magnify
Home Posts tagged "ECHR"

Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers Starts Infringement Proceedings in Mammadov v. Azerbaijan: A Victory for the International Rule of Law?

Published on February 5, 2018        Author:  and
Facebook
GOOGLE
https://www.ejiltalk.org/tag/echr
LINKEDIN

On 5 December 2017 it finally happened: the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (‘the Committee’) launched for the first time ever in the history of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) infringement proceedings for non-implementation of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’), namely against Azerbaijan concerning the Mammadov case. While this development has already, and rightly so, been described as “nuclear” and “historic” elsewhere in the blogosphere, it still warrants some further analysis.

Supervision of the execution of judgments of the ECtHR: Infringement proceedings

Under Article 46 § 2 ECHR, it is the Committee that supervises the execution of the judgments of the ECtHR. According to article 46 § 4 ECHR, it may refer to the Court the question whether a given member State has fulfilled its obligation to abide by a judgment in a case to which it is a party. These so-called infringement proceedings were introduced in 2010 under Protocol No° 14 to provide the Committee with a wider range of means of pressure so as to better secure the execution of the Court’s judgments. So far, however, launching such proceedings had remained a mere theoretical possibility. Despite calls from both civil society and scholars, the Committee, a political body made up by diplomats from each member State, had either been unwilling to use this mechanism, or had never attained the necessary two-thirds-majority required for such a court referral.

There certainly is no lack of execution problems in the Strasbourg system, and it seems that in the last years such problems have rather increased than decreased. It suffices to refer to the non-implementation of the 2009 Sejdic and Finci judgment by Bosnia and Herzegovina, the 12-year-long saga around the UK’s prisoner voting case Hirst (which, however, by now seems to have been resolved, albeit maybe not fully), the Russian opposition to judgments from the ECtHR, and Italy’s almost perpetual struggles to reform its judiciary after thousands of ECtHR’s judgments identifying structural problems that go back to the 1990s as only some of the most prominent examples, as well as the non-implementation by Ukraine of the Ivanov pilot judgment leading to the recent dismissal of more than 12.000 applications in the Burmych case. Yet it is only the Mammodov case which has now brought the Committee to take action under article 46 § 2 ECHR. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Tackling Non-Implementation in the Strasbourg System: The Art of the Possible?

Published on April 28, 2017        Author: 
Facebook
GOOGLE
https://www.ejiltalk.org/tag/echr
LINKEDIN

Slow, partial or sometimes even non-implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is the Achilles heel of the European Convention system. The latest annual report of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers attests to some positive trends — a record number of cases closed in a single year and a decrease in the number of pending cases revealing systemic or structural problems — yet still 9,944 judgments remain unimplemented. While this is the first time since 2010 that the figure has dipped below 10,000, it remains a substantial caseload for the Committee of Ministers, the body formally tasked with monitoring implementation.

How, then, to tackle the problem? A thought-provoking contribution to this debate has been made by Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou and Fiona de Londras in their article, ‘Mission Impossible? Addressing Non-Execution through Infringement Proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights’.

Infringement proceedings under Article 46(4) of the Convention were introduced by Protocol No. 14 to the Convention in order to provide a means of increasing pressure on obstructive states short of the extreme sanction of suspension or expulsion. This — as yet unused — mechanism empowers the Committee of Ministers to refer a state back before the Court if it refuses to implement a judgment.

Dzehtsiarou and de Londras argue that invoking Article 46(4) would be ‘futile and counterproductive’ because, among other reasons, it risks overburdening the Court (specifically its Grand Chamber, which would consider any referrals) and further delaying implementation while proceedings are pending. Moreover, they venture, infringement proceedings would do nothing to address the root causes of non-execution and could provoke a backlash by impugned states, potentially damaging both the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Convention system. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Comment on Paposhvili v Belgium and the Temporal Scope of Risk Assessment

Published on February 21, 2017        Author: 
Facebook
GOOGLE
https://www.ejiltalk.org/tag/echr
LINKEDIN

On 13 December 2016, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a significant ruling in Paposhvili v Belgium, App. No. 41738/10, correcting the narrow approach to Article 3 medical removal cases taken in D v United Kingdom, App. No. 30240/96 (2 May 1997) and extended in cases such as N v United Kingdom, App. No. 26565/05 (27 May 2008). These cases established that a breach of Article 3 (sending an applicant to a real risk of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment) would only be found in the most exceptional circumstances, namely where there were compelling humanitarian considerations such as an applicant being critically ill and facing mental and physical suffering and hastened death upon removal. The Paposhvili judgment expands the application of Article 3 in medical cases and raises interesting issues about our broader understanding of prospective risk assessments in other types of subsidiary protection/complementary protection and refugee cases.

The applicant, a Georgian national facing removal due to criminal activity in Belgium, suffered from leukaemia and recurrent tuberculosis which had caused lung disease. He claimed that he would be unable to access adequate medical treatment in Georgia and was therefore at risk of ill-treatment and accelerated death if he were expelled. Indeed, medical evidence accepted by the Court indicated that he would die within 6 months of his treatment being discontinued ([195]).

Although Mr Paposhvili died while his Grand Chamber hearing was pending, the ECtHR examined his complaint due to its wider impact on cases involving aliens who are seriously ill and facing removal. The ECtHR “clarified” its jurisprudence in relation to that group of people, noting that the case law since N v United Kingdom had been impermissibly narrow and “deprived aliens who are seriously ill, but whose condition is less critical, of the benefit of [Article 3]” ([181]–[182]). While maintaining the language of “exceptional cases” from D, the ECtHR expanded that category to encompass:

situations involving the removal of a seriously ill person in which substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he or she, although not at imminent risk of dying, would face a real risk, on account of the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country or the lack of access to such treatment, of being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy. ([183], emphasis added)

Dr Lourdes Peroni and Steve Peers have noted that the significance of this case is the ruling that access to “sufficient and appropriate” medical care must be available in reality, not merely in theory. The submissions of the Ghent University Human Rights Centre as intervening party provided the ECtHR with an excellent platform from which to set out procedural obligations and evidentiary factors to guide the assessment of risk. The ECtHR held at [190]–[191] that the “authorities must also consider the extent to which the individual in question will actually have access to this care and these facilities in the receiving State” and :

“where, after the relevant information has been examined, serious doubts persist regarding the impact of removal on the persons concerned…the returning State must obtain individual and sufficient assurances from the receiving State…”. Read the rest of this entry…

 
Comments Off on Comment on Paposhvili v Belgium and the Temporal Scope of Risk Assessment