Mar 12, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted threats to the rule of law in Turkey, Poland, Hungary and Azerbaijan, and the need to address corporate complicity in South Sudan, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.The statement, delivered during general debate, read as follows:
“The situation remains grave for the rule of law and legal protection of human rights in Turkey and Poland.
In Turkey, constitutional reforms in 2017 that undermined the independence of the judiciary should be abolished. Civil society members are prosecuted under overbroad and vague terrorism offences.
In Poland, the Legislature is trying arbitrarily to remove one third of the Supreme Court, a measure that is on hold only temporarily. Unjustified disciplinary proceedings are also being pursued against Polish judges for having sought a ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU.
Elsewhere, in Hungary civil society is ostracized and subject to legislation that risks criminalizing their legitimate activities. In Azerbaijan, as one example of a broader pattern of interference with lawyers and other human rights defenders, lawyer Elchin Sadigov was reprimanded for advising in a confidential manner to his client in detention to complain about torture to which he allegedly had been subjected.
The ICJ is also concerned at the findings by the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan (A/HRC/40/69, A/HRC/40/CRP.1) that point to the oil industry as a “major driver” in the continuation of the armed conflict and resulting human rights violations. Potential corporate complicity with crimes under international law demand investigation and a strong monitoring mechanism for the use of oil revenues should be established.”
Feb 4, 2019 | News
The ICJ is concerned that the dismissal of 17 judges and prosecutors by Turkey’s Council of Judges and Prosecutors on 10 January, for alleged membership of or connections with the “Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation” (FETÖ) did not respect their right to a fair trial.
The decision by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is particularly problematic because it lacks any reasoning on the individual situation of each judge and prosecutor.
The ICJ points out that international law provides that judges may be dismissed only through a fair hearing before an independent authority. The lack of individual reasoning in dismissal decisions strikes at the heart of the right to a fair hearing.
Furthermore, the ICJ recalls its conclusions in the 2018 report Justice Suspended that, within the current constitutional framework, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is not provided with the guarantees necessary to ensure its institutional independence.
Despite the state of emergency having been lifted since last July 2018, extraordinary powers given to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors to dismiss judges and prosecutors during the State of Emergency were extended for 3 years by Law no. 7145. It is unacceptable in a State governed by the rule of law that judges and prosecutors – whatever charges may be against them – be dismissed without respect for the right to a fair procedure, in disregard of international standards.
Considering that the Council of State has not delivered a single decision about dismissed judges and prosecutors during the state of emergency, in more than two years now, it seems likely that it would take at least two years before the recent decision of the CJP is reviewed by an independent judicial authority. Until then, absent further action by the CJP, the reasons for the dismissals will not be known by the purged judges and prosecutors, or by the general public.
The ICJ calls on the CJP to revoke its order and re-examine the cases under the ordinary dismissal procedures and on the Turkish Government and Parliament to modify the constitutional rules on the CJP to ensure its full independence.
Finally, the ICJ expresses concern at the conviction of the former head of the judges’ organisation YARSAV, Mr Murat Arslan, for alleged membership of FETÖ. There are credible reports of violations of the right to a fair trial in the proceedings, including four changes of judges during the proceedings, often without reasons given and without re-examination of witnesses, significant limitations to the defence access to evidence before trial and use of witnesses with undisclosed identity. The ICJ considers that these allegations of violations of the right to a fair trial should be thoroughly re-examined in appeal before an independent court and in full respect of Mr Arslan’s fair trial rights.
Background
On 10 January, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors made use for the first time of special powers to dismiss judges and prosecutors without complying with the ordinary procedure, invoking extraordinary powers enacted by Law No 7145 of 31.07.2018. This legislation inserted into ordinary law several powers that had previously existed under the state of emergency legislation.
One of the amendments made by Law No 7145 of 31.07.2018 was to the Decree Law No 375 dated 1989. A Temporary Article (Article 35) was added to the Decree. On the basis of this article, the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court, the Presidency Councils of Court of Appeal, the Council of State, the General Assembly of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, a Commission set up by the Ministry of National Security, and the Presidency of the Court of Audit, were each authorised to take dismissal decisions for public officials/judges and prosecutors under their mandate for three years from the date of the endorsement of the law No 7145.
Based on this amendment, on 10 January 2019 the Council of Judges and Prosecutors took its first decision (Decision No. 2019/1) by dismissing 17 judges and prosecutors (6 Public prosecutors, 3 Members of Administrative Court, 7 judges of of Tax Court) based on the allegation of membership to FETÖ.
International law and standards provide that disciplinary proceedings should be conducted by an independent authority or a court with all the guarantees of a fair trial and provide the judge with the right to challenge the decision and sanction. Disciplinary sanctions should be proportionate.
The UN Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary set out international standards for discipline, suspension and removal of judges, including in order to ensure impartiality and independence of courts and tribunals as required by international law (including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights). The Basic Principles state that a:
“charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge. …
The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) adds that “a Head of State, Minister of Justice or any other representative of political authorities cannot take part in the disciplinary body.”
Contact
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for the Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41 22 979 3805, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Oct 19, 2018 | News
The ICJ welcomes the interim measures prescribed today by the Court of Justice of the EU as a necessary step in stemming the evident erosion of the rule of law in Poland.
The Court provisionally ordered Poland to preserve the composition of its Supreme Court of 3 April 2018, before a law forcing into retirement a third of the Court’s members entered into force.
The ICJ urges the Polish authorities to comply with the EU Court order by maintaining in office the Supreme Court judges .
“In accordance with today’s court’s order, Polish authorities should immediately rescind all measures taken since April 2018 that modify the composition of the Supreme Court. They are obliged to do this under EU law as it is binding on Polish authorities and by the fundamental principle of the rule of law that decisions of the judiciary must be respected and implemented.” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
On 10 October, President Andrzej Duda appointed 27 judges to the Supreme Court in place of those forcibly “retired” last July. The ICJ condemned this act of the President of Poland because it contravened an order of the Supreme Court suspending the law under which these appointments were made, pending a decision by the EU Court. Critically, the mass and forced retirement of sitting judges before the end of the established terms of tenure undermines their security of tenure, a key principle regarding the independence of the judiciary.
Background
The independence of the judiciary in Poland has been systematically undermined by the Polish executive and legislative authorities.
Earlier this year Poland issued a new law on the Supreme Court that attempts to force the “retirement” of one third of the Supreme Court judges, including the First President, by lowering the mandatory retirement age for its judges from 70 to 65. This measure clearly contravenes international human rights law and standards.
The European Commission has launched an infringement procedure for lack of compliance of this law with EU law.
In the absence of satisfactory reforms by Poland, on 24 September, the Commission referred Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and asked for interim measures to restore Poland’s Supreme Court to its situation before 3 April 2018. Today’s decision by the Court of Justice granted this interim measures request.
At the same time, the Supreme Court of Poland submitted a preliminary ruling request to the CJEU seeking its interpretation on the compliance of the legislation on retirement ages of judges with EU law, in particular with the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age under Directive 2008/78.
An ICJ letter of 11 July 2018, signed by 22 senior judges from all regions of the world, urged the Polish government to act immediately to reinstate the forcibly retired judges in office.
Oct 11, 2018 | News
The ICJ today condemned the appointment by President Andrzej Duda of 27 judges to the Supreme Court in place of those forcibly “retired” last July.
“These appointments are patently illegitimate and deal a severe blow to the rule of law in Poland,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
The new appointments purport to replace the Supreme Court Justices including President of the Supreme Court Małgorzata Gersdorf, whose forced “retirement” is in clear violations of international standards on the security of tenure and independence of judges.
The decision of the President is even more concerning since it contravenes an order of the Supreme Court suspending the law under which these appointments were made, pending a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
It is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law and principles on the independence of the judiciary that the executive respect decisions duly made by the judiciary.
“In announcing these appointments now, while cases on the forced retirement of Supreme Court judges are still pending at the EU Court, President Duda has disregarded the proceedings of the EU’s apex judicial body,” Róisín Pillay added.
The ICJ considers that the legality of the appointments of the new judges is further compromised by the role played by the now politicized National Council for the Judiciary, whose independence and impartiality has been seriously compromised following recent legislative amendments.
The ICJ urges the Polish authorities to cease all interference with the Supreme Court in carrying out its legitimate functions, and to reverse the measures taken to force the retirement of Supreme Court judges.
Background
This attack against the actions of the Supreme Court occurs amid a systematic undermining of the independence of the judiciary in Poland by the Polish executive and legislative authorities, which attempt to increase political influence in the judiciary and which the ICJ has repeatedly condemned.
Earlier this year Poland issued a new law on the Supreme Court that attempts to force the “retirement” of one third of the Supreme Court judges, including the First President, by lowering the mandatory retirement age for its judges from 70 to 65. This measure clearly contravenes international human rights law and standards.
The European Commission has launched an infringement procedure for lack of compliance of this law with EU law.
In the absence of satisfactory reforms by Poland, on 24 September, the Commission referred Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and asked for interim measures to restore Poland’s Supreme Court to its situation before 3 April 2018.
At the same time Supreme Court of Poland submitted a preliminary ruling request to the CJEU seeking its interpretation on the compliance of the legislation on retirement ages of judges with EU law, in particular with the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age under Directive 2008/78.
Following the jurisprudence of the CJEU, the Supreme Court suspended the effect of national law on the forcible retirement of the judges.
An ICJ letter of 11 July 2018, signed by 22 senior judges from all regions of the world, urged the Polish government to act immediately to reinstate the forcibly retired judges in office.
Sep 18, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today put the spotlight on serious threats to the rule of law in Hungary, Poland and Turkey, speaking at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.The statement, made during general debate on situations that require the Council’s attention, read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) would like to bring to the Council’s attention the serious threats to the rule of law in Hungary, Poland and Turkey.
In Poland, the Government has adopted legislation to arbitrarily force into involuntary “retirement” one third of its Supreme Court Justices, delivering a fatal blow to the independence of the judiciary, already strained by past reforms.
In Hungary, multiple legal reforms have weakened judicial independence and effectively criminalized the activities of certain human rights NGOs and curtailed their financing.
Finally, in Turkey, consolidation of emergency measures in ordinary law, regressive constitutional reforms, and the mass dismissal of judges and prosecutors have removed essential protection for the independent functioning of the judiciary.
The ICJ is further concerned by the protest ban against the Saturday Mothers to hold weekly protests in memory of their disappeared family members, in breach of their right to freedom of assembly.
The ICJ is alarmed at the escalation of such threats to the very basic tenets of the rule of law in Europe, without specific action being taken by this Council to address them.
The ICJ urges the Council to give attention to these developments, which indeed form part of a broader global attack on the rule of law,[1] and to keep under observation the human rights situation in these countries.”
[1] See ICJ, “The Rule of Law under Global Threat” (statement in general debate on the oral update of the High Commissioner), 11 September 2018: https://www.icj.org/hrc39-gd2-hc/
