1. law, govt and politics
2. legal issues
3. human rights

Chair Report
Council of Europe
kmun2015
KabatasMUN
kmun2015
MUNKabatas
kabatasmun
Kabatas MUN
coe@kabatasmun.org
Letter from the Secretary-General
Dear Representatives of the Distinguished Nations,
I, in lieu of the Secretariat, am thrilled to welcome you to the third annual session of Kabataş Model
United Nations Conference). I, Orçun DOĞMAZER, have been studying at Kabataş Erkek Lisesi for
four years and am receiving the privilege to serve as the third Secretary-General of this society.
KMUN Conference is the biggest student initiated organization in the illustrious 107 years old history
of this community. How Buckingham Palace was used by King George III to host diverse reputed
bureaucrats and royal families, likewise Kabataş High School was utilized to serve for those certain
purposes at the times of Ottoman Empire. KMUN 2013 and KMUN 2014 have the distinctive honor
to comprise more than 350 national and international participants. As it was planned and announced
a year ago, the conference will be hosting more than 500 participants coming from various countries
in 10 different committees this year.
Academic and organization teams of the conference have been challenging themselves to set a
different level of understanding in MUN for KMUN’s participants. Experiencing both of the previous
editions of KMUN, this year`s KMUN will differ from its previous editions by not only mixing the
interesting sides of the Model UN examples in Turkey, but will also try its best to combine the
understanding of the international Model UN.
All the research reports of the conference are written by the directors of the respective committees
with the guidance of the academic team of the conference. I do thank the Student Officers namely
Zeynep Bahadır and Timur Gordon for writing this very guide for the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe. Appreciating their efforts on this research report, I do believe that this report will
be a great start for our participant’s on their researches to prepare themselves for the debates on
the given agenda items.
In case you require any further instruction as to the academic content of the Committee of Ministers
of the Council of Europe, you may always contact your Committee Directors or me via
orcundogmazer@kabatasmun.org.
After a year full of work and dedication, I do believe that KMUN 2015 will manage to create its
dreamed atmosphere by taking further steps on its previous editions.
Orçun DOĞMAZER
Secretary-General
!
!
1! !
1!
Letter from the Student Officers
Dear delegates of the Committee of the Ministers of the Council of Europe,
On behalf of the Kabatas Erkek High School Model United Nations Conference 2015
Academic Team, it is our utmost pleasure to welcome you all. Having experienced the
previous two KMUN conferences since 2013, we believe that every single committee of this
year's session will test your academic abilities along with giving you an experience to
remember.
We, Zeynep Bahadir from Kadikoy Anadolu High School and Timur Gordon from Uskudar
American Academy will be serving as the Student Officers of the Committee of Ministers of
the Council of Europe and we are delighted to dedicate one of our last chairing experiences
to you.
Before pointing out the importance of our committee, we would like to thank the Secretariat
of KMUN 2015 for granting us a position in the upcoming session. Having said that, we now
will be moving on with the committee introduction. The Academic team and the Secretariat
provided the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe with two crucial and unique
Agenda Items which are evaluating executable judicial reforms with the objective of
combating corruption and assessment and prospective reforming of European Court of
Human Rights.
Both of us have prepared a study guide for the above-mentioned topics with the aim of
helping you during the preparation process and giving you a sneak-peak of how the
committee will proceed throughout the conference. We also hope they find you well.
If you require any further instruction or information regarding the committee work or
anything in that case, you may contact with us via our committee e-mail address.
We whole-heartedly welcome you all to the 3rd annual session of KMUN 2015 once again
and fully believe that the conference will provide its participants with the chance of having a
unique and a memorable experience.
Sincerely,
Board Members of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
Zeynep Bahadir&Timur Gordon.
!
!
2! !
2!
Introduction to the Committee
The Council of Europe
The Council of Europe (CoE) is a regional intergovernmental organization consisting of 47
Member States which are expected to serve for co-operation within the European nations
on the issues of human rights, legal standards, democracy, the rule of law which implies
that every citizen is subject to the law and culture. The Council which was founded in 1949
is an independent body and is not to be governed by the European Union (EU) but works in
close partnership with the Union .The Council does not possess the right of making binding
rights but works as an advisory body and its most commonly known sub-body is the
European Court of Human Rights, which implements European Convention on Human
Rights and the European Pharmacopoeia Commission. The Council is formed as a bridge
supported by 7 important bricks which are the Secretary General, the Committee of
Ministers which serves as a decision making body, the Parliamentary Assembly (PACE)
which serves as a deliberative body, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities which
serves as a voice for local democracy, the European Court of Human Rights, Commissioner
for Human Rights and the Conference of INGOs. The headquarters of the Council are in
Strasbourg in France and has English and French for its official languages. However,
German, Italian and Russian are permitted to be used in the Committee of Ministers, the
Parliamentary Assembly and the Congress.
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
The Committee of Ministers (CM) is the decision-making body of the Council of Europe and
is consist of Foreign Affairs Ministers of each and every Member States, or their permanent
diplomatic representatives in Strasbourg, France. In May 1951 the Committee required
each Member State to appoint a permanent representative which will reside in Strasbourg
to maintain the dialogue between the Member States and the Committee with ease. In 1952
the committee decided each Foreign Affairs Minister to appoint a Deputy who possesses
the same decision-making powers as the Ministers and usually serves as the Permanent
Representative. The CM serves both as a governmental body and a collective forum since
the problems facing the European society could be discussed on a national-based manner
on an equal footing and such challenges are formulated with Europe-wide responses. The
!
!
3! !
3!
Committee commences an annual ministerial session which is held in the Committee of
Ministers' meeting room on the symbolic date of 5 May but the date. The venue and the
date of ministerial sessions are fixed by the Ministers. The Meetings of the Deputies are
usually held in the meeting room of the Committee of Ministers once a week and Deputies
also meet in divided groups several times a week. Despite the session of the Ministers
being confidential, a final communiqué which is a document for the decisions made is
submitted at the end of each meeting. The CM operates for political dialogue, developing
public international law through Council of Europe conventions, interacting with the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, interacting with the Congress of Local
and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. The Committee is authorized to offer
Council of Europe membership to European States and to suspend or terminate the existing
memberships .A convention or an agreement require a two-thirds of the representatives
voting or the majority of the members who are entitled to vote to be adopted. Nonetheless,
Conventions are only legally binding for the Member States which ratify the documents and
for the authorization of the publication or the addition of explanatory report s, the same
voting procedure applies. The CM also has the right of making recommendations to
Member States if only the Committee agrees on a common policy. Unanimity in voting is not
required due to the Gentleman’s Agreement made by the Ministers and recommendations
do not have binding power over the Member States.
The Secretary General is demanded to prepare a draft budget each year for ministerial
adoption by the Committee and is presented to the Deputies which are assisted by a
Budgetary Committee consisting of 11 experts every November. The Council of Europe is
being financially assisted mainly by member States' contributions. National contributions are
based on a formula which takes into account population and Gross Domestic Product. The
major contributors which are France, Germany, Italy, Russian Federation and United
Kingdom all pay the same rate for the ordinary budget, providing nearly 57% of the total
source.
!
!
!
!
!
4! !
4!
Topic A: Evaluating Executable Judicial Reforms with the
Objective of Combating Corruption
Introduction
Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the U.S Federal reserve once said: “Corruption,
embezzlement, fraud, these are all characteristics which exist everywhere. It is regrettably
the way human nature functions, whether we like it or not. What successful economies do is
keep it to a minimum. No one has ever eliminated any of that stuff.” As discouraging as this
quote may be, unfortunately the truth beneath it cannot be denied. Today, it has become
impossible to oversee the presence of corruption, and it is even harder to eliminate it as a
whole; yet this does not mean that nothing can be done to strengthen good governance and
lessen the negative impacts of corruption. Overall, it can be said that in order to at least
come close to solving the problem of corruption in Europe; it is essential to further analyze
the term of corruption, to better understand its impacts, and more importantly to
comprehend how judicial reforms can lead to solving this critical issue.
Corruption is a worldwide problem on which many countries have spent enormous amounts
of money, effort, and time to combat. It is simply defined to be “the abuse of entrusted
power for private gain” by Transparency International, and it damages a country or an
organization immensely. Corruption can take place in various ways, some of which that do
not even involve any sort of money exchange; yet regardless of how it takes place, it is
present in every single country around the world. Not only is corruption wrong, unethical or
in other words “corrupt”, it is also harmful to society. Corruption has no place in the 21st
century where achievements and developments of all sorts take place constantly in a world
where best practices are needed for these efforts to succeed is why combating it is so
important.
It is essential to understand the effects of corruption to develop solutions to overcome it.
Some of the major effects of corruption are as follows. Firstly, it increases the investment
risk premium of a country. This reduces investment appetite and triggers less foreign
investment to enter an economy and, therefore, can cause a country to suffer economically.
Furthermore, it leads to greater gap in income distribution. This creates an uneven
distribution of wealth throughout the society which has numerous social, political and
!
!
5! !
5!
economic effects. Another way it damages a nation’s or a region’s economy is by leading to
an inefficient use of natural resources. Yet, not all effects of corruption are related to
economy; it also destroys trust in a countries judicial system and government. All of the
aforementioned effects once again prove us that it is crucial if not necessary for nations to
take action against corruption, which also is a crime in its core.
There are many things that can be done and that are being done to reduce corruption in
European nations as a whole. Amongst those is establishing a well-governed judicial
framework. In this context, implementation of judicial reforms is one of the key elements of
the fight against corruption. Judicial reforms are changes that take place in a country’s
judiciary and legal system. Judicial reforms are necessary where corruptive practices are
common and legal system lacks the regulations to prevent and to punish corruption crime.
When corruption is a problem it once again renders evaluating judicial reforms as a viable
solution.
Although many countries face corruption around the world, its existence and effects in
Europe cannot be ignored. As a continent newly recovering from the economic crisis of
2008 and uniting many nations with different levels of development and degrees of
governance, combating corruption in Europe becomes especially important. An efficient way
of accomplishing this is by improving the judicial system across the borders of Europe and
implementing certain judicial reforms. With the implementation of these judicial reforms
comes the responsibility of enforcing them, and hence it is vital to evaluate the regulations
and reforms before anything; which is exactly what will be discussed thoroughly throughout
this report.
Definition of Key Terms:
Corruption: Dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as
government officials or police officers.
Anti-Corruption: Designed to eradicate or prevent dishonest or fraudulent conduct,
especially in a political context.
Transparency: Characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially
concerning business practices.
Judicial Reform: Judicial reform is the complete or partial political reform of a country's
!
!
6! !
6!
judiciary. Judicial reform is often done as a part of wider reform of the country's political
system or a legal reform.
Legislation: The exercise of the power and function of making rules (as laws) that have the
force of authority by virtue of their promulgation by an official organ of a state or other
organization.
Governance: All processes of governing, whether undertaken by a government, market or
network, whether over a family, tribe, formal or informal organization or territory and
whether through laws, norms, power or language.
Law Enforcement: The activity of making certain that the laws of an area are obeyed.
Bribery: The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of
influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.
Nepotism: patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as
in business and politics.
Money Laundering: Money laundering is the process of transforming the proceeds of
crime into ostensibly legitimate money or other assets.
Reciprocity: A situation or relationship in which two people or groups agree to do
something similar for each other, to allow each other to have the same rights, etc.: a
reciprocal arrangement or relationship.
Fraud: The crime of using dishonest methods to take something valuable from another
person.
Corruption in Europe
Corruption is a challenge faced by all societies as well as European nations. Although how
corruption affects a country may show differences amongst European nations, it damages
the region and unities located in the region as a whole. Furthermore, as the European
Commission has stated; “The economic costs incurred by corruption in the EU possibly
amount to EUR 120 billion per year. This is one percent of the EU GDP, representing only a
little less than the annual budget of the EU.” (direct quote – ec.europa) As if this number
alone isn’t terrifying enough, what makes it worse is that the region of Europe actually ranks
better than most countries.
!
!
7! !
7!
Comparison between Corruption in Europe and Other States
FIGURE'1'(CPI'2014'RESULTS)!
In the 2014 Corruption
Perception
Index
measured
(CPI)
by
Transparency
International, it is possible
to see how Europe ranks
compared to the world
average
(Figure
1).
Overall, although it can be
said that European Countries are in a better shape than most others given their CPI, it is
worthwhile to note that the region has a potential to achieve a better ranking and not all
countries located in Europe score higher than the global average.
Also from the information given by Transparency International, a better look at “clean” and
“corrupt” countries could be established. This would serve as a good resource since by
analyzing what less corrupt countries do to combat corruption, one could come up with
solutions that may be implemented by the European Region as a whole; solutions that may
also involve reforms in the judicial system.
All in all, it is possible to reach the following statements. Firstly, Europe is in a decent
position globally yet has to improve in order to suffer less economically and implement good
governance practices. More importantly, the CPI differs from country to country within the
region so the fight against corruption in the region should be unified to bear more efficient
results.
!
!
!
8! !
8!
Major Countries in Europe and Relevant NGOs
Denmark:
According to the Transparency International’s 2014 Corruption Perceptions
Index, Denmark is the world’s least corrupt country. It has a strong market
economy and a very solid social welfare system. Denmark also has the
highest per capita GDP in the world making it a very wealth nation as a
whole. First of all, Danes have developed a strong degree of trust in people
and in the system over the years which makes it part of the culture to be
ethical. Denmark’s successful social welfare system creates a strong sense of
trust to the government among individuals. Further, political culture as well as
companies are very transparent and very importantly, the media is very active
as part of what they call the Danish Integrity System watching over for
irregularities. In addition, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) started to take
off recently in Denmark where every company has to have an anti-corruption
strategy as part of their CSR. This is well respected like a measure of quality
by the public. Interestingly, there is very minimal regulation against corruption
and the criminal law just says that it is illegal to give and accept bribes of any
kind or any size, both inside and outside of Denmark. Danish government and
Federation of Industries provide a guideline to businesses and have a “zero
tolerance to corruption” policy. Most importantly, the “whistle – blower” system
is very popular which makes it easy for someone to report a corruption.
Romania:
Romania is considered one of the most corrupt countries in the 29-member European
Union. Based on Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International. In 2012,
regulation allowed the politicians and government officials to be not accountable for any
abusive activities and crimes such as corruption, bribery, conflicts of interest and so on.
This immunity law is regarded as unconstitutional and caused social unrest. This lead to a
judicial reform to fight against corruption which led to over a thousand arrests of politicians
and public figures. In Romania, similar to Italy,
!
!
9! !
9!
People consider politicians as naturally corrupt. It will require a change of culture and strong
transparency measures to start positive change. EU Commission Report, published on
January 28, 2015 in Brussels, on Romania states that there is improvement in fight against
corruption with more room to go.
Italy:
Political corruption is a major problem in Italy. The most corrupt institutions re seen as the
political parties, public officials and the parliament. This is a big trust issue for the citizens
and also becomes an important obstacle for businesses that have relations to the
government such as infrastructure investments handled by private sector. The judicial row
entails the anti-corruption law of 2012 which is most preventative across the public sector
affairs. What seems to be missing is the strong emphasis on whistle-blowing which actually
affects the implementation of the law as observed being successful in Denmark.
Transparency International:
It is a non-governmental organization that traces corporate and also political corruption. It is
founded in Germany in 1993. It publishes the Corruption Perception Index and Global
Corruption Barometer.
Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption (GOPAC):
It is an independent international institution which is composed of democratically-elected
law makers around the world. GOPAC’s objective is to accomplish ethical governance
across the world that is accountable. It aims to put effective combat mechanisms against
corruption via cooperation between the government leaders and civil organizations.
International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC):
It is a group of conferences that are organized by IACC Council in support by Transparency
International which is its secretariat. The Conference gathered first in 1983 in Washington
DC and is organized in every 2 years in a different country.
!
!
! !
10
10!
Anti-Corruption Efforts in Europe - Previous and Current Attempts
The Council of European Union approved the fight against corruption that includes officials
of the European Communities or of Member States in May 1997. This was followed by the
Joint Action on corruption in the private sector in 1998. This became the 1st step at
European Union level as an organized effort to combat corruption. In 2002, the Council
designed “arrest” and “surrender” procedures between the Member States. The results of
the Council meeting in Tampere in 1999 made corruption a criminal offence in Member
States with penalties.
2003 Framework Decision on combating corruption in the private sector
Due to globalization and increase in cross border trade corruption became a problem
concerning the Union and which requires joint action. The Council of European Union took a
Framework Decision in July 2003 to combat corruption in the private sector. This framework
made active and passive corruption considered as criminal offences across member states.
It defines the crimes and also the legal penalties for corruption that is applicable across
European Union.
Stockholm Programme
The Stockholm Programme defines the European Union’s (EU) priorities in the areas of
justice, freedom and security for the period 2010-14. Its priorities are fundamental rights
and freedom of the individuals, justice system, security (against cross border crime and civil
protection), fight against crime and border management (border control, immigration and
visa management). It uses a proactive approach to external relations across the EU and
with non-member countries to make sure the priorities are well covered.
Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO)
OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International
Business Transactions in 1997 led to establishment of Greco in 1999. Since then, the
!
!
! !
11
11!
Council of Europe’s body for anti-corruption is called Greco (Groupe d'États contre la
corruption) and is headquartered in Strasbourg. OECD, United Nations, ICPO-Interpol, the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the World Bank worked
together in establishment of Greco. Greco includes member states as well as non-EU
members such as USA and Belarus and currently has 49 members in total. Its objective is
to develop capacity of Greco’s members in fighting against corruption. It monitors
compliance of its members using anti-corruption standards of Council of Europe. Its very
active monitoring process and on-site visits to countries are quite successful. It also
provides recommendations based on this assessment. It uses legislative framework as well
as peer pressure to fight for corruption activities.
United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)
UNCAC is a multilateral convention among members of the United Nations. It is the first
official international anti-corruption instrument globally. It has 71 Articles 8 Chapters. It has
measures that target to prevent corruption, defining criminal conducts, empowering law
enforcement across the globe among others.
EU Anti-corruption package
The legal framework was adopted from United Nations Convention against
Corruption (UNCAC) in 2008. It defines corruption as a serious crime across
Member States. Accordingly, measures against corruption have been integrated
across policies of the European Union. In June 2011, the EU Commission
adopted a new anti-corruption package in 4 main documents. These are:
-
A communication on fighting corruption in the EU: This document covers
the targets of the EU Anti-Corruption Report and how the EU can be more
focused on corruption
-
A Commission Decision to create the EU anti-corruption reporting and
definition of the process
-
A report on the implementation of Council Framework Decision on fight
against corruption in the private sector
-
A report on EU participation in the Council of Europe against Corruption
!
!
! !
12
12!
(GRECO).
Progress in Fighting Corruption
As mentioned in the previous chapter, there are
many things that are being done to combat corruption in
Europe, and the best way to see the results of these
FIGURE'2'3'CPI'INFOGRAPHIC'EU'&'WESTERN'EUROPE'
efforts is to look at the regional
analysis of the CPI in the last
few years. Although there isn’t
FIGURE'3'3'CPI'INFOGRAPHIC'EU'&'WESTERN'EUROPE'
much of a difference between
2012 and 2013, it is possible to observe progress in 2014. The
percentage of countries ranking below 50 has dropped 7 points
from 23% to 16%, which means that some countries in the region
managed to increase their CPI rankings above the 50 point
FIGURE'3'3'CPI'INFOGRAPHIC'EU'&'
WESTERN'EUROPE'
marker. Another thing that should be pointed out is Denmark’s consistency in being the
least corrupt country in Europe. Moreover, in 2014 Greece has shown improvement and
hasn’t ranked worst. Overall, the answer to the question “Has Europe shown progress in
fighting corruption?” is yes, and with new methods of combatting corruption such as by
having judicial reforms Europe should be able to carry this consistent progress forward in
the coming years.
What else needs to be done
Anti-corruption package is an important tool pack to prevent and combat corruption. The
Commission is implementing a consistent approach for implementation of EU policies on
the fight against corruption. This includes a solid supervision of current legal tools and
overseeing implementation. It has wide scale EU-level actions to fight against corruption as
a crime across the Member States. These are stated in detail in the Communication of
fighting corruption in the EU which is in the anti-corruption package. Accordingly, the
Commission plans to suggest some revisions in the existing regulations that include
!
!
! !
13
13!
confiscation of assets which is a critical priority in the fight against corruption. The strategy
includes making the quality of the investigations higher and also improvement of financial
intelligence in EU States. In addition, cooperation to solve corruption crime cases will be
supported by Europol (to intensify efforts by comprehensive and periodic threat
assessments), Eurojust (to support information sharing on cross-border corruption cases)
and CEPOL (to recommend educational programmes for law enforcement personnel on
cross-border corruption investigations).
Judicial Reforms
!
Previous Judicial Reforms in Europe
There have been many judicial reforms in Europe yet until today not many of these reforms
have had an aim to combat corruption. The Romanian judicial reform, for instance, focus on
possible judiciary solutions to the issue of political corruption. Furthermore, the judicial
reforms that took place in China in 1999 also provide us a guideline for history of actions
taken by government.
Romanian Judicial Reform
Romanian judicial system has been going through a major reform process since the start of
the accession process of the country to the European Union in 2005. Strengthening the
legislative framework to fight against corruption has been an integral part of the judicial
reform process over the past decade. There is progress but also more room to improve. In
Romania, the judicial system was chaotic due to its inefficient structure and poor
governance. This led to inefficiencies such as long trial times, questionable decisions which
showed lack of competencies and led to distrust to the rule of law by citizens as well as
investors. Therefore, the rationalization of the court system was launched that as part of
judicial reform and included restructuring of the district courts and the court system such as
centralization of numerous courts and modernization of the IT system and other means of
rationalization. On the corruption front, the National Anti-Corruption Strategy (2005-2007) is
a major step, which also allowed Freedom House (US based NGO) to make independent
audit on Romanian judicial system’s fight against corruption. The Strategy created much
!
!
! !
14
14!
better control over the hierarchy of the Prosecutor’s Office, and streamlined the processes.
This contributed to empowerment of the Prosecutor System over the judicial police in
investigating corruption as crime and made it possible for the prosecutors to cooperate with
intelligence agencies. This was a much needed step for effective implementation in solving
corruption crimes. Furthermore, in order to eliminate political pressure on the judiciary
system, the Superior Council of Magistracy (SGM) members were not allowed to hold
positions at the Prosecutor’s office. Other measures cover the requirement for annual
disclosure of the activities of the SCM members. In 2006, the Directorate General for
Protection and Anti-corruption, which was downgraded in government’s hierarchy was
upgraded within the Romanian Ministry of Justice and therefore gain empowerment.
Executable Judicial Reforms Applicable in the Region and the Evaluation of These
Reforms
Rationalization of the Court System
The rationalization of the court system includes restructuring regional and specialized courts
by making sure that the court has a capacity sufficient to serve its purposes. It also includes
the centralization of courts in an optimal manner to better organize judicial processes. The
enhancement of current conditions is essential to implement such reform; which includes
upgrading IT Systems, and increasing the number and quality of judicial personal. This
helps speeding up the trial process and enhancing the quality of verdicts. A good example
of this reform is the one implemented in Romania in 2007, yet has not reached its purpose
fully.
Could all European Nations implement this reform; or more importantly, is it necessary?
The ideology behind this reform is to simply organize the judicial system in the most
efficient manner, thus, there is no reason for it not to be implemented in countries where it is
needed. Having said that, it is important to also underline the fact that it is not needed in the
same form in some member states, therefore it is advised to analyze every country on a
case-by-case basis, and modify the rationalization accordingly. Countries with less
organized judicial systems such as Romania would benefit from such judicial reform.
!
!
! !
15
15!
Enforcement of the System of Judicial Supervision
The system of judicial supervision is an independent system that monitors judiciary bodies
in a country. In such system, usually an independent body inspects the judicial system and
the operation of courts as seen in China’s judicial system amongst many others. The reform
is easily executable and it can be seen that many countries do have a similar body, yet in
Europe the most efficient way of implementing this system would be by having a common
organization inspecting all courts. This solution may be harder to achieve, as some
countries might prefer to be less transparent compared to others.
Restructuring the System of Judges
Restructuring the system of judges include the efficiency of the judges and ensure that they
are sufficient in terms of number, knowledge and experience. It also entails that the judges
are of high ethics and has strong morals. The appointment and removal of the judges is
also very critical as part of the system. Therefore, this aspect of the reform is highly
technical as well as qualitative as it directly relates the management of the judges as
human resources. As there are international standards of law that are in essence applicable
worldwide, this can be more easily adaptable by different countries in Europe who respect
these standards of law. Naturally, there may be differences in terms of quality of judicial
staff across different countries.
Enhancement of Collaboration amongst Prosecution, Judicial Police and Intelligence
Agencies
Corruption is a crime and therefore involves the judicial system, police and intelligence
agencies that are main parties involved in the issue. The collaboration between them is
critical as is the independence of all from each other at the same time. The judicial system
covers the activities of the prosecution, judges, judicial police and countries intelligence
agencies in fighting against corruption. Therefore, the empowerment of the prosecution is
critical in order to efficiently solve the cases as well as for the judges to decide based on
sufficient and timely information. Many countries have legislation defining the roles and
!
!
! !
16
16!
responsibilities of the relevant parties as well as the boundaries between them, which are
necessary to implement best practices, reduce conflict of interest and streamline the legal
processes. This makes the reform more executable and renders it as a possible solution.
Removal of Political Pressure from the Judicial System and Enforcing Accountability
in Political and Public Affairs
In the most basic sense, existence of -political pressure and power over the judicial system
creates a major problem for the rule of law. Political involvement in the judicial system
means favors granted to those who hold political power or public influence which leads way
to a suitable environment for corruption. In many countries in Europe, citizens perceive the
politicians, public administration and political parties as corrupt institutions. This reform has
a very wide coverage starting from the financing of the political parties reaching to the
appointment of judges and law enforcement officials. It would be very beneficial in countries
where the political and public affairs need anti-corruption measures. Transparency and
accountability are very important aspects of this reform. To begin with, the regulations
should secure the ability to take the government and public officials to trial in case of
corruption allegations. Furthermore, depoliticizing the appointments of the judicial posts is
also critical to build an independent legislative system. The public opinion of mistrust in the
politics and public affairs and corruption in some countries, such as Italy is strong and
therefore would benefit from this reform in a great manner. Similarly, reforms in Romania
included heightened degree of transparency and accountability in public affairs.
Encouragement of Whistle Blowing
Whistle blowing is a very effective way of locating corruption crime. It is also preventative as
it reduces the attempts for corruption and illegal affairs. Some countries in Europe, such as
Denmark promotes whistle blowing as they make it easy and safe for citizens to complain
about corruption that they witness or are aware of. This is an effective way to also build an
anti-corruption culture where politicians, public employees and businesses become very
sensitive and act proper to the best of their abilities. The citizens become natural guards for
corruption. The whistle blowing can be made easy, safe and acceptable in many countries
!
!
! !
17
17!
across Europe by introducing necessary legislations and mechanisms. It is, however,
important to note that every country is different culturally where care for best practices and
social responsibility is at the top of the list for citizens of many. For that, the efforts would
take time to make this a way of life for many.
Establishment of Transparency within the Judicial System
Transparency is key in order for an efficient judicial system. The citizens and businesses
rely on rule of law and hence need to trust that the cases are being examined and tried in a
proper manner and their rights are not violated.
The transparency involves many
dimensions including the share of information about the progress of the cases, the
legislative framework that is applicable and so on. Opaqueness brings serious problems
especially in fight against corruption where powerful parties might be involved. Therefore,
necessary information about the cases should be available to the people as well as the
verdict in order to build trust to the judicial system. This can be implemented to a great
extent across Europe as best practices have common ground in transparency standards of
judicial systems across the world.
Points a Resolution should cover:
Before all, when writing the resolution we expect you to be creative. Solutions offered in this
report are open to your alterations. Furthermore keep in mind that the resolution will be
debated in the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, and try to have your resolution
appropriate for this Committee. Having said that, I would also like to go over a few specific
points: Firstly, the agenda item is "Evaluating Executable Judicial Reforms to Combat
Corruption" and your resolution should definitely be about this yet it is also crucial that you
mention how these judicial reforms would be altered to suit a nation’s judicial system and
more importantly how they will be implemented. Also, the judicial reforms mentioned in the
report are to give you an idea. Therefore, you need to try to come up with possible reforms
of your own that you may find in your research adding your reasoning. The resolution as a
!
!
! !
18
18!
whole should be both straight to the point and be detailed, and more critically, it should
focus on both short term and long term solutions.
The points your resolution should cover are as follows. Firstly, evaluation of judicial reforms.
Has the judicial reform proposed been applied in another region previously? Could there be
a conference or a committee of relevant parties which will assess the progress of this
reform? Secondly comes the implementation of these reforms. What measures will be taken
by countries to make it possible to implement the mentioned reforms in the future? Will all
countries be obligated to have the reform, or will it be an individual decision. Finally and
most importantly, a follow up. It is vital to effectively monitor implementation process of
these reforms, so the question is how will this be done?
In your resolution, try to cover as many of these points as possible and make sure that you
answer the aforementioned questions. Do not limit your resolution to these points and be
creative in proposing new solutions. Writing a resolution on this issue might be challenging,
yet a decent resolution could provide a solid foundation for further actions and progress.
!
!
! !
19
19!
Topic B: Assessment and Prospective Reforming of European
Court of Human Rights
Definition of Key Terms
Human Rights
Human rights are defined as rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality,
place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other
status. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible under the protection
of the United Nations. The universality of the rights are granted by the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights which was adopted by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on 10
December 1948 and is being promoted by such as but not limited to the ratified Member
States, The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Amnesty International,
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee,
American Library Association and the Human Rights Council in order to define the
meanings of the words “fundamental words” and “human rights” which happen to be visible
in the UN Charter and to strengthen human rights protection at international level. Despite
the fact that the declaration is not legally binding, it has been serving as a foundation for a
growing number of national laws, international laws, and treaties, as well as for a growing
number of regional, sub national, and national institutions protecting and promoting human
rights.
European Convention on Human Rights
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, also
known as the “European Convention on Human Rights” is an international treaty which was
signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 but entered into force on 3 September 1953.The
Convention takes the UN Declaration of Human rights as a basis, gave effect to certain of
the rights stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, established an international
judicial organ with jurisdiction to find against States that do not fulfill the designated
undertakings. The Convention secures the right to life, the right to a fair hearing, the right to
respect for private and family life, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, conscience
and religion and the protection of property, whereas torture and inhuman or degrading
!
!
! !
20
20!
treatment or punishment, slavery and forced labor, death penalty, arbitrary and unlawful
detention, and discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms are being
prohibited.
A Protocol to the Convention
A protocol to the Convention is a text which inserts one or more rights which are only
binding for the Member States having signed and ratified them to the original Convention or
amends the terms of the Convention. Signing a protocol without ratifying it sets the protocol
non-bounding by its sentences.16 additional protocols have been adapted to date.
The European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights is multinational court where negotiated power is
substituted to an authority by governments of Member States, also referred as
supranational, was established on January 21st 1950 based on the Article 19 of the
European Convention on Human Rights. In April 2013, the European Union (EU) and the
Member States of the Council of Europe reached consensus on a draft Agreement on the
Accession of the EU to the European Court of Human Rights which served as a milestone
for the development on the protection of fundamental rights in the European region.
European Court of Justice
The European Court of Justice (ECJ), officially known as the Court of Justice which was
established in 1952, is the highest court in the European Union and its headquarters are
located in Luxembourg. The Court is responsible for protecting the EU law and ensuring its
equal practice within the Union and runs with a system which allocates one judge to each
Member State despite the fact that the panels of three, five or thirteen judges practice
hearing the cases.
Treaty of Lisbon
The Treaty of Lisbon, also referred as the Reform Treaty, which was signed by the
European Union Member States on December 13th 2007 and entered into force on
December 1st 2009, is an international agreement that amends the Maastricht Treaty, also
known as the Treaty on European Union, and the Treaty of Rome, with the purposes of
establishing the European Community and completing the process initiated by the Treaty of
Amsterdam and the Treaty of Nice with for enhancing the efficiency, the democratic
!
!
! !
21
21!
legitimacy of the EU and improving the consistency of its action. The Treaty of Rome was
renamed as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) after the sessions
held in Lisbon and the Treaty resulted in extraordinary changes including the movement
from unanimity to qualified majority voting in at least 45 policy areas in the Committee of
Ministers, changing the calculation of such majority to a new double majority, the formation
of a more powerful European Parliament along with the Council enforced with ordinary
legislative procedure, appointing a long-term President of the European Council and a High
Representative of the Union’s Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, making the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the EU legally binding and became the first treaty to give Member
States the right to leave the Union.
Important Events
Interlaken Conference
Interlaken Conference, also referred as High Level Conference on the Future of the
European Court of Human Rights, is a High-level conference organized in on 18 and 19
February 2010 in Interlaken, Switzerland by the Swiss chairmanship of the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe in order to enable the engagement of the Member States
in strategic planning in regards with evaluating the future of the Court. The Agenda Items of
the conference were set to the Court’s large and growing caseload and problems with
enforcement and effect of the Court’s rulings at the Member State level due to the fact that
a fair amount of applicants were unfamiliar with the procedure for admissibility, the
substantive limits of the Convention, individuals being permitted to apply the Court without
having exhausted national remedies and failing to implement the judgment of the Court. The
Parties’ need of endorsement of sharing of responsibilities between the States and The
Court, the process of determining the necessary long-term reform for the Court’s sixtieth
anniversary in 2019 were to be talked upon during the sessions. The Committee decided
upon taking actions through submitting a joint declaration toward setting up special sections
which will serve as an applications division or another filtering body, authorizing the Court to
properly rule on admissible cases, creating a “Human Rights Tribunal, which take after the
Court of First Instance of the European Court of Justice with the aim of dealing with
admissibility, whereas the Court shall work on the merits of the cases, creating a
preliminary reference mechanism or possibly an extension of the Court, requiring all
Member States to provide human rights training to its citizens, translate the Court’s
!
!
! !
22
22!
judgments into the languages of its citizens in order to raise the awareness on the
application procedure to the Court, practice execution of national judgments, come up with
solutions for excessive length of procedural matters, reopen the proceedings prior after the
Strasbourg Judgments and ensure better dissemination of the case-law of the Court at
national level as corrective measures.
Conference in Izmir
The High Level Conference meeting held in Izmir, which served as a follow-up of the
Interlaken Declaration and Action Plan adopted on February 19th 2010, on 26 and 27 April
2011 at the initiative of the Turkish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe. The official Agenda Items of the conference were to make an
assessment as of today of the impact of Protocol No. 14, to take stock of what has been
achieved by the reform process launched in Interlaken and following a thorough reflection,
lend impetus for pursuing that reform The Conference took a stand so as to include the
adoption of a priority policy which promotes concern for cases in accordance with their
seriousness such as being concerned with the Articles No.2 and No.3.The issues covered
in the joint declaration were the possibility of introducing the Court fees before the ECHR,
the increase of the rule of subsidiarity in respect of interim measure, enhancing the
effectiveness at the national level, providing applicants and their legal representatives of
objective and comprehensive information on the Convention and the case-law of the Court
particularly related to the application procedure, a detailed handbook on admissibility criteria
and the checklist prepared by the Registry of the Court, in order to avoid clearly
inadmissible applications, enhancing the filtering procedure and the increase of the role of a
single judge, encouraging Member States to evaluate the resolution of repetitive cases by
friendly settlements or unilateral declarations, advising to introduce a procedure permitting
the highest national courts to request advisory opinions from the Court and the elaboration
of a simplified application procedure for amending requirements related to organizational
matters with an inclusion of reflecting on the means of its introduction.
Brighton Conference
The Brighton Ministerial Conference, which was held on April 18-20 2012, was initiated by
the United Kingdom Chairmanship of the Council of Europe served as the third high-level
Conference devoted to the Court and the Convention system. The aims of the Conference
were ensuring the case-load of the Court is of a manageable size, consisting of cases
!
!
! !
23
23!
raising important Convention issues and subject to the right to preserved individual petition
and effective international or national mechanisms which are put in place for
accommodating well-founded cases that the Court shows inability in dealing with. The
conference was also devoted to implementing pilot judgments to the States effectively and
giving serious consideration to the implications of judgments in opposition to other States,
ensuring better dissemination of the case-law with inclusion of national languages, setting
up a judicial training institute which was aimed to start operating in April 2012 after having
received financial support from the Human Rights Trust Fund, reinforcing dialogue between
Strasbourg and national courts, encouraging an evaluation system which will ensure the
ability of the Judges by taking the experience and their age into account. The Commission
took the decisions of limiting the time of the application of a case making to the Court from 6
to 4 months in order to reduce the work-load of pending cases in the Court, inviting the
Court to make specific provision in the Rule of the Court for a separate decision to be made
on admissibility with the request of an respondent government, allowing the national courts
to have the opportunity of applying the Convention in guidance of the case-law of the Court,
noting that additional judges may be necessary to the Court, inviting to build on the pilot
judgment procedure which encourages the Court to register and determine a small number
of representative applications from a group of applications that claim to practice the same
violation against the same respondent Party such as the determination being applicable not
only to the applicants but also to the whole group, encouraging to stabilize a judiciary
promoting the consistency of the Court which made serving less than the full term of office
provided in the Convention undesirable for a judge and encouraging the establishment of an
Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of
Human Rights which will be reviewed based on its functioning after an initial three-year
period by the Committee of Ministers. The fact that the Interlaken Declaration called upon
the Committee to evaluate the need of taking further actions after the adoption of Protocol
No.14 shall be decided upon the by the Ministers before the end of 2015 and the sufficiency
of the implementations has to be examined until the end of 2019 in order to ensure the
sustainability of the control mechanism of the Convention’s functioning.
!
!
! !
24
24!
High-Level Conference in Brussels
The high-level conference took place on 26 and 27 March 2015 in Brussels, Belgium with
the Belgian Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe with the
agenda of “Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, our shared
responsibility”. The conference resulted in the creation of Brussels Declaration, which was
adopted on 27 March 2015, with the aims of supervising of the execution of judgments,
efficient implementation of the Convention at national level and the betterment of the
application process and the implementations of the Court whilst encouraging to strengthen
the co-operation bond between the judicial operators of the European Union and the
Member States in order to make the implementations more binding and applicable on
national level.
History of the Court
The jurisdiction of the Court has been recognized to date by 47 member states of the
Council of Europe and in 1998, the Court became a full-time institution. The European
Commission of Human Rights, which used to be in control of the admission process of
applications, was abolished by Protocol No.11 which promoted the judges of the court
which will be working in committees and Chambers and be provided with an effective
application filtering mechanism, to equal to the members of the Council, an appropriate
structure for ensuring the quality and consistency of the case-law of the Court and for
enabling re-hearing for extraordinary cases such as having raising serious questions
affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention by recommending to previse the
presence of a national judge in any such re-hearing. Protocol No.11 aimed to deal with the
procedural matters which resulted with an increasing number of pending applications after
the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 triggering the admission of newly-founded states to the
European Convention on Human Rights. The postponement and low-paced process of the
Court and made it an open target for critical judgment, whereas its efficiency was affected
badly. In 2009 the number of pending applications soured to 119,300, more than 90 percent
of them were decided upon as inadmissible. Nonetheless, the majority of cases which
approximately was the 60 percent of the Court decisions were declared as around 60
percent of the decisions by the Court repetitive cases. Since the workload of the Court did
not cease to increase, the States decided upon the fact that the Court was in need of further
!
!
! !
25
25!
reforms. Furthermore, Protocol No.14 was joined to the European Convention on Human
Rights by the CM in order to serve for the purposes of diminishing the workload of the Court
and the CM, which is authorized to supervise the execution of judgments for being able to
focus on cases which deals with important human rights violations. Protocol No. 13, which
was added to the Convention in July 2003 regarding to the concerns on the abolition of the
death penalty under any circumstances and Protocol No.12 was inserted to the Convention
with the solid purpose of non-discrimination. Protocol No.14 was lawfully forceful on June
1st 2010, which happens to be three months prior from its ratification by all 47 Member
States signing the Convention. Even though Russian Federation happened to be the only
state refusing to ratify the Protocol between 2006 and 2010, its ratification by all 47 Member
States occurred three months after its entrance into force by accepting the terms of Russian
Federation which were to be granted with the right of reviewing complaints against the
State. The Protocol promotes renovations in the filtering capacity of the Court by the
creation of a new admission criterion in order to deal with repetitive cases and inadmissible
applications due to the violation of universal human rights or the national laws of the
Member States along with amending the Convention in order to elect the judges nonrenewably for nine years, whereas the previous judges served for six year with the option of
renewal. The final decision on the applications was to be made with the approval of
committee consisting of three judges. However, the Protocol gave the right of rejection of
plainly submitted applications to a single judge rather than a three judge commission. The
Protocol also provided the three judge commission with the right of deciding on the merits of
the case which could only examined by a chambers of seven judges of the Grand Chamber,
whereas the commission was only able to declare the admissibility of the applications prior
to the Protocol which also provided the European Commissioner for Human Rights to
intervene in cases as a third party which takes part in hearings and deliver written
comments along with underlining the importance of negotiation process throughout the
jurisdiction. The Committee of Ministers examines how the settlement is carried out and is
able to require the Court to clarify a final judgment in troubled cases with the right granted
by the Protocol.
After the adoption of Protocol No.14, four-high level conferences which triggered the
adoption of Protocols No.5 and No.6 to the Convention for determining the steps that can
be taken for the wellness of the Court and the evaluation of the past and current acts were
convened. Protocol No.5, adopted in 2013, inserts a reference to the principle of subsidiarity
!
!
! !
26
26!
which is the principle that government power shall reside at the lowest feasible level and the
Margin Appreciation, is a concept the European Court of Human Rights has developed
whilst considering the possibility of a Member State breaching the Convention, as a
perambulatory clause to the Convention along with reducing the time that an application
must be lodged with the Court after a final national decision from 6 to 4 months. The
adoption of Protocol No. 16, which also was adopted in 2013 and is optional, aimed to allow
the Court’s advisory opinions regarding to the principle which is related to the interpretation
or application of the rights and the freedoms defined in the Convention or the protocols by
highest domestic courts and tribunals.
The Structure of the European Court of Human Rights
President
The President of the European Court of Human Rights, which is a representative of the
Court, is elected by the Plenary Court for a period of three years which does not exceed the
duration of the President's term of office as The President continues to hold office until the
election of his or her successors. The President of the Court serves for directing the work
and administration of the Court and is responsible for its relations with the Council’s
authorities. The President is supposed to preside at the meetings of the Grand Chamber,
plenary meetings of the Court and meetings of the panel of five judges. However, he does
not participate in the consideration stage of the cases being evaluated by Chambers unless
he or she is serving as a judge elected with the approval of a Contracting Party concerned
with the hearing. The current President of the Court is Dean Spielmann, who has been
serving as the President since 2012.
Registry
Registry is the section referring to an administrative entity which is provided by Article 25 of
the European Convention on Human Rights of the Court responsible promotes providing
legal and administrative back-up to the Court in its exercise of judicial functions and
consists of lawyers, technical and administrative staff with the estimated number of 640
staff members, 270 lawyers and 370 other supportive staff. The Registry staff is employed
by the Council of Europe and is legally implemented under the Council of Europe's Staff
Regulations. The head of the Registry is the Registrar, who works under the authority of the
President of the Court is elected by the Plenary Court in relevance with Article No.25 of the
!
!
! !
27
27!
Convention and is assisted by a single or more Deputy Registrars who also were elected by
the Plenary Court. The five judicial sections of the Court are assisted by a Section Registrar
and a Deputy Section Registrar for each section. The documents submitted by the Registry
are either English or French since they are the official languages of the Registry. The
Registry also has a budget and Finance Office which is responsible for day-to-day
management of the budget of the Court with the authority of the Registrar.
Budget
The expenses of the Court are to be provided by the Council in accordance with Article 50
of the European Convention, meaning that the Court does not have a separate budget since
its budget is a part of the general budget of the Council which is financed by 47 Member
States in accordance with their gross national product and population. The estimated
budget of the Court for 2015 is up to 69,076,300 Euros and is used to cover remuneration of
the Judges, staff salaries, operational expanses focusing on information technology, official
journeys, translation, interpretation, publications, representational expanses, legal aid, factfinding missions, with the exclusion of the building and infrastructure based expenditure
such as telephone and cabling.
Sections, Chambers and Grand Chamber
A Section is an administrative entity, whereas a Chamber is a judicial formation of the Court
within a given Section with the number of 7 judges participating. The Court possesses 5
Sections which Chambers are formed in and each Section has a President, a VicePresident and a number of other judges in order to cope with the work-load and the
responsibilities of the Court.
The Grand Chamber is composed of 17 judges which are the President of the Court, VicePresidents, the Section Presidents, the national judge, other judges selected by drawing of
lots. The Court occasionally makes public hearings since it follows a written procedure for
cases.
Reform of the European Court of Human Rights
General Overview
Throughout the course of years, The Court has taken many precautions due to the
excessive amount applications which resulted in many problems both within and the outer
!
!
! !
28
28!
space of the judicial functioning mechanism. The reputation of the Court started to descent
after there was a back-log of several applications and nearly 93 percent of the applications
were found inadmissible because of the lack of information that the individuals have about
the format and the procedure of the hearings. The right of individual petition has been
promoted by the Court since the 2010 Interlaken Declaration, which served as a milestone
for the enhancement of the Court by promoting the adoption of friendly settlements and
unilateral agreements, the establishment of filtering mechanisms in order to deal with the
admissibility of the applications and creating the system of pilot judgments with the aim of
dealing with repetitive applications. The huge backlog of cases is known to be one of the
main reasons of the diminishing reputation of the Court and it is a subject of appeal for all
47 Member States of the Council whether to come up with more implementations nor not.
The Committee of the Ministers set 2015 as a deadline for the examination process of the
need of reform within the structure of the Court. Another deadline also has been set to 2019
by the Ministers in order to determine the progress of the previously mentioned possible
implementations. There are various amounts of innovative ideas including giving the right of
making the final decision on hearings to the nations. A consensus is known to be had upon
the fact that subsidiarity shall be re-considered and the procedure has to be amended in
order to enhance both the reputation and the structural matters of the Court.
Problems with the European Court of Human Rights
Becoming over-intrusive
The Court has been criticized for intruding the internal affairs of the Member States which
shall be dealt by domestic courts and parliaments. British Prime Minister, David Cameroon,
has been reminding the government’s judicial supremacy to the Court and encouraging the
reform of the Court due to its over-interfering attitude and it having corrosive effect on
people’s support for civil liberties after the Court requiring the UK to introduce some form of
voting for prisoners. Prime Minister Cameroon also explains that the Court had moved far
away from its founding principles by claiming full authority on national courts. Even though
the problem still remains un-ceased, The Britain seems fully enthusiastic about turning the
Court back to its roots by proceeding with baby steps on the issues. Former lord chief
justice of Britain also accused the court of being undemocratic and neglecting the
sovereignty of the Parliament due to its persistency on implementing its own requirements
to national governments and judicial structures.
!
!
! !
29
29!
Excessive amount of applications
The numbers of applications and current cases have always been a great deal for the Court
since the numbers have been increasing rapidly after the granting and the encouragement
of individual right to petition and the aftermath of fall of the Soviet Union which resulted in
the adding new members to the Council of Europe alongside the Court. Britain also
proposes the “sunset clause” which will impose time limits on legal cases by having cases
being automatically struck off after a set period of one or two years if they remain unsolved
in order to tackle the issue. Even though some steps such as but not limited to Protocol 14
and Protocol 11 have been taken in the course of the reform, the results have proven to be
unsatisfactory. Further implementations are encouraged to be made by the international
community so as to descent the backlog of unrecognized applications.
Repetitive cases
The European Court of Human Rights has been dealing not only with excessive amount of
applications but also repetitive cases since the human rights violations tend to continue
occurring in the areas where the obstacles have not been stumbled upon. The Court came
up with a judgment procedure called as “pilot judgment procedure” which helps the Court to
deal with large number of repetitive cases that is backed up by same judicial systemic
problems. The Committee of Ministers found instructing and guiding the Member States
which experience difficulties with applying the terms of the Convention on domestic level
significantly important and agreed on creating the judicial procedure whilst discussing the
drafting of Protocol 14. The Court has issued 13 pilot judgments since 2004 and has been
criticized because of the legal basis of the procedure, selection of systemic purposes of the
application procedure, selection of pilot application, situation of adjourned applicants and
Member State implementation. Despite the fact that Protocol 14 aimed to deal with the
issue of large number of repetitive cases, by taking the criticism into account, the Protocol
was not that efficient in filling the structural gap for the Court’s judicial infrastructure.
“Filtering mechanism”
There has been a proposal for the creation of a filtering mechanism for clearly inadmissible
applications and letting the Court deal with cases with substantive issues. The filtering
mechanism would create the time gap for judges to focus on admissible applications. The
Registry established a filtering unit for applications from Turkey, Russian Federation,
!
!
! !
30
30!
Ukraine, Poland and Romania in early 2011 since they were responsible for the over half of
pending cases that creates the backlog in the Court. By the end of June 2011, it was
reported by the Registry that the unit were able to deal with 42% more cases from the
aforementioned states in the first half of the year when compared with the same period in
2010. There are three options raised for dealing the issue of inadmissible cases along with
Protocol 14 which is expected to give efficient results by the end of 2015. The suggestions
were appointing “filtering officials composed of experienced Registry lawyers under the
authority of the President of the Court” for dealing with large number of inadmissible
applications in order to discharge the supremacy of single judges and was found beneficial
for immediate reaction and cost-effectiveness, creating a new category of judges which will
possess the required qualifications for appointment to judicial office and subject to
independence and impartiality requirements which granted the ability of receiving a judicial
decision to all applicants alongside the efficiency gains from appointing decision-makers
with judicial experience, whereas the issues of the need of time to make the system
operational, budgetary, language barriers and recruitment difficulties displayed as possible
cons of the option. The last option was filtering the inadmissible cases on procedural
grounds by the judicial officials of the Registry and by a new category of judges and this
option served as a combination of the mentioned options and would be needed when
preserving judicial decision-making where some opinion is needed on cases with
substantive issues whereas the cases which would not be valid for clearly inadmissible
applications. This issue has been agreed upon to be discussed after the evaluation process
for Protocol 14 comes to an end.
Shortcomings of the Convention
One of the reasons why International community has been keen on reforming the Court is
that the European Convention, which serves as a keystone for maintaining the human rights
and fundamental freedoms, has been found inefficient, salient, exclusive, narrow-scoped,
and restrictive on the exercise of the rights granted by the Convention alongside the
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Since the base of the Court has
been criticized, its functionality sure is a question raised by the international community.
Even though the reforms made due to date have been serving for the aim of the wellness of
the Court and its efficiency in protecting the fundamental freedoms and human rights.
Points that should be covered in the documents
!
!
! !
31
31!
•
You are expected to examine the necessity of implementing new
protocols and reforms,
•
You shall take the previous reforms into consideration whilst coming
up with new ones in order to enhance the infrastructure of the Court,
•
All the implementations and further steps which are aimed to be taken
shall be in accordance with the wellness of the Court’s reputation,
•
You are expected to focus on improving the issues of dealing with the
high number of applications, repetitive cases, the qualification of the
Judges and the need of the Court with giving priority to the issues
degrading the reputation and the work-log of the Court,
•
You are highly encouraged to decide on a filtering unit in order to deal
efficiently with the backlog of both clearly and substantively
inadmissible applications,
•
Reforming the Court by taking the lacking points of the European
Convention and the other conventions supported by the Council and
the Committee is something to bear in mind as well as taking the
recent reforms and the conferences into account.
!
!
! !
32
32!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/comp301.htm
http://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/structure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Assembly_of_the_Council_of_Europe
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Adoption
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Court_in_brief_ENG.pdf
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/50Questions_ENG.pdf
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/reports/html/214.htm
http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=court/reform&c=#n1365510045079_pointer
http://www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Reports/Html/213.htm
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2014-ECHR_response_CDDH_report.pdf
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2012_Brighton_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2012_Brighton_Opinion_ENG.pdf
https://legalinformatics.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/conference-on-the-future-of-theeuropean-court-of-human-rights/
http://www.gddc.pt/direitos-humanos/portugal-dh/acordaos/docs/h-inf_2010_5.pdf
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/1722/1/The_Interlaken_Declaration.pdf
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2011_Izmir_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf
http://www.coe.int/t/cm/home_en.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Ministers_of_the_Council_of_Europe!
!
!
! !
33
33!