Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Reply to Recommendation
| Doc. 12801
| 30 November 2011
- Author(s):
- Committee of Ministers
- Origin
- adopted
at the 1127th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (23 November 2011) 2012 - First part-session
- Reply to Recommendation
- : Recommendation 1955
(2011)
- Thesaurus
1. The Committee of Ministers has carefully
examined
Recommendation
1955 (2011) of the Parliamentary Assembly and expresses its appreciation
of the interest the Assembly demonstrates in the Committee’s obligation
to fulfil as effectively as possible its mission under Article 46,
paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Committee
wishes from the outset to reiterate its conviction that “rapid and effective
execution of the Court’s judgments contributes to enhancing the
protection of human rights in member states and to the long-term
effectiveness of the European human rights protection system”.
Note
2. In particular, the Committee shares the Assembly’s view concerning
the importance of prioritising (paragraph 1.1). In this respect,
it recalls that the necessity of providing priority treatment for
the most important problems, in particular cases involving urgent
individual measures and those revealing systemic problems, has been
a constant concern in the Committee of Ministers’ practice, as reflected
in its Rules for the supervision of the execution of judgments and
of the terms of friendly settlements (Rule 4).
3. Prioritisation has recently been improved in important respects
in the context of the Interlaken process. In December 2010, the
Ministers’ Deputies adopted new working methods (1100th meeting)
introducing a new, twin-track approach to the Committee’s supervision
function. The “enhanced” supervision procedure set out in this new
approach covers urgent individual measures, pilot judgments, judgments
disclosing major structural or complex problems as identified by
the Court or the Committee of Ministers, in a manner which reflects
the concerns expressed by the Assembly in its recommendation.
4. Having regard to the recommendation contained in paragraph
1.2, to the effect that the Committee of Ministers should “induce
states…with structural problems to provide comprehensive strategies
which outline a clear and detailed approach to executing Court judgments
through action of all national actors concerned, co-ordinated at
the highest political level”, the Committee recalls that its supervision
has over the last years increasingly been based on action plans
(see notably Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)2 on efficient domestic capacity
for rapid execution of judgments of the Court). Moreover, the new
working methods mentioned above fully integrate the necessity to
draw up such plans or, where measures have been adopted, action
reports. The kind of strategies referred to in the Assembly’s recommendation
are thus today regularly included in the action plans received by
the Committee of Ministers in cases revealing major structural problems.
5. In its action plan, a respondent state will typically, in
accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and the state’s margin
of appreciation as regards the means of execution, indicate to the
Committee of Ministers the strategies adopted and the concrete actions
it intends to take to meet its obligations under Article 46, i.e.adopted
at the 1127th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (23 November 2011)
restore the applicant to his or her rights and to avoid other violations
of the same kind. The authorities will then regularly inform the Committee
of the progress made in the fulfilment of the plan and eventually
submit an action report so that the Committee may satisfy itself
that all necessary action has been taken.
6. As regards systemic problems, it should also be noted that
the Department for the execution of judgments of the European Court
of Human Rights has, in co-operation with States Parties, developed
a range of co-operation activities designed to assist respondent
states in identifying and adopting measures to overcome such problems.
These activities include legislative advice, high-level consultations,
training activities and the sharing of good practice through round
tables with the participation of states having, or having had, similar
problems. The Assembly may wish to note the important financial
contribution of the Human Rights Trust Fund to the effective carrying
out of such activities.
7. With regard to the question of domestic mechanisms mentioned
in paragraph 1.3 of the recommendation, the Committee refers the
Assembly to the series of recommendations adopted since 2000 to
assist states, and in particular to Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)2
on efficient domestic capacity for rapid execution of judgments
of the European Court of Human Rights, adopted in February 2008.
These texts contain, besides general recommendations regarding the
implementation of the Convention, specific recommendations to assist
states in rendering the domestic execution process as efficient
as possible. The implementation of these recommendations is regularly
followed up in the context of the Committee of Ministers’ supervision
of execution. The Committee recalls in particular in this context
that it has, like the Assembly, stressed the importance of co-ordinating
efforts at high political levels.
8. The Committee of Ministers has considered the last two recommendations
(paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5) in particular in the context of the efforts
to guarantee the long-term effectiveness of the Convention system.
They continue to be significant considerations for the regular supervision
of execution. The Committee of Ministers recalls in this context
the recent important addition to the means at its disposal provided
by the entry into force of Protocol No. 14 on 1 June 2010.
