Strasbourg, 13/04/2012 (Agence Europe) - The Council of Europe's seminal institution, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which was set up in 1959, rules on individual or state applications alleging violations of civil and political rights in the Council of Europe's 47 member countries and has played a decisive role in taking forward fundamental rights in Europe. It has become a victim of its own success, however, and is now facing a large backlog of cases, resulting to a great extent from the major enlargement of the Council of Europe to take in the former Communist countries after the fall of the Berlin Wall. A process of wide-ranging debate and action was engaged in Rome in 2000 to try to resolve the problem. This was complemented by the Interlaken and Izmir conferences organised following a call launched by the then ECHR President Jean-Pierre Costa in 2009.
Against this background, then, the 2011 annual report on the execution of ECHR judgments, published on Thursday 12 April, was keenly awaited. The report by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, the body charged with monitoring the execution of rulings, appears like a ray of light in a situation which for years has been giving cause for great concern. “Considerable progress” states the headline of a press release which sets out the key figures the almost 80% increase (up to 816 rulings) in the number of judgments fully executed by member states. Though the number of new cases remained high at 1,606, for the first time in ten years it fell - by 6% - after a 14% increase in 2010. The number of “repetitive” cases fell even more: these are cases which do not involve anything new, but refer to a recurrence of failings already ruled on by the ECHR - which continues to argue that such cases should be dealt with by national courts rather than returning time after time to Strasbourg.
Though understated, the report is significant. It notes the growing number of previous rulings which have been waiting for more than five years to be fully executed. This is a source of concern. Most of these cases highlight substantial structural problems in the countries concerned - inefficient judicial systems, dated and insalubrious jails, inadequate procedures for ensuring the legality of detentions and the rules governing action by police and other law enforcement services to prevent unjustified use of force and other forms of abuse, return of property illegally appropriated by the former Communist regimes, rules on freedom of expression to allow the debate necessary in our democratic societies, and more. The list is long. The 287 cases referred to in the report, in fact, correspond to thousands of “hidden” cases, if the repetitive cases were to be counted.
The detailed report with its very useful graphics begs the very specific questions of the work done by the Committee of Ministers in this area and how pressure can be brought to bear on noncompliant states or those which choose to drag their feet. The Department for the execution of Court judgments points out that, since the first violations were noted in the 1960, judgments have all ultimately been executed. The Committee of Ministers uses various forms of advice, recommendation, encouragement and even political pressure on governments, and this pressure may come through direct contact, resolutions or even calls to all member states to add their voices to that of the Council of Europe Executive. The Parliamentary Assembly can also make a significant contribution and, since 2000, it has kept a close eye on rulings unexecuted for more than five years, and, if necessary, will organise observation teams, hearings monitoring, etc.
The Committee of Ministers does not organise any monitoring trips, but works largely on the basis of reports provided by defendant states, evaluated in the light of experience from the other countries and information supplied by NGOs, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Human Rights League or, indeed, official fundamental rights bodies in the various countries. Its role is to assist states with their reforms, prioritising cases and making sure that cooperation programmes are put in place, for example, to encourage experience sharing among European states, whether or not they are involved in the case in point. The various specialist Council of Europe bodies, such as the committee for the prevention of torture or the committee for the effectiveness of justice also assist in this.
The Human Rights Trust Fund is another key component. Its funding is currently provided by Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. It grew in 2011 from €185,000 to €250,000. While this may not be an astronomically high sum of money, it is useful in creating synergies with those national and Council of Europe bodies which deal with cooperation programmes and expertise.
The system, then, is a complex one, articulated around the Committee of ministers which works all the relevant Council of Europe levers, to ensure that complex ECHR rulings do not go unheeded indefinitely. (VL/transl.rt)