Feb 6, 2020 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has made a submission to the UN Human Rights Committee in advance of its forthcoming examination of Tunisia’s sixth periodic report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
In its submission, the ICJ highlights a number of ongoing concerns with respect to the country’s implementation of and compliance with the provisions of the ICCPR, including in relation to:
- Tunisian authorities’ implementation of the transitional justice law, particularly on issues pertaining to criminal accountability for gross human rights violations;
- Judicial independence and accountability, particularly on issues pertaining to the development of a Judicial Code of Ethics, and
- Tunisia’s failure to establish a Constitutional Court.
The submission is relevant for the Committee’s evaluation of Tunisia’s implementation of the State’s obligations and related Covenant rights under articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 26 of the ICCPR.
The Human Rights Committee will examine Tunisia’s sixth periodic report during its 128th session, which will be held in Geneva from 2 March to 27 March 2020.
Tunisia submitted its sixth periodic report to the Committee in June 2019 according to the approved simplified reporting procedure and in response to the list of issues identified by the UN Human Rights Committee in April 2018. Among these issues, the Committee requested Tunisia to provide information in relation to: the Constitutional and legal framework within which the Covenant is implemented; transitional justice; and the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
Download
Tunisia-ICJ-Submission-UNHRC-Advocacy-Non-Legal-Submissions-2020-ENG (full submission, in PDF)
Dec 18, 2019 | News
The ICJ called today on the Polish House of Representatives (Sejm) to drop a draft law that would put judges at risk of disciplinary action for their interpretation and application of the law, including EU and international law.
The draft law would also mean that judges would face disciplinary penalties for legitimate criticism of judicial reforms.
“The Polish Parliament should reject these proposals which would place intolerable constraints on judges in interpreting and applying the law and would undermine their freedom to speak out on vital issues of judicial independence,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“Elements of the proposals appear designed to prevent judges from fulfilling their obligation under the EU treaties to apply EU law, which is an attack on the independent exercise of their judicial function” she added.
Under the proposals, judges would face disciplinary action and possible dismissal for refusing to apply a legal provision, unless it had been deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Tribunal.
This proposal appears to be a direct reaction to a recent decision of the Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court which, applying a ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU, held that the Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Chamber was not an independent court. The Labour Chamber found that that the Disciplinary Chamber is not independent since its judges are appointed by the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ). Following a recent constitutional reform, the NCJ is composed predominantly of members elected by Parliament and the executive, contrary to international standards on the independence of the judiciary.
New disciplinary offences for judges under the draft law would also include questioning the status of Polish judges, and “political engagement”. Judges would be prohibited from questioning the status of Polish courts or tribunals or constitutional organs. Futhermore, the draft law would prevent judges’ associations from adopting resolutions “expressing hostility towards other powers of the Republic of Poland and its constitutional organs”.
These provisions would hamper judges’ capacity to criticize reforms which have led to questionable judicial appointments by the NCJ and have seriously damaged the independence of the judiciary as a whole. International human rights law and international standards on the judiciary recognise that judges have a right to freedom of expression 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.
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.”
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary clarify that all governmental and other institutions must respect and observe the independence of the judiciary (Principle 1), and that judges must decide all matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect (Principle 2). Judges can be subject to suspension or removal only following fair procedures (Principle 17) and only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties (Principle 18).
The UN Basic Principles, also affirm the freedom of expression and association of judges (Principle 8) in line with protections under international human rights law, and their right to form and join associations of judges to represent their interests (Principle 9).
In recent years, the Polish executive and legislative authorities have systematically undermined the independence of the judiciary in the country, including through laws that have sought to force the dismissal of judges by lowering the mandatory retirement age. In addition, they have brought the appointment of judges under political control by re-structuring the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), with a majority of its members selected by the Polish Parliament. (see ICJ statement)
This move has also politicized the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, whose members are selected by the NCJ, and the disciplinary court of first instance. In October 2019, the European Commission referred Poland to the CJEU on the grounds that the new disciplinary regime for judges undermines their independence.
In June 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that the Polish Law on the Supreme Court lowering the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court and providing discretionary power to the President to allow a judge to remain in office following the mandatory retirement date was contrary to the principle of effective judicial protection and therefore in violation of EU law. In November 2019, the CJEU held that Poland violated the independence of the judiciary by lowering in 2017 the pension age of Polish judges and giving the power to maintain them in office to the Minister of Justice.
The ICJ has documented, and the UN Special Rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers has affirmed, that the right of judges to freedom of expression is particularly protected when in situations where the rule of law or constitutional order is under threat, they speak out in defence of the independence of the judiciary.
Contacts:
Róisín Pillay, Director for Europe and Central Asia Proramme, t: +32 2 734 84 46; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41 22 979 3805 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Dec 16, 2019 | Agendas, Events, News
Today begins in Ankara (Turkey) a one-day workshop for lawyers and CSO practitioners to discuss and brainstorm on an alternative Justice Reform Strategy.
This event is organized by ICJ, in cooperation with its partners Kapasite Geliştirme Derneği and Human Rights Joint Platform, as part of a EU co-financed project Rebuilding and Ensuring Access to justice with civil society in Turkey.
The workshop aims at discussing the key reforms proposed by the Government of Turkey in its Judicial Reform Strategy and provide with an assessment and an alternative plan for reform based on international standards and jurisprudence on access to justice and the independence of the judiciary.
The workshop will provide presentations on international standards on the judiciary as well as on access to justice for human rights violations. It will produce a ten point strategy document to propose reforms that will uphold the independence of the judiciary and access to justice in Turkey.
The project is funded by the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) of the European Union.
Turkey-Workshop-Agenda-AltJRS-Ankara-2019-eng (download the agenda)
Dec 6, 2019 | News
The ICJ calls on the Polish authorities to put an immediate end to unjustified disciplinary proceedings initiated against judges, including Krystian Markiewicz, Chairperson of the Polish Judges’ Association “Iustitia”.
The ICJ considers that the disciplinary action against Judge Markiewicz’ was initiated because of his questioning of the Polish government’s “reforms” that have severely eroded the independence of the judiciary in Poland.
“The disciplinary action taken against Judge Markiewicz for his criticism of the government’s attack on judicial independence violates international standards on the independence of the judiciary and should be ended immediately”, said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“Judges have a right to freedom of expression and to form and take part in associations of judges. They have a particularly important role in speaking up to defend the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, which is undermined by arbitrary disciplinary proceedings such as those against Judge Markiewicz”, she added.
By order of the Deputy Disciplinary Commissioner of the ordinary court judges, on 4 December, disciplinary proceedings alleging 55 instances of misconduct were initiated against Judge Krystian Markiewicz. These include: inciting disrespect for Poland’s legal order by questioning the independence and legality of the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), and the constitutionality of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court; and calling for appeals to the Disciplinary Chamber to be suspended.
The disciplinary action against Judge Markiewicz comes within a week of the decision to suspend with immediate effect district Judge Paweł Juszczyszyn, who, in presiding over an appeal, questioned the impartiality of the judge who had delivered the original verdict as a result of being elected by the National Council for the Judiciary. On 1 December 2019, the Polish Judges’ Association Iustitia organized rallies in support of Judge Juszczyszyn.
The ICJ stresses that such actions taken against judges are inconsistent with the duties of all branches of the State to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary. The ICJ calls for Judge Juszczyszyn to be immediately re-instated in his post.
On 4 December 2019, the labour law chamber of the Supreme Court, in implementation of a recent ruling of the Court of Justice of the UE, held that the NCJ is not an impartial and independent body, and that the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Court is not a “court” under EU or Polish law, thereby confirming the concerns raised by both Judge Juszczyszyn and Judge Markiewicz.
Background
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary clarify that all governmental and other institutions must respect and observe the independence of the judiciary (Principle 1), and that judges must decide all matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect (Principle 2). Judges can be subject to suspension or removal only following fair procedures (Principle 17) and only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties (Principle 18).
In recent years, the Polish executive and legislative authorities have systematically undermined the independence of the judiciary in the country, including through laws that have sought to force the dismissal of judges by lowering the mandatory retirement age. In addition, they have brought the appointment of judges under political control by re-structuring the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), with a majority of its members selected by the Polish Parliament. (see ICJ statement)
This move has also politicized the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, whose members are selected by the NCJ, and the disciplinary court of first instance. In October 2019, the European Commission referred Poland to the CJEU on the grounds that the new disciplinary regime for judges undermines their independence.
In June 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that the Polish Law on the Supreme Court lowering the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court and providing discretionary power to the President to allow a judge to remain in office following the mandatory retirement date was contrary to the principle of effective judicial protection and therefore in violation of EU law. In November 2019, the CJEU held that Poland violated the independence of the judiciary by lowering in 2017 the pension age of Polish judges and giving the power to maintain them in office to the Minister of Justice.
Nov 28, 2019 | Cases, News
The ICJ and Amnesty International have submitted a joint third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Judge Jan Grzęda.
Judge Grzęda’s mandate as a member of the Polish National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) was prematurely terminated by legislation that entered into force in 2018. Under this law, the mandates of the judicial members of the NCJ appointed under previous legislation were automatically brought to an end once new members were appointed.
Judge Grzęda applied to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that he had been denied access to a tribunal to challenge the termination of his mandate and had been denied an effective remedy for the violations of his rights.
In their third party intervention, the ICJ and Amnesty International analyze international standards on judicial independence and self-governance, including as regards the role national councils for the judiciary, and the consequences of these standards for the right of access to court under Article 6.1 ECHR. The intervention also analyses the role of the NCJ in safeguarding judicial independence in Poland, and recent legislative and policy developments that have seriously undermined the independence of the Polish judiciary.
Read the full intervention text here.
