they recognise that judges have rights to freedom of expression and association and that they have a particularly important role in contributing to discussions on issues of the functioning of the judicial system and the rule of law, especially in defending the independence of the judiciary.
We call on the international community to respond to the Polish rule of law crisis in a manner appropriate to the gravity of the situation, before the damage to the Polish legal system becomes further entrenched.
In particular, we call on the European Union to urgently advance proceedings concerning Poland under Article 7 TEU, in light of the clear breach of EU law and EU fundamental values entailed by the new law, in conjunction with previous reforms, and by the government’s open defiance of decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU and the Polish Supreme Court.
Poland-Commissioners-Statement-Advocacy-Open-Letter-2020-ENG, (full text with all signatories, PDF)
