Новые документы и материалы
Стартует проект "Правовая помощь людям с проблемами психического здоровья в Свердловской области: британский опыт"
Права ребенка при разводе родителей
НИ В ЕКАТЕРИНБУРГЕ НИ В ОБЛАСТИ ТАКОМУ НЕ БЫВАТЬ, ПРИ НЫНЕШНЕМ УПОЛНЛОМОЧЕННОМ
Ответ юриста на вопрос 13081 онлайновой консультации
Права ребенка при разводе родителей
Как голосуют за изменения в российскую конституцию в Германии
ПРАВИТЕЛЬСТВО РОССИИ ПОДДЕРЖАЛО ВВЕДЕНИЕ ШТРАФОВ ЗА ОБУЧЕНИЕ У НЕЖЕЛАТЕЛЬНЫХ НКО
Заявление Правления Гражданского форума ЕС-Россия
ОБЩЕСТВЕННОСТЬ КОНТРОЛИРУЕТ ПОЛИЦИЮ
Как голосуют за изменения в российскую конституцию в Германии
Стартует проект "Правовая помощь людям с проблемами психического здоровья в Свердловской области: британский опыт" (4)
НИ В ЕКАТЕРИНБУРГЕ НИ В ОБЛАСТИ ТАКОМУ НЕ БЫВАТЬ, ПРИ НЫНЕШНЕМ УПОЛНЛОМОЧЕННОМ (1)
Report on the events organised by the European Court of Human Rights to commemorate the 10^th anniversary of the the adoption of Protocol 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms On 13 October 2008 in Strasbourg, France, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) organised two events to commemorate the 10^th anniversary of the adoption of Protocol 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention). This protocol reformed the Court into a single court to which individuals claiming to be victims of a violation of their rights under the Convention can apply. The two events were: (1) "Meeting with NGOs and applicants' representatives" and (2) "Seminar to mark the 10^th anniversary of entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms." The chief aim of both events was to stage an open, face-to-face debate with the judges of the Court and members of the Registry, and also with the academics. These discussions will enable the Court to take stock of the Court's activities over the last ten years, without complacency, so that the Court can contemplate the challenges ahead in a constructive fashion. Meeting with NGOs and applicants' representatives 38 representatives of NGOs from 47 member-states of the Council of Europe (no every member-state was represented, and some countries like Russia were represented by more then one NGO) took part in the Meeting with NGOs and applicants' representatives. Among represented NGOs were international human rights organizations (such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe) and regional (such as Kuridish Human Rights Project (UK), Bulgarian Lawyers for Human Rights (Bulgaria), Sutyajnik (Russia)). Most of the regional NGOs were from UK or Eastern European countries. Russian NGOs had the biggest number of the participants. The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) was represented by the President of the Court, Jean-Paul Costa and other judges of the Court, senior members of the Secretariat of the Courts. The meeting was in the form of short two presentations by judges of the Court, two presentations by representatives of NGOs as well as questions and answers. The presentations and questions and answers were focused on two main topics: the evolution of the right to individual petition and the evolution of the European human rights case-law. The meeting with the NGOs' representatives was opened by the President of the Court Jean-Paul Costa who stressed that "the European Court is on the edge of the brink." The crisis that the Court is experiencing at the moment is due to the Court's own success, continued the President of the Court, due to the trust of 800 million Europeans to bring individual petitions on violations of their rights before the Court. Another reason which worsens the crisis is the Russian Federation's refusal to ratify Protocol 14 to the Convention, which was aimed at reforming the Court to allow it to process individual applications more speedily. Jean-Paul Costa added: "We will not allow the rights to individual petition to kill itself." The measures which are intended to meet the challenges faced by the Court were discussed at the seminar which followed the meeting with NGOs' representatives. After the introductory speech by the President of the Court, James A. Goldston, Director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, and Laurent Pettiti, President of the Human Rights Committee, Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, gave general overview of the problems of procedure raised by the NGOs and applicants' representatives. Judges of the Court Francoise Tulkens and Lech Garlicki addressed concerns of judges of the Court. Issue raised by the judges concern the crisis situation of the Court. They will be reflected in the second part of this report. The core of the meeting consisted of questions by representatives of NGOs and answers to the questions by judges of the Court. The following issues were raised by NGO representatives, which partially reflected issues previously raised by James Goldston and Laurent Pettiti: 1. The need for broader access to the Court's case materials on the Court's web-cite (beyond decisions of admissibility and judgements on the merits). Erik Friberg, Secretary of the Registry of the Court, answered that the Court is looking into this issue, there will be broader access to case materials. However, there shall be given attention to the demands of the applicant who often do not want their cases be in the public domain. 2. Short time limit (6 weeks) for submission of third party (by NGOs) interventions. The time restraint could be partially lifted, was the reaction of the representative of the Court, but not to the large extent. 3. Better communication process at the pre-admissibility stage. NGOs' representatives highlighted the existence of unequal rights of the governments and representatives of applicants in submitting communications (memorandums), particularly there is a different time limit allowed for submissions by the governments and the applications' representatives. 4. Non-existence of clear criteria for the appointment of public hearing of cases was mentioned as well as lack of notifications about the forthcoming hearing. 5. Lack of information on reason for inadmissibility of applications decided by committees of three judges was mentioned. Participants were asking whether it is possible to give to applicants reasons for deciding against admissibility of applications in order to avoid repetition of mistakes. 6. Possibility of conducting communications with applicants' representatives by email was raised. It may increase the speed of the communication process as well as reduce the cost of the proceedings. 7. Possibility of rendering judgements obliging governments to publicly express apologies to an applicant for a particular committed human rights violation was discussed. Seminar to mark the 10^th anniversary of entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms The major topic discussed at the seminar was the much needed reform of the Court. The President of the Court Jean-Paul Costa started the meeting with NGO representatives and the seminar with the same massage - "the Court is on the edge of the brink," reforms are needed. The problem is that the Court, having become popular among the Europeans, is forced to deal with a big number of cases (applications), most of which are inadmissible, or repetitive cases (so-called clone cases) which could and should be dealt with by national legal systems. Instead of dealing with major human rights issues, the Court spends 95% of its time in dealing with inadmissibility issues and issues that national governments shall deal with. Partially Protocol 14 to the Convention was drafted in order to deal with situation of the case load of the Court. The Protocol 14 is aimed at improving independence of judges and restructuring the work of the Court in order to speed up the process of consideration of cases. However, since December 2006 the promulgation of the Protocol 14 is blocked by the Russian Federation (Russia is the only country out of 47 member-states of the Council of Europe which did not ratify Protocol 14). The current concern is that the administration of justice by the Court has to be reformed in the condition of lack of Protocol 14 in order to safe the right to individual petition. A number of measures are considered in order to remedy the situation. As of today all the cases coming to the Court have equal status. The Court is looking at establishing principles for filtering applications coming for consideration of the Court. This work has already started with reforming the Court's Registry. Special subdivision of the Registry was created which is responsible for priority consideration of some cases. The next step to deal with the excess of cases is to free the Court from consideration of repetitive indisputable cases (for example, cases on lack of execution of national court judgements). Such cases shall be a responsibility of national legal systems. Another tool that the Court has already started to use is so-called "pilot judgements." The Court considers only one (first) case of the kind and the rest similar cases directs to the responsible government to deal with the problem under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. When faced the problem of Russia blocking Protocol 14 which was supposed to reform the work of the Court, it became obvious that the procedure of reforming the Court itself shall be changed and made more flexible. There are suggestions of abandoning Protocols for introduction of procedural changes and adopting the Statute of the Court which would incorporate procedural issued. The provisions on material rights will be left to the Convention and Protocols thereto. Even if the Protocol 14 had been adopted in time (2006), still the reform of Protocol 14 would have come late. Even at the time of ratification process of Protocol 14 the Court needed more radical reforms, not to say of the today's situation. The solution of the problem is seen in adopting the Statute of the Court. The main idea of the Statute is to be able to make changes to the procedure of the work of the Court without engaging into a complicated and time consuming process of ratification of protocols to the Convention. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe will be introducing changes by way of issuing unanimous resolutions without introducing each time amendments in the Convention. In order to save the right to individual petition which in 50 years of its existence and 10 years of the existence of the "new" Court, the right to individual petition has to be partially limited by shifting responsibility in consideration of cases to national legal systems and by changing the functioning of the Court. It shall be reformed in order to reflect the need of dealing with the big number of cases coming before the Court. October 29, 2008 Anton Burkov PhD candidate in law University of Cambridge firstname.lastname@example.org 6 documents attached.
Поделиться в социальных сетях: