Jul 22, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
The ICJ and Amnesty International have submitted a joint third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Judges Mariusz Broda and Alina Bojara.
The case concerns the premature termination of their mandates as vice-presidents of the regional tribunal of Kielce in Poland. The two judges, that had been appointed to six-year terms in 2014, had their position revoked by the Minister of Justice in 2018.
The revocation was based on article 17.1 of the Law of 12 July 2017 modifying the Law on the Judicial System. This provision, presented and approved by the ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS), gave the Minister of Justice the power to revoke courts’ presidents and vice-presidents without justified grounds and with no possibility of appeal.
The two judges applied to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that they had been denied access to a tribunal to challenge the termination of their mandate .
In their third party intervention, the ICJ and Amnesty International analyze international standards on judicial independence, including as regards the role court presidents and vice-presidents, and the consequences of these standards for the right of access to court under Article 6.1 ECHR. The intervention also analyses the recent legislative and policy developments that have seriously undermined the independence of the Polish judiciary.
Read the full intervention here: Broda_v_Poland-AmicusCuriae-ICJ&AI-Cases-2020-ENG.
Jul 15, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted the lack of judicial independence and other obstacles to access to justice for human rights violations in Venezuela, at the UN Human Rights Council.
The statement, delivered in an interactive dialogue on the relevant report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, read as follows:
“Madame President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ on the situation in Venezuela pursuant to resolution 42/25. The ICJ regrets however that the report was not published sufficiently in advance of the Interactive Dialogue to allow for detailed analysis and response.
The report points to a wide range of violations of civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights in the country.
The ICJ has documented over many years the lack of judicial independence and the absence of domestic accountability for human rights violations in Venezuela. In the Arco Minero of the Orinoco, we have seen numerous alleged cases of enforced disappearances, human trafficking, threats to human rights defenders, and serious abuses of the rights of indigenous peoples, especially indigenous women and children.
The ICJ would like to ask the High Commissioner to elaborate on the long-entrenched obstacles to accountability for human rights violations in the Venezuelan justice system, and on the abuses against indigenous peoples in the Arco Minero.
The ICJ also looks forward to the discussion of and action on the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission’s report at the 45th session of the Council in September, and urges the Council to stand ready to extend the mandate, and to enlarge the scope, of the Fact-Finding Mission at that time.
Thank you.”
Jul 10, 2020 | Events, News
Today, the ICJ and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) are hosting an online conference to take stock of the current situation of access to justice and the rule of law in Turkey and discuss compliance with international standards and the Turkish Constitution.
The online conference features international and European experts and will address the shortcomings in accessing justice in the country both in terms of the capacity of the justice system to ensure the respect and protection of human rights and of the independence and effectiveness of the justice system itself.
The conference will take stock of the state of access to justice in Turkey after four years of extraordinary and worrisome events for the Rule of Law and human rights in the country. During this period, Turkey has experienced a severe deterioration in the rule of law. The state of emergency, in force between 2016 and 2018, has led to the cleansing of the judiciary and restricted the capacity of lawyers and civil society to act, and increasingly dramatically the arrests and trials of some of their members under spurious charges of terrorism, offences against the State, insult to the nation or its President, and hate speech crimes.
Many of the measures undertaken under the state of emergency included mass dismissal of public servants, judges and prosecutors without ensuring due process guarantees and the degradation of the justice system, depriving the judiciary of essential guarantees to ensure its independence from the political authorities.
The conference will address how these developments impacted the capacity of people in Turkey, and in particular those belonging to marginalised groups, to access justice for their human rights, and what should be done to ensure that such access exists and is effective.
As a result of the conference, a draft statement on the state of access to justice in Turkey will be issued to provide Turkish authorities with recommendations on how to ensure effective and independent access to justice for human rights protection.
Jun 19, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has responded to a call for input by UN human rights experts, for their upcoming reports on COVID-19 and human rights.
The written submission, in response the joint call for submissions questionnaire issued by a number of UN Special Procedures, highlights key issues in relation to access to justice and the operation of courts, the right to food and the right to housing, and impacts on LGBTi persons and persons living in poverty, in a number of countries where the ICJ is active.
The submission can be downloaded in PDF format here: ICJ-UN-SP-COVID19SUBMISSION-2020-EN
Jun 4, 2020 | News
The ICJ today raised concern at the threat of criminal proceedings against Judge Igor Tuleya on charges arising from the judge’s independent exercise of his judicial functions. The ICJ called on the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court not to lift his immunity at its 9th June hearing.
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 should not face any criminal proceedings to begin with for his actions in delivering his ruling in public, which is in accordance with national law”, said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme. “His immunity must be maintained and the ‘Muzzle Act’ that allowed for these abusive prosecutions should be immediately scrapped.”
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 gave competence to waive judicial immunity to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.
“As highlighted by the recent ruling of the EU Court of Justice, 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 issues pertaining to the disciplinary or criminal responsibility of judges, including a waiver of their immunity,” Massimo Frigo added.
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 will be examined on the 9 June 2020 by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court appointed by the government.
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 22 979 38 00
