ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

Europarådet 2020-21
ERD Alm.del Bilag 11
Offentligt

SUPERVISION

OF THE EXECUTION

OF JUDGMENTS

AND DECISIONS

OF THE EUROPEAN COURT

OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2020

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

14th Annual Report

of the Committee of Ministers

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

SUPERVISION OF THE EXECUTION

OF JUDGMENTS AND DECISIONS

OF THE EUROPEAN COURT

OF HUMAN RIGHTS

14th Annual Report

of the Committee of Ministers

2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

French edition:

Surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts

et décisions de la Cour européenne des

droits de l’homme. 14

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 [email protected]). 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.

Printed at the Council of Europe

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

Contents

I. PREFACE BY THE CHAIRS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS MEETINGS

II. OVERVIEW OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND RULE OF LAW

Introductory remarks

Inter-state and other cases related to post-conflict situations or unresolved conflicts

“Article 18” cases concerning abusive limitations of rights and freedoms

Systemic/structural problems and advances

Towards further enhancement of the execution process

Concluding remarks

III. OUTREACH ACTIVITIES (COOPERATION ACTIVITIES, COMMUNICATION AND

INFORMATION)

A. Activities of the Department for the Execution of Judgments

B. General co-operation activities and National Action Plans

C. Targeted Convention-related co-operation projects

IV. STATISTICS

A. Overview

A.1. New cases

A.2. Pending cases

A.3. Closed cases

B. New cases

B.1. Leading or repetitive

B.2. Enhanced or standard supervision

B.3. New cases – State by State

C. Pending cases

C.1. Leading or repetitive

C.2. Enhanced or standard supervision

C.3. Pending cases – State by State

D. Closed cases

D.1. Leading or repetitive

D.2. Enhanced or standard supervision

D.3. Closed cases – State by State

E. Supervision process

E.1. Action plans / Action reports

E.2. Interventions of the Committee of Ministers

E.3. Transfers of leading cases/groups of cases

E.4. Contributions by NHRIs and NGOs

E.5. Main themes of leading cases under enhanced supervision

E.6. Main States with leading cases under enhanced supervision

F. Length of the execution process

F.1. Leading cases pending

F.2. Leading cases closed

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

G. Just satisfaction

G.1. Just satisfaction awarded

G.2. Respect of payment deadlines

H. Additional statistics

H.1. Overview of friendly settlements and WECL cases

H.2. WECL cases and Friendly settlements – State by State

V. NEW JUDGMENTS WITH INDICATIONS OF RELEVANCE FOR THE EXECUTION

A. Pilot judgments which became final in 2020

B. Judgments with indications of relevance for the execution (under Article 46) which

became final in 2020

VI. FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS

A. Internet

B. Publications

APPENDIX – GLOSSARY

Page

4 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020 ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

Greece

Mr Panayiotis BEGLITIS

Germany

Mr Rolf MAFAEL

Hungary

Mr Harry Alex RUSZ

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

I. Preface by the Chairs

of the Human Rights meetings

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.

The Committee also reviewed the decade of reform it had initiated with the Interlaken

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

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

In the context of its priority to explore ways to improve human rights protection, the

German Chairmanship held a series of international expert conferences and seminars

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.

One such event of note took place in November 2020 when the German Chairmanship

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

academia and practice on ways to promote an environment conducive to prompt, 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

Page

8 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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

Preface by the Chairs of the Human Rights meetings

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020 ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

Mr Christos GIAKOUMOPOULOS

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.

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 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” cases

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

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.

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

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

the group can be closed when it is assessed that all possible individual measures needed to provide

redress to the applicant have been taken.

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.

Page

12 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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 130

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 conflicts

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) in 2020. One example is the Skendžić

and Krznarić v. Croatia

group, 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

in absentia

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-

ceedings if they provide a residential address for the delivery of the court documents.

A major and long-pending case related to a past armed conflict is the inter-state case

Cyprus v. Turkey

concerning various violations of the Convention in relation to the

The summaries contained in the present sections concerning major case developments in 2020

in no way bind the Committee of Ministers.

Overview of major developments by the Director General

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

situation in the northern part of Cyprus since the 1974 military intervention by Turkey.

In September 2020 the Committee decided to close the examination of the issue of the

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,

in relation to Greek Cypriot missing persons and their families and the property rights

of displaced Greek Cypriots, as well as the payment by Turkey of the just satisfaction

awarded by the European Court in the 2014 judgment

Cyprus v. Turkey (just

satisfaction).

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

of children or parents of children from Latin-script schools located in the Transnistrian

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

Page

14 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Overview of major developments by the Director General

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 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

Merabishvili v. Georgia

was placed in pre-trial detention in

the context of criminal proceedings for embezzlement and abuse of official authority.

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

Page

16 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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

Overview of major developments by the Director General

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 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

Khashiyev and Akayeva,

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 (Kaverzin group 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

Page

18 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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, another long-pending group of cases is the

McKerr v. United Kingdom,

concern-

ing deaths of the applicants’ next-of-kin in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s. In

an interim resolution adopted in December 2020, the Committee noted,

inter alia,

the

authorities’ continued commitment to reforming the current approach to addressing

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 concerning

poor conditions of detention and medical care (including the

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

criminal policy and resolving the structural problem of prison overcrowding, 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

suspension of payments of compensation awarded under the existing compensatory

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

Overview of major developments by the Director General

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

awarded at domestic level must not be unreasonably low in comparison with the

awards made by the European Court.

Rezmiveș and Others

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

first thematic factsheets issued in 2020 by DEJ concerned effective investigations into

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.

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,

in order to overcome

the existing systemic shortcomings in these domains.

https://www.coe.int/en/web/criminal-law-coop/ongoing-projects.

See also annual report’s section on Outreach Activities.

Page

20 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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, inter

alia,

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

Committee invited the authorities to provide information on the measures envisaged

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,

inter alia,

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

Overview of major developments by the Director General

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 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.

Issues concerning freedom of assembly in Russia were examined by the Committee in

2020 in the context of the

Lashmankin and Others

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,

inter alia,

that the authorities introduce as a matter of priority

further changes to the legislation, particularly the Public Events Act, and highlighted,

inter alia,

that local authorities’ discretion on planning assemblies should be narrowed,

by obliging the authorities to thoroughly assess the proportionality of their decisions.

Independence and impartiality of the judicial system

In 2020, the Committee continued the examination 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.

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

investigations into a Chief Prosecutor and his or her deputies, that the arrangements on

appointment, accountability, career, supervision and subordination of the prosecutors

and investigating magistrates in charge of such investigations, do not ensure genuine

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

ad hominem

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.

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

Page

22 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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. For example, in January 2020, representatives of DEJ carried out a mission

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.

Discussions focused on the state of play and developments concerning the execution

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.

See also annual report’s section on Outreach Activities.

Overview of major developments by the Director General

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 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,

Page

24 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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,

notably through the amended Law on Environmental Protection which provided that

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

Gjyli

group 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

(�½irovnick�½)

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,

Overview of major developments by the Director General

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 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

“Introduction to the European Convention

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

The Committee of Ministers

Recommendation (2008) 2

on efficient domestic capacity

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.

The above Recommendation encourages member States to designate a co-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:

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

See also the CDDH

Guide

to good practice on the implementation of Recommendation (2008)2 of the

Committee of Ministers on efficient domestic capacity for rapid execution of judgments of the European

Court of Human Rights,

2017.

Page

26 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

authorities, in order to address notably long-standing systemic and structural prob-

lems highlighted in the Court’s judgments.

By its decisions adopted in Athens at the 130

Session in November 2020, the

Committee of Ministers urged all member States to ensure that Recommendation

CM/Rec(2008)2 be given full effect. The renewed support and emphasis placed by the

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 factsheets

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,

a possibility which was foreseen by the 2017 Rules of the Committee

concerning the supervision of execution of the Court’s judgments.

These communications are valuable given that they are based on the Commissioner’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. The Commissioner’s communications are available at:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/

rule-9.

Overview of major developments by the Director General

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 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

past years’ High-Level Declarations and the Committee of Ministers’ Sessions. In 2020,

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.

Concluding remarks

Despite the adverse effects of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, member States and the

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-

munications submitted by civil society organisations and NHRIs. These developments

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.

Page

28 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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

to the rule of law in certain member States, shows that more sustained and concerted

efforts are necessary.

2020 provided the occasion to celebrate the 70

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.

Overview of major developments by the Director General

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020 ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

III. Outreach activities (cooperation

activities, communication

and information)

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

rights Trust 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, to the extent possible, the DEJ adjusted its working methods

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

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 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

developments in member States, following judgments and decisions of the European

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

eliminate discriminations in the electoral system. Also the Human Rights Director held

an on-line exchange with the Director for the Western Balkans, EU DG 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

Page

32 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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.

During the same period teleconferences were organised with the 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

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.

The department took part in an online expert conference focusing on the implemen-

tation of the ECHR judgment in Zorica

Jovanović v. 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 of judgments under Article 6 of the Convention, judicial reform, media and

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

of Judgments. In the course of the year DEJ also took part in awareness-raising events

Outreach activities (cooperation activities, communication and information)

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 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 – support to ensure the adoption of the 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

Page

34 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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-

ing Joint programmes with the EU, member states’ voluntary contributions, 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

Assembly Secretariat worked on enhancing parliamentary oversight of the execution

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 (Beshiri

and Others).

Assistance also

focused on property rights-related cases, excessive length of civil proceedings and

non-enforcement of judicial and administrative decisions (Luli

and Others, 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

Outreach activities (cooperation activities, communication and information)

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 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

36 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

IV. Statistics

A. Overview

A.1. New cases

Total number of new cases

1710

1381 1408 1397

1511

New leading cases

1606

1438

1328

1389

1285

1352 1333

1272

1160

983

898

658

513

504

757

591 631

813

252 251 228 211

186 206 179 196 178 195

185 200 211 234 233

135 123 164

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

A.2. Pending cases

Total number of pending cases

10689

9899

8667

7328

7584

6151

5231 5233

Leading cases pending

11099 11019 10904

10652

9941

6711

5523

3970

4322

1435

1732

2298

2624

3227

3540

481 632 686

120 168 181 245 177 283 359

1435 1497 1513 1555 1493 1379 1292 1245 1258

1077 1194 1286 1337

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

14. The data presented also includes cases where the Committee of Ministers decided itself whether or

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

Statistics

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

A.3. Closed cases

Overview

Total number of cases closed

Leading cases closed

3691

1397 1502 1537

2066

2705

2080

983

677

380

256

171

116

122

172

163

350

193

100

400

240

455

815

1029

321

142

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

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.

Leading cases

Repetitive cases

Total:

Total: 1606

Total: 1438

Total: 1328

Total: 1389

Total: 1285

Total: 1352 Total: 1333

Total: 1272

Total: 1160

Total: 983

1354

1187

1100

1178

1099

1146

1154

1076

982

788

252

2011

251

2012

228

2013

211

2014

186

2015

206

2016

179

2017

196

2018

178

2019

195

2020

Page

38 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

B.2. Enhanced or standard supervision

New leading cases

Enhanced supervision

Standard supervision

Awaiting classification

Total:252

Total:251

Total:228

Total:211

Total:186

Total:206

Total:179

Total:196

Total:178

Total:195

236

187

165

147

123

146

128

130

118

119

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Total number of new cases

Enhanced supervision

Total:1606

Total:1438

257

302

1342

832

748

739

668

671

Total:1328

Total:1389

352

Total:1352

389

Total:1333

355

Standard supervision

Awaiting classification

Total:1285

359

Total:1272

Total:1157

344

312

Total:983

271

683

622

553

475

264

2011

349

2012

278

2013

298

2014

243

2015

295

2016

307

2017

306

2018

292

2019

237

2020

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

B.3. New cases – State by State

LEADING CASES

STATE

Enhanced

supervision

2019

REPETITIVE CASES

Total of

leading

cases

Standard

supervision

Awaiting

classification

Enhanced

supervision

Standard

supervision

Awaiting

classification

Total of

repetitive

cases

TOTAL

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

Albania

Andorra

Armenia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Belgium

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech

Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Georgia

Page

14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

LEADING CASES

STATE

Enhanced

supervision

2019

REPETITIVE CASES

Total of

leading

cases

Standard

supervision

Awaiting

classification

Enhanced

supervision

Standard

supervision

Awaiting

classification

Total of

repetitive

cases

TOTAL

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Republic of

Moldova

Monaco

Montenegro

Netherlands

North

Macedonia

Norway

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

LEADING CASES

STATE

Enhanced

supervision

2019

REPETITIVE CASES

Total of

leading

cases

Enhanced

supervision

Standard

supervision

Awaiting

classification

Total of

repetitive

cases

TOTAL

Standard

supervision

Awaiting

classification

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russian

Federation

San Marino

Serbia

Slovak

Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

Ukraine

United

Kingdom

TOTAL

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

118

119

178

195

273

212

435

356

274

220

222

165

103

982

209

788

240

184

111

1160

218

103

983

Page

14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

C. Pending cases

Pending cases

are those in which the execution process is on-going. As a consequence, pending cases

are at various stages of execution and must not be understood as unexecuted cases. In the overwhelming

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

Leading cases

Total:10689

Total:11099 Total:11019 Total:10904

Total:10652

Repetitive cases

Total:9926

Total:7584

9664

9522

9391

9097

Total:6151

8448

6205

4859

Total:5231

Total:5233

9352

3986

3975

1337

2011

1435

2012

1497

2013

1513

2014

1555

2015

1478

2016

1379

2017

1292

2018

1245

2019

1258

2020

C.2. Enhanced or standard supervision

Leading cases pending

Enhanced supervision

Standard supervision

Awaiting classification

Total:1337

Total:1435

Total:1497

Total:1513

Total:1555

Total:1493

Total:1379

Total:1292

Total:1245

Total:1258

1110

1019

1142

1149

1178

1122

1023

933

898

877

272

2011

308

2012

330

2013

328

2014

336

2015

323

2016

317

2017

309

2018

306

2019

330

2020

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

Total number of pending cases

Enhance supervision

Standard supervision

Awaiting classification

Total: 10689

132

Total: 11099 Total: 11019 Total: 10904

Total: 10652

257

302

352

Total: 9941

359

389

4233

4010

3834

3903

3602

Total: 7584

356

3379

6707

6718

Total: 6151

352

Total: 5231 Total: 5233

282

315

3005

2517

2582

3976

6581

6609

6390

5950

3849

2794

2018

2334

2019

2434

2020

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Page

44 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

C.3. Pending cases – State by State

LEADING CASES

STATE

Enhanced

supervision

2019

REPETITIVE CASES

Total of

leading

cases

Standard

supervision

Awaiting

classification

Enhanced

supervision

Standard

supervision

Awaiting

classification

Total of

repetitive

cases

TOTAL

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

Albania

Andorra

Armenia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Belgium

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech

Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Georgia

190

189

170

235

166

155

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

LEADING CASES

STATE

Enhanced

supervision

2019

REPETITIVE CASES

Total of

leading

cases

Standard

supervision

Awaiting

classification

Enhanced

supervision

Standard

supervision

Awaiting

classification

Total of

repetitive

cases

TOTAL

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Republic of

Moldova

Monaco

Montenegro

Netherlands

North

Macedonia

Norway

137

222

127

105

195

266

198

173

120

276

184

154

137

152

218

142

101

120

Page

14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

LEADING CASES

STATE

Enhanced

supervision

2019

REPETITIVE CASES

Total of

leading

cases

Enhanced

supervision

Standard

supervision

Awaiting

classification

Total of

repetitive

cases

TOTAL

Standard

supervision

Awaiting

classification

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russian

Federation

San Marino

Serbia

Slovak

Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

Ukraine

United

Kingdom

TOTAL

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

158

156

219

217

143

900

160

984

466

518

208

1444

258

284

347

1572

1663

1789

689

591

306

109

877

155

119

149

107

475

460

624

567

330

120

898

204

346

206

357

284

248

274

534

472

1245

1258

2028

2104

1684

1640

231

3986

3975

5231

5233

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

D. Closed cases

D.1. Leading or repetitive

Leading cases

Repetitive cases

Total:3691

Total:2705

Total:2066

3380

Total:1397

Total:815

494

321

2011

Total:1029

844

185

2012

1215

182

2013

1294

1384

796

208

2014

153

2015

282

2016

311

2017

289

2018

214

2019

187

2020

Total:1502

Total:1537

1784

2416

1866

Total:983

Total:2080

D.2. Enhanced or standard supervision

Leading cases closed

Enhanced supervision

Standard supervision

Total: 321

Total: 282

Total: 311

Total: 289

Total: 185

320

178

Total: 208

Total: 182

Total: 153

192

135

2016

2017

2018

237

276

254

Total: 214

Total: 187

183

174

173

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2019

2020

Page

48 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

Total number of cases closed

Enhanced supervision

Standard supervision

Total:3691

1177

Total:2705

Total:2080

Total:2066

Total:1397

Total:815

811

2011

Total:1029

915

114

2012

1383

2013

1333

658

2015

816

2016

2017

Total:1502

Total:1537

1250

879

2514

1241

1204

Total:983

1464

876

2018

2019

741

242

2020

169

2014

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

D.3. Closed cases – State by State

LEADING CASES

STATE

Enhanced

supervision

2019

REPETITIVE CASES

Total of

leading cases

2019

Standard

supervision

2019

Enhanced

supervision

2019

Standard

supervision

2019

Total of

repetitive cases

2019

TOTAL

2019

2020

Albania

Andorra

Armenia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Belgium

Bosnia-

Herzegovina

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech

Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

2020

Page

14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

LEADING CASES

STATE

Enhanced

supervision

2019

REPETITIVE CASES

Total of

leading cases

2019

Standard

supervision

2019

Enhanced

supervision

2019

Standard

supervision

2019

Total of

repetitive cases

2019

TOTAL

2019

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Republic of

Moldova

Monaco

Montenegro

Netherlands

North

Macedonia

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

2020

111

110

113

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

LEADING CASES

STATE

Enhanced

supervision

2019

REPETITIVE CASES

Total of

leading cases

2019

Standard

supervision

2019

Enhanced

supervision

2019

116

Standard

supervision

2019

Total of

repetitive cases

2019

149

TOTAL

2019

162

2020

187

2020

151

796

2020

168

108

983

Russian

Federation

San Marino

Serbia

Slovak

Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

Ukraine

United

Kingdom

TOTAL

214

732

443

2080

173

223

385

478

117

568

701

428

1866

183

845

228

1021

Page

14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Action plans

received

212

172

187

249

252

236

266

229

158

114

Action reports

received

398

438

462

570

504

350

481

349

262

236

Reminder letters

(States concerned)

48 (19)

54 (18)

53 (16)

75 (36)

69 (27)

56 (20)

60 (24)

82 (29)

62 (27)

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).

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

E.2. Interventions of the Committee of Ministers

Number of

interventions of

the CM during

the year

136

131

123

157

148

108

111

123

119

Total cases /

groups of cases

examined

131

116

107

States with cases

States concerned under enhanced

supervision

Year

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

The Committee of Ministers’ interventions are divided as follows:

Year

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Examined

four times

or more

Examined

three times

Examined twice

Examined once

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, Turkey and Hungary) have been transferred from standard to enhanced super-

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.

Page

54 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Contributions from Non-

Governmental Organisations

(NGO) or National Human Rights

Institutions (NHRI)

176

133

States concerned

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

E.5. Main themes of leading cases under enhanced supervision

2020

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

10%

Other themes

23%

15%

10%

2019

Other themes

Actions of security forces

Lawfulness of detention and related issues

Right to life - Protection against ill-treatment:

specific situations

Conditions of detention and medical care

Length of judicial proceedings

Other interferences with property rights

Enforcement of domestic judicial decisions

Lawfulness of expulsion or extradition

Freedom of assembly and association

Freedom of expression

Other themes

24%

17%

10%

17. “Other interferences with property rights” refers to cases concerning interferences other than

expropriations and nationalisations.

Page

56 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

E.6. Main States with leading cases under enhanced supervision

2020

Other States

22%

Russian Federation

18%

Poland

Hungary

Bulgaria

Azerbaijan

Italy

Romania

Turkey

11%

Ukraine

15%

2019

Other

States

19%

Russian Federation

19%

Greece

Hungary

Poland

Azerbaijan

Bulgaria

Italy

Turkey

11%

Ukraine

17%

Romania

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

F. Length of the execution process

F.1. Leading cases pending

Overview

Less than 2 years

Between 2-5 years

More than 5 years

685

578

454

403

278

455

588

604

545

453

364

345

342

525

431

720

718

675

635

634

514

545

317

344

306 311

318

292

323

301

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Leading cases pending – State by State

ENHANCED SUPERVISION

STATE

Albania

Andorra

Armenia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Belgium

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech

Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Georgia

STANDARD SUPERVISION

< 2 years

2-5 years

>5 years

< 2 years

2019

2-5 years

>5 years

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

Page

58 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

ENHANCED SUPERVISION

STATE

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

TOTAL

STANDARD SUPERVISION

< 2 years

2-5 years

>5 years

< 2 years

2019

2-5 years

>5 years

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

111

107

199

222

235

224

227

241

436

412

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

F.2. Leading cases closed

Overview

Less than 2 years

Between 2-5 years

More than 5 years

146

148

143

119

113

79 78

82 81

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Leading cases closed – State by State

ENHANCED SUPERVISION

STATE

Albania

Andorra

Armenia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Belgium

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech

Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Greece

STANDARD SUPERVISION

< 2 years

2-5 years

>5 years

< 2 years

2019

2-5 years

>5 years

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

Page

60 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

ENHANCED SUPERVISION

STATE

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

TOTAL

STANDARD SUPERVISION

< 2 years

2-5 years

>5 years

< 2 years

2019

2-5 years

>5 years

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

G. Just satisfaction

G.1. Just satisfaction awarded

Global amount

YEAR

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

TOTAL AWARDED

76 452 187 €

77 244 322 €

68 739 884 €

60 399 112 €

82 288 795 €

53 766 388 €

2 039 195 858 €

135 420 274 €

176 798 888 €

72 300 652 €

64 032 637 €

State by State

STATE

Albania

Andorra

Armenia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Belgium

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Greece

Hungary

TOTAL AWARDED

2019

117 050 €

0€

2 130 858 €

45 881 €

707 010 €

211 561 €

755 810 €

421 823 €

105 313 €

34 124 €

0€

2 000 €

73 900 €

0€

256 320 €

101 970 €

25 500 €

1 562 538 €

5 391 826 €

2020

62 220 €

0€

417 550 €

6 000 €

803 726 €

324 015 €

117 720 €

330 213 €

237 458 €

52 119 €

23 669 €

14 000 €

64 300 €

149 525 €

1 006 536 €

183 200 €

11 828 €

2 131 421 €

1 665 127 €

Page

62 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

STATE

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

TOTAL

TOTAL AWARDED

2019

65 300 €

11 000 €

16 964 113 €

9 762 €

0€

216 846 €

0€

1 081 035 €

526 079 €

0€

16 500 €

4 196 €

266 915 €

34 350 €

454 936 €

4 690 494 €

4 395 996 €

28 547 005 €

0€

547 510 €

3 222 290 €

223 067 €

45 894 €

0€

56 834 €

2 170 693 €

1 675 140 €

74 883 €

77 244 322 €

2020

109 000 €

3 000 €

5 134 768 €

20 353 €

0€

364 419 €

0€

1 669 066 €

4 179 342 €

0€

4 589 746 €

0€

329 683 €

116 800 €

252 304 €

227 667 €

37 455 775 €

11 458 094 €

26 000 €

221 305 €

176 788 €

18 412 €

55 048 €

0€

118 103 €

1 548 027 €

685 755 €

102 104 €

76 452 187 €

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

G.2. Respect of payment deadlines

Overview of payments made

Payments within deadline

Payments outside deadline

1511

1363

1143

930

956

275

2015

944

328

2016

770

263

2017

865

389

2018

744

323

2019

581

203

2020

300

2011

254

2012

191

2013

164

2014

Awaiting Information on payment

Awaiting confirmation of payment

Awaiting confirmation of payment for more than 6 months (after the payment deadline)

Only awaiting default interest

1118

709

390

202 186

765

555

337

235

220

601

376

184

430

163

560

433

541

597

769

547

794

494

907

456

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Page

64 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

State by State

RESPECT OF PAYMENT DEADLINES

... including

cases

Cases

awaiting this

awaiting

information

confirmation

for more than

six months

payments at

(outside

31 December

payment

deadline)

STATE

Payments

within

deadline

Payments

outside

deadline

Cases only

awaiting

default

interest

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

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

2020

2019

2020

133

153

113

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

RESPECT OF PAYMENT DEADLINES

... including

cases

Cases

awaiting this

awaiting

information

confirmation

for more than

six months

payments at

(outside

31 December

payment

deadline)

STATE

Payments

within

deadline

Payments

outside

deadline

Cases only

awaiting

default

interest

2019

2020

123

581

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

Monaco

Montenegro

Netherlands

Norway

North

Macedonia

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russian

Federation

San Marino

Serbia

Slovak

Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

Ukraine

United

Kingdom

TOTAL

134

744

105

750

199

907

478

620

644

164

226

149

1118

323

203

1401

1574

Page

66 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

H. Additional statistics

H.1. Overview of friendly settlements and WECL cases

(WECL: cases whose merits are already covered by well-established case-law of the Court)

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.

“WECL” cases

Article 28§1b

466

537

523

507

302

167

205

214

198

261

113

New friendly

settlements

without

undertaking

224

339

275

383

504

534

501

452

495

544

227

New friendly

settlements

with undertaking

TOTAL of

new friendly

settlements

240

351

282

406

510

593

599

497

549

564

233

Year

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

H.2. WECL cases and Friendly settlements – State by State

“WECL” cases

Article 28§1b

(number of corresponding

applications)

2019

STATE

Friendly settlements

(Article 39§4)

(number of corresponding

applications)

2019

(1)

TOTAL

2019

2020

Albania

Andorra

Armenia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Belgium

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

(376)

(8)

(7)

(33)

(3)

(36)

(7)

(39)

(9)

(17)

(25)

(9)

(1)

(2)

(6)

(17)

(3)

(8)

(5)

(8)

(2)

(23)

(8)

(3)

(1)

(10)

(1)

2020

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

STATE

“WECL” cases

Article 28§1b

(number of corresponding

applications)

2019

Friendly settlements

(Article 39§4)

(number of corresponding

applications)

2019

TOTAL

2019

2020

(2)

2020

174

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

(145)

(2)

(1)

(3)

(9)

(7)

(252)

147

(392)

(1)

(5)

(2)

(35)

(8)

(6)

(97)

(2)

(1)

(5)

(1)

(7)

(4)

(2)

(1)

(8)

(3)

(1)

(52)

(233)

(6)

(5)

(6)

(2)

(4)

(10)

(45)

(1)

(4)

(60)

(437)

(10)

(3)

(8)

(5)

(28)

(10)

(8)

(12)

(280)

129

(498)

(1)

(8)

(298)

(15)

(1)

(9)

(1)

(22)

(31)

(7)

(123)

(430)

(7)

(16)

(62)

(396)

(1)

190

(103)

(16)

(1)

(101)

(12)

Page

68 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

STATE

“WECL” cases

Article 28§1b

(number of corresponding

applications)

2019

Friendly settlements

(Article 39§4)

(number of corresponding

applications)

2019

(1)

(120)

TOTAL

2019

2020

(1)

(76)

(200)

2020

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

Ukraine

United

Kingdom

TOTAL

(130)

(165)

(7)

537

(1750)

(151)

(14)

124

888

2020

706

(3)

(1)

240

(1171)

466

(1322)

351

(1694)

18. For comparison, in 2011 there were 259 WECL cases corresponding to 371 applications.

Statistics

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020 ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

V. New judgments with indications of

relevance for the execution

A. Pilot judgments which became final in 2020

STATE

CASE

APPLICATION JUDGMENT

No.

FINAL ON

NATURE OF VIOLATIONS FOUND BY THE COURT

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.

Ukraine

Sukachov

14057/17

30/05/2020

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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 JUDGMENT

No.

FINAL ON

NATURE OF INDICATIONS GIVEN BY THE COURT

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.

Albania

Strazimiri

34602/16

21/05/2020

Page

14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

STATE

CASE

APPLICATION JUDGMENT

No.

FINAL ON

NATURE OF INDICATIONS GIVEN BY THE COURT

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.

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.

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.

Bagirov

81024/12

and

28198/15

25/09/2020

Azerbaijan

Mushfig Mammadov

and Others

14604/08+

17/01/2020

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

Baralija

30100/18

29/01/2020

New judgments with indications of relevance for the execution

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

STATE

CASE

APPLICATION JUDGMENT

No.

FINAL ON

NATURE OF INDICATIONS GIVEN BY THE COURT

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.

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.

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

Orlovic and Others

16332/18

01/01/2020

France

J.M.B. and Others

9671/15+

30/05/2020

Page

14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

STATE

CASE

APPLICATION JUDGMENT

No.

FINAL ON

NATURE OF INDICATIONS GIVEN BY THE COURT

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.

Enhanced supervision

Support for the execution of the

Lashmankin and Others group:

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.

France

Moustahi

9671/15

25/09/2020

Russian

Federation

Korneyeva

72051/17

24/02/2020

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

principle in CAO cases in a manner compatible with the approach taken

by the Court in its case-law.

New judgments with indications of relevance for the execution

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

STATE

CASE

APPLICATION JUDGMENT

No.

FINAL ON

NATURE OF INDICATIONS GIVEN BY THE COURT

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.

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.

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.

Russian

Federation

N.T.

14727/11

16/11/2020

Ali Riza and Others

30226/10+

22/06/2020

Turkey

Kavala

28749/18

15/11/2020

Page

14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

STATE

CASE

APPLICATION JUDGMENT

No.

FINAL ON

NATURE OF INDICATIONS GIVEN BY THE COURT

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.

Turkey

Selahattin Demirtaş

14305/17

22/12/2020

New judgments with indications of relevance for the execution

Page

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020 ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 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-law developments in member States, following judgments and

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.

Five thematic factsheets have already been published on the themes

of constitutional matters, effective investigations into deaths or ill-

treatment caused by security forces, freedom of religion, the environ-

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

80 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

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.

Action report –

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.

Classification of a case –

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.

Enhanced supervision –

supervision procedure for cases requiring urgent individual

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

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 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.

Interim resolution –

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

Page

82 14th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2020

ERD, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 11: Årsrapport fra ECHR 2020

implementation of the domestic law by a tribunal thus violating the Convention).