Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
- Author(s):
- Parliamentary Assembly
- Origin
- Assembly
debate on 26 January 2021 (3rd Sitting) (see Doc. 15123 and addendum, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human
Rights, rapporteur: Mr Constantinos Efstathiou). Text adopted by the Assembly on
26 January 2021 (3rd Sitting).See also Recommendation 2193 (2021).
1. Although primary responsibility
for supervision of the implementation of judgments of the European Court
of Human Rights (“the Court”) lies with the Committee of Ministers
in accordance with Article 46.2 of the European Convention on Human
Rights (ETS No. 5, “the Convention”), signed nearly seventy years
ago, the Parliamentary Assembly has significantly contributed to
this process since its
Resolution
1226 (2000) on the execution of judgments of the European
Court of Human Rights, as stressed in its
Resolution 2277 (2019) entitled
“Role and mission of the Parliamentary Assembly: main challenges
for the future”.
2. The Assembly recalls in particular its
Resolutions 2178 (2017),
2075 (2015),
1787 (2011),
1516 (2006) and
Recommendations 2110 (2017) and
2079 (2015) on the
implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights,
in which it promoted national parliaments’ involvement in this process.
It also recalls that the implementation of a Court judgment, required
by Article 46.2 of the Convention, may relate not only to the payment
of just satisfaction awarded by the Court, but also to the adoption
of other individual measures (aimed at
restitutio
in integrum for applicants) and/or general measures (aimed
at preventing fresh violations of the Convention).
3. Since last examining this question in 2017, the Assembly notes
further progress in the implementation of Court judgments, notably
a constant reduction in the number of judgments pending before the
Committee of Ministers (5 231 at the end of 2019) and the adoption
of individual and general measures in many complex cases that are
still pending. This shows the efficiency of the reform of the Convention
system started in 2010 after the High-Level Conference on the future
of the European Court of Human Rights in Interlaken and the impact
of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention (CETS No. 194), which entered
into force in June 2010, in response to the extremely critical situation
of the Court and over 10 000 judgments pending before the Committee
of Ministers at that time. The Assembly welcomes the measures taken
by the Committee of Ministers to make its supervision of the implementation
of Court judgments more efficient, and the synergies that have been
developed in this context within the Council of Europe as well as
between its bodies and national authorities.
4. However, the Assembly remains deeply concerned over the number
of cases revealing structural problems that have been pending before
the Committee of Ministers for more than five years. The number
of such cases has only slightly decreased over the last three years.
The Assembly also notes that the Russian Federation (including illegally
annexed Crimea and temporarily occupied territories of the Donetsk
and Luhansk regions), Turkey, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Italy,
Greece, the Republic of Moldova, Azerbaijan and Bulgaria have the
highest number of non-implemented Court judgments and still face
serious structural or complex problems, some of which have remained
unresolved for over ten years. This might be due to deeply rooted
problems such as persistent prejudice against certain groups in
society, inadequate management at national level, a lack of necessary
resources or political will or even open disagreement with the Court’s judgment.
5. The Assembly is particularly concerned by the increasing legal
and political difficulties surrounding the implementation of the
Court’s judgments and notes that any national legislative or administrative
measure cannot add further obstacles to this process. The Assembly
stresses that member States are not entitled to legitimise the possibility
of not implementing the Court’s decisions.
6. The Assembly further expresses its concern about the obstacles
to the implementation of the Court’s judgments delivered in inter-State
cases or showing inter-State features. It calls on all States Parties
to the Convention involved in the process of implementation of such
judgments not to hinder this process and to fully co-operate with
the Committee of Ministers.
7. The Assembly once again condemns the delays in implementing
the Court’s judgments and recalls that the legal obligation for
the States Parties to the Convention to implement the Court’s judgments
is binding on all branches of State authority and cannot be avoided
through the invocation of technical problems or obstacles which
are due, in particular, to the lack of political will, lack of resources
or changes in national legislation, including the constitution.
8. Thus, almost seventy years after the signing of the Convention,
the Assembly invites all States Parties to the Convention to reaffirm
their primordial commitment to the protection and promotion of human
rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular though full, effective
and swift implementation of the judgments and the terms of friendly
settlements handed down by the Court. For this purpose, it strongly
calls on States Parties to the Convention to:
8.1 co-operate, to that end, with the Committee of Ministers,
the Court and the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the
European Court of Human Rights, as well as with other relevant Council of
Europe bodies;
8.2 submit action plans, action reports and information on
the payment of just satisfaction to the Committee of Ministers in
a timely manner; and to provide replies to submissions made by applicants, national
institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (NHRIs)
and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) under Rule 9 of the Rules
of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution
of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements;
8.3 provide for effective domestic remedies to address violations
of the Convention;
8.4 pay particular attention to cases raising structural or
complex problems identified by the Court or the Committee of Ministers,
especially those pending for over ten years;
8.5 not adopt laws or other measures that would hinder the
process of implementation of the Court’s judgments;
8.6 take into account the relevant opinions of the European
Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) when taking
measures aimed at implementing the Court’s judgments;
8.7 provide sufficient resources to relevant Council of Europe
bodies and national stakeholders responsible for implementing Court
judgments, including government agents’ offices, and encourage them
to co-ordinate their work in this area;
8.8 strengthen the role of civil society and NHRIs in the
process of implementing the Court’s judgments;
8.9 condemn statements discrediting the Court’s authority
and attacks against government agents working for the implementation
of the Court’s judgments and NGOs working for the promotion and
the protection of human rights.
9. In light of the Venice Commission’s Opinion No. 981/2020 of
18 June 2020 on draft amendments to the Constitution (as signed
by the President of the Russian Federation on 14 March 2020) related
to the execution in the Russian Federation of decisions by the European
Court of Human Rights, the Assembly calls on the Russian Federation
to change the recent amendments to Articles 79 and 125.5.b of the constitution.
10. Referring to its
Resolution
1823 (2011) “National parliaments: guarantors of human
rights in Europe”, the Assembly calls on the national parliaments
of Council of Europe member States to implement the “Basic principles
for parliamentary supervision of international human rights standards”,
included in the appendix to that resolution. In this context, it
stresses once again the need to establish parliamentary structures
to monitor compliance with international human rights obligations,
and in particular those stemming from the Convention and the Court’s
case law.
11. The Assembly calls on Council of Europe member States which
have not yet ratified Protocols Nos. 15 and 16 to the Convention
(CETS Nos. 213 and 214) to do so rapidly.
12. In view of the urgent need to speed up implementation of the
Court’s judgments, the Assembly resolves to remain seized of this
matter and to continue to give it priority.