For 22 January

Last class!

Please write a short letter (or email) of introduction. It should be addressed to a real person, and you may ask about their research, about something in a paper they wrote, or about a possible future association (such as a possible PhD position or postdoc).

http://homepage.univie.ac.at/brian.metscher/Pechenik_Application_Letters.pdf

Updates on New ECHR Protocols

It's been some time now since I last wrote on the reform process of the Court and the two new protocols to the Convention (15 and 16) - see here and here. The Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) met at the end of November and formally adopted draft Protocol 15 (on additions to the Convention's preamble and changes to the admissibility conditions) together with an explanatory report. The Steering Committee also adopted, provisionally, draft Protocol 16 (on advisory opinions by the Court to national judges) to which the Committee of Experts on the Reform of the Court was tasked to complete a draft explanatory report. In March final adoption of both Protocol 16 and the explanatory report are scheduled on the agenda of the Steering Committee.

Yesterday, the Committee of Ministers had Protocol 15 and the explanatory report on its agenda. It decided to transmit the draft Protocol to the European Court and to the Parliamentary Assembly to get their opinions on it. This may mean that the state delegates now agree on the text.

Relevant documents of the Steering Committee, including all the ones mentioned above, can be found here.

New ECHR Publications

The new year brings us a whole basket of new ECHR-related publications, partly collected by our own SIM documentation team with their very helpful monthly online contents on human rights (find the most recent December overview here).

* L. Hodson, 'Ties that bind: towards a child-centred approach to lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender families under the ECHR', International journal of children's rights, vol. 20, no. 4 (2012) pp. 501-522.

* B. Miltner, 'Revisiting extraterritoriality after Al-Skeini: the ECHR and its lessons', Michigan Journal of International Law, vol. 33, no. 4 (2011/2012) pp. 693-748.

* Kristin Henrard, 'A Critical Analysis of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine of the ECtHR, with Special Attention to Rights of a Traditional Way of Life and a Healthy Environment: A Call for an Alternative Model of International Supervision', The Yearbook of Polar Law, vol. IV (2012) pp. 365-413.

* E. Defeis, 'The Treaty of Lisbon and accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights', ILSA journal of international and comparative law, vol. 18, no. 2 (2011/12) pp. 387-394.

Ironies of (In)justice in Ukraine and Strasbourg

My two previous blog posts are connected in a very surprising way. I reported last week on the judgment in Volkov v Ukraine, about a judge who had been removed from office in violation of the ECHR. The Court concluded that the right to a fair trial (Article 6) had been violated on four counts as well as the right to respect for private life (Article 8). For the first time in its history it indicated, under Article 46 ECHR, that there was no other way to remedy the violations than for Ukraine to reinstate the applicant, a Supreme Court judge, in his post. Other, similarly rare, indications of precise remedies have in the past included indications to release people from detention or to implement restitution of property. The judgment also explicitly points out that the issue is part of a wider, structural problem of a very worrying kind (para. 199):

The Court notes that the present case discloses serious systemic problems as regards the functioning of the Ukrainian judiciary. In particular, the violations found in the case suggest that the system of judicial discipline in Ukraine has not been organised in a proper way, as it does not ensure the sufficient separation of the judiciary from other branches of State power. Moreover, it does not provide appropriate guarantees against abuse and misuse of disciplinary measures to the detriment of judicial independence, the latter being one of the most important values underpinning the effective functioning of democracies.

What is truly notable is that one of the persons that in the Court's view may have been instrumental in the violation of fair trial rights, S.K., is actually the very same person that presents himself as a guardian of human rights at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. A few easy google searches indeed reveal that S.K. is no other than Serhii Kivalov, the rapporteur in the Parliamentary Assembly on the Council of Europe on structural problems in ECHR state parties. Notably, in the report Ukraine is singled out as one of the countries with structural problems in this respect. In addition, the report emphasizes the role the Parliamentary Assembly should play in helping to improve the implementation of judgments.

In the Volkov judgment, the Court indicates that S.K. (Serhii Kivalov) was both a chairman of the parliamentary committee on the judiciary and a member of the High Council of Justice, two of the institutions that played key roles in the dismissal of judge Volkov contrary to the ECHR. The Court mentions an "appearance of personal bias" (para. 117) on the part of certain members of the High Council of Justice and also suggests that Kivalov "might not have acted impartially" in his role as chairman of the parliamentary committee (para. 119). In addition, Kivalov was one of the three members of that committee that "applied to the High Council of Justice seeking the initiation of preliminary enquiries into possible misconduct by the applicant" and thus got the ball rolling in the first place.

PACE is due to discuss his report next week, according to its agenda. Irrespective of the quality of the report, which seems of similar quality of earlier reports, PACE may want to discuss the potentially murky credentials of its rapporteur in the matter. After it all, it is rather curious, to say the least, that one of the persons that may be at the source of human rights violations, as established by the European Court, is asked to review human rights problems and progress of ECHR state parties in PACE, one of the Court's sister institutions within the Council of Europe. Or would there be a trend of having experts by experience?

Court Orders Reinstatement of Ukrainan Supreme Court Judge

Yesterday, the Court issued its judgment in the case of Oleksandr Volkov v Ukraine, a politically very sensitive case about the dismissal of the applicant as Supreme Court judge. The facts of the case would not be out of place in a book by Kafka. The Court found a number of violations, but the most remarkable is that - and this is very rare - it indicated very specifically how the violation should be remedied: Mr Volkov should be reinstated in his post as judge as soon as possible. Here is the press release about the case from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre headed by professor Philip Leach who represented the applicant in the case in Strasbourg:

Today, in the case of Volkov v Ukraine (No. 21722/11), the European Court of Human Rights found Ukraine to have violated the rights of Oleksandr Volkov, who was dismissed from his post as a Supreme Court judge in May 2010 due to an alleged “breach of oath”. The Court found violations of the right to a fair trial and respect for private life and ordered Ukraine to reinstate him immediately as a Supreme Court judge, the first time the Court has made such an order. Mr Volkov was represented by the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) based at Middlesex University.


Mr Volkov was appointed as a Supreme Court judge in 2003. In 2008, proceedings were brought against him before the High Council of Justice for alleged professional misconduct, and he was consequently dismissed by the plenary parliament from his post in 2010 for “breach of oath”. Mr Volkov appealed unsuccessfully to the Higher Administrative Court against his dismissal.

In its judgment, the Court found four separate violations of the right to a fair hearing (Article 6(1)). Firstly, the bodies which considered Mr Volkov’s case were not independent and impartial. There were ‘structural deficiencies’ in the proceedings before the High Council of Justice, a number of whose members were also found to be personally biased. The hearing of the case by Parliament “only served to contribute to the politicisation of the procedure and to aggravate the inconsistency of the procedure with the principle of the separation of powers”. These defects were not considered to have been remedied during the review of the case by the Higher Administrative Court. Secondly, the principle of legal certainty was breached because there was no limitation period relating to the proceedings against Mr Volkov. Thirdly, the principle of legal certainty was also violated because, during the plenary meeting of Parliament, “the MPs present deliberately and unlawfully cast multiple votes belonging to their absent peers”, which violated the Ukrainian Constitution and other legislation. Fourthly, the chamber of the Higher Administrative Court was not considered to be a ‘tribunal established by law’ because its president had continued to perform the duties of president after the expiry of the relevant statutory time limit.

The Court also found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention because Mr Volkov’s dismissal from the post of judge did not comply with the domestic law and also because the law was arbitrary.

The Court ordered the Ukrainian authorities to reinstate Mr Volkov in the post of Supreme Court judge “at the earliest possible date”.

Significantly, the Court found “serious systemic problems as regards the functioning of the Ukrainian judiciary” and ordered Ukraine to carry out reform of the system of judicial discipline, including legislative reform.

Prof. Philip Leach commented: “We are delighted by this decision. Mr Volkov was the victim of endemic political corruption, which this judgment confirms is prevalent in Ukraine. It is significant that the European Court has, for the first time, ordered the reinstatement of someone who was unfairly dismissed. This judgment confirms that the Ukrainian legal system is in urgent need of fundamental reform.”

New Report on Structural Problems in ECHR State Parties

I wish all my readers a very good 2013! To start of this blogging year right away, I would like to draw your attention to a new report by rapporteur Serhii Kivalov, of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), entitled 'Ensuring the viability of the Strasbourg Court: structural deficiencies in States Parties'. This is the report's summary:

States Parties bear the “primary responsibility” for ensuring the European Convention on Human Rights is applied effectively at national level, alongside the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights deplores the fact that the Court is “still overloaded with a large number of repetitive cases revealing widespread dysfunctions in national legal orders”. It lists nine States (Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, the Republic of Moldova, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine) which continue to have “major structural problems” – adding that countries with a high proportion of complaints in relation to their population should also face scrutiny.

The committee calls on States Parties to the Convention to create strategies and action plans to deal with their structural problems, and amend their laws in line with the Court’s case law. States Parties should also consider establishing a national body responsible solely for the execution of the Court’s judgments. Moreover, national parliaments should be actively involved in the implementation of these judgments, and in particular of those revealing structural deficiencies.

The Council of Europe governments are also called on to “increase pressure and take firmer measures” in cases of dilatory and continuous non-compliance with the Court’s judgments.

As well as giving a precise overview of issues in the most problematic countries, the report also lists a number of possible ideas to improve the situation.

French Knots In Ribbon SRE Tutorial By Carol Daisy of Embroideries From Daisy's Garden

I just love french knots in silk embroidery designs and was surprised at how easy they were to create.   If you have always wanted to learn how to create french knots you'll be happy to know that Carol Daisy has a tutorial  on her Silk Ribbon Embroidery blog showing you how.

French Knots In Ribbon SRE 

Copyright © 2009 - All Rights Reserved - Written by Carol Daisy of Embroideries From Daisy's Garden.

Here's what Carol had to say about her tutorial: This is executed the same way as if you were using thread. But for those who have never tried, here it is with some photos to help you.

Please respect Carol's TERMS OF USE:  The patterns and designs are available for your private use only & remain the copyright of "Embroideries from Daisy's Garden". Ribbon Embroidery Supplies are available from our Website " Embroideries From Daisy's Garden."

Carol's Bio: My life is at the stage that I can indulge in my interests of Embroidery and Crafts. Ribbons,beads,threads, laces and trims all have a special place here in my studio. 

My childhood was spent on the family dairy farm in Toowoomba, Queensland. When I was about 12 years old, my Grandmother (nicknamed Daisy – hence the name Daisy’s Garden) introduced me to the joys of needlework. I am so thankful to her for giving me a skill that I could enjoy and build upon for life. After the chores were done, whenever I had some spare time, I would sit quietly on the front porch and stitch away. I remember these times so fondly. When I retired, and finally had some time to myself, I had the desire to do embroidery again. I didn’t get far with the fancy work tablecloth however, once I discovered Silk Ribbon Embroidery, I became addicted!

Copyright © 2009 - All Rights Reserved - Carol Daisy of Embroideries From Daisy's Garden.

Please visit her Embroideries From Daisy's Garden website at http://www.daisysgarden.net.au, her Silk Ribbon Embroidery blog at http://www.caroldaisy.blogspot.com/, and her Create-Enhance blog at http://www.create-enhance.com/.