Mar 22, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, before the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ called on Ukrainian authorities to ensure the security of lawyers and the independence of the judiciary, essential elements to make effective any human rights technical assistance and capacity building.
The statement reads as follows:
“Madame President,
In Ukraine, a number of lawyers, including those who defend human rights, in and outside of courts, including to face threats, harassment, and other attacks on their security.
Lawyers continue to be associated with their clients and may face detrimental consequences for representing them.
For example, in November 2020, lawyer Nikolay Osipchuk was physically attacked by the local Prosecutor and several other people in the court room of a district court. A pattern of such attacks was identified by the ICJ in a report issued last year.
The ICJ is further concerned at recent the attempts of interference by the Government with the independence of the judiciary in Ukraine.
The ICJ welcomes the withdrawal of the presidential draft law by which all judges of the Constitutional Court would have been dismissed. However, it is concerning that, following a criminal case initiated against him, the President of the Constitutional Court was suspended by a decision of the President of Ukraine. This decision, on dubious legal grounds, undermines the independence of the judiciary.
The ICJ urges that Ukraine:
- Ensure prompt, thorough, impartial and independent investigations of all attacks on lawyers, leading where appropriate, to bringing those responsible to justice;
- refrain from any acts which interfere with the independence of the judiciary and annul the suspension of the President of the Constitutional Court.
I thank you.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Jan 15, 2021 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International have submitted today to the European Court of Human Rights their intervention in the case of Judge Igor Tuleya who alleges that the seven disciplinary proceedings brought against him have affected his reputation as a judge and undermine the authority of the judiciary.
Judge Igor Tuleya contests that the disciplinary proceedings brought against him were in violation of his right to respect for private life and of his right to an effective remedy against violation of human rights.
The case takes place in the context of the “reform” of the judiciary in Poland, involving policy measures and legislative changes approved between late 2015 and 2020, which have seriously compromised the independence of the judiciary.
The intervention focuses on three main issues:
- The scope of application of Article 8 and Article 13 in cases relating to disciplinary proceedings against judges, in light of international standards on disciplinary proceedings and measures and effective domestic remedies; of the Court’s Convention jurisprudence; and of general principles on the rule of law and the role and independence of the judiciary.
- The situation of the independence of the judiciary in Poland as the context in which to assess the application of Articles 8 and 13.
- The scope of Article 10 as applied to judges, including those engaged in the administration of the judiciary.
ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Tuleya_v_Poland-Advocacy-Legal-Submission-2020-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Dec 17, 2020 | News
The ICJ and the Human Rights Joint Platform released today a joint statement, calling attention to a variety of obstacles faced by those seeking access to justice for human rights violations in Turkey.
The statement includes 13 recommendations to the Turkish government to ensure the justice system can uphold human rights.
In Turkey, victims of human rights violations remain unable to access justice, particularly effective remedies and reparation for violations of their rights, and there is little accountability of the State or State authorities for what are often serious violations.
Access to Justice has suffered by the immense damage done to the justice system in Turkey in recent years. The systematic undermining of judicial independence, and of the work of prosecutors and lawyers, through the widespread practice of arbitrary arrest and detention, unfounded prosecutions and dismissals of legal professionals as well as other human rights defenders, have fatally undermined the capacity of the justice system to provide reliable protection for human rights.
The Joint Statement is the fruit of three years of intensive work on access to justice for human rights violations in Turkey by the ICJ and IHOP.
During the last three years, the two organizations had the opportunity to gather the views of a wide range of stakeholders, including civil society, judges, lawyers, prosecutors, government officers, international experts, international organizations, human rights defenders and victims of human rights violations. The conclusions by ICJ and IHOP are a reflection of these opinions.
Drawing on this work and their decades-long experience in access to justice, the ICJ and IHOP have outlined the measures needed to begin to restore effective access to justice in Turkey.
The Joint Statement is part of the REACT project: implemented jointly by ICJ and IHOP, this project seeks to support the role of civil society actors in turkey in ensuring effective access to justice for the protection of human rights. This project is funded by the European Union. The views portrayed here do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the EU.
ICJIHOP-JointStatement-2020-ENG (download the statement in English)
ICJIHOP-JointStatement-2020-TUR (download the statement in Turkish)
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
Nov 15, 2020 | News
The removal of Peru’s President Martin Vizcarra by the country’s Congress has undermined respect for the principle of separation of powers and precipitated a rule of law crisis, the ICJ said today.
On 9 November, Peru’s Congress used the seldom-used article 113(2) of the country’s constitution to ‘vacate’ Vizcarra’s term on the ground of “permanent moral incapacity” for office and swore in the President of the Congress, Manuel Merino, as President of the country.
The underlying justification for Vizcarra’s removal was allegations of corruption stemming from the time when he was Governor of Moquequa state in 2011-2014. Those allegations are already under investigation by the Office of the Prosecutor.
The ICJ notes that Peru’s Constitutional Court has a pending case to review the constitutional consistency of the use of the grounds of “permanent moral incapacity” clause for ordinary crimes. The Peruvian Constitution contemplates a separate procedure of impeachment that has not been followed in this case. Yet Congress applied the clause of “moral incapacity” in hasty proceedings with that decision pending.
“Peru’s congress has preempted the decision of the Constitutional Court and applied an overly expansive and highly contested legal interpretation of article 113(2) to oust a president, thus implicating the authority of the Judicial branch as well as the Executive,” said ICJ Secretary General Sam Zarifi.
“This overreach by the Legislative branch has launched the country into a rule of law crisis that also threatens respect for human rights in the country,” he added.
Protesters demonstrating against Vizcarra’s removal have faced ill-treatment and arbitrary arrest by police and security forces.
The ICJ calls on the Peruvian authorities to respect the right to freedom of assembly and peaceful protest and to desist from any form of unlawful use of force. Allegations of violations of ill-treatment and other human rights violations must be investigated promptly, thoroughly and impartially. The ICJ also urges respect of the independence of the judiciary, particularly as concerns the Constitutional Court and its functions.
