Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

2020
14th Annual Report
of the Committee of Ministers
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
SUPERVISION
OFTHE EXECUTION
OF JUDGMENTS
AND DECISIONS
OFTHE EUROPEAN COURT
OF HUMAN RIGHTS
2020
Europarådet 2020-21
ERD Alm.del - Bilag 11
Offentligt
SUPERVISION OF THE EXECUTION
OF JUDGMENTS AND DECISIONS
OFTHE EUROPEAN COURT
OF HUMAN RIGHTS
14th Annual Report
of the Committee of Ministers
2020
French edition:
Surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts
et décisions de la Cour européenne des
droits de l’homme. 14e
rapport annuel
du Comité des Ministres – 2020
All requests concerning the reproduction
or translation of all or part of this
document should be addressed to
the Directorate of Communication
(F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex
or publishing@coe.int). All other
correspondence concerning this
document should be addressed
to the Directorate General of
Human Rights and Rule of Law.
Cover design and layout: Documents
and Publications Production
Department(SPDP), Council of Europe
Photos: © Council of Europe
This publication has been copy-
edited by the Department for the
Execution of Judgments of the
European Court of Human Rights.
© Council of Europe, March 2021
Printed at the Council of Europe
Page 3
Contents
I. PREFACE BY THE CHAIRS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS MEETINGS 7
II. OVERVIEW OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND RULE OF LAW 11
Introductory remarks 11
Inter-state and other cases related to post-conflict situations or unresolved conflicts 13
“Article 18”cases concerning abusive limitations of rights and freedoms 14
Systemic/structural problems and advances 17
Towards further enhancement of the execution process 26
Concluding remarks 28
III. OUTREACH ACTIVITIES (COOPERATION ACTIVITIES, COMMUNICATION AND
INFORMATION) 31
A. Activities of the Department for the Execution of Judgments 32
B. General co-operation activities and National Action Plans 34
C. Targeted Convention-related co-operation projects 34
IV. STATISTICS 37
A. Overview 37
A.1. New cases 37
A.2. Pending cases 37
A.3. Closed cases 38
B. New cases 38
B.1. Leading or repetitive 38
B.2. Enhanced or standard supervision 39
B.3. New cases – State by State 40
C. Pending cases 43
C.1. Leading or repetitive 43
C.2. Enhanced or standard supervision 43
C.3. Pending cases – State by State 45
D. Closed cases 48
D.1. Leading or repetitive 48
D.2. Enhanced or standard supervision 48
D.3. Closed cases – State by State 50
E. Supervision process 53
E.1. Action plans / Action reports 53
E.2. Interventions of the Committee of Ministers 54
E.3. Transfers of leading cases/groups of cases 54
E.4. Contributions by NHRIs and NGOs 55
E.5. Main themes of leading cases under enhanced supervision 56
E.6. Main States with leading cases under enhanced supervision 57
F. Length of the execution process 58
F.1. Leading cases pending 58
F.2. Leading cases closed 60
Page 4 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
G. Just satisfaction 62
G.1. Just satisfaction awarded 62
G.2. Respect of payment deadlines 64
H. Additional statistics 67
H.1. Overview of friendly settlements and WECL cases 67
H.2. WECL cases and Friendly settlements – State by State 67
V. NEW JUDGMENTS WITH INDICATIONS OF RELEVANCE FOR THE EXECUTION 71
A. Pilot judgments which became final in 2020 71
B. Judgments with indications of relevance for the execution (under Article 46) which
became final in 2020 72
VI. FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS 79
A. Internet 79
B. Publications 80
APPENDIX – GLOSSARY 81
Germany
Mr Rolf MAFAEL
Greece
Mr Panayiotis BEGLITIS
Hungary
Mr Harry Alex RUSZ
Page 7
I. Preface by the Chairs
of the Human Rights meetings
T
he year 2020 was defined by the Covid-19 pandemic, which posed significant
and unprecedented challenges. It was also the year of the 70th anniversary of
the European Convention on Human Rights, which was a landmark moment.
These two key events evidently impacted on the Council of Europe during 2020.
In response to the extraordinary context of the year, and in line with its priority of
effectively responding to the sanitary crisis in full respect for human rights and the
principles of democracy and the rule of law, many initiatives were taken under the
auspices of the Greek Chairmanship to adapt to the new situation and ways of work-
ing. The Ministerial Session on 4 November 2020 was held for the first time entirely
online. On that occasion, marking the 70th anniversary of the Convention, the
Committee of Ministers adopted a Declaration as well as a decision underlining the
extraordinary contribution of the Convention system to the protection and promo-
tion of human rights and the rule of law in Europe, and to the implementation of the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights, as well as its central role in maintaining and
fostering democratic stability across the Continent. The Committee also appreciated
that, despite the pandemic, the European Court of Human Rights has continued to
work efficiently and the Committee has been able to maintain its supervision of the
execution of its judgments.
TheCommitteealsoreviewedthedecadeofreformithadinitiatedwiththeInterlaken
process concluding that whilst no comprehensive reform of the Convention machin-
ery is now needed, further efforts should be made to ensure the continued effec-
tiveness of the Convention system. In relation to the supervision of the execution of
judgments at its Human Rights meetings, the Committee decided to further develop
its working methods, including by appropriate recourse to political leverage to deal
with cases of non-execution or persistent refusal to execute the Court’s judgments.
Those conclusions corresponded with a central priority of the German Chairmanship,
namely to highlight the special role of the European Court of Human Rights and to
explore ways to further improve the Convention’s unique human rights protection
mechanism. As stated by the Chair of the Committee of Ministers, Minister Heiko
Maas, on the occasion of the first part of the 2021 Ordinary Session of the Council
of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (Strasbourg, 25-28 January 2021), all Council of
Europe member States must abide by final judgments of the European Court of
Human Rights. National rules provide no justification for only implementing these
judgments in part or not implementing them at all and thereby breaching interna-
tional law.
Page 8 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
In the context of its priority to explore ways to improve human rights protection, the
GermanChairmanshipheldaseriesofinternationalexpertconferencesandseminars
on the implementation of the Court’s judgments, its interaction with the member
States’ constitutional courts and the role of member States’ authorised representa-
tives at the Court, in particular with regard to the implementation of the Court’s
judgments and the more efficient handling of cases arising out of state conflicts.
OnesucheventofnotetookplaceinNovember2020whentheGermanChairmanship
organised an on-line workshop attended by more than 100 officials from Council
of Europe member States on the execution of the ECHR judgments. The workshop
aimed at initiating a dialogue and providing a forum for “brainstorming” between
academiaandpracticeonwaystopromoteanenvironmentconducivetoprompt,full
and effective execution of ECHR judgments. The goal was to develop an additional
analytical framework that would give impetus to the ongoing efforts within the
Council of Europe to enhance execution of ECHR judgments. Discussions between
experts and Council of Europe representatives explored whether and how the
findings of compliance research may be used to enhance the execution of ECHR
judgments in practice.
This and other conferences held under the German chairmanship provided impor-
tant forums for discussion and reflection on the supervision process. They also
gave visibility to the Committee’s “extensive acquis” relating to Article 46 of the
Convention, recognised in the landmark judgment of the Grand Chamber of the
Court in 2020 under Article 46 § 4 Convention as forming part of the comprehensive
framework for the execution of the Court’s judgments. The Committee’s decisions
and the conferences and seminars held by the German Chairmanship all demon-
strate that the concepts of shared responsibility and subsidiarity are essential to the
supervision of the execution of judgments. It goes without saying that the sanitary
situation has affected all actors in the Convention system. However, the Committee’s
increasing transparency and development of synergies with other actors did not
stop. This year’s annual report also shows an unprecedented number of submissions
from NGOs/NHRIs and from a wide range of States.
As also recognised by the Grand Chamber in its Article 46 §4 judgment, a unique fea-
ture of the Committee’s work in its supervision role is the fact it is a body of a political
character acting within a legal framework. Important challenges in the supervision
process and previously identified in the Committee’s work remain, including prob-
lems of capacity of domestic actors, insufficient resources, insufficient political will
or even clear disagreement with a Strasbourg ruling. The political aspect of its work
was identified by the Committee at its Ministerial session in Athens as a means to
be further developed in order to enhance the efficiency of the supervision process,
including through the appropriate recourse to political leverage to deal with cases
of non-execution of persistent refusal to execute the Court’s judgments. The work
to be done in following up on that decision will be vital to ensure the difficulties
identified in the execution process are overcome.
The legacy impact of the priority of the 2019 Georgian presidency on the issue of
human rights and environmental protection can also be seen both directly, with
the Committee’s examination in 2020 of some key cases concerning environmental
Preface by the Chairs of the Human Rights meetings Page 9
issues, and indirectly as the increased use of technology in the Committee’s work
has had a positive impact on its environmental footprint. However, although the
Committee has risen to the challenge of the many difficulties posed by the circum-
stances of this year, we look forward to resuming some of our previous ways of
working. Real-life contacts cannot be fully replaced, despite the innovative use of
technology and the willingness of all involved to adapt.
The essential message from the three chairs of the Human Rights meetings in 2020
is that the challenging and difficult times experienced during this pandemic year
have only reinforced the importance of the core values of human rights, democracy
and the rule of law that are the essence of the Convention system and which are
protected by the Committee in its work supervising the execution of judgments.
As said by the Secretary General in her statement at the opening of the First Part-
session of the Parliamentary Assembly in January this 2021, in choosing to ratify
the European Convention on Human Rights and join our Organisation, member
States voluntarily undertook to respect the judgments of the Court. This is not a
kind request; it is a binding requirement.
Greece
Mr Panayiotis BEGLITIS
Germany
Mr Rolf MAFAELI
Hungary
Mr Harry Alex RUSZ
Page 11
II. Overview of major developments
by the Director General of the
Directorate General of Human
Rights and Rule of Law
Introductory remarks
2020 was a challenging year due to the unprecedented public health crisis caused
by the Covid-19 pandemic. Notwithstanding, the Committee of Ministers, supported
by the Department for the Execution of Judgments (DEJ), was able to hold its four
annual Human Rights meetings, albeit with some modifications, including split-
ting the June meeting in two, with some decisions adopted by written procedure
followed by an in-person meeting early in September, and holding the December
meeting in a hybrid format using videoconferencing. Despite the restrictions, the
Committee examined a total of 131 cases or groups of cases concerning 28 States,
which is comparable to the number of cases usually examined in recent years.
Mr Christos GIAKOUMOPOULOS
Page 12 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
Furthermore, some significant advances were made in 2020. The number of judg-
ments pending before the Committee reached 5,233, among the lowest counts
since 2006. It follows the closure in 2020 of 983 cases (including 187 “leading” cases1
revealing notably structural or systemic problems), as a result of the adoption by
respondent States of individual and a wide range of legislative and other general
measures to execute the Court’s judgments. Among the most significant cases
which the Committee was able to close in 2020 were three cases regarding abusive
limitations of the right to liberty and security in Azerbaijan (individual measures
in Ilgar Mammadov and Rasul Jafarov), and a case concerning voting rights in local
elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Baralija) (discussed in more detail below).
Despite the difficulties linked to the pandemic, 2020 saw a significant reinforcement
of the transparency and participatory character of the execution process, through
the first ever submission to the Committee of Ministers of a Rule 9 communication
by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, swiftly followed by four
more, and a record number of communications from civil society organisations and
national human rights institutions.
However, this is not a time for complacency. Serious challenges continue to be raised
in the context of the execution of many cases. Three of the categories posing partic-
ular challenges are set out below. Taken together, they represented approximately
53% of the cases which were examined by the Committee during its 2020 Human
Rights meetings.
The first category encompasses the two inter-state cases and a larger number of
individual applications linked to post-conflict situations or unresolved conflicts.
Progress with the execution of such cases, in general takes time and requires a
concerted engagement by the Committee and the Secretariat, as well as the States
concerned. Experience suggests that alternative approaches to address such cases
within the supervision process could be usefully explored. This all the more given
the increasing number of inter-state applications reaching the Court.2
Another sensitive category of cases is the “Article 18” judgments, concerning abu-
sive limitations of rights and freedoms, which are increasing and as of end 2020
concerned five member States. These cases require special attention since, not
only are they typically linked to systemic problems at national level but because
they also, by their nature, have a prominent political dimension which may create
barriers to swift execution.
Finally, mention must be made of the many long-standing systemic and structural
problems identified by the Court’s judgments. In particular, two types of cases
(ineffective investigations into ill-treatment or death caused by security forces and
1. It is the Committee’s practice to group cases against a State requiring similar execution measures,
particularly general measures, and examine them jointly. The first case in the group is designated
as the leading case as regards the supervision of the general measures and repetitive cases within
thegroupcanbeclosedwhenitisassessedthatallpossibleindividualmeasuresneededtoprovide
redress to the applicant have been taken.
2. As of January 2021 there were eight inter-state applications pending before the Court, almost all
of them related to situations of crisis or conflict, see: https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Press_Q_A_
Inter-State_cases_ENG.pdf.
Overview of major developments by the Director General Page 13
poor conditions of detention), , have been for many years amongst the most numer-
ous and slow to resolve issues under enhanced supervision by the Committee of
Ministers. Of equal importance are other cases linked to democracy and the rule of
law, notably those concerning the right to free elections, freedom of expression and
assembly and the independence and impartiality of the judicial system.
As reaffirmed by the Committee of Ministers at its 130th
Session in Athens in
November 2020, it is the respondent States’ responsibility to resolve systemic and
structural human rights problems identified by the Court in its judgments. In order
to succeed, the domestic capacity for rapid, full and effective execution of the Court’s
judgments has to be further strengthened. Further high-level political commitment
is also, however, necessary to resolve some of the more intractable problems.
Inter-state and other cases related to post-conflict
situations or unresolved conflicts3
Such cases have been on the Committee’s agenda for many years and have proved
challenging, whether they originate in individual or inter-state applications. The
execution of these cases can be difficult due to their prominent political dimensions
at national or international level and the fact that they are linked to traumatic armed
violence requiring a long period of healing.
It was encouraging that some such cases advanced and could be closed (partly or
wholly)in2020.OneexampleistheSkendžićandKrznarićv.Croatiagroup,concerning
ineffective investigations into war crimes. The Committee noted, in particular, the
development of the Constitutional Court’s case-law allowing judicial review of the
effectiveness of investigations into war crimes, which led to the European Court’s
2019 decision in Kušić and Others, recognising that a constitutional complaint is an
effective remedy for allegations concerning ineffective investigations. In addition,
statistical data shows a further increase of the total numbers of opened war crime
investigations and convictions. Particularly welcome was the adoption in 2019 of
the Act on the Missing Persons in the Homeland War and other steps aiming at
providing a higher degree of protection for family members of missing persons and
establishing an effective legal framework.
Another case concerns conviction inabsentia for war crimes in Croatia (Sanader). The
violation in this case was an unfair trial since the domestic courts did not grant the
applicant, who resided in Serbia, the reopening of criminal proceedings in which
he was convicted and sentenced in absentia to a prison term for war crimes. Major
general measures were adopted, that enabled the Committee to close this case,
including the 2017 amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code. It gave all persons
sentenced in absentia the possibility to request the reopening of the criminal pro-
ceedingsiftheyprovidearesidentialaddressforthedeliveryofthecourtdocuments.
A major and long-pending case related to a past armed conflict is the inter-state case
of Cyprus v. Turkey concerning various violations of the Convention in relation to the
3. The summaries contained in the present sections concerning major case developments in 2020
in no way bind the Committee of Ministers.
Page 14 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
situation in the northern part of Cyprus since the 1974 military intervention by Turkey.
InSeptember2020theCommitteedecidedtoclosetheexaminationoftheissueofthe
property rights of Greek Cypriots living in the northern part of Cyprus and their heirs.
As reflected in the Committee’s decisions, this part of the Court’s judgment covers
the property rights of Greek Cypriot property owners who left the northern part of
Cyprus after May 1994, as well as inheritance rights of heirs of Greek Cypriot owners
still living in the northern part of Cyprus in May 1994. The Committee continues reg-
ularly to supervise the measures taken in response to the other findings of the Court,
inrelationtoGreekCypriotmissingpersonsandtheirfamiliesandthepropertyrights
of displaced Greek Cypriots, as well as the payment by Turkey of the just satisfaction
awardedbytheEuropeanCourtinthe2014judgmentCyprusv.Turkey(justsatisfaction).
In early September 2020, the Committee examined the group of cases Catan and
Others v. Russia and adopted its fourth interim resolution, highlighting its concern
about the lack of progress. The cases concern the violation of the right to education
ofchildrenorparentsofchildrenfromLatin-scriptschoolslocatedintheTransnistrian
region of the Republic of Moldova. In the interim resolution, the Committee noted
with deep regret that, while nearly eight years had passed since the Court’s first
judgment in the group, the Russian authorities had failed to arrive at an acceptable
response as to its execution and had not complied with the Committee’s call to
present an action plan setting out the concrete measures to execute the judgments
in this group. The Russian authorities were urged to pay the just satisfaction and
default interest owing to the applicants without further delay and to provide an
action plan setting out their concrete proposals as regards the execution of the
judgments in this group in time for the Committee’s next examination.
The Committee examined the question of the payment of the just satisfaction
awarded by the Court in the Georgia v. Russia (I) interstate case at each of its four
human rights meetings in 2020. The case concerns the arrest, detention and expul-
sion from the Russian Federation of large numbers of Georgian nationals in 2006
and 2007. In its just satisfaction judgment of 31 January 2019, the Grand Chamber
held that, within three months, the Russian Federation was to pay the Government
of Georgia 10,000,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by the
group of at least 1,500 Georgian nationals, who were the individual victims of the
violations. At its last examination of the year, in December 2020, the Committee
adopted an interim resolution, expressing profound concern that the just satisfac-
tion had not been paid, but noting with interest the consultations between the
Secretariat and the Russian authorities, and urging the Russian authorities to finalise
these consultations without further delay in order to either directly pay the just sat-
isfaction, together with the default interest accrued, to the applicant Government
or to commit to using the Council of Europe as an intermediary for that payment.
“Article 18”cases concerning abusive
limitations of rights and freedoms
The Convention allows for certain restrictions to the protected rights and freedoms.
For example, it is permissible to deprive a person of liberty in the context of lawful
criminal proceedings or to place limitations on a person’s freedom of assembly
Overview of major developments by the Director General Page 15
when these are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society. To protect
against the abuse of power, Article 18 prohibits the misuse of these restrictions for
other purposes.
Violations of Article 18 remain rare and are regarded as particularly serious. By
the end of 2020, there were 12 such cases pending before the Committee, against
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine.4
These cases concern primarily the
arrest, detention and, in some cases, conviction of government critics, civil society
activists, human-rights defenders and politicians, in many cases involving criminal
prosecutions for charges unsupported by evidence and where the ulterior motive
is to silence or punish the applicant and discourage other activists or critics.
In accordance with the Committee of Ministers’ usual practice, the principle of res-
titutio in integrum requires in such cases that all the negative consequences of the
abusive criminal proceedings be erased for the applicant.5
Other required measures
focus on the need to prevent a repetition of abuses of power, either for the applicant
or for others. Where the violation reveals a misuse of the criminal justice system,
reforms to reinforce the independence of the judiciary and to shield the prosecuting
authorities from political influence may be necessary.
In 2020 encouraging progress was made in the cases concerning two applicants
in the Ilgar Mammadov (now Mammadli) group of cases. Following the Court’s
judgment under Article 46 § 4 of the Convention in the Ilgar Mammadov case; and
the on-going intensive examination of the group by the Committee thereafter,
including the adoption of an interim resolution in March 2020, the Supreme Court
of Azerbaijan, in a landmark judgment in April 2020, quashed the convictions of
Ilgar Mammadov and Rasul Jafarov and awarded them compensation for non-pe-
cuniary damage resulting from their unlawful arrest and imprisonment. As a result,
in September 2020 the Committee was able to adopt a final resolution closing the
cases of these two applicants. The examination by the Committee of the individ-
ual measures in respect of the other applicants, particularly the quashing of their
convictions, continues. In tandem, the Committee has emphasised the urgency
of meaningful and effective reforms aimed at ensuring the independence of the
judiciary and the prosecuting authorities.
The applicant in the Kavala v. Turkey case was arrested in October 2017, and then
placed in pre-trial detention, accused of attempting to overthrow the government
within the context of investigations into the Gezi events of 2013 and to overthrow
the constitutional order within the context of the attempted coup in July 2016.
The Court found, inter alia, that this arrest and pre-trial detention took place in the
absence of evidence to support a reasonable suspicion the applicant had com-
mitted an offence and also that it pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to silence
him and dissuade other human rights defenders, in violation of Article 18 taken in
conjunction with Article 5 § 1. Since the Court’s judgment became final in 2020, the
Committee examined this case at each of its Human Rights meetings. It adopted
4. The group of six cases of Mammadli v. Azerbaijan, Merabishvili v. Georgia, Navalnyy and Navalnyy
(No.2) v. Russia, Kavala v. Turkey, Lutsenko and Tymoshenko v. Ukraine.
5. This practice was confirmed by the Court’s 2019 Grand Chamber judgment, Ilgar Mammadov
v. Azerbaijan (Article 46 § 4), Appl. No. 15172/13, judgment of 29 May 2019.
Page 16 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
an Interim Resolution at its December 2020 Human Rights meeting. The authorities
were urged to take all steps at their disposal to ensure that the Constitutional Court
complete its examination of the applicant’s complaint without further delay and in
a manner compatible with the spirit and conclusions of the Court’s judgment. In the
meantime, the Committee has strongly urged the authorities to ensure Mr Kavala’s
immediate release.
As regards Lutsenko and Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, in 2020 the Committee noted with
satisfaction that both applicants had been released and fully rehabilitated and that
all the negative consequences of the violations had been erased, thus consider-
ing that no further individual measures were necessary. It noted with satisfaction
the major reform of the public prosecution service, finally abolishing its general
supervisory function. However, it noted with regret that the Parliament retains its
constitutional competence to declare that the Prosecutor General be dismissed,
which may threaten the latter’s external independence. The authorities were invited
to further align the Law on the Public Prosecution Service with the constitutional
amendments and to redouble their efforts on the implementation of the provisions
of that law and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine which provide safeguards
for the autonomy of individual prosecutors.
The applicant in the case of Merabishviliv.Georgia was placed in pre-trial detention in
thecontextofcriminalproceedingsforembezzlementandabuseofofficialauthority.
The European Court found, inter alia, that the predominant purpose of the pre-trial
detention changed over time: while in the beginning it was for the legitimate pur-
pose of the investigation of offences based on a reasonable suspicion, the predom-
inant purpose later became to obtain information about issues of political interest
In 2020, the Committee noted that the authorities had not yet followed its repeated
indications concerning the scope of the renewed investigation and expressed con-
cern as to the level of diligence, thoroughness and speed with which it was being
conducted. The authorities were urged to demonstrate their firm commitment to
conduct a fully effective investigation with a view to establishing the identity and
criminal liability of those responsible for all aspects of the Article 18 violation. The
Committee also strongly encouraged them to continue reforms aimed at further
enhancing the independence, effectiveness and accountability of the prosecution
service, including considering whether further legislative changes are required.
Finally, in the Navalnyy and Navalnyy (No. 2) cases against Russia, the Court found
two violations of Article 18. In the first judgment it found that the applicant’s arrest
and detention on two occasions in connection with his peaceful participation in
public gatherings pursued an ulterior purpose, “namely to suppress that political
pluralism which forms part of ‘effective political democracy’ governed by ‘the rule
of law’”. In the second judgment, it found that imposing an order on the applicant
for ten months’ house arrest, in the context of a criminal investigation, almost imme-
diately after the two arrests found to be in breach of Article 18 in the first Navalnyy
judgment, had to be seen in the context of that sequence of events and pursued the
ulterior purpose of suppressing political pluralism. During its examination in 2020 (in
conjunction with the Lashmankin group of cases concerning freedom of assembly),
the Committee regretted that, apart from the payment of just satisfaction in the first
judgment, no information on other individual measures had been provided. It took
Overview of major developments by the Director General Page 17
note with concern of the applicant’s recent complaints of continuing interferences
with his freedom of assembly and called on the authorities to take action as a matter
of urgency with a view to ensuring that he could exercise his rights to freedom of
peaceful assembly and freedom of expression without hindrance.
Systemic/structural problems and advances
Cases concerning ineffective investigations into ill-treatment or
death caused by security forces and poor conditions of detention
As documented again in this annual report, there are a number of long-standing,
mainly structural and systemic, issues which have been under the Committee’s
supervision for many years, such as ill-treatment or death caused by security forces
and ineffective investigations, and non-Convention compliant conditions of deten-
tion. Thus in 2020, 15% of all leading cases in the enhanced supervision procedure
concerned ill-treatment by state agents and/or failure to investigate such allega-
tions, making it the highest category pending execution. Substandard conditions
of detention represented the second highest percentage of enhanced supervision
leading cases (10%).
Cases raising systemic and structural problems require further sustained and con-
certed efforts to be made primarily by the responding States, in line with the prin-
ciple of subsidiarity, the Council of Europe always remaining at their disposal for
any further support needed. Despite the advances made throughout recent years,
there is still important work to be done.
Ineffective investigations into ill-treatment or death caused
by security forces
Some case-based details are provided below starting with certain major cases con-
cerning ineffective investigations into ill-treatment or death caused by security forces
whose number was, once again, the highest among the themes under enhanced
supervision in 2020.
In the relevant major group of cases concerning Armenia (Virabyan group) in 2020,
the Committee encouraged the authorities to complete their plan to install audio
and video surveillance in police premises as well as the elaboration of guidelines
regarding the classification of acts as torture and other ill-treatment. The Committee
reiterated its call to exclude the crime of torture from the statute of limitations and
requested more information on the planned anonymous referral mechanism for
complaints of ill-treatment.
In the Velikova group of cases concerning Bulgaria, the Committee adopted in 2020
an interim resolution, having noted, inter alia, that work to ensure the indepen-
dence of investigations and preliminary inquiries is still at a preliminary stage. The
authorities were urged to amend, without further delay, the criminal law in order it
to provide expressly for the offence of torture accompanied by adequate, dissuasive
penalties; to provide in law for the suspension of police officers officially accused
in criminal proceedings of ill-treatment; to improve the promptness, quality and
Page 18 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
confidentiality of medical examinations and recording of injuries of detainees; and
to introduce an automatic notification to the Prosecutor’s Office of complaints of
ill-treatment received by the police.
As regards Georgia (Tsintsabadze group), in 2020 the Committee noted the findings
contained in the report of the European Committee for the prevention of Torture
(CPT) on its 2018 visit, indicating that hardly any allegations of ill-treatment by
police officers had been reported, and welcomed the additional institutional and
capacity building measures adopted in order to strengthen the newly established
State Inspector’s Service (SIS). However, the authorities were called on to provide
clarifications as to the current crime classification practice and the opportunities
available to victims to challenge classification decisions. In addition, the Committee
called upon the authorities to provide their evaluation of compliance of the current
legislative framework and domestic courts’ case-law with the obligations stemming
from Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
The Committee also examined the long-standing Gubacsi group of cases concern-
ing Hungary. It invited the authorities to provide information on measures taken
to enhance the operation and effectiveness of the National Preventive Mechanism
function of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights and the safeguards against
ill-treatment. The Committee called on the authorities, at the highest possible level,
to reiterate their zero-tolerance message towards ill-treatment in law enforcement
and urged them to present a comprehensive plan for the provision of adequate
and systematic training to all actors involved to prevent and combat ill-treatment
by law enforcement officers.
With regard to the Russian group of cases KhashiyevandAkayeva, concerning actions
of the security forces in Chechnya in 1996-2006, the Committee expressed profound
regret that the measures taken so far had not led to the location of any further
missing persons and the elucidation of their fate, thus not providing the answers
for which victims’ families have been waiting, some for a very long time. It stressed
the urgent necessity to give renewed consideration to the creation of a single and
high-level body mandated to search for persons reported as missing as a result of
counter-terrorist operations in the North Caucasus.
Similar questions were examined and raised in the Bati and Others group of cases
concerning Turkey. The Committee noted with concern that Rule 9 submissions and
the recent CPT reports indicate an increase in the number of ill-treatment allegations
against State agents and that general measures taken so far have been insufficient to
ensure effective investigations, still allowing for a strong climate of impunity. Thus,
it stressed once again the need to take further and result-oriented measures in pur-
suing allegations against State agents, including notably the extension or abolition
of the statute of limitation for all serious crimes, causing intentional bodily harm,
and excessive use of force, and giving priority in particular to older cases pending
against State agents to avoid prescription.
With regard to Ukraine (Kaverzingroup of cases) the Committee highlighted, in 2020,
that the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) acts now as an independent institution
with competence to investigate torture and ill-treatment allegations concerning law
enforcement officers. It also noted the high-level coordination meeting organised in
Overview of major developments by the Director General Page 19
June 2020 under the auspices of the Prosecutor General’s Office giving a “zero toler-
ance message” against torture. Notwithstanding, the authorities were encouraged
to prioritise reflection on the necessary amendments to the legal framework against
torture and ill-treatment and compensation to victims and to adopt, without delay,
the most appropriate and Convention-compliant amendments.
Lastly,anotherlong-pendinggroupofcasesistheMcKerr v.UnitedKingdom,concern-
ingdeathsoftheapplicants’next-of-kininNorthernIrelandinthe1980sand1990s.In
aninterimresolutionadoptedinDecember2020,theCommitteenoted,interalia,the
authorities’continuedcommitment to reforming thecurrent approach toaddressing
the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past and the indication that they intend to consult
with all key stakeholders before progress can be made. However, it expressed pro-
found concern that the authorities had not provided any details in response to the
Committee’s request for information on the approach to legacy investigations set
out in a written ministerial statement of March 2020. The authorities were called on
to follow up on their previous commitments to publish and introduce legislation to
implement the Stormont House Agreement to address these legacy issues.
Poor conditions of detention and medical care
(including the need for effective remedies)
In 2020, cases concerningpoorconditionsofdetentionandmedicalcare(includingthe
need for effective remedies) also followed the long-standing pattern of scoring very
highly among the numbers of cases under enhanced supervision by the Committee
of Ministers.
In the Nisiotis group of cases concerning Greece, the Committee, while noting the
criminal law amendments adopted in 2019, aiming at enforcing a more moderate
criminalpolicyandresolvingthestructuralproblemofprisonovercrowding,stressed
that their medium and long-term effects still remained to be seen in practice. It
underlined that further measures, underpinned by a strong and enduring com-
mitment at high political level, are required to bring about a swift, comprehensive
and sustainable resolution of the problem of overcrowding and poor conditions of
detention.
As regards Hungary (Varga and Others and István Gábor Kovács group of cases), the
Committee noted with interest the positive impact of the substantial measures
already taken to resolve the structural problem of prison overcrowding and the
progress achieved so far. However, concern was expressed about the continued
suspensionofpaymentsofcompensationawardedundertheexistingcompensatory
scheme and the authorities were urged to ensure that a potentially revised remedy
be Convention-compliant.
Detention conditions in Moldova were examined in the context of the I.D. group of
cases. The Committee invited the authorities to complete the revision of the system
of reduction of sentences as a compensatory remedy without delay, while, pending
that revision process, the authorities were urged to take all necessary measures to
avoid an influx of new manifestly well-founded applications to the European Court.
It was also stressed, in this context, that the amounts of monetary compensation
Page 20 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
awarded at domestic level must not be unreasonably low in comparison with the
awards made by the European Court.
In RezmiveșandOthers and Bragadireanu group concerning Romania, the Committee
underlined that, despite the significant progress achieved in reducing overcrowding
in detention facilities, further measures underpinned by a strong and enduring com-
mitment at a high political level are required to bring about a sustainable solution.
The Committee welcomed the revised action plan adopted by the government to
address the substantive problems revealed by these judgments.
As regards another Romanian group of cases (Parascineti), concerning involuntary
placement in a psychiatric hospital unit, the Committee noted with satisfaction the
progress in the preparation of a comprehensive action plan to resolve the long-
standing problems revealed by these judgments. However, it underlined, in view of
the amount of time that has passed since these judgments became final, the crucial
importance of rapidly advancing the execution process, and to complete and submit
the action plan to the Committee as expeditiously as possible.
Lastly, the structural problems concerning detention conditions in Ukraine led the
Court to render a pilot judgment in 2020 (Sukachov). When examining this case in
2020, along with the Nevmerzhitsky group, the Committee reiterated that a lasting
solution to resolve the malfunctioning of the Ukrainian prison system as regards
overcrowding, poor material conditions of detention and transportation, and inad-
equate medical care in pre-trial detention facilities and prisons is still awaited. The
authorities were urged to further promote alternative sanctions and minimise the
use of pre-trial detention, and to urgently establish adequate preventive and com-
pensatory remedies.
The Council of Europe, including DEJ, continued its close co-operation and dialogue
with the national authorities in order to enhance the execution process concerning
the long-standing problems of ineffective investigations into ill-treatment or death
caused by security forces and poor prison conditions. It is noted that one of the five
firstthematicfactsheetsissuedin2020byDEJconcernedeffectiveinvestigationsinto
ill-treatment or death by security forces. The factsheet (translated into five non-of-
ficial languages) set out a number of examples of measures adopted and reported
by States, in the context of the execution of the European Court’s judgments, in
order to safeguard and reinforce the effectiveness of investigations, focusing on:
independence; adequacy; promptness; investigating special motives of crime; inde-
pendent oversight; and reparation for victims. As regards prisons, it is worth noting
that penitentiary reforms in various member States are supported by a number of
Council of Europe projects.6
It is encouraging that, in 2020, all respondent States
concerned showed their willingness to reinforce their dialogue and co-operation
with the Council of Europe, including through Action Plans,7
in order to overcome
the existing systemic shortcomings in these domains.
6. https://www.coe.int/en/web/criminal-law-coop/ongoing-projects.
7. See also annual report’s section on Outreach Activities.
Overview of major developments by the Director General Page 21
Cases linked to democracy and the rule of law
Right to free elections
A major and high-profile group of cases concerning democracy and the right to free
elections is the group of cases Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina. It concerns
discrimination against the applicants on account of their ineligibility to stand for
election to the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina due to their lack of affiliation
with a constituent people (i.e. Bosniaks, Croats or Serbs) or due to their failure to
meet a combination of the requirements of ethnic origin and place of residence. In
2020, the Committee of Ministers reiterated their concern that the authorities and
political leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina have not yet achieved a consensus on
the content of the required amendments to be introduced in the Constitution of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Committee noted with interest the 2020 conclusion
of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina setting up a high level ad hoc political
task force and tasking the Council of Ministers to prepare an action plan, interalia, for
the execution process. Lastly, the Committee highlighted the importance of seizing
the momentum to ensure that the necessary steps be taken to rapidly adopt the
necessary amendments before the end of 2021.
In 2020, the Committee also continued to supervise the execution by Lithuania of
the case of Paksas concerning the applicant’s ban from standing for parliamentary
elections since 2004. The Committee noted with deep regret that the authorities
were unable to observe their timeline for the completion of the legislative pro-
cess regarding Draft Law No. XIIIP-3867 in time for the parliamentary elections of
11 October 2020 and that, consequently, the applicant was unable to present him-
self in these elections, the third elections since the judgment became final in 2011.
The authorities were invited to present, by the end of December 2020, their new
timetable for the completion of the legislative process.
Freedom of expression and of assembly
A number of cases examined by the Committee in 2020 concern freedom of expres-
sion and freedom of assembly, which are fundamental pillars of all democratic soci-
eties. For example, in Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan, concerning violations of the
applicant journalist’s freedom of expression and private life, the Committee invited
the authorities to provide information on the developments in respect of the inves-
tigation into the criminal offences committed against the applicant. In addition, the
Committeeinvitedtheauthoritiestoprovideinformationonthemeasuresenvisaged
in response to the Court’s findings in this case with a view to protecting the private
and family life of journalists and the exercise of their freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression was also examined by the Committee in 2020, in the group
of cases Öner and Türk v. Turkey, concerning unjustified and disproportionate inter-
ference with the applicants’ freedom of expression on account of criminal pro-
ceedings initiated under the Criminal Code and Anti-Terrorism Law. The Committee
welcomed, interalia, the continuing good practice of the higher courts, in particular
the Constitutional Court, in applying the criminal law in accordance with Convention
principles. However, noting that it appeared that prosecutors and the lower courts
Page 22 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
continue to apply the criminal law without ensuring respect for freedom of expres-
sion, the Committee requested the authorities to provide detailed statistical infor-
mation showing the total number of prosecutions and convictions for the offences
at issue in this group of cases and information on the number of journalists prose-
cuted, convicted and held in pre-trial and post-conviction detention. Also, noting
that further measures are envisaged within the context of the Human Rights Action
Plan the Committee invited them to consider further legislative amendments and
to revise Article 301 of the Criminal Code without further delay.
IssuesconcerningfreedomofassemblyinRussiawereexaminedbytheCommitteein
2020 in the context of the LashmankinandOthers group. The Committee noted that,
despite certain positive steps taken in view of the pattern of violations identified by
the Court, further legislative and/or other measures are necessary to secure the right
to freedom of peaceful assembly and to bring an end to the pattern of violations of
Article 11. It requested, interalia, that the authorities introduce as a matter of priority
further changes to the legislation, particularly the Public Events Act, and highlighted,
interalia,thatlocalauthorities’discretiononplanningassembliesshouldbenarrowed,
byobligingtheauthoritiestothoroughlyassesstheproportionalityoftheirdecisions.
Independence and impartiality of the judicial system
In2020,theCommitteecontinuedtheexamination of cases concerning the indepen-
dence and impartiality of the judicial system which are fundamental for democracy,
the rule of law and human rights protection.
In S.Z./Kolevi v. Bulgaria, the Committee examined issues concerning lack of guaran-
tees for the independence of criminal investigations concerning the Chief Prosecutor
and other high-ranking officials close to him. The Committee noted, as concerns the
investigationsintoaChiefProsecutorandhisorherdeputies,thatthearrangementson
appointment,accountability,career,supervisionandsubordinationoftheprosecutors
andinvestigatingmagistratesinchargeofsuchinvestigations,donotensuregenuine
independence. The authorities were notably urged to ensure that the prosecutorial
members of the Supreme Judicial Council and the Chief Prosecutor do not play a
decisive role in the appointment, accountability or the career of any prosecutor or
investigator responsible for investigating a Chief Prosecutor or high-ranking officials.
In 2020, the Committee also continued the examination of Baka v. Hungary, which
concerns the undue and premature termination of the applicant’s mandate as
President of the former Hungarian Supreme Court through ad hominem legislative
measures. It noted with concern the continuing absence of safeguards in connection
with adhominem constitutional-level measures terminating a judicial mandate, and
Parliament’s competence, established in 2012 following the facts of the Baka case,
to impeach the President of the Kúria without judicial review. The authorities were
urged to submit information on further measures adopted or planned with a view
to guaranteeing that judicial mandates not be terminated by ad hominem constitu-
tional-level measures devoid of effective and adequate safeguards against abuse.
In Kudeshkina v. Russia, concerning a violation of the applicant’s freedom of expres-
sion due to disciplinary proceedings leading to her dismissal from judicial office,
the Committee adopted an interim resolution in 2020. The Committee recalled
Overview of major developments by the Director General Page 23
that, notwithstanding its previous positive assessment of the full range of general
measures taken, providing the applicant with appropriate redress is still required
to remove the chilling effect on judges’ freedom of expression created by the vio-
lation found in this case. The authorities were exhorted to do their utmost to secure
appropriate redress for the applicant as soon as possible to erase the consequences
of the violation of her right to freedom of expression as established by the Court
and to report to the Committee by 31 March 2021.
In the Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine group of cases, the Committee examined issues
related to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and the reform of the
system of judicial discipline and careers. As regards individual measures, it urged
the authorities to fully restore the applicants’ judicial status that existed before
the violations occurred, whilst also taking into account the principles of legal cer-
tainty. It also urged the authorities to elaborate and adopt a legislative framework
which would fully take into account the relevant Council of Europe standards. The
Committee called on the authorities to ensure that any criminal investigation against
a judge be compliant with the Council of Europe standards and recommendations,
and that the necessary procedural safeguards and review of investigative practices
be in place to effectively protect judges against undue influence.
In this context, one of the first thematic factsheets issued in 2020 by DEJ focused on
the independence and impartiality of the judicial system, in which it recalled that
under the Court’s case-law the obligation of States to ensure a trial by an “indepen-
dent and impartial tribunal” is not limited to the judiciary. It also implies obligations
on the executive, the legislature and any other State authority, regardless of its level,
to respect and abide by the judgments and decisions of the courts. In order for these
principles to exist in practice and thrive, they must be effectively incorporated into
everyday administrative attitudes and practices.
DGI, including DEJ, in 2020 placed particular emphasis on the performance of the
judicial systems and reinforced the relevant dialogue and cooperation with national
authorities.Forexample,inJanuary2020,representativesofDEJcarriedoutamission
to Turkey to discuss inadequate reasoning in domestic court judgments, a short-
coming increasingly underlined by the European Court in recent years. High-level
meetings were held with the Constitutional Court, Court of Cassation, and Council
of State; and also with the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, the Justice Academy,
Supreme Council of Education (YÖK), Union of the Turkish Bar Associations, and the
Ministry of Justice. As regards Ukraine, representatives of DEJ held a video confer-
ence with the President and Vice-President of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
Discussionsfocusedonthestateofplayanddevelopmentsconcerningtheexecution
by Ukraine of European Court judgments related to the Constitutional Court. Lastly,
DEJ took part in a high-level conference, organised by the Council of Europe in the
context of its activities of cooperation with Ukraine, on “Ensuring the uniformity of
judicial practice: Legal views of the Supreme Court and standards of the Council of
Europe”. Issues discussed included the case-law of the European Court of Human
Rights as guiding principles for the establishment of consistent and coherent case-
law by national courts.8
8. See also annual report’s section on Outreach Activities.
Page 24 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
Major advances in other cases examined by the Committee
of Ministers
A welcome development during 2020 concerned voting rights in local elections in
Bosnia and Herzegovina (the Baralija case). Since 2008, it had been impossible to
vote and stand in local elections in Mostar due to the State’s failure to adopt the
measures required for the holding of democratic elections following a decision of
the Constitutional Court declaring certain sections of the Election Act 2001 and the
Statute of the City of Mostar unconstitutional and ordering their amendment. In
July 2020, the Election Act was amended to enable local elections in Mostar, which
finally took place in December 2020. This was indeed a ground-breaking event,
welcomed by the Council of Europe and all other major international organisations,
contributing to the embeddedness of the Convention standards and the Court’s
case-law in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the latter’s path towards more stability
through stronger democracy.
Also noteworthy is the execution of a pilot judgment affecting thousands of persons
in the Western Balkans, Ališić and Others against Serbia and Slovenia. It concerned
the applicants’ inability to recover “old” foreign currency savings deposited in banks
with head offices in Slovenia or Serbia before the dissolution of the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. In 2018, the case was closed with regard to Slovenia, and in
2020, with regard to Serbia. In 2020, the verification scheme was near completion
and 94% of all claims for repayment lodged by depositors had been decided by
the Public Debt Administration, which had ordered repayment of approximately
75% of the total amount claimed by depositors.
In 2020, the Committee also examined cases with complex, long-standing problems
which advanced through the adoption by respondent States of measures consti-
tuting important steps forward. One such example is the case concerning Serbia’s
failure to provide credible information as to the fate of babies reported as missing
from maternity wards, mainly in the period from the 1970s to the 1990s (Zorica
Jovanović). In February 2020, Parliament adopted the law setting up an independent
investigation mechanism to establish the fate of “missing babies”. The Committee
welcomed the efforts on the part of all the authorities concerned to engage inten-
sively with the various parental organisations to find ways to address their different
concerns, including consultations with the parents organised by the Prime Minister.
Advances were also made in a case concerning discrimination in the enjoyment of
Roma children’s access to education in the Czech Republic (D.H. and Others): com-
plete closure, as from September 2020, of the reduced educational programme for
children with “mild mental disabilities”; the significant drop in 2019 of the propor-
tion of Roma primary school children educated under either individual plans or the
former reduced educational programme; the fact that, of all the primary school
children assessed as needing individual educational plans in 2019, only 4% were
Roma; the creation of an Expert Forum in order for the authorities to analyse all the
factors which are still impeding full educational equality.
Environmental protection was one of the major 2020 themes which were debated
in the Council of Europe, including in the context of the execution process. Thus,
Overview of major developments by the Director General Page 25
particularly welcome in 2020 was the adoption of comprehensive measures by
Georgia to enhance environmental protection as part of the right to respect for one’s
home and private life (Jugheli). The authorities implemented a series of reforms,
notablythroughtheamendedLawonEnvironmentalProtectionwhichprovidedthat
the issuance of environmental authorisations of public and private activities should
be subject to a prior compulsory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure.
The new EIA system requires any private and public company to conduct an EIA for
a planned activity. One of the main innovations of the current law concerns public
involvement in the process of rendering decisions, access to relevant information
and holding of public reviews at all stages.
Although cases of torture and other forms of ill-treatment by law enforcement
agents, and ineffective investigations into such acts, continue to constitute one of
the major structural issues dealt with by the Court and the Committee of Ministers,
a number of positive developments in member States allowed the Committee
to close wholly or partly some of these cases, as was the Italian cases Alberti and
Pennino. Following the ground-breaking 2017 introduction in the Criminal Code of
torture as a self-standing offence, further legislative changes ensured that, as from
2020, prescription is suspended after the first-instance judgment for the remaining
duration of the proceedings, while sentences imposed on public officials for torture
may not be suspended.
Last but not least, a number of group of cases whose supervision ended, wholly
or partly, in 2020 concern access to a court and the efficiency of justice at national
level, a cross-cutting and long-standing issue of crucial importance for the rule of law
and human rights protection in Europe. Indicatively, the Gjyligroup of cases against
Albania may be cited, concerning notably the failure of the public administration
or other legal persons under the responsibility of the Albanian State to abide by
final court decisions. A number of legislative reforms undertaken have introduced
substantial guarantees to the rights and status of civil servants, and administrative
courts have been established to adjudicate on disputes arising from administrative
decisions. Legislation has also introduced remedies pertaining to the enforcement
of final administrative court orders and decisions including an acceleratory and
compensatory remedy in cases of delayed enforcement.
Problems of excessively lengthy civil proceedings were also tackled in the Czech
Republic (Žirovnický) through comprehensive changes to the Supreme Court’s
case-law which enabled courts to award non-pecuniary damages due to protracted
compensation proceedings, while ongoing reforms to the civil procedure concern
its recodification, the possibility of collective action, the digitalisation of the justice
system and increase in courts’ personnel.
Advances made in the Russian judicial system allowed also the Committee to close
a group of cases (Mokrushina) concerning the authorities’ failure to properly notify
to parties scheduled court hearings. Measures adopted in order to implement
these judgments included the introduction of IT tools in the judicial system. The
adoption of similar measures allowed the Committee to also close another group
of cases (Ryakib Biryukov) concerning lack of public access to the full text of judicial
decisions. Following legislation adopted in 2010 and the development of IT tools,
Page 26 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
Russian courts started publishing the full texts of their judgments on their websites,
while copies of them became available from court registries upon request.
Lastly, issues of court impartiality were addressed in Moldova, in the case Tocono
and Profesorii Prometeişti. Under the amended Code of Civil Procedure, the judge
hearing a case shall be obliged to withdraw from it should he or she have personal,
direct or indirect, interest in its outcome, or if there exist other circumstances that
call into question their impartiality. Also, the parties to a trial or the court itself may
also request the removal of a judge for impartiality-related reasons. Noteworthy, in
this context, are measures taken in order to enhance law professionals’ training in
Convention standards and the Court’s case-law. Thus, in partnership with the Council
of Europe, the National Institute of Justice has developed a distance-learning course
for judges, prosecutors and lawyers entitled “IntroductiontotheEuropeanConvention
on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights”, which addresses, inter
alia, the standards under Article 6 of the Convention.
Towards further enhancement of the execution process
The need to enhance domestic capacity for rapid execution
notably of the judgments linked to systemic and structural
problems
TheCommitteeofMinistersRecommendation(2008)2onefficientdomesticcapacity
for rapid execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights has under-
lined the need to reinforce domestic capacity to execute the Court’s judgments,
noting, inter alia, the importance of early information and effective co-ordination
of all state actors involved in the execution process. This is particularly necessary in
cases revealing long-standing systemic and structural problems.
TheaboveRecommendationencouragesmemberStatestodesignateaco-ordinator
– individual or body – of execution of judgments at the national level, with reference
contacts in the relevant national authorities involved in the execution process. This
co-ordinator should have the necessary powers and authority to: acquire relevant
information; liaise with persons or bodies responsible at the national level for decid-
ing on the measures necessary to execute the judgment; and, if necessary, be able
to take or initiate relevant measures to accelerate the execution process. In the great
majority of member States, the Government Agent is designated as co-ordinator for
the execution of the Court’s judgments.
Despite the progress achieved in recent years in the domain of effective domestic
capacity for rapid execution of the Court’s judgments, two major, remaining chal-
lenges have been identified in practice:9
the status and resources of the national
co-ordinator; and the co-ordinator’s capacity in identifying execution measures and
promptly drawing up action plans and reports, in synergy with competent national
9. See also the CDDH GuidetogoodpracticeontheimplementationofRecommendation(2008)2ofthe
CommitteeofMinistersonefficientdomesticcapacityforrapidexecutionofjudgmentsoftheEuropean
Court of Human Rights, 2017.
Overview of major developments by the Director General Page 27
authorities, in order to address notably long-standing systemic and structural prob-
lems highlighted in the Court’s judgments.10
By its decisions adopted in Athens at the 130th
Session in November 2020, the
Committee of Ministers urged all member States to ensure that Recommendation
CM/Rec(2008)2begivenfulleffect.Therenewedsupportandemphasisplacedbythe
Committee of Ministers on the need for all member States to have the capacity for
rapid and efficient execution of the Court’s judgments needs to be closely followed
up. Indeed, the execution of the Court’s judgments does not happen in Strasbourg
but in and by the member States concerned.
In this context, the new series of thematic factsheets11
published on the website
of DEJ are resource tools that may be usefully drawn on by national authorities in
the context of the execution process. The thematic factsheets aim to present an
overview of selected legislative and case-law developments in member States, fol-
lowing judgments and decisions of the European Court whose execution has been
supervised by the Committee of Ministers. As the execution process in pending
cases evidences important progress, some factsheets may also include relevant
pending cases. In 2020, the first five thematic factsheets covered the following
themes: constitutional matters; effective investigations into death or ill-treatment
caused by security forces; freedom of religion; environment; and independence and
impartiality of the judicial system.
Initiation of Rule 9 communications by the Council of Europe
Commissioner for Human Rights
The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, as an independent human
rights monitoring institution, can provide valuable assistance to national author-
ities in their execution-related efforts, and to the Committee itself. In 2020, the
Commissioner submitted her first five Rule 9 communications to the Committee
of Ministers,12
a possibility which was foreseen by the 2017 Rules of the Committee
concerning the supervision of execution of the Court’s judgments.
ThesecommunicationsarevaluablegiventhattheyarebasedontheCommissioner’s
regular monitoring of human rights developments in member States and contain
useful guidance and recommendations concerning the execution by respondent
States of the Court’s judgments on issues touching upon notably long-standing,
structural and systemic problems.
10. In order to submit by the end of 2021 its proposals to the Committee of Ministers, the Steering
Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) set up in November 2019 the Drafting Group on enhanc-
ing the national implementation of the system of the European Convention on Human Rights
(DH-SYSC-V).
11. https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/thematic-factsheets.
12. TheCommissioner’scommunicationsareavailableat:https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/
rule-9.
Page 28 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
Enhanced interaction with NHRIs, NGOs and law professionals
The persistence of a number of systemic and structural problems which have been
highlighted in the Court’s judgments and before the Committee of Ministers has also
led to the reinforcement of the dialogue and cooperation with national stakehold-
ers, such as NHRIs and civil society organisations, whose importance and valuable
contribution to the Convention system have been continuously highlighted in this
pastyears’High-LevelDeclarationsandtheCommitteeofMinisters’Sessions.In2020,
there were a record number of communications received by the Committee from
civil society organisations and national human rights institutions (176 concerning
28 States, compared to 133 in 2019 concerning 24 States).
Also, in September and October 2020, DEJ co-organised for the first time, with the
European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) a series of four
webinars on the effective implementation of judgments of the European Court of
Human Rights. The webinars were attended by approximately 80 representatives of
more than 15 European NHRIs and served as a forum for informing and exchanging
on the execution process, on advocacy strategies and on enhancing NHRIs’ capacity
of drafting and submitting Rule 9 communications to the Committee of Ministers.
It is also noteworthy that in 2020, the HELP (Human Rights Education for Law
Professionals) Programme, in close cooperation with DEJ, developed and issued
a special training course on the execution of judgments of the European Court of
Human Rights, in which 5,000 law professionals from various member States were
enrolled. In a number of decisions adopted by the Committee of Ministers, respon-
dent States were invited to take advantage of the different cooperation programmes
and projects offered by the Council of Europe including HELP.13
Concluding remarks
DespitetheadverseeffectsoftheCovid-19pandemicin2020,memberStatesandthe
Council of Europe adapted their working methods and continued their constructive
dialogue and cooperation. Particularly encouraging were the significant number
of cases closed in 2020 following adoption of individual and general measures by
respondent States, as well as the enhancement of the participatory character of
the execution process, notably through the first five Rule 9 communications by the
Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the record number of com-
municationssubmittedbycivilsocietyorganisationsandNHRIs.Thesedevelopments
certainly reinforced the effectiveness of the Committee of Ministers’ supervision and
transparency of the execution process.
The major advances and challenges in the execution process documented are in
fact intertwined. Member States and the Council of Europe may usefully draw upon
the lessons learnt from these advances and move towards resolving the remaining
systemic and structural problems. Particular attention is required to be paid to the
issues that rank highly in enhanced supervision for many years, such as those con-
cerning ill-treatment or death by security forces and poor conditions of detention.
13. See also annual report’s section on Outreach Activities.
Overview of major developments by the Director General Page 29
In addition, the rise of inter-state judgments, as well as of “Article 18” judgments
concerning abusive limitations of rights and freedoms and fundamental challenges
totheruleoflawincertainmemberStates,showsthatmoresustainedandconcerted
efforts are necessary.
2020 provided the occasion to celebrate the 70th
anniversary of the ECHR and take
stock of the extraordinary contribution of the Convention system to the democracy,
rule of law and human rights protection in all member States. This anniversary pro-
vided the occasion to recall that, under the principle of subsidiarity, State parties to
the Convention have to comply with their obligations to secure to everyone in their
jurisdictions the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention and, at the same
time, abide promptly, fully and effectively by the Court’s judgments. The Convention
system is indeed of a circular nature and founded upon the maxim that human rights
protection begins and ends at home.
The coming years will be crucial for ensuring the Convention’s and the Court’s rel-
evance and importance for democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Europe,
in a global socio-political context characterised by uncertainties and challenges that
have the potential of fragilizing human rights and the rule of law. One of these major
challenges will remain the Convention’s and the Court’s authority and effectiveness
at national level. These are dependent on the acceptance and embeddedness of
the Court’s judgments in the decisions and action of all national actors, including
governments, parliaments, courts, NHRIs, civil society organisations and all citizens
in member States.
The implementation of the Convention system at national level goes hand in hand
with the further reinforcement of the member States’ capacity for rapid and effective
execution of the Court’s judgments. Member States need to invest more in order
to have the ECHR standards firmly embedded at national level. This is particularly
important for the long-standing, systemic and structural problems, including those
highlighted in the present overview. It goes without saying that these efforts by
member States will need to be accompanied by a maximization of the potential
of the Council of Europe to support the former in the execution process and in the
implementation of the Convention at national level, notably through co-operation
projects and synergies with all stakeholders. DGI stands ready and looks forward
to contributing to these joint efforts.
Page 31
III. Outreach activities (cooperation
activities, communication
and information)
T
he importance of national authorities’access to Council of Europe expert advice
and cooperation activities and programmes was underlined by the Committee
of Ministers’ decisions adopted at its 130th Session in Athens in November
2020. The Committee emphasised the importance of maximising the potential of
the Council of Europe to support States Parties in the execution process and in the
implementation of the Convention at national level.The coordination of this support
with the requirements of the execution of the Court’s judgments has also on nume-
rous occasions proven crucial in bringing about the necessary reforms. Cooperation
activities and programmes only receive marginal funding from the Organisation’s
ordinary budget and therefore are primarily conducted with support from the Human
rightsTrust Fund (HRTF), voluntary contributions or joint programmes and activities,
notably with the European Union.
The Department for the Execution of Judgments (DEJ) normally carries out approxi-
mately 40 annual missions to member States and participates every year in numer-
ous activities organised in Strasbourg or in member States, in some cases with
involvement of other international organisations and national authorities. In 2020
many of these activities which were envisaged had to cancelled due to the Covid-19
pandemic.Nonetheless,totheextentpossible,theDEJadjusteditsworkingmethods
so that as many as possible of these types of contacts could be carried on remotely,
using video-conferencing tools. In addition, the Council of Europe sustained its
efforts in providing support, through co-operation projects, to member States in
implementing the European Court’s judgments.
In 2020 DEJ also reinforced significantly its external communication and information,
notably through the publication of a new series of thematic factsheets, the further
significant development of its website and use of social media.
Page 32 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
A. Activities of the Department for the Execution of Judgments
In 2020 DEJ published a new series of thematic factsheets which are resource tools
that may be usefully drawn on by national authorities and other stakeholders. The
thematic factsheets aim to present an overview of selected legislative and case-law
developmentsinmemberStates,followingjudgmentsanddecisionsoftheEuropean
Court whose execution has been supervised by the Committee of Ministers. As
the execution process in pending cases may evidence important progress, some
factsheets may also include relevant pending cases. In 2020 the first five thematic
factsheets covered the following themes: Constitutional matters (also translated
in two non-official languages); effective investigations into death or ill-treatment
caused by security forces (also translated in five non-official languages); freedom of
religion; environment; and independence and impartiality of the judicial system. It
is worthy to be noted that the regular publication of news items on the DEJ website
led to significant increase of visits in 2020 which reached more than 75,000 (approxi-
mately 63,000 in 2019), while the followers of the DEJ Twitter account reached 3,000
(1,600 in 2019).
In 2020 DEJ also enhanced its interaction with the European Network of National
Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) and the European Implementation Network
(EIN), co-organising a series of four webinars which informed and trained around
80 representatives of more than 15 European NHRIs about the importance of the
ECHR judgments’ implementation and the ways to mainstream it across these
national institutions.
DEJ continued its efforts to reinforce dialogue and interaction with the national
authorities through physical and on-line meetings. For example, DEJ carried out a
mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina and discussed with major stakeholders possible
avenues to reach rapidly a concerted political undertaking to relaunch reforms to
eliminatediscriminationsintheelectoralsystem.AlsotheHumanRightsDirectorheld
anon-lineexchangewiththeDirectorfortheWesternBalkans, EUDG NEAR, focusing
on the execution of the Sejdić and Finci group of judgments. Both directors agreed
to coordinate action and ensure more synergy in order to enhance implementation
of ECHR judgments in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
DEJ organised also a teleconference with the Greek authorities focusing on cer-
tain issues raised in the context of execution by Greece of judgments concerning
reception and protection of unaccompanied migrant children (M.S.S. and Rahimi
group of cases). The teleconference provided a platform for a direct exchange of
views between the Greek authorities and the Secretariat of the Council of Europe,
following up to the Committee of Ministers’ decisions adopted in 2020.
A videoconference was organised with the French authorities focusing on the execu-
tion measures awaited in the context of the M.A. group of cases (removal of persons
convicted of terrorism-related acts), the Popov group of cases (detention of families
with minor children to ensure their removal from the territory) and the Winterstein
and Others case (eviction of Travelers from camp sites).
Another teleconference was organised by DEJ with the Hungarian authorities. The
discussions focused on improving the publication and dissemination of the Court’s
Outreach activities (cooperation activities, communication and information) Page 33
judgments, strengthening the Government Agent’s Office and the participation of
law professionals in ECHR-related training courses, as well as further co-operation
concerning notably police ill-treatment cases. Participants also discussed the status
of execution of the Szabó and Vissy judgment, concerning the legislation on secret
surveillance devoid of sufficient and adequate safeguards.
A videoconference was held also with the Irish authorities during which they
exchanged with DEJ views on the measures required for the execution of the
McFarlane group of cases, focusing in particular on the establishment of an effective
remedy for excessively lengthy judicial proceedings.
Duringthesameperiodteleconferenceswereorganisedwiththe Maltese authorities
on the execution of pending cases, focusing in particular on those concerning prop-
erty rights, excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of effective remedies.
DEJ also took part in the peer to peer study visit to Malta which was organised by the
Council of Europe SOGI Unit in cooperation with the authorities of North Macedonia
and of Malta. The study visit was part of the North Macedonia authorities’ plan to
implement the European Court’s 2019 judgment in the X. case, which concerns legal
gender recognition.
DEJ participated in a seminar in Moscow on conditions of detention, including
prisoners’ transportation. Experts from the Russian Penitentiary Service (FSIN) and
members of their regional branches participated and made presentations on issues
concerning prison conditions. DEJ also participated online in an international con-
ference organised by the Russian National Research University “Higher School of
Economics”, Moscow, concerning friendly settlements in international law, including
those concluded before the European Court.
Thedepartmenttookpartinanonlineexpertconference focusing on the implemen-
tation of the ECHR judgment in ZoricaJovanovićv.Serbia, concerning missing babies.
The conference aimed to support Serbian judges to effectively implement the ECHR
judgment and provided a platform for constructive exchange about outstanding
challenges arising from the implementation of the above law.
DEJ carried out a mission to Ankara to discuss inadequate reasoning in domestic
court judgments, a shortcoming increasingly underlined by the European Court in
recent years. High-level meetings were held with the Constitutional Court, Court of
Cassation, and the Council of State, during which various alternatives to improve the
quality of domestic court judgments were discussed with the judicial authorities. The
Department also visited the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, the Justice Academy,
Supreme Council of Education (YÖK), Union of the Turkish Bar Associations, and the
Ministry of Justice.
Lastly, in 2020 DEJ was actively involved in numerous cooperation activities under
the Council of Europe Action Plan for Ukraine, mainly focused on supporting the
execution ofjudgments underArticle6oftheConvention, judicialreform, mediaand
information society reform, criminal justice and penitentiary reforms. The DEJ took
part notably in the National Forum on Execution of Judgments and in the National
Judicial Forum, and provided expert support to the State Commission on Execution
ofJudgments.InthecourseoftheyearDEJalsotookpartinawareness-raisingevents
Page 34 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
linked notably to the General Prosecutor’s Office, Verkhovna Rada, the Supreme
Court and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Lastly, in 2020 the Director General
of Human Rights and Rule of Law held a meeting with the Chairman and judges of
the Constitutional Court of Ukraine focusing on the execution of ECHR judgments
concerning Ukraine. In order to further strengthen cooperation, thematic expert
discussions are envisaged for the next year as well as capacity-building activities
for the Constitutional Court Secretariat.
B. General co-operation activities and National Action Plans
Co-operation programmes are important vehicles for a continuing dialogue on
general measures with decision-makers in the capitals, experience-sharing, national
capacity-building and for the dissemination of relevant knowledge of the Council of
Europe different expert bodies (CPT, CEPEJ, GRECO, ECRI, Venice Commission, etc.).
The co-operation programmes thus constitute a welcome – and sometimes even
indispensable–supporttoensuretheadoptionofthe suitable, sustainable measures
to address the problems revealed by the Court’s judgments.
The Office of the Directorate General of Programmes ensures, notably through reg-
ular contacts with DEJ, that Action Plans and other co-operation activities as well
as general co-operation policies systematically include appropriate actions to meet
specific needs arising from the Court’s judgments and the Committee of Ministers’
supervision of their execution.
In order to address the unprecedented COVID-19 outbreak and to continue imple-
menting co-operation programmes under these circumstances, the Council of
Europe modified its projects’ workplans since spring 2020, together with its partners,
in line with overall priorities and in compliance with the restrictions in force. This
involved applying mitigating measures, where necessary, and focusing on activities
in line with the limitations linked to the sanitary situation. The Council of Europe Field
Offices have played an important role in this process that allowed business conti-
nuity and facilitated progress towards the achievement of programmes’ objectives.
In 2020, major Action Plans between the Council of Europe and member States
were being implemented in Armenia (2019-2022), in Azerbaijan (2018-2021), in
Bosnia and Herzegovina (2018-2021), in Georgia (2020-2023), in the Republic of
Moldova (2017-2020) and in Ukraine (2018-2022). All include actions that support
the execution of ECHR judgments revealing structural problems and the need for
long-term, continuing efforts. Such support has also been given through the more
targeted co-operation activities implemented in 2020 with EU support in Albania,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Russian Federation, Serbia,
Turkey, and Ukraine.
C. Targeted Convention-related co-operation projects
2020 saw a continuation of the special efforts within DGI aiming at responding
quickly to national demands for co-operation activities related to the implementa-
tion of the Convention, and notably to assist in ensuring timely execution of Court
Outreach activities (cooperation activities, communication and information) Page 35
judgments (in particular pilot judgments). In view of the scarce funding available
from the Council of Europe’s ordinary budget, the organisation of such targeted
Convention-related projects heavily depends on extra-budgetary resources, includ-
ingJointprogrammeswiththeEU,memberstates’voluntarycontributions,including
within the Human Rights Trust Fund (“HRTF”).
In 2020 the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina signed a written undertaking to
start negotiations on the execution of Sejdić and Finci to agree on draft constitu-
tional and legislative amendments. Support by the Council of Europe to the process
through technical co-operation resumed at the end of 2020 and will continue in
2021 thanks to the HRTF contribution.
A new co-operation project was launched in the Russian Federation in July 2020.
The Project’s main purpose is to ensure the effective domestic implementation of
the ECHR judgments and of other human rights standards arising from Council of
Europe legal instruments.
2020 saw a continuation of many of the earlier projects notably as regards Ukraine
and the following major issues raised in the context of the execution of ECHR
judgments: independence and efficiency of the judiciary – fairness of disciplinary
proceedings against judges (Volkov); non-enforcement of judgments against the
State, or State-owned or controlled entities including the lack of an effective remedy
(Ivanov/Burmych); reopening of proceedings to give effect to Strasbourg judgments
(Bochan No. 2 group of cases). In addition, the Council of Europe Parliamentary
AssemblySecretariatworkedonenhancingparliamentaryoversightoftheexecution
of judgements of the Court in Ukraine with Members and staff of the Parliament.
Assistance kept being provided to the South-East Europe region and Turkey through
the European Union/Council of Europe Joint Programme “Horizontal Facility for
the Western Balkans and Turkey – Phase II”. In Albania, a targeted action aimed
to support the enforcement of judicial decisions and to facilitate the execution of
ECHR judgements, especially on property rights (BeshiriandOthers). Assistance also
focused on property rights-related cases, excessive length of civil proceedings and
non-enforcement of judicial and administrative decisions (LuliandOthers, Driza and
Puto and Others) whose execution was under enhanced or standard supervision of
the Committee of Ministers. Also, support in the field of legal gender recognition in
North Macedonia contributes to the execution of X. v. North Macedonia.
In Montenegro, continuous support to uniform application of the ECHR and the
Court’s case-law at domestic level intended to improve quality of domestic courts’
decisions. This assistance could indirectly contribute to the execution of the Siništaj
and Others judgment concerning ineffective investigations into ill-treatment by
security forces.
The extensive and continuous communication between the Council of Europe, the
local authorities and civil society on the execution of the ECHR judgment Zorica
Jovanović v. Serbia contributed to the adoption in 2020 of the Law on “missing
babies” by Parliament.
As a direct outcome of the “Informal Working Group” meetings set up by the
Secretary General in 2016, co-operation activities were conducted throughout
Page 36 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
2020 to support the Turkish authorities in the preparations of the new Human Rights
National Action Plan. Support to the implementation and reporting of this Action
Plan can contribute to the execution of pending ECHR judgments in particular in
the areas of the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, and freedom of
expression.
The European Programme for Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals (HELP
Programme) has also continued to provide invaluable support to the implemen-
tation of the Court’s judgments in all 47 member States. Its flexible methodology
and reliance on virtual and online methodology has proved crucial in supporting
European Justice Training Institutions and legal professionals in the Covid-19 pan-
demic context. By end 2020, the number of HELP users reached 80,000 (compared
to 40,000 by end 2019).
In support of these efforts, the Committee of Ministers, in its Human Rights decisions
concerning pending cases, frequently invites respondent States to take advantage
of the different co-operation programmes and projects offered by the Council of
Europe. In 2020, the HELP Programme, in close cooperation with DEJ, issued a new
training course on the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human
Rights, in which 5,000 legal professionals were enrolled.
The HELP Programme has by now 37 online training courses in its catalogue, which
deal with most of the Convention issues. HELP activities are usually tailored to the
country’s legal order, including specific Convention issues raised in the national
context: 300 national adaptations of HELP courses have already been carried out
throughout the Council of Europe member States. HELP training activities are reg-
ularly reviewed to reflect training needs as they emerge from the supervision of the
execution of the Court’s judgments. HELP is also a unique pan-European network of
national training institutions and bar associations which constantly exchange good
training practices on the most acute Convention issues. The HELP Programme is
only partly funded by the ordinary budget and regularly receives financial support
from the EU (HELP in the EU and HELP Radicalisation Prevention and Fight against
Terrorism or HELP components in Horizontal Facility for Turkey and Western Balkans,
South Mediterranean or Central Asia) as well as voluntary contributions for region or
country-specific projects of particular importance (HELP in Russia, funded by HRTF).
Page 37
Statistics
IV. Statistics14
A. Overview
A.1. New cases
513
658
504
757
898
591 631
813
1381 1408 1397
1511
1710
1606
1438
1328
1389
1285
1352 1333
1272
1160
983
55 63 72 66 80
135 123 164 185 200 211 234 233 252 251 228 211 186 206 179 196 178 195
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total number of new cases New leading cases
A.2. Pending cases
1435
1732
2298
2624
3227
3540
3970
4322
5523
6711
7328
8667
9899
10689
11099110191090410652
9941
7584
6151
5231 5233
120 168 181 245 177 283 359 481 632 686
1077 1194 1286 1337 1435 1497 1513 1555 1493 1379 1292 1245 1258
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total number of pending cases Leading cases pending
14. ThedatapresentedalsoincludescaseswheretheCommitteeofMinistersdecideditselfwhetheror
not there had been a violation under former Article 32 of the Convention (while this competence
in principle disappeared in connection the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 in 1998, a number
of such cases remain pending under former Article 32).
Page 38 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
A.3. Closed cases
Overview
116
171
122
172
256
380
163
350
193
677
400
240
455
815
1029
1397 1502 1537
2066
3691
2705
2080
983
22
36
14
38 37
29
47 42
34
193
100
68
142
321
185 182 208
153
282 311 289
214 187
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total number of cases closed Leading cases closed
B. New cases
B.1. Leading or repetitive
For cases awaiting classification under enhanced or standard supervision (see B.2.), their qualification
as leading or repetitive cases is not yet final.
252 251 228 211 186 206 179 196 178 195
1354
1187
1100 1178
1099 1146 1154 1076
982
788
Total: 1606
Total: 1438
Total: 1328
Total: 1389
Total: 1285
Total: 1352 Total: 1333
Total: 1272
Total: 1160
Total: 983
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Leading cases Repetitive cases Total:
Statistics Page 39
B.2. Enhanced or standard supervision
New leading cases
16
47 38 28 22 15 13 17 19 25
236 187
165
147
123 146
128 130 118 119
17
25
36
41
45
38
49
41
51
Total:252 Total:251
Total:228
Total:211
Total:186
Total:206
Total:179
Total:196
Total:178
Total:195
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Enhanced supervision Standard supervision Awaiting classification
Total number of new cases
264
349 278 298 243 295 307 306 292 237
1342
832
748 739
683
668 671 622
553
475
257
302 352
359
389 355
344
312
271
Total:1606
Total:1438
Total:1328
Total:1389
Total:1285
Total:1352 Total:1333
Total:1272
Total:1157
Total:983
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Enhanced supervision Standard supervision Awaiting classification
B.3. New cases – State by State
STATE
LEADING CASES REPETITIVE CASES
TOTAL
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Awaiting
classification
Total of
leading
cases
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Awaiting
classification
Total of
repetitive
cases
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Albania 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 0 3 3
Andorra 0 0 0
Armenia 6 5 6 5 1 2 9 6 2 2 12 10 18 15
Austria 2 2 0 4 1 4 1 6 1
Azerbaijan 1 5 4 2 1 11 6 12 7 14 5 14 18 40 19 51
Belgium 1 5 5 2 7 6 2 8 5 7 8 14 14
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
1 1 2 2 1 3 4 12 3 3 1 4 3 19 7 22 11
Bulgaria 4 6 8 4 14 8 11 6 3 6 14 20 18 34
Croatia 1 3 2 1 5 5 8 7 13 12 21 13 26
Cyprus 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3
Czech
Republic
1 1 1 1 2 3
Denmark 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
Estonia 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2
Finland 1 1 2 0 2
France 1 2 3 7 2 1 6 10 2 3 7 9 3 15 13
Georgia 2 6 1 3 6 4 3 2 2 3 2 9 7 12 13
Page 40 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
STATE
LEADING CASES REPETITIVE CASES
TOTAL
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Awaiting
classification
Total of
leading
cases
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Awaiting
classification
Total of
repetitive
cases
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Germany 2 2 2 1 2 4 1 4 3
Greece 2 7 4 1 6 8 4 2 22 18 9 7 35 27 41 35
Hungary 2 1 6 1 1 2 9 25 5 46 30 18 17 89 52 91 61
Iceland 1 1 1 2 1 2 7 1 3 7 5 8
Ireland 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Italy 2 2 6 2 2 1 10 5 1 1 13 17 15 5 29 23 39 28
Latvia 2 5 1 2 6 1 2 1 2 3 8
Liechtenstein 0 0 0
Lithuania 1 6 2 2 2 8 5 4 2 2 6 2 14 7
Luxembourg 0 0 0
Malta 1 1 1 1 2 5 5 7 2 1 1 13 8 14 10
Republic of
Moldova
1 6 5 1 2 8 7 5 2 21 21 7 2 33 25 41 32
Monaco 0 0 0
Montenegro 2 3 2 3 7 1 1 1 8 3 11
Netherlands 1 1 0 0 1 0
North
Macedonia
1 2 6 1 1 4 7 4 7 1 2 5 9 9 16
Norway 1 1 0 4 4 1 4
Statistics Page 41
STATE
LEADING CASES REPETITIVE CASES
TOTAL
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Awaiting
classification
Total of
leading
cases
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Awaiting
classification
Total of
repetitive
cases
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Poland 4 3 1 1 5 4 4 2 20 14 9 2 33 18 38 22
Portugal 1 1 1 4 1 3 5 2 3 2 4 2 9 4 12 9
Romania 2 4 9 6 5 6 16 16 32 16 35 24 6 22 73 62 89 78
Russian
Federation
2 10 6 6 3 18 9 75 72 69 76 78 61 222 209 240 218
San Marino 1 1 1 1 2
Serbia 1 4 1 4 7 1 23 4 1 7 31 12 32 16
Slovak
Republic
4 3 1 4 4 1 10 11 4 11 15 15 19
Slovenia 5 1 5 1 2 2 0 7 1
Spain 5 1 2 5 3 2 2 1 2 3 4 8 7
Sweden 0 0 0
Switzerland 1 3 2 2 4 4 1 1 0 5 4
Turkey 4 1 14 6 1 3 19 10 38 27 81 45 46 21 165 93 184 103
Ukraine 2 2 3 1 3 3 8 6 50 46 18 9 35 23 103 78 111 84
United
Kingdom
1 3 1 1 4 2 2 2 1 3 2 7 4
TOTAL 19 25 118 119 41 51 178 195 273 212 435 356 274 220 982 788 1160 983
Page 42 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
Statistics Page 43
C. Pending cases
Pending cases are those in which the execution process is on-going. As a consequence, pending cases
areatvariousstagesofexecutionandmustnotbeunderstoodasunexecutedcases.Intheoverwhelming
majority of these cases, individual redress has been provided, and cases remain pending mainly awaiting
implementation of general measures, some of which are very complex, requiring considerable time. In
many situations, cooperation programmes or country action plans provide, or have provided, support
for the execution processes launched.
C.1. Leading or repetitive
1337 1435 1497 1513 1555 1478 1379 1292 1245 1258
9352 9664 9522 9391 9097
8448
6205
4859
3986 3975
Total:10689
Total:11099 Total:11019 Total:10904 Total:10652
Total:9926
Total:7584
Total:6151
Total:5231 Total:5233
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Leading cases Repetitive cases
C.2. Enhanced or standard supervision
Leading cases pending
272 308 330 328 336 323 317 309 306 330
1019
1110 1142 1149 1178 1122
1023
933 898 877
46
17
25 36 41
48
39
50 41 51
Total:1337
Total:1435
Total:1497 Total:1513 Total:1555
Total:1493
Total:1379
Total:1292
Total:1245 Total:1258
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Enhanced supervision Standard supervision Awaiting classification
Page 44 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
Total number of pending cases
6581 6609 6707 6718 6390 5950
3849
2794 2334 2434
3976 4233 4010 3834 3903
3602
3379
3005
2582 2517
132
257 302 352 359
389
356
352
315 282
Total: 10689
Total: 11099 Total: 11019 Total: 10904 Total: 10652
Total: 9941
Total: 7584
Total: 6151
Total: 5231 Total: 5233
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Enhance supervision Standard supervision Awaiting classification
C.3. Pending cases – State by State
STATE
LEADING CASES REPETITIVE CASES
TOTAL
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Awaiting
classification
Total of
leading
cases
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Awaiting
classification
Total of
repetitive
cases
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Albania 1 2 10 9 2 11 13 3 1 22 15 25 16 36 29
Andorra 0 0 0
Armenia 5 5 14 14 19 19 7 6 10 15 2 2 19 23 38 42
Austria 4 5 2 6 5 11 8 11 8 17 13
Azerbaijan 15 20 19 23 2 34 45 80 91 70 85 5 14 155 190 189 235
Belgium 4 5 12 13 2 18 18 5 4 2 9 5 12 13 30 31
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
4 4 4 6 2 1 10 11 16 11 9 9 4 3 29 23 39 34
Bulgaria 18 18 61 57 8 79 83 23 30 65 47 3 6 91 83 170 166
Croatia 3 2 34 19 2 37 23 8 7 32 30 7 13 47 50 84 73
Cyprus 2 2 5 5 7 7 1 1 2 1 3 8 10
Czech
Republic
1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 4
Denmark 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
Estonia 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 2
Finland 9 10 1 9 11 20 20 20 20 29 31
France 2 4 15 21 2 1 19 26 1 1 9 8 7 17 9 36 35
Georgia 5 5 13 18 1 19 23 18 19 7 9 3 2 28 30 47 53
Statistics Page 45
STATE
LEADING CASES REPETITIVE CASES
TOTAL
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Awaiting
classification
Total of
leading
cases
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Awaiting
classification
Total of
repetitive
cases
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Germany 14 10 14 10 4 2 2 6 2 20 12
Greece 9 7 30 31 4 1 43 39 63 29 80 45 9 7 152 81 195 120
Hungary 9 13 38 40 1 1 48 54 63 68 137 137 18 17 218 222 266 276
Iceland 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 9 1 3 9 6 12
Ireland 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 3
Italy 20 23 34 33 2 1 56 57 60 59 67 63 15 5 142 127 198 184
Latvia 6 7 1 6 8 2 2 0 8 8
Liechtenstein 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Lithuania 3 4 16 15 2 2 21 21 19 13 2 21 13 42 34
Luxembourg 1 1 0 0 1 0
Malta 3 4 10 7 13 11 11 17 6 4 1 1 18 22 31 33
Republic of
Moldova
7 7 45 40 1 2 53 49 12 9 101 92 7 4 120 105 173 154
Monaco 0 0 0
Montenegro 3 5 3 5 1 1 1 1 2 4 7
Netherlands 1 1 4 4 5 5 1 1 0 6 5
North
Macedonia
2 2 11 12 1 1 14 15 3 1 17 22 1 2 21 25 35 40
Norway 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 6
Page 46 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
STATE
LEADING CASES REPETITIVE CASES
TOTAL
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Awaiting
classification
Total of
leading
cases
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Awaiting
classification
Total of
repetitive
cases
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Poland 9 10 20 22 1 1 30 33 30 25 29 29 9 2 68 56 98 89
Portugal 2 3 14 18 1 17 21 5 5 7 6 4 2 16 13 33 34
Romania 25 29 46 54 5 6 76 89 143 160 59 76 6 22 208 258 284 347
Russian
Federation
55 58 158 156 6 3 219 217 900 984 466 518 78 70 1444 1572 1663 1789
San Marino 1 1 0 1
Serbia 5 5 8 7 13 12 11 2 32 12 1 7 44 21 57 33
Slovak
Republic
1 11 13 1 12 14 10 10 13 4 20 17 32 31
Slovenia 1 11 6 1 12 7 1 1 0 13 7
Spain 1 1 15 15 2 16 18 7 10 1 2 8 12 24 30
Sweden 1 3 2 3 3 0 3 3
Switzerland 2 1 5 5 2 7 8 1 1 0 8 8
Turkey 34 37 120 109 1 3 155 149 204 206 284 248 46 21 534 475 689 624
Ukraine 53 51 63 53 3 3 119 107 346 357 91 80 35 23 472 460 591 567
United
Kingdom
2 3 5 5 1 8 8 6 6 1 1 1 8 7 16 15
TOTAL 306 330 898 877 41 51 1245 1258 2028 2104 1684 1640 274 231 3986 3975 5231 5233
Statistics Page 47
Page 48 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
D. Closed cases
D.1. Leading or repetitive
321 185 182 208 153 282 311 289 214 187
494 844
1215 1294 1384
1784
3380
2416
1866
796
Total:815
Total:1029
Total:1397
Total:1502 Total:1537
Total:2066
Total:3691
Total:2705
Total:2080
Total:983
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Leading cases Repetitive cases
D.2. Enhanced or standard supervision
Leading cases closed
1 7 8 16 18
45 35 35 31 14
320
178 174
192
135
237
276
254
183
173
Total: 321
Total: 185 Total: 182
Total: 208
Total: 153
Total: 282
Total: 311
Total: 289
Total: 214
Total: 187
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Enhanced supervision Standard supervision
Statistics Page 49
Total number of cases closed
4 114 14 169
658 816
2514
1464
876
242
811
915
1383
1333
879
1250
1177
1241
1204
741
Total:815
Total:1029
Total:1397
Total:1502 Total:1537
Total:2066
Total:3691
Total:2705
Total:2080
Total:983
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Enhanced supervision Standard supervision
D.3. Closed cases – State by State
STATE
LEADING CASES REPETITIVE CASES
TOTAL
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Total of
leading cases
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Total of
repetitive cases
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Albania 2 2 2 4 6 4 8 4 10
Andorra 0 0 0
Armenia 3 5 3 5 1 4 12 2 13 6 16 11
Austria 6 1 6 1 2 4 2 4 8 5
Azerbaijan 1 3 3 1 13 2 3 13 5 16 6
Belgium 3 6 3 6 1 2 6 2 7 5 13
Bosnia-
Herzegovina
1 3 2 3 3 9 4 4 4 13 7 16
Bulgaria 4 12 10 16 10 28 1 12 27 40 28 56 38
Croatia 11 19 11 19 9 18 9 18 20 37
Cyprus 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1
Czech
Republic
2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 4 2
Denmark 1 1 0 1
Estonia 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2
Finland 0 0 0
France 4 3 4 3 7 11 7 11 11 14
Georgia 1 2 1 2 1 4 4 1 5 5 6 7
Germany 2 6 2 6 5 5 2 11
Page 50 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
STATE
LEADING CASES REPETITIVE CASES
TOTAL
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Total of
leading cases
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Total of
repetitive cases
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Greece 1 2 14 11 15 13 19 36 50 62 69 98 84 111
Hungary 5 3 5 3 8 6 64 42 72 48 77 51
Iceland 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2
Ireland 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0
Italy 2 10 4 12 4 13 3 61 35 74 38 86 42
Latvia 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 2 8
Liechtenstein 0 0 0
Lithuania 1 9 5 10 5 3 10 3 10 13 15
Luxembourg 1 1 0 1
Malta 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 6 8
Republic of
Moldova
4 6 11 10 11 24 5 7 35 31 40 41 51
Monaco 0 0 0
Montenegro 2 1 2 1 1 7 1 7 3 8
Netherlands 0 2 1 2 1 2 1
North
Macedonia
1 9 6 10 6 2 16 3 16 5 26 11
Norway 0 0 0
Poland 7 3 7 3 6 34 22 34 28 41 31
Portugal 3 1 3 1 10 7 10 7 13 8
Romania 3 2 3 2 12 2 98 11 110 13 113 15
Statistics Page 51
STATE
LEADING CASES REPETITIVE CASES
TOTAL
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Total of
leading cases
Enhanced
supervision
Standard
supervision
Total of
repetitive cases
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Russian
Federation
6 1 7 10 13 11 116 23 33 58 149 81 162 92
San Marino 0 1 1 1
Serbia 1 3 2 1 5 15 34 20 34 35 35 40
Slovak
Republic
1 1 1 1 2 10 18 8 18 18 19 20
Slovenia 1 4 5 4 6 3 1 3 1 7 7
Spain 3 1 3 1 1 1 0 4 1
Sweden 0 0 0
Switzerland 1 5 2 5 3 1 1 5 4
Turkey 8 23 17 31 17 223 34 478 117 701 151 732 168
Ukraine 2 3 13 16 15 19 385 63 43 26 428 89 443 108
United
Kingdom
1 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 5
TOTAL 31 14 183 173 214 187 845 228 1021 568 1866 796 2080 983
Page 52 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
Statistics Page 53
E. Supervision process
E.1. Action plans / Action reports
A general practice of gathering relevant execution information in action plans to be provided within
six months of the judgment becoming final, and in action reports, as soon as execution was deemed
completed by the respondent State, was introduced in 2011. Earlier, information was conveyed in many
different forms, without specific deadlines.
Year
Action plans
received
Action reports
received
Reminder letters15
(States concerned)
2020 212 398 48 (19)
2019 172 438 54 (18)
2018 187 462 53 (16)
2017 249 570 75 (36)
2016 252 504 69 (27)
2015 236 350 56 (20)
2014 266 481 60 (24)
2013 229 349 82 (29)
2012 158 262 62 (27)
2011 114 236 32 (17)
15. According to the new working methods, when the six-month deadline for States to submit an
action plan / report has expired and no such document has been transmitted to the Committee of
Ministers, the Department for the Execution of Judgments sends a reminder letter to the delega-
tion concerned. If a member State has not submitted an action plan/report within three months
after the reminder, and no explanation of this situation is given to the Committee of Ministers,
the Secretariat is responsible for proposing the case for detailed consideration by the Committee
of Ministers under the enhanced procedure (see CM/Inf/DH(2010)45final, item IV).
Page 54 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
E.2. Interventions of the Committee of Ministers16
Year
Number of
interventions of
the CM during
the year
Total cases /
groups of cases
examined
States concerned
States with cases
under enhanced
supervision
2020 136 131 28 32
2019 131 98 24 32
2018 123 96 30 31
2017 157 116 26 31
2016 148 107 30 31
2015 108 64 25 31
2014 111 68 26 31
2013 123 76 27 31
2012 119 67 26 29
2011 97 52 24 26
The Committee of Ministers’ interventions are divided as follows:
Year
Examined
four times
or more
Examined
three times
Examined twice Examined once
2020 1 3 16 86
2019 3 4 14 77
2018 3 1 11 81
2017 6 2 17 89
2016 5 6 11 85
2015 4 10 9 41
2014 6 5 11 46
2013 6 5 14 51
2012 6 9 11 41
2011 1 12 12 27
E.3. Transfers of leading cases/groups of cases
Transfers to enhanced supervision
In 2020, six leading cases/groups of cases concerning five States (Cyprus, Sweden,
Serbia,TurkeyandHungary)havebeentransferredfromstandardtoenhancedsuper-
vision. In 2019, five leading cases/groups of cases concerning three States (Poland,
Romania and Turkey) have been transferred. In 2018, four leading cases/groups of
cases concerning three States (Cyprus, Malta and Hungary) were transferred. In
16. Examinations during ordinary meetings of the Committee of Ministers without any decision
adopted are not included in these tables.
Statistics Page 55
2017, two leading cases/groups of cases concerning two States (Ireland and Russian
Federation) were transferred. In 2016, six leading cases/groups of cases concerning
four States (Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania and Turkey). In 2015, two leading cases/
groups of cases concerning two States (Hungary and Turkey). In 2014, seven lead-
ing cases/groups of cases concerning four States (Bulgaria, Lithuania, Poland and
Turkey). In 2013, two leading cases/groups of cases concerning two States (Italy and
Turkey). In 2012, one leading case/group of cases concerning one State (Hungary).
No leading case/group of cases was transferred in 2011.
Transfers to standard supervision
In 2020, four leading cases/groups of cases concerning 4 States (Russian Federation,
Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine) were transferred from enhanced to standard supervision. In
2019, 32 leading cases/groups of cases concerning 2 States (North Macedonia and
Greece) were transferred. In 2018, no leading cases/groups of cases were transferred
from enhanced to standard supervision. In 2017, five leading cases/groups of cases
concerning three States (Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Russian Federation)
were transferred from enhanced to standard supervision. In 2016, four leading
cases/groups of cases concerning three States (Greece, Ireland and Turkey). In 2015,
two leading cases/groups of cases concerning two States (Norway and the United
Kingdom). In 2014, 19 leading cases/groups of cases concerning seven States (Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Russian Federation).
In 2013, seven leading cases/groups of cases concerning three States (Slovenia,
Turkey and Russian Federation). In 2012, nine leading case/group of cases concerning
six States (Croatia, Spain, Republic of Moldova, Poland, Russian Federation and the
United Kingdom). In 2011, four leading case/group of cases concerning four States
(France, Georgia, Germany and Poland) were transferred.
E.4. Contributions by NHRIs and NGOs
Year
Contributions from Non-
Governmental Organisations
(NGO) or National Human Rights
Institutions (NHRI)
States concerned
2020 176 28
2019 133 24
2018 64 19
2017 79 19
2016 90 22
2015 81 21
2014 80 21
2013 81 18
2012 47 16
2011 47 12
Page 56 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
E.5. Main themes of leading cases under enhanced supervision17
2020
2019
Other themes
24%
A.
17%
B.
10%
C.
9%
D.
8%
E.
8%
F.
7%
G.
5%
H.
4%
I.
4%
J.
4%
Other themes
A. Actions of security forces
B. Lawfulness of detention and related issues
C. Right to life - Protection against ill-treatment:
specific situations
D. Conditions of detention and medical care
E. Length of judicial proceedings
F. Other interferences with property rights
G. Enforcement of domestic judicial decisions
H. Lawfulness of expulsion or extradition
I. Freedom of assembly and association
J. Freedom of expression
17. “Other interferences with property rights” refers to cases concerning interferences other than
expropriations and nationalisations.
Other themes
23%
A.
15%
B.
10%
C.
8%
D.
10%
E.
9%
F.
6%
G.
4%
H.
4%
I.
4%
J.
4%
Other themes
A. Actions of security forces
B. Lawfulness of detention and related issues
C. Right to life - Protection against ill-treatment:
specific situations
D. Conditions of detention and medical care
E. Length of judicial proceedings
F. Other interferences with property rights
G. Enforcement of domestic judicial decisions
H. Lawfulness of expulsion or extradition
I. Freedom of assembly and association
J. Freedom of expression
Statistics Page 57
E.6. Main States with leading cases under enhanced supervision
2020
Other States
22%
Russian Federation
18%
Ukraine
15%
Turkey
11%
Romania
9%
Italy
7%
Azerbaijan
6%
Bulgaria
5%
Hungary
4%
Poland
3%
2020
2019
Russian Federation
19%
Ukraine
17%
Turkey
11%
Romania
8%
Italy
6%
Bulgaria
6%
Azerbaijan
5%
Poland
3%
Hungary
3%
Greece
3%
Other States
19%
Page 58 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
F. Length of the execution process
F.1. Leading cases pending
Overview
514
454 455
364
345 342
317 306 318 323
545
578 588
545
525
431
344
311
292 301
278
403
453
604
685
720 718
675
635 634
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Less than 2 years Between 2-5 years More than 5 years
Leading cases pending – State by State
STATE
ENHANCED SUPERVISION STANDARD SUPERVISION
< 2 years 2-5 years >5 years < 2 years 2-5 years >5 years
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Albania 1 1 1 6 2 2 6 2 1
Andorra
Armenia 1 2 2 2 3 8 7 3 4 3 3
Austria 1 1 1 3 3
Azerbaijan 1 6 3 2 11 12 1 4 2 2 16 17
Belgium 1 2 1 2 3 7 9 5 4
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
1 1 3 3 2 4 1 2 1
Bulgaria 5 3 13 15 16 9 18 20 27 28
Croatia 3 2 4 2 10 6 20 11
Cyprus 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 3
Czech
Republic
1 1 1
Denmark
Estonia 1 2
Finland 1 9 9
France 2 3 1 6 10 5 5 4 6
Georgia 2 1 3 4 6 9 5 6 2 3
Statistics Page 59
STATE
ENHANCED SUPERVISION STANDARD SUPERVISION
< 2 years 2-5 years >5 years < 2 years 2-5 years >5 years
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Germany 3 2 11 8
Greece 3 6 7 6 12 11 8 13 11
Hungary 3 4 2 5 8 2 7 13 9 23 24
Iceland 1 1 1 1
Ireland 1 1 1 1
Italy 4 5 7 7 9 11 11 8 6 10 17 15
Latvia 2 5 2 2 2
Liechtenstein 1 1
Lithuania 1 1 1 2 2 11 8 2 7 3
Luxembourg 1
Malta 1 1 1 2 2 5 2 3 3 2 2
Republic of
Moldova
1 1 6 6 7 6 3 2 35 32
Monaco
Montenegro 2 4 1 1
Netherlands 1 1 1 1 3 3
North
Macedonia
2 1 1 2 6 4 1 5 5
Norway 1 1 1 1
Poland 3 6 10 6 5 9 10 5 7
Portugal 1 2 1 1 4 6 9 9 1 3
Romania 6 6 4 8 15 15 18 19 20 23 8 12
Russian
Federation
8 6 9 12 38 40 21 18 26 31 111 107
San Marino 1
Serbia 1 4 5 2 4 1 1 5 2
Slovak
Republic
1 6 7 3 3 2 3
Slovenia 1 8 2 1 3 2 1
Spain 1 1 8 6 6 7 1 2
Sweden 1 1 2 2
Switzerland 1 1 1 5 4 1
Turkey 6 5 7 7 21 25 27 19 25 26 68 64
Ukraine 4 4 11 6 38 41 9 6 10 10 44 37
United
Kingdom
1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1
TOTAL 42 48 65 60 199 222 235 224 227 241 436 412
Page 60 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
F.2. Leading cases closed
Overview
28
79
71 68
51
74
82 85
58 55
146
78
65
77
45
95
81
61
37
43
148
28
46
63
57
113
148
143
119
89
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Less than 2 years Between 2-5 years More than 5 years
Leading cases closed – State by State
STATE
ENHANCED SUPERVISION STANDARD SUPERVISION
< 2 years 2-5 years >5 years < 2 years 2-5 years >5 years
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Albania 2
Andorra
Armenia 1 4 2 1
Austria 1 1 1 4
Azerbaijan 1 3
Belgium 2 4 2 1
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
1 3 1 1
Bulgaria 1 3 6 3 2 5 4 2
Croatia 4 2 1 2 6 15
Cyprus 1 1
Czech
Republic
1 1 1
Denmark 1
Estonia 1 1 1
Finland
France 2 2 1 2
Georgia 1 2
Germany 1 1 1 4 1
Greece 1 1 1 2 2 5 12 4
Statistics Page 61
STATE
ENHANCED SUPERVISION STANDARD SUPERVISION
< 2 years 2-5 years >5 years < 2 years 2-5 years >5 years
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Hungary 1 4 3
Iceland 1 1 1
Ireland 1
Italy 2 2 1 2 6 3
Latvia 2 1 1 1
Liechtenstein
Lithuania 1 6 2 3 3
Luxembourg 1
Malta 2 1 2 1
Republic of
Moldova
4 4 5 2 6
Monaco
Montenegro 2 1
Netherlands
North
Macedonia
1 4 3 3 2 3
Norway
Poland 3 2 2 1 2
Portugal 2 1 1
Romania 2 1 2
Russian
Federation
1 5 1 7 10
San Marino
Serbia 1 1 2 1 1
Slovak
Republic
1 1 1
Slovenia 1 3 2 2 1 1
Spain 1 2 1
Sweden
Switzerland 1 1 1 1 1 3
Turkey 8 2 4 1 4 20 9
Ukraine 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 9 12
United
Kingdom
2 1
TOTAL 1 2 4 2 26 10 57 53 33 41 93 79
Page 62 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
G. Just satisfaction
G.1. Just satisfaction awarded
Global amount
YEAR TOTAL AWARDED
2020 76 452 187 €
2019 77 244 322 €
2018 68 739 884 €
2017 60 399 112 €
2016 82 288 795 €
2015 53 766 388 €
2014 2 039 195 858 €
2013 135 420 274 €
2012 176 798 888 €
2011 72 300 652 €
2010 64 032 637 €
State by State
STATE
TOTAL AWARDED
2019 2020
Albania 117 050 € 62 220 €
Andorra 0 € 0 €
Armenia 2 130 858 € 417 550 €
Austria 45 881 € 6 000 €
Azerbaijan 707 010 € 803 726 €
Belgium 211 561 € 324 015 €
Bosnia and Herzegovina 755 810 € 117 720 €
Bulgaria 421 823 € 330 213 €
Croatia 105 313 € 237 458 €
Cyprus 34 124 € 52 119 €
Czech Republic 0 € 23 669 €
Denmark 2 000 € 14 000 €
Estonia 73 900 € 64 300 €
Finland 0 € 149 525 €
France 256 320 € 1 006 536 €
Georgia 101 970 € 183 200 €
Germany 25 500 € 11 828 €
Greece 1 562 538 € 2 131 421 €
Hungary 5 391 826 € 1 665 127 €
Statistics Page 63
STATE
TOTAL AWARDED
2019 2020
Iceland 65 300 € 109 000 €
Ireland 11 000 € 3 000 €
Italy 16 964 113 € 5 134 768 €
Latvia 9 762 € 20 353 €
Liechtenstein 0 € 0 €
Lithuania 216 846 € 364 419 €
Luxembourg 0 € 0 €
Malta 1 081 035 € 1 669 066 €
Republic of Moldova 526 079 € 4 179 342 €
Monaco 0 € 0 €
Montenegro 16 500 € 4 589 746 €
Netherlands 4 196 € 0 €
North Macedonia 266 915 € 329 683 €
Norway 34 350 € 116 800 €
Poland 454 936 € 252 304 €
Portugal 4 690 494 € 227 667 €
Romania 4 395 996 € 37 455 775 €
Russian Federation 28 547 005 € 11 458 094 €
San Marino 0 € 26 000 €
Serbia 547 510 € 221 305 €
Slovak Republic 3 222 290 € 176 788 €
Slovenia 223 067 € 18 412 €
Spain 45 894 € 55 048 €
Sweden 0 € 0 €
Switzerland 56 834 € 118 103 €
Turkey 2 170 693 € 1 548 027 €
Ukraine 1 675 140 € 685 755 €
United Kingdom 74 883 € 102 104 €
TOTAL 77 244 322 € 76 452 187 €
Page 64 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
G.2. Respect of payment deadlines
Overview of payments made
1511
1363
1143
930 956 944
770
865
744
581
300 254 191 164 275 328 263
389 323
203
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Payments within deadline Payments outside deadline
Awaiting Information on payment
390
186
337 376 430 433
597 547 494 456
709
555 601
765
560 541
769 794
907
1118
202 235 220 184 163 95 53 32 22 28
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Awaiting confirmation of payment
Awaiting confirmation of payment for more than 6 months (after the payment deadline)
Only awaiting default interest
Statistics Page 65
State by State
STATE
RESPECT OF PAYMENT DEADLINES
Payments
within
deadline
Payments
outside
deadline
Cases only
awaiting
default
interest
Cases
awaiting
confirmation
of
payments at
31 December
... including
cases
awaiting this
information
for more than
six months
(outside
payment
deadline)
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Albania 1 11 7 10 6 7
Andorra
Armenia 20 12 1 5 8 2 3
Austria 5 4 1 4 1 2 1
Azerbaijan 1 6 19 18 6 51 69 37 35
Belgium 1 10 5 1 9 9 1 2
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
11 7 3 3 12 13 3 10
Bulgaria 23 3 10 41 6 17
Croatia 10 19 1 1 8
Cyprus 1 2 1 1 2
Czech
Republic
2 3
Denmark 1 1
Estonia 3 2
Finland 1 1
France 6 13 3 2 7 4
Georgia 12 11 1 2
Germany 1 4 5 4 1 1
Greece 51 42 5 3 16 12 1
Hungary 62 43 7 1 133 153 96 113
Iceland 2 9 2 1
Ireland 1 1
Italy 21 14 42 16 7 8 42 40 21 29
Latvia 3 5 1
Liechtenstein
Lithuania 20 12 1 4 3 1 1
Luxembourg
Malta 14 7 2 2 1 3 1
Republic of
Moldova
41 28 15 19 4 6
Page 66 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
STATE
RESPECT OF PAYMENT DEADLINES
Payments
within
deadline
Payments
outside
deadline
Cases only
awaiting
default
interest
Cases
awaiting
confirmation
of
payments at
31 December
... including
cases
awaiting this
information
for more than
six months
(outside
payment
deadline)
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Monaco
Montenegro 3 10 1
Netherlands 3
Norway 1 3 2
North
Macedonia
22 11 1 2 5 1
Poland 40 26 1 17 13 5 6
Portugal 8 9 1 1 8 7 1 2
Romania 52 22 48 8 63 105 24 60
Russian
Federation
22 28 97 77 8 10 644 750 478 620
San Marino 2
Serbia 36 8 10 6 9 10 1 1
Slovak
Republic
18 13 1 3
Slovenia 9 1 1
Spain 4 3 1 3 3 1
Sweden
Switzerland 4 2 1 1
Turkey 134 123 6 12 1 99 66 53 50
Ukraine 72 65 57 48 5 4 226 199 164 149
United
Kingdom
4 3 1 2 1 1
TOTAL 744 581 323 203 22 28 1401 1574 907 1118
Statistics Page 67
H. Additional statistics
H.1. Overview of friendly settlements and WECL cases
(WECL:caseswhosemeritsarealreadycoveredbywell-establishedcase-lawoftheCourt)
A friendly settlement with undertaking implies a respondent State’s commitment
to adopt individual measures or general measures in order to address and prevent
future similar violations.
Year
“WECL”cases
Article 28§1b
New friendly
settlements
without
undertaking
New friendly
settlements
with undertaking
TOTAL of
new friendly
settlements
2020 466 224 16 240
2019 537 339 12 351
2018 523 275 7 282
2017 507 383 23 406
2016 302 504 6 510
2015 167 534 59 593
2014 205 501 98 599
2013 214 452 45 497
2012 198 495 54 549
2011 261 544 21 564
2010 113 227 6 233
H.2. WECL cases and Friendly settlements – State by State
STATE
“WECL”cases
Article 28§1b
(number of corresponding
applications)
Friendly settlements
(Article 39§4)
(number of corresponding
applications)
TOTAL
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Albania 1 (1) 1 0
Andorra 0
Armenia 12 (33) 7 (7) 1 (1) 4 (8) 13 11
Austria 3 (3) 2 (2) 1 (2) 5 1
Azerbaijan 7 (36) 18 (39) 3 (6) 12 (23) 10 30
Belgium 3 (9) 9 (17) 6 (8) 9 9
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
18 (376) 6 (17) 3 (3) 1 (3) 21 7
Bulgaria 7 (8) 15 (25) 8 (8) 1 (1) 15 16
Croatia 4 (7) 8 (9) 4 (5) 10 (10) 8 18
Cyprus 1 (1) 1
Page 68 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
STATE
“WECL”cases
Article 28§1b
(number of corresponding
applications)
Friendly settlements
(Article 39§4)
(number of corresponding
applications)
TOTAL
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Czech
Republic
2 (2) 2
Denmark 0
Estonia 1 (1) 1 (8) 2
Finland 0
France 7 (7) 2 (2) 3 (3) 9 3
Georgia 4 (4) 4 (4) 1 (1) 1 (1) 5 5
Germany 4 (4) 1 (1) 4 1
Greece 6 (6) 8 (10) 20 (60) 16 (52) 26 24
Hungary 33 (97) 23 (45) 54 (437) 31 (233) 87 54
Iceland 2 (2) 6 (6) 2 6
Ireland 1 (1) 1 0
Italy 5 (5) 10 (10) 22 (298) 14 (15) 27 24
Latvia 1 (1) 3 (3) 1 3
Liechtenstein 0
Lithuania 8 (8) 4 (8) 1 (5) 1 (1) 9 5
Luxembourg 0
Malta 2 (2) 5 (5) 6 (6) 8 5
Republic of
Moldova
34 (35) 16 (28) 2 (2) 7 (9) 36 23
Monaco 0
Montenegro 7 (10) 1 (1) 8
Netherlands 1 (1) 1 0
North
Macedonia
5 (5) 7 (8) 1 (1) 3 (22) 6 10
Norway 0
Poland 9 (9) 11 (12) 22 (31) 7 (7) 31 18
Portugal 5 (7) 5 (7) 4 (16) 10 4
Romania 53 (252) 37 (280) 34 (123) 18 (62) 87 55
Russian
Federation
147 (392) 129 (498) 43 (430) 45 (396) 190 174
San Marino 1 (1) 1
Serbia 17 (145) 1 (1) 13 (103) 10 (101) 30 11
Slovak
Republic
1 (2) 7 (8) 9 (16) 7 (12) 10 14
Slovenia 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 0
Spain 2 (3) 4 (8) 2 4
Statistics Page 69
STATE
“WECL”cases
Article 28§1b
(number of corresponding
applications)
Friendly settlements
(Article 39§4)
(number of corresponding
applications)
TOTAL
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Sweden 0
Switzerland 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 1
Turkey 48 (130) 59 (76) 76 (120) 21 (151) 124 80
Ukraine 93 (165) 72 (200) 3 (14) 93 75
United
Kingdom
1 (7) 3 (3) 1 (1) 4 1
TOTAL 537 (1750)18
466 (1322) 351 (1694) 240 (1171) 888 706
18. For comparison, in 2011 there were 259 WECL cases corresponding to 371 applications.
V. New judgments with indications of
relevance for the execution
A. Pilot judgments which became final in 2020
STATE CASE
APPLICATION
No.
JUDGMENT
FINAL ON
NATURE OF VIOLATIONS FOUND BY THE COURT
Ukraine Sukachov 14057/17 30/05/2020
Enhanced supervision
Recurrent structural problem: Overcrowding and inadequate material con-
ditions of pre-trial detention; widespread problem persisting since at least
2005, when the Court gave its first judgment on the matter; lack of effective
domestic remedies.
The Court indicated that the authorities should introduce effective preven-
tive and compensatory remedies for inadequate conditions of detention,
at the latest within 18 months of this judgment becoming final and should
adopt a range of listed comprehensive measures to reduce overcrowding
and improve conditions of detention.
Page 71
B. Judgments with indications of relevance for the execution
(under Article 46) which became final in 2020
Note: If the judgment has already been classified, the corresponding supervision procedure is indicated.
STATE CASE
APPLICATION
No.
JUDGMENT
FINAL ON
NATURE OF INDICATIONS GIVEN BY THE COURT
Albania Strazimiri 34602/16 21/05/2020
Enhanced supervision
Poor conditions of detention and inadequate medical treatment of a men-
tally ill person subject to court-ordered compulsory medical treatment. As
regards individual measures, the Court indicated, that the authorities should
secure, as a matter of urgency, the administration of suitable and individu-
alised forms of therapy to the applicant and consider the possibility of his
placement in an alternative setting outside of the penal facilities. As regards
general measures, the Court indicated, that an "appropriate institution"
should be established to accommodate persons such as the applicant with
a view to improving their living conditions. This institution must respect the
therapeutic purpose of this form of deprivation of liberty and a sufficient
number of qualified mental health care staff should be recruited. In addi-
tion, the authorities should consider, where appropriate, the possibility of
outpatient mental health treatment.
Page 72 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
STATE CASE
APPLICATION
No.
JUDGMENT
FINAL ON
NATURE OF INDICATIONS GIVEN BY THE COURT
Azerbaijan
Bagirov
81024/12
and
28198/15
25/09/2020
Enhanced supervision
Disproportionate, unlawful and insufficiently reasoned interference with
freedom of expression resulting in a lawyer’s suspension and later dis-
barment for public criticism of police brutality as well as for disrespect-
ful remarks about a judge made in courtroom while representing Ilgar
Mammadov. The Court underlined the Committee of Ministers’ supervisory
role concerning the adoption of measures by the respondent State aimed at
restoring the applicant’s professional activities. Those measures should be
feasible, timely, adequate and sufficient to ensure the maximum possible
reparation for the violation and put the applicant, as far as possible, in the
position in which he had been before his disbarment.
Mushfig Mammadov
and Others
14604/08+ 17/01/2020
Enhanced supervision
Unnecessary interference with freedom of conscience, thought and religion
due to the prosecution of and criminal proceedings against the applicants
on account of their refusal to perform military service which stemmed from
the absence of an alternative service system for conscientious objectors. The
Court highlighted the lack of legislation on alternatives to military service,
noting that the enactment of such a law corresponded to the commitment
entered into by Azerbaijan on its accession to the Council of Europe and
was also a requirement under the Constitution.
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Baralija 30100/18 29/01/2020
Enhanced supervision/case closed
Discrimination on the ground of residence and non-compliance with a
Constitutional Court decision leading to the impossibility, since 2008, for
residents of Mostar to vote and stand in local elections. In July 2020, the
Election Act was amended, in line with the Court’s findings, OSCE require-
ments and Venice Commission recommendations.
New judgments with indications of relevance for the execution Page 73
STATE CASE
APPLICATION
No.
JUDGMENT
FINAL ON
NATURE OF INDICATIONS GIVEN BY THE COURT
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Orlovic and Others 16332/18 01/01/2020
Standard supervision
Non-enforcement of a final domestic decision by the Commission for Real
Property Claims of Displaced Persons and Refugees ordering full reposses-
sion of land by internally displaced persons, including a plot on which a
church had been built. The Court considered that all necessary measures
must be taken to secure full enforcement of the relevant decision, including
the removal of the church from the applicants’ land, without further delay,
at the latest within three months from the date on which the judgment
becomes final.
France J.M.B. and Others 9671/15+ 30/05/2020
Enhanced supervision
Poor conditions of detention (overcrowding, lack of privacy, insufficient
activities outside the cell, etc.) in the following prisons: Ducos (Martinique),
Faa’a Nuutania (French Polynesia), Baie-Mahault (Guadeloupe), Nîmes, Nice
and Fresnes and lack of an effective preventive remedy, despite a positive
change in the administrative courts’ case-law regarding some of the pris-
oners’ complaints. The Court noted that the occupancy rates of the prisons
in question disclosed a structural problem and recommended the adoption
of general measures aimed at eliminating overcrowding and improving
the material conditions of detention, in particular by revising the method
of calculating prison capacity and improving compliance with maximum
occupancy standards. Furthermore, an effective preventive remedy should
be put in place, which, together with the compensatory remedy, would
enable prisoners to obtain redress.
Page 74 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
STATE CASE
APPLICATION
No.
JUDGMENT
FINAL ON
NATURE OF INDICATIONS GIVEN BY THE COURT
France Moustahi 9671/15 25/09/2020
Enhanced supervision
Detention and hasty collective return of two very young unaccompanied
migrant children from Mayotte to the Comoros, without an examination of
their individual situation. The Court noted positive developments in legisla-
tion and case-law, in particular that of the “juge des référés du Conseil d’État”
which has underlined the administrative authorities’ obligation to verify the
identity of migrant minors placed in detention as well as the conditions of
removal and of reception in the country of return. As to the new legislative
provisions applicable in Mayotte (which proscribe a third country national’s
removal before the expiration of one clear day), the authorities were called
upon to ensure that their application would not entail any further similar
violations.
Russian
Federation
Korneyeva 72051/17 24/02/2020
Enhanced supervision
Support for the execution of the LashmankinandOthersgroup: Infringement
of the ne bis in idem – principle due to the applicant’s conviction under the
Federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) for two separate offences
relying on the same facts and circumstances in the context of an unautho-
rised rally.
Unlike other procedural codes, the CAO does not have a mechanism for
reopening impugned court decisions following the finding of a violation
by the Court. It is for the Government, in co-operation with the Committee
of Ministers, to consider appropriate measures to facilitate the rapid and
effective suppression of this malfunction in the human-rights protection
system, for instance, by way of further clarifying the scope of the ne bis in
idem principleinCAOcasesinamannercompatiblewiththeapproachtaken
by the Court in its case-law.
New judgments with indications of relevance for the execution Page 75
STATE CASE
APPLICATION
No.
JUDGMENT
FINAL ON
NATURE OF INDICATIONS GIVEN BY THE COURT
Russian
Federation
N.T. 14727/11 16/11/2020
Conditions of detention of life prisoners, who are automatically placed, for
the first ten years of their imprisonment, under a strict regime involving
segregation, limited outdoor exercise and a lack of purposeful activity. The
Court noted the efforts made so far with a view to improving life prisoners’
conditions of detention. However, further reform of the existing regulatory
framework is required, which may include the removal of the automatic
application of the strict regime to all life prisoners as well as the possibility
that the strict regime may only be imposed on the basis of an individual risk
assessment and only as long as strictly necessary.
Turkey
Ali Riza and Others 30226/10+ 22/06/2020
Standard supervision
Structural deficiencies of proceedings before the Arbitration Committee of
the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) on account of its lack of independence
and impartiality due to the vast powers given to the Board of Directors over
its organisation and operation, the lack of adequate safeguards protecting
its members against outside pressures as well as the privileged represen-
tation of football clubs – in comparison to players or referees – in the TFF
governing bodies.
The Court called for general measures aimed at reforming the system of
settlement of football disputes under the auspices of the TFF.
Kavala 28749/18 15/11/2020
Enhanced supervision
Extended detention of a human rights activist accused of attempting to
overthrow the Government or the constitutional order, without reason-
able suspicion that the applicant had had such violent intentions. Regard
being had to the particular circumstances of the case and the grounds on
which the Court had based its findings, the respondent State was required
to take measures to put an end to the applicant’s detention and to secure
his immediate release.
Page 76 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
STATE CASE
APPLICATION
No.
JUDGMENT
FINAL ON
NATURE OF INDICATIONS GIVEN BY THE COURT
Turkey Selahattin Demirtaş 14305/17 22/12/2020
Prolonged detention of a Member of Parliament on the basis of charges of
terrorist activity resulting in his exclusion from parliamentary proceedings
without sufficient justification. Regard being had to the particular circum-
stances of the case and the grounds on which the Court based its findings,
the respondent State was required to take measures to put an end to the
applicant’s detention and to secure his immediate release.
New judgments with indications of relevance for the execution Page 77
Page 79
VI. Further information on
the execution of judgments
A. Internet
HUDOC-EXEC database
In close cooperation with the European Court of Human Rights, the
Department for the Execution of Judgments launched, in 2017, its
HUDOC-EXEC database, a search engine which aims at improving
the visibility and transparency of the process of the execution of
judgments of the European Court.
HUDOC-EXEC provides easy access through a single interface to
documents relating to the execution process (for example descrip-
tion of pending cases and problems revealed, the status of execu-
tion, memoranda, action plans, action reports, other communi-
cations, Committee of Ministers’ decisions, final resolutions). It
allows searching by a number of criteria (State, supervision track,
violations, themes etc.).
https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/ENG
Website of the Committee of Ministers
The Committee of Ministers’ website provides a search engine for docu-
ments and decisions linked to the supervision by the Committee of
Ministers of the execution of the Court’s judgments.
http://www.coe.int/en/web/cm
Website of the Department for the Execution of Judgments
The website provides the public with various information on the
work of the Committee of Ministers and the DEJ, notably through
the regular publication of the latest news on the supervision of
cases and on the activities of the Department. Amongst other
things, it includes country and thematic factsheets, interim and
final resolutions, annual reports, articles on seminars, round tables,
workshops, meetings, and other support activities. There is also a
page where applicants can follow the payment of just satisfaction
and make contact in the event of problems. A specific information
page is available for NHRI/NGO.
Since it was launched in 2016, the site’s traffic has doubled in 4 years
to reach nearly 75,000 visits in 2020 (+12,000 compared to 2019).
https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution
Page 80 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
Social media
Since the end of 2017, DEJ has its own Twitter account providing
targeted information for legal professionals, the media, and the
general public. In 2020, the account had nearly 3,000 followers
(+1,300 compared to 2019).
The Department publishes the decisions of the cases dealt with at
the end of each HR meeting as well as the activities and information
related to the execution of judgments.
https://twitter.com/COE_Execution
B. Publications
Thematic factsheets
In 2020, the Department launched a new series of thematic fact-
sheets. They aim to present an overview of selected legislative and
case-lawdevelopmentsinmemberStates,followingjudgmentsand
decisions of the European Court whose execution has been super-
vised (and concluded) by the Committee of Ministers. As the execu-
tion process in pending cases may evidence important progress,
some factsheets may also include relevant pending cases.
Fivethematicfactsheetshavealreadybeenpublishedonthethemes
of constitutional matters, effective investigations into deaths or ill-
treatmentcausedbysecurityforces,freedomofreligion,theenviron-
ment and the independence and impartiality of the judicial system.
https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/thematic-factsheets
Country factsheets
In the country factsheets, the Department presents an overview
of the main issues raised by judgments and decisions of the Court
in cases transmitted for supervision of their execution by the
Committee of Ministers. These factsheets outline, for each coun-
try, the main issues under supervision, the main reforms already
adopted and basic statistics. They are updated after each Human
Rights (HR) meeting of the Committee of Ministers.
https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/country-factsheets
Closed cases
In 2020, more than 275 summaries were drawn up and published
in the table of closed cases listing, by country, the main progress
reported in the final resolutions adopted by the Committee of
Ministers.
These summaries of closed cases are also available in the HUDOC-
EXEC database.
https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/closed-cases
Page 81
Appendix – Glossary
Action plan – document setting out the measures taken and/or envisaged by the
respondent State to implement a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights,
together with an indicative timetable.
Actionreport–report transmitted to the Committee of Ministers by the respondent
State setting out all the measures taken to implement a judgment of the European
Court and / or the reasons for which no additional measure is required.
Judgment with indications of relevance for the execution “Article 46” – judg-
ment by which the Court seeks to provide assistance to the respondent State in
identifying the sources of the violations established and the type of individual
and/or general measures that might be adopted in response. Indications related to
individual measures can also be given under the section Article 41.
Case – generic term referring to a judgment (or a decision) of the European Court.
Case awaiting classification – case for which the classification – under standard or
enhanced supervision – is still to be decided by the Committee of Ministers.
Classificationofacase–Committee of Ministers’ decision determining the supervi-
sion procedure – standard or enhanced.
Closed case – case in which the Committee of Ministers adopted a final resolu-
tion stating that it has exercised its functions under Article 46 § 2 and 39 § 4 of the
Convention, and thus closing its examination of the case.
Deadline for the payment of the just satisfaction – when the Court awards just
satisfaction to the applicant, it indicates in general a deadline within which the
respondent State must pay the amounts awarded; normally, the time-limit is three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final.
“DH” meeting – meetings of the Committee of Ministers specifically devoted to the
supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court. If
necessary, the Committee may also proceed to a detailed examination of the status
of execution of a case during a regular meeting.
Enhancedsupervision–supervisionprocedureforcasesrequiringurgentindividual
measures, pilot judgments, judgments revealing important structural and / or com-
plex problems as identified by the Court and / or by the Committee of Ministers, and
interstate cases. This procedure is intended to allow the Committee of Ministers to
closely follow progress of the execution of a case, and to facilitate exchanges with
the national authorities supporting execution.
Page 82 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
Final judgment – judgment which cannot be the subject of a request of referral
referral to the Grand Chamber of the European Court. Final judgments have to
be executed by the respondent State under the supervision of the Committee of
Ministers. A Chamber judgment (panel of 7 judges) becomes final: immediately if
the parties declare that they will not request the referral of the case to the Grand
Chamber of the Court, or three months after its delivery to ensure that the applicant
or the respondent State have the possibility to request the referral, or when the
Grand Chamber rejects the referral’s request. When a judgment is delivered by a
committee of three judges or by the Grand Chamber, it is immediately final.
Final resolution – Committee of Ministers’ decision whereby it decides to close the
supervision of the execution of a judgment, considering that the respondent State
has adopted all measures required in response to the violations found by the Court.
Friendly settlement – agreement between the applicant and the respondent State
aiming at putting an end to the application before the Court. The Court approves
the settlement if it finds that respect of human rights does not justify maintaining
the application. The ensuing decision is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers
which will supervise the execution of the friendly settlement’s terms as set out in
the decision.
General measures – measures needed to address more or less important structural
problems revealed by the Court’s judgments to prevent similar violations to those
found or put an end to continuing violations. The adoption of general measures
can notably imply a change of legislation, of judicial practice or practical measures
such as the refurbishing of a prison or staff reinforcement, etc. The obligation to
ensure effective domestic remedies is an integral part of general measures (see nota-
bly Committee of Ministers Recommendation (2004)6). Cases revealing structural
problems of major importance will be classified under the enhanced supervision
procedure.
Group of cases – when several cases under the Committee of Ministers’ supervision
concern the same violation or are linked to the same structural or systemic problem
in the respondent State, the Committee may decide to group the cases and deal with
them jointly. The group usually bears the name of the first leading case transmit-
ted to the Committee for supervision of its execution. If deemed appropriate, the
grouping of cases may be modified by the Committee, notably to allow the closure
of certain cases of the group dealing with a specific structural problem which has
been resolved (partial closure).
Individual measures – measures that the respondent States’ authorities must take
to erase, as far as possible, the consequences of the violations for the applicants
– restitutio in integrum. Individual measures include for example the reopening of
unfair criminal proceeding or the destruction of information gathered in breach of
the right to private life, etc.
Interimresolution–form of decision adopted by the Committee of Ministers aimed
at overcoming more complex situations requiring special attention.
Isolated case – case where the violations found appear closely linked to spe-
cific circumstances, and does not require any general measures (for example, bad
Appendix – Glossary Page 83
implementation of the domestic law by a tribunal thus violating the Convention).
See also under leading case.
Just satisfaction – when the Court considers, under Article 41 of the Convention,
that the domestic law of the respondent State does not allow complete reparation
of the consequences of this violation of the Convention for the applicant, it can
award just satisfaction. Just satisfaction frequently takes the form of a sum of money
covering material and/or moral damages, as well as costs and expenses incurred.
Leading case – case which has been identified as revealing new structural and / or
systemic problems, either by the Court directly in its judgment, or by the Committee
of Ministers in the course of its supervision of execution. Such a case requires the
adoptionofnewgeneralmeasures topreventsimilar violations inthe future. Leading
cases also include certain possibly isolated cases: the isolated nature of a new case
is frequently not evident from the outset and, until this nature has been confirmed,
the case is treated as a leading case.
New cases – expression referring to a judgment of the Court that became final
during the calendar year and was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers for
supervision of its execution.
Partial closure – closure of certain cases in a group revealing structural problems
to improve the visibility of the progress made, whether as a result of the adoption
of adequate individual measures or the solution of one of the structural problems
included in the group.
Pending case – case currently under the Committee of Ministers’ supervision of
its execution.
Pilot judgment – when the Court identifies a violation which originates in a struc-
tural and / or systemic problem which has given rise or may give rise to similar
applications against the respondent State, the Court may decide to use the pilot
judgment procedure. In a pilot judgment, the Court will identify the nature of the
structural or systemic problem established, and provide guidance as to the reme-
dial measures which the respondent State should take. In contrast to a judgment
with mere indications of relevance for the execution under Article 46, the operative
provisions of a pilot judgment can fix a deadline for the adoption of the remedial
measures needed and indicate specific measures to be taken (frequently the setting
up of effective domestic remedies). Under the principle of subsidiarity, the respon-
dent State remains free to determine the appropriate means and measures to put
an end to the violation found and prevent similar violations.
Reminder letter – letter sent by the Department for the Execution of Judgments
to the authorities of the respondent State when no action plan/report has been
submitted in the initial six-month deadline foreseen after the judgment of the Court
became final.
Repetitivecase–case relating to a structural and/or general problem already raised
before the Committee in the context of one or several leading cases; repetitive cases
are usually grouped together with the leading case.
Page 84 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020
Standard supervision procedure – supervision procedure applied to all cases
except if, because of its specific nature, a case warrants consideration under the
enhanced procedure. The standard procedure relies on the fundamental principle
that it is for respondent States to ensure the effective execution of the Court’s
judgments and decisions. Thus, in the context of this procedure, the Committee
of Ministers limits its intervention to ensuring that adequate action plans / reports
have been presented and verifies the adequacy of the measures announced an /
or taken at the appropriate time. Developments in the execution of cases under
standard procedure are closely followed by the Department for the Execution of
Judgments, which presents information received to the Committee of Ministers
and submits proposals for action if developments in the execution process require
specific intervention by the Committee of Ministers.
Transfer from one supervision procedure to another – a case can be transferred
by the Committee of Ministers from the standard supervision procedure to the
enhanced supervision procedure (and vice versa).
Unilateral declaration – declaration submitted by the respondent State to the
Court acknowledging the violation of the Convention and undertaking to provide
adequate redress, including to the applicant. The Committee of Ministers does
not supervise the respect of undertakings formulated in a unilateral declaration.
In case of a problem, the applicant may request that its application be restored to
the Court’s list.
“WECL” case – judgment on the merits rendered by a Committee of three judges,
if the issues raised by the case are already the subject of “well-established case-law
of the Court” (Article 28 § 1b).
North
Macedonia
Slovak Rep.
MEMBER STATES
■ Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria,
Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Malta, Republic of Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro,
Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino,
Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom.
OBSERVER COUNTRIES
■ Canada, the Holy See, Japan, Mexico, the
United States of America.
Non-member state of the Council of Europe (Belarus)
The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading human rights
organisation. It comprises 47 member states, including all
members of the European Union. The Committee of Ministers
is the Council of Europe’s decision-making body, composed by
the foreign ministers of all 47 member states. It is a forum where
national approaches to European problems and challenges are
discussed, in order to find collective responses. The Committee
of Ministers participates in the implementation of the European
Convention on Human Rights through the supervision of the
execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
ENG
The Committee of Ministers’ annual report presents an overview of
major developments concerning the execution of judgments and deci-
sions of the European Court of Human Rights. It also provides statistics
concerning notably new, pending and closed cases, action plans and
reports submitted by respondent States, as well as just satisfaction
awarded to applicants.
Despite the difficulties linked to the pandemic, 2020 saw a significant
reinforcement of the execution process, through a record number of
communications from civil society organisations and national human
rights institutions and the first ever submission to the Committee
of Ministers of a Rule 9 communication by the Council of Europe
Commissioner for Human Rights, swiftly followed by four more.
Notwithstanding, serious challenges continue to be raised in the con-
text of the execution of many cases, in particular those concerning
inter-state and other cases related to post-conflict situations and unre-
solved conflicts,“Article 18”judgments concerning abusive limitations
of rights and freedoms and systemic/structural problems, such as ill-
treatment or death caused by security forces and ineffective investiga-
tions, as well as non-Convention compliant detention conditions.
In order to successfully cope with these challenges, member States’
capacityforrapid,fullandeffectiveexecutionoftheCourt’sjudgments
needs to be strengthened and accompanied by further high-level
political commitment as well as support from the Council of Europe.
PREMS
013821