Call for Authors for Book Project ''Intersectional Rewrites: ECtHR Judgments Reimagined''

We had not yet reported on it here, but last month a call for authors was issued for the book project ''Intersectional Rewrites: European Court of Human Rights Judgments Reimagined''. The book project aims to analyze and rewrite judgments of the European Court of Human Rights from an intersectional perspective. 

Here is a description of the project and the call for authors:

''We are inviting proposals to contribute to an edited book, “Intersectional Rewrites: European Court of Human Rights Judgments Reimagined”. In this book, authors will offer their own versions of impactful decisions from the European Court of Human Rights from an intersectional perspective.

The Intersectional Rewrites Project

The European Court of Human Rights often fails to recognise the complexity of compounded harms people experience as a result of multiple marginalisation. “Intersectional Rewrites” imagines a jurisprudence that takes account of the social, economic, and political conditions significant to the lives of people who are multiply marginalised. The book aims to contribute to a broader endeavour of critical rewrites (such as the feminist judgments projects) through an exclusive focus on the critical paradigm of intersectionality. We are currently in conversation with several major publishers to secure the best distribution for our intended audience, and to realise open access.

An Intersectional Perspective

By “intersectional perspective” we mean drawing on Black feminist and critical race theory insights that highlight the significance of multiple and mutually influencing vectors of social division such as gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion, ability, and nationality. In this project, intersectionality serves as a lens to make visible and legible the harms that arise from multiple marginalisation within the context of a European jurisprudence of human rights.

Authors

We are seeking submissions from a diverse group of scholars, researchers, practitioners, activists, and advocates, interested in drawing on their expertise on intersectionality to analyse and rewrite the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. “Intersectional Rewrites” will present 15 reimagined recent judgments from the Court selected from case law since 2020 that cover a wide range of European countries, legal fields, intersecting identities, and harms. In order to support a diverse group of contributors we are offering a modest honorarium of 500 euro to those who engage in this work outside of a salaried position.

Contributions

Authors will be invited to develop a chapter for “Intersectional Rewrites”, which will have a 5000-7000 word limit to be written in the style of the ECtHR. The core of the rewrite will centre on a reimagining of key passages from the original judgment, and will include a statement of the facts, violations of the Convention, and the conclusions. Rewrites will include a maximum 1000-word reflection from the authors as to their approach, salient considerations, and reflection on choices made in the reimagined judgment.

Process and Timeline

We are aiming to have the community of writers composed by 30 June 2023.

Authors will be invited to a 2-day workshop in the Netherlands in February 2024 to discuss first drafts of their chapters. First drafts are expected to be shared at the beginning of 2024. We will also organise an introductory Zoom meeting to talk about the Intersectional Rewrites project with all the contributors after which draft proposals for a rewrite should be shared.''

Expressions of interest can be made by filling out the form available here. The deadline is 31 May. 

New Report on Freedom of Artistic Expression in Europe

The Council of Europe has published a new report, authored by Sarah Whyatt, on the freedom of artistic expression in Europe, entitled Free to create: artistic freedom in Europe. it includes an overview of the state of artistic freedom in Europe ass well as an overview of global and ECHR standards and a discussion of several topical issues, ranging from the status of artists to self-censorship. This is the abstract:

'“With democracy under great pressure, the key role of arts and culture as powerful means for maintaining constructive dialogue in democratic, diverse and open societies becomes ever more evident. The right to freedom of artistic expression is a key to this and ensures the pluralism and vitality of the democratic process.” - Secretary General Marija Pejčinović Burić)

This report gives a comprehensive overview of the challenges that European artists and cultural workers face in the practice of their right to freedom of artistic expression. These range from laws that curtail creative freedom, attacks from nongovernmental groups and online threats to the “under-theradar” pressures that contribute to self-censorship.

It reflects the work carried out by the Council of Europe, other international intergovernmental organisations promoting freedom of expression and human rights, and non-governmental, civil society and cultural organisations concerned with artists’ and cultural rights, as well as the experiences and perspectives of artists. It concludes with recommendations on what can be done to protect artistic freedom, by international institutions such as the Council of Europe and by the cultural sector and artists themselves.'

The Reykjavik Summit and Declaration

Long-awaited, the fourth ever Council of Europe Summit has been taking place yesterday and today in Reykjavik's Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre. As the Council itself called it, "[a]n historic opportunity for the Council of Europe to refocus its mission, in the light of new threats to democracy and human rights, and to support Ukraine." 

The rhetorical question, both before and after the Summit, remains: has this historical opportunity been seized? It is, for one, palpably clear that the Council of Europe has become a less central player in what has been called "the very crowded marketplace of European institutions" and that summits like this risk being nothing more than a "diplomatic sugar rush". This is both a long-term development and a short-term one. 

Long-term in the sense that with the waves of enlargement of the European Union, 'Strasbourg' has become much less central to the concerns and interests of now more than half of the Council of Europe's member states, the important progress in the accession of the EU to the ECHR talks notwithstanding. 

Short-term in the light of French President Macron's quixotic initiative of a European Political Community launched last year and followed up this year, with an almost complete overlap in membership with the Council of Europe. Ironically, at the same time, the Council's main mission of promotion and protection of the rule of law, democracy and human rights - and this is almost a trope by now - has become more urgent then ever, both in the face of renewed war in Europe and backsliding developments in quite a few of its member states.

With the city centre partly closed off for traffic and Icelandic airspace patrolled by the British Air Force, Iceland for less than 24 hours was a virtual fortress in the Atlantic. While for some heads of state or government, this was a good opportunity to show European unity, most clearly in the face of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, for others it was a mere podium to try and tackle domestic concerns. An example of the latter is UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak rather in vain trying to get backing for his Rwanda agreement style policies to tackle illegal migration. This, by the way, received a rather cold response in the Icelandic capital, especially on the point of trying to reform the ECHR system to fit this specific domestic political need.

Beforehand, the calls for what was needed for the Council of Europe, on which we reported here and here, were not exactly matched by expectations of what the Summit would actually produce. To give a last minute boost, just before the start of the Summit, Amnesty International in a piece on Politico argued for the need to match words with actions. In other words, to go beyond another lofty Declaration. Looking at it as it happened, the Summit seems to have been more of a symbolic, yet still important, showing of unity (and even that not entirely) but not so much more. 

The outcome is a Reykjavik Declaration entitled 'United around our values'. It revolves around the dual aim of the Summit, namely to stand united against Russia's war on Ukraine and to establish clearer priorities and direction to the work of the Council of Europe as an organization. 

On the first aim, the Summit can indeed be seen as a reflection of unity, but also a little bit more. The member states do not only call for Russia's withdrawal from Ukraine but also from Moldova and Georgia. And one of the very few concrete results coming out of the Summit being the creation of a registry of damages caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine (see for more background here). It is meant to be the first step in a future international comprehensive compensation mechanism. Next to all the endeavours undertaken elsewhere in terms of criminal law and accountability, this can be seen as a complementary effort to prepare for reparations for all those suffering from the violations of human rights and international law in the current war.

On the second aim, as expected at least in wording, the states reaffirm their "deep and abiding commitment" to the ECHR and the European Court of Human Rights. One could say that the states have tried, again at least in words and accompanied by hopefully some action, to strengthen the three core values of the Council of Europe: human rights, the rule of law and democracy. 

First, human rights by "re-doubling" their own efforts to take their obligations under the ECHR system seriously, including. most eminently in the implementation of the Court's judgments. A whole appendix is dedicated to this, entitled "Recommitting to the Convention System as the cornerstone of the Council of Europe’s protection of human rights”. Equally, the strengthening the office of the Commissioner for Human Rights is mentioned. 

As to the Court, the states recognise that it does not have sufficient (financial) means to do its work effectively, as the Court had itself indicated in the run-up to the summit, and promise to "[e]nsure the allocation of sufficient and sustainable resources to enable the Court to exercise its judicial functions effectively and to deal with its workload expeditiously." The devil is in the details of course, as this does not clarify the eternal discussion whether more funding for the Court should be budget-neutral and thus go at the detriment of other work of the Council of Europe or whether the states are truly committed to put their money where their mouth is and increase substantially the funding for the Court. Whether this will happen will become clear only in the future budgets of the Council of Europe, and the states have given no clear sign that they are prepared to substantively raise their structural contributions. This key issue has thus not been solved in Iceland.

Secondly, the rule of law by strengthening the visibility and work of the Venice Commission, including its rule of law checklist.

And thirdly, democracy, through the new "Reykjavík Principles for Democracy" - a much needed impetus for the third value pillar of the Council of Europe on which it has traditionally spent the least means but whose fragility can no longer be ignored. The Principles read as a summary guidebook of what political scientists would call deep or high-quality democracy. Democracy as more than just elections, in other words, but also including broad participation, free media and a vibrant civil society.

But the prioritisation has only gone so far, as readers of the Declaration will also discover a host of other topics on which the member states want the Council of Europe to work, most pre-eminently the environment (on which more action is promised and may follow in the coming years, also in terms of standard-setting), but also social justice, gender equality, protection of children, modern information technologies, and much more. A so-called Reykjavik process should make the environment a "visible priority" of the organisation. 

In a nutshell, the states have not really made choices, but seemingly only added new priorities - in the age-old discussion between states in favour of the Council only focusing on its three core goals in a narrow way and those seeing a much broader role for the organisation, the latter group seems to have prevailed once again. There is something in this declaration for (almost) everybody, but without a clear sustained effort to fund all these 'priorities'.

Only history will tell if the Icelandic Summit was a new breath of life for the Strasbourg institutions - in the words of the Council of Europe's Secretary General Marija Pejčinović Burić at the Summit potentially reflecting a reconfirmed determination to democratic reconquest (my translation of her words spoken in French) - or just a nice photo opportunity for politicians. In the face of the seriousness of democratic and rule of law backsliding and the threats to human rights protection, one may strongly hope the Secretary General will be right, but hard work and political and financial  commitment is crucial to get there.

New Thematic Factsheet on Execution of ECHR Judgments Concerning Life Imprisonment

The Council of Europe's Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights has issued a new thematic factsheet on the execution of ECHR judgments concerning life imprisonment. Here is a brief description:

''The European Court has noted that, although the European Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit the imposition of a life sentence on persons convicted of especially serious crimes, in order for the sentence to be compatible with Article 3 of the Convention, it must be reducible de jure and de facto. This means that there must be both a prospect of release for the prisoner and a possibility of review. The basis of such review must extend to assessing whether there are legitimate penological grounds for the continuing incarceration of the prisoner. In this regard, the importance of assessing the progress made by prisoners towards rehabilitation is underlined, since it is here that the emphasis of European penal policy now lies, as reflected in the practice of the contracting States. 

Under the Court’s case-law, the criteria and conditions laid down in domestic law that pertain to the review must have a sufficient degree of clarity and certainty. Prisoners who receive a full life sentence are entitled to know from the outset what they must do in order to be considered for release and under what conditions. The Court has noted clear support in the relevant comparative and international materials for an initial review no later than twenty-five years after the imposition of sentence, with periodic reviews thereafter. 

The present Thematic Factsheet provides examples of general and individual measures reported by States in the context of the execution of the European Court’s judgments, focusing on the following specific issues relating to life sentences: review mechanisms; conditions of detention; risk of irreducible life sentences in cases of extradition; the right to respect for family life and correspondence; and legal remedies to challenge length of criminal proceedings and lawfulness of detention.''

Event: 'The Concept of Europe: Progress, Colonial Continuities, and the ECHR'

On 16 May from 13:00-14:00, the Centre for European Law and Internationalisation of the University of Leicester is organizing an online event entitled ''The concept of Europe: Progress, colonial continuities, and the European Convention on Human Rights''. During the event, Dr Jens T Theilen (Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg) will give a presentation on the meaning of the references to 'Europe' in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Here is a description of the event:

'Debates on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are awash with references to Europe, from early invocations of the ‘concept of Europe’ by Pierre-Henri Teitgen, via the idea of the ECHR as a constitutional instrument of the ‘European’ public order, to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as the ‘conscience of Europe’. Yet these references to Europe have gone largely unanalysed in academic commentary. In this presentation, I will argue that they build on the time-space of European colonialism, positing Europe as a progressive space that is hierarchically superior to non-European territories, ostensibly lagging behind Europe in civilizational terms.

I trace the ‘concept of Europe’ from early debates on the need for a specifically European human rights instrument to three areas that remain relevant to the present day: questions of territorial applicability, especially but not exclusively the so-called ‘colonial clause’ (Art. 56 ECHR); doctrinal figures developed by the ECtHR, particularly the ‘European consensus’ argument associated with the margin of appreciation; and, finally, academic and policy debates on the position of the ECHR in relation to regions outside of Europe, and of the ECtHR in relation to other human rights bodies. My claim will be that the sense of European ownership of human rights and the localization of progress as European shines through in each of these areas, and hence that the time-space of colonialism is constitutive of European identity as expressed within human rights law. In closing, I will consider the broader implications of this claim for the ECHR and what it might mean to move towards a different ‘concept of Europe’.'

New ECHR Readings

Please find below a new selection of academic readings on the European Convention of Human Rights and its Court:

* Tobias Mortier, ‘Reprehensible or Legitimate Aims? A Proposal for a New Approach to Article 18 ECHR in Light of its Predominance Test’, European Convention on Human Rights Law Review (2023):

‘The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, Court) finds a violation of Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (echr) if the respondent authorities simultaneously pursued both a legitimate and hidden aim (plurality of aims), provided that the latter was the predominant one. The Court establishes this predominance by considering the ‘nature and degree of reprehensibility’ of the hidden aim. I argue that this reprehensibility criterion has not been applied in a consistent manner, resulting in unpredictability as to the true meaning behind it. The Court either interprets this as an assessment of contextual factors or as an impact assessment, and sometimes even applies it in the absence of a plurality of aims. This article points out the flaws in these different interpretations and formulates recommendations in order to determine where these interpretations would be most aptly applied under Article 18; the former under the predominance test, the latter as a new threshold criterion.’

* Rosanne van Alebeek, Larissa van den Herik, and Cedric Ryngaert, ‘Prosecuting Russian Officials for the Crime of Aggression: What About Immunities?’, European Convention on Human Rights Law Review (2023), editorial.

* Matti Muukkonen, 'Finnish Student Unions as Associations in the Context of ECHR Article 11', Nordic Journal of Human Rights (2023):

‘This study examines the applicability of article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to Finnish student unions. In Finland, student unions have not traditionally been regarded as associations within the context of the convention, based on certain old inadmissibility decisions made by the European Commission of Human Rights. Based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, this study shows that, despite its wording, the Convention also protects negative freedom of association – the right not to belong. Methodologically, this is a legal dogmatic study that examines the case law, particularly in terms of the criteria by which it excludes or includes some communities from its scope. The conclusion is that, if the case of compulsory membership of student unions is debated in the Court of Human Rights, student unions cannot be considered public institutions, to which article 11 ECHR has not been applicable, but should be treated as associations. This, in turn, implies that compulsory student union membership can be criticised from the perspectives of both national law and the Convention.’

* Cornelia Klocker and Deborah Casalin, ‘Discriminatory practices in armed conflict contexts: exploring (parallel) proceedings under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination’, The International Journal of Human Rights (2023): 

‘This article examines the approach of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to claims of discriminatory practices linked to armed conflict, as well as the more recent development of overlapping or parallel interstate claims before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the interstate procedure of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), based on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). It examines the potential implications of the latter trend for the application and interpretation of non-discrimination norms, and concludes that this should encourage the ECtHR once again towards application and explicit interpretation of Article 14 in armed conflict contexts. Such an approach would recognise the gravity of any discriminatory dimensions of conflict practices; ensure consistency with the ECtHR’s own evolving case law on discriminatory violence; and facilitate harmonious interpretation of non-discrimination norms, as well as the ECtHR’s autonomous interpretation of the ECHR and participation in judicial dialogue on concepts common to the ECHR and ICERD.’

* Heidi Nichols Haddad and Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom, ‘Foreign agents or agents of justice? Private foundations, backlash against non-governmental organizations, and international human rights litigation’, Law and Society Review (2023):

‘The premise of Russia's 2012 “Foreign Agents” Law, one of the first such laws restricting foreign funding for non-governmental organizations (NGOs), is that foreign monies equal foreign agendas. Since then, over 50 countries have adopted similar laws using a similar justification. This paper interrogates this claim of foreign donor influence through examining legal mobilization by human rights NGOs at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). We track donor support for litigation by providing an overview of all foundation grant flows relating to strategic litigation for 2013–2014, and then matching the granting activities of two major U.S. foundations over 14 years to human rights NGO participation in cases before the ECtHR. Further, through case studies of Russian NGOs, we assess the causal role that donor support has played in facilitating their increased involvement in ECtHR litigation. The combined analysis indicates broad patterns of private foundation support to litigating NGOs, but uncovers no evidence that foreign donors were “pushing” NGOs toward litigation as a strategy, but instead more evidence suggesting that NGOs convinced donors to support human rights litigation. Despite the inaccuracy of the justification underpinning Russia's foreign agent law, the law threatens the survival of human rights organizations.’

* Rebekah McWhirter and Martin Clark, ‘Expertise, Public Health and the European Convention on Human Rights: Vavřička v Czech Republic’, Modern Law Review (2023):

‘In Vavřička v Czech Republic, the European Court of Human Rights held that the Czech Republic's childhood vaccination policy did not contravene the Article 8 right to private life. This note presents a rhetorical and contextual analysis of the Court's engagement with questions of expertise. The majority's application of a wide margin of appreciation avoided grappling with the details of scientific and medical authority, as much as the political challenges raised by the application. We conclude by considering the wider context and limits of rights-based approaches to global public health.’

It Takes More than Two to Execute ECHR judgments

By Nikolaos Sitaropoulos*

Introduction

In early April this year the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (CM) issued its 2022 Annual Report on the execution of ECHR judgments (the annual report). As usual, this report did not hit national or European media headlines, although it refers to fundamental issues concerning rule of law, democracy and human rights in European states.

The Secretary General of the Council of Europe underlined this in her statement that accompanied this time the publication of the annual report. Noting the essential role played by execution of court rulings in the rule of law context, and the positive impact of ECHR on human lives in Europe over the years, she added that “[i]n order for this positive impact to continue, our member states must demonstrate the political will to implement judgments fully and consistently." This is also one the major issues that a number of stakeholders have proposed to be on the table of the forthcoming 4^th Summit of the Council of Europe (e.g. PACE Recommendation 2245 (2023) on The Reykjavik Summit).

Below an attempt is made to provide an overview of the major challenges states are faced with in the context of execution. They concern primarily their capacity to act promptly to ensure full and effective execution of ECHR judgments, a number of long-lasting challenges arising out of certain major, structural and/or complex human rights problems, and the need to further enhance the participatory character of execution at national level, engaging proactively with major national stakeholders such as parliaments, NHRIs and civil society organisations.

 

Challenges related to states’ capacity to execute promptly and effectively ECHR judgments

The data contained in the annual report clearly indicate that, although member states, under the principle of subsidiarity now enshrined in the preamble of ECHR, “have the primary responsibility to secure the rights and freedoms defined in this Convention”, the capacity of many of them to execute promptly and effectively the ECHR judgments remains feeble.

The annual report highlights that there has been a continuing rise of new judgments transmitted to the CM from the Court. In 2021 there was a 40% increase and in 2022 an additional one of 6%. This additional caseload pressure on the CM and on respondent states is arguably reflected on the fact that as of end 2022 there was a record number of 2,257 cases on which on information on payment of just satisfaction awarded by the European Court was not submitted to the CM by respondent states (1,847 of these cases concerned five states: Hungary, Romania, Russia, Türkiye and Ukraine). Also, in 2022 there was a delay by a large number of states in the submission of action plans or reports, which are due six months after the finality of ECHR judgments. Thus, a record number of 92 “reminder letters” were sent to 17 states by the Department for the Execution of ECHR Judgments which assists and advises the CM in its function of supervising execution.

Moreover, another record number of 11 leading cases/groups of cases concerning seven states were transferred the same year from standard to enhanced supervision. According to  the CM working methods, in enhanced supervision are placed, in principle, cases requiring urgent individual measures, pilot, structural/complex issues related judgments, and inter-state cases. 

Such “trigger ups” may also occur in practice if there exist other indications, such as slowness in execution, showing that the execution of a judgment requires the CM’s particular attention, notably through examination of this case in one of the four CM Human Rights meetings in Strasbourg, and reinforced dialogue with and support (through Council of Europe expertise) to the national authorities concerned.

It is also worthy to be noted that the number of leading cases, that is, cases which in principle require the adoption of general measures to prevent similar violations, despite many closures every year, remained relatively high in 2022: 1,299 (compared to 1,300 in 2021 and 1,258 in 2020). What is of particular and continuing concern in this context is that the main themes of leading cases under enhanced supervision (cf. section E.5 of the annual report) remain, more or less, unchanged for many years. They include, among others, actions of security forces (related primarily to ill-treatment and ineffective investigations), conditions of detention, length of judicial proceedings, enforcement of domestic judicial decisions, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association. It is to be noted that the first theme concerning actions of security forces remains the bulkiest one among the leading cases under enhanced supervision for many years (12% in 2022 and 2021, while, ten years ago, in the 2013 CM annual report the relevant percentage was 16%). There is no doubt that the above themes are cross-cutting country-wise and are often of a structural and/or complex nature requiring particular attention and action by respondent states and the CM.

This situation has not gone unnoticed by the CM which, especially since the early 2000s, has adopted and issued a number of recommendations in order to enhance states’ capacity to respond and execute effectively ECHR judgments, and embed the European Court’s case-law in their legal systems. In September 2022 the CM adopted a useful set of Guidelines on the prevention and remedying of ECHR violations. The CM underlined therein that despite the progress achieved at national level,  “the Convention system continues to face significant and enduring challenges, including delays at different stages of its functioning, the persistence of serious or widespread violations, systemic and structural problems in the member States”. It  strongly encouraged national decision makers to take the ECHR requirements more proactively into account. It stressed that such proactive attitude should involve in particular the development of parliamentary, executive and judicial capacity in order to incorporate the European Court’s case-law in the national legal systems.

Particularly noteworthy is that the 2022 CM Guidelines highlighted not only the pivotal role and responsibilities of the respondent States but also the fact that the execution involves many more important stakeholders at national level with whom national authorities need to synergise to achieve prompt and effective execution of ECHR judgments. Thus, the Guidelines stressed the need for member states to enhance support to national co-ordinators/co-ordinating structures, through more resources, status/authority and capacity-building so that action plans are timely prepared and they achieve notably the resolution of structural or complex problems, such as those noted above.

It takes though many more to effectively execute ECHR judgments that pertain notably to structural/complex human rights issues. As stressed by Rosalyn Higgins in one of the early and then rare publications on execution concerning such issues (1978 RevHellDI, 39), “the question of execution of decisions of the organs of the [ECHR] is a subtle and complex matter, going beyond legal formalism”.

One of the major national stakeholders in this context is national parliaments which often have to adopt new legislation in response to leading ECHR judgments requiring adoption of general measures. It is thus logical that the above Guidelines underlined the need for national MPs and parliamentary legal staff to enhance their knowledge of the ECHR system and the case-law of the Court.  Secondly, and importantly, states are encouraged to further develop parliamentary mechanisms and procedures for the effective control of the execution of ECHR judgments. In a similar vein, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly in its recent Resolution  2494 (2023) on Implementation of ECHR judgments,  called on “human rights or constitutional committees of national parliaments to engage in monitoring the implementation of the Court’s judgments, including through taking a pro-active role in finding solutions to potential frictions with the Court, by proposing necessary legislative reforms”.

There is nonetheless much more  that states can and should do in order to have a “wide national dialogue to discuss matters related to the national implementation of the Convention”. As underlined also by the CM 2022 Guidelines, there is also a need for states to strengthen and engage with NHRIs, relevant civil society organisations (CSOs) and representatives of legal professions when implementing the Convention, given their rich expertise. As regards in particular the process of execution of ECHR judgments, this engagement should also take place “at the earliest possible stage” when draft laws and policy strategies are under consideration by respondent states.

The significance of participation in the execution process of NHRIs and CSOs had been highlighted by the CM already in 2006 when for the first time the CM Rules allowed the submission by NHRIs and CSOs of communications to the CM on the execution of ECHR judgments. Over the years, such communications have proven to be of particular value to the CM and have helped it have a more comprehensive picture of the human rights issues it examines. The NHRIs and CSOs’ communications have increased over the last years: from 47 in 2011 they reached 217 in 2022. However, the vast majority originate in CSOs, the NHRIs’ submissions remaining low (17 in 2022 and 11 in 2021). The enhancement of NHRIs’ engagement in the execution process is thus an important issue linked also to states’ national capacity, given the important human rights advisory role vis-à-vis national authorities that these institutions play.

Conclusion

When the 2012 Brighton Declaration proposed the inclusion of the principle of subsidiarity in the preamble of ECHR, it also recalled the states’ obligation and commitment to secure the human rights enshrined therein (cf. Explanatory Report to Protocol No 15 to ECHR). Indeed, the execution of ECHR judgments takes place “at home” and not in Strasbourg where only the supervision of execution happens. When structural or complex problems at national level arise, the execution process is certainly also complex and takes more than two (the respondent government and the CM) “to tango”. It requires the synergies of all the above-mentioned major national stakeholders.

The Council of Europe provides a wide range of cooperation projects to member states in this context and many of them have been benefiting therefrom for decades now. However, if lacunae persist in the national process of implementation of the Convention, including the execution of ECHR judgments, such lacunae are bound to affect and be reflected on the supervisory system itself which has been set up. The 2022 annual report provides a clear picture of these challenges, and the 2022 CM Guidelines propose a wealth of advice to member states on which the latter may draw in order to further reinforce their capacity to execute the ECHR judgments. To this end, political will is key. The 4^th Summit of the Council of Europe on 16-17 May provides another opportunity for member states to demonstrate that they have this will and say their own “yes we can”.

*The author is head of division in the Department for the execution of ECHR judgments, Council of Europe. All views expressed are strictly personal.

Webinar on Better Cooperation within the Council of Europe Institutions

On 9 May, from 12:00-14:00 (CET) SWPS University, Riga Graduate School of Law and the University of Cologne are organizing a webinar on better cooperation within the Council of Europe Institutions. Professor Konstantsin Dzehtsiarou (University of Liverpool), Dr Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias (Institute of Legal Studies of the Polish Academy of Science) and Dr Nikos Vogiatzis (University of Essex) will be speaking at the event. The event will be moderated by professor Adam Bodnar (SWPS University). 

This webinar is the third of the ''Road to Reykjavik. Chances and Challenges to the Council of Europe'' webinar series. As the Council of Europe is preparing for the 4th Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State and Government in Reykjavik in May this year, these webinar series discuss some pressing issues facing the Council of Europe. 

Here is a description of the webinar:

''The two meetings of the "Road to Reykjavik" webinar series in anticipation of the Council of Europe’s 4th Summit of Heads of State and Government in Reykjavik so far have focused on the momentous role of the European Court of Human Rights and its potential role in trying to judge Russian crimes in Ukraine. During the third meeting on 9 May from 13:00 – 14:40 (Riga time), we will reflect on the possibilities of deepening cooperation, as well as building a coherent message within the Council of Europe institutions.

As well as attempting to further discuss the challenges that have emerged with the fundamental change in the global political situation and the crisis of the previous security policy, the third webinar is also a follow-up to the issues identified during the two previous meetings. It was during these that voices and questions emerged regarding the deepening of cooperation between specific Council of Europe bodies and institutions.''

You can register here. 

New Romanian Judge Elected

Last week, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) elected Sebastian Răduleţu as judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Romania. He will succeed judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc.

In a tight race, Mr Răduleţu obtained a majority of votes cast and was elected judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years. In Romania, he is currently a practising lawyer as well as a professor at the Law Faculty of the University of Craiova. He is closely familiar with procedures before the European Court, both having worked within its registry in the past, as well as having  represented several applicants before the Court in cases against Romania, and having taught on the ECHR. He also has particular expertise in domestic, European and international criminal law. His experience and expertise, as a practising lawyer, thus complement the current composition of the Court. Good luck to the newly elected judge!

New Special Issue European Human Rights Law Review

A new Special Issue of the European Human Rights Law Review entitled 'The Road to Reykjavik and Beyond' has just been published (Issue 2, 2023). The contributions discuss various issues to be considered at the upcoming Council of Europe Summit in Reykjavik in May, such as the implementation and execution of ECtHR judgments, the function and value of infringement proceedings under article 46 of the Convention, and the shrinking space available for civil society.

These are the contents of the issue:

* Alice Donald and Philip Leach, 'Responding to seismic change in Europe - the road to Reykjavik and beyond'

* Robert Spano, 'Inclusive democracy and the European Convention on Human Rights'

* Jeremy McBride, 'Protecting and engaging with civil society: a challenge for the Council of Europe'

* Nils Muižnieks and Rita Patrício, 'Using the summit to breathe new life into the Council of Europe'

* George Stafford, 'The urgent reforms needed to improve the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights'

* Helen Keller and Viktoriya Gurash, '"Upping the ante": rethinking the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights'

* Başak Çalı, 'The present and the future of infringement proceedings: lessons learned from Kavala v Turkiye'

* Nuala Mole, 'The Council of Europe and violence against women - past, present and future'