States Must Assume Their Fair Share Of Responsibility

The British Chairmanship of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers will be holding a High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights in Brighton, United Kingdom (18-20 April 2012). The Declaration to be adopted in Brighton will lay the ground for a number of reforms, including amendments to the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). These reforms could seriously undermine the authority and integrity of the Court and its ability to ensure the effective protection of human rights in Europe. In particular, the damaging proposals would introduce additional admissibility requirements in the Convention and codify the principles of subsidiarity and margin of appreciation in the treaty. To insert these principles in the text of the Convention, and to define their nature and content, risk undermining the interpretative role of the European Court of Human Rights.

Member states of the the Council of Europe are called upon by a joint statement, signed by many European NGOs and citizens, to stand up for the procedural rules in order to ensure and strengthen the effective protection of human rights. As the signatories of the joint statement, the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee consider that civil society’s legitimate interests in ensuring the long-term effectiveness of the Court needs to be given proper consideration in the context of the ongoing negotiations by the Hungarian Government. Reforms of the Convention system aimed at strengthening the Court must not end up undermining its integrity and authority, notably by curtailing its jurisdiction or limiting its interpretative role. The European Court of Human Rights is at the heart of the system for the protection of human rights in Europe. It must remain a strong Court, accessible to individuals who are victims of violations of their Convention-protected rights and who have had no effective redress at the national level.

Share

Related articles

Social Protest and Human Rights - Discussion

The International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations (INCLO) invites you to a discussion on police use of force and human rights' protections in social protests. The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, Maina Kiai, are addressing these issues in their annual reports and will explain the challenges we are facing.

Litigation on the right to protest

Two actions were launched by the HCLU regarding the right to peaceful assembly in December, 2013. Both actions concern to the same problem: lockdown of a public area around the Prime Minister's residence. In the first case, the police dispersed an ongoing peaceful demonstration on the grounds of closing off the area, for which the organizer filed a claim against the police with the help of HCLU. In the other case, another demonstration planned by the same organizer at the same venue was banned by the court, which was then challenged before the Constitutional Court. Both decisions are ill-unfounded and misinterpret the constitutional limitations of the right to protest.

Electoral Procedural Rules Violate Suffrage

Constituents who have residency in Hungary, but work or study abroad for a prolonged period of time, and consequently are not going to be in Hungary on the day of the parliamentary elections, may only vote at the foreign embassies. In certain cases, this might necessitate a journey of several hundred kilometres, and entail considerable costs, or even prevent them from voting. At the same time, constituents who are going to stay abroad on the day of the election as well, but who do not have residency in Hungary, can vote by post, which is cheap, simple and convenient. HCLU, representing a constituent working abroad, has contested these discriminative rules at the Constitutional Court.