Protocol 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights entered into force today

The long history of Protocol 14 to the ECHR has come to an end today.

The Protocol that amends the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) has taken a long way until its ratification - see some of my posts on the topic here, here, here or here.

With the entry into force of the Protocol, the work of the European Court of Human Rights (not to be confused with the EU Court!), which is overloaded with cases, will be reformed so that inter alia admissibility checks can be done more easily, speeding up the judicial process and freeing resources for those cases that are actually admissible.

Protocol 14 is also important for the EU, because it allows the accession of our Union to the human rights convention and the jurisdiction of the human rights court. I've covered the respective EU procedure in several posts.

In this sense, today is a good day for human rights in Europe and hopefully also for both the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union.

Where does Kazakhstan lead the OSCE?

I had my doubts over the Kazakh OSCE presidency, but I actually didn't think that they would go as far as quasi-censoring the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.

That is a huge fail, and the European Union member states in the OSCE should clearly address this!

Waste of money

Sorry, but this procurement (Update: The Link is disfunctional now, but EUobserver journalist Leigh Philips has put up a copy of the Fundamental Rights Agency tender) is a waste of money; it is ridiculous and it is useless. Whoever had this idea and whoever decided to spend money on this should be fired.

(via @pstrempel)

(Not) Welcome

I admit that it is too easy to forget those who are among us but who are still excluded.



Haven't come out of a film feeling this guilty and disturbed for a while - so if you can, please watch "Welcome"!

EP says NO to SWIFT

The European Parliament has said "No!" to the SWIFT agreement between the EU and the USA, with 378 votes in favour and 196 votes against (plus 31 abstentions) the report by rapporteur Hennis (fresh photo from right after the vote) which recommended to reject the SWIFT agreement.

As far as I can recall, this is the first time since September 2001 that representatives who have been elected by us have made a bold and substantive statement that the fight against terror may not undermine the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens.

It is also the first bold expression of the "new" European Parliament. It is the strong claim that it now represents European citizens more than ever before and that neither the Commission nor the member states in the Council can continue their behind-closed-doors, bureaucratic-diplomatic games against the interests of us citizens.

It is a sign that the EU system might actually become more political and thus maybe a little more democratic in the future - if MEPs continue to play their role after SWIFT, too.

This is a great and historic day for Europe, and I thank MEPs and especially rapporteur Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert for her good work on this dossier!

PS.: The postponement of the vote as demanded by the European Peoples Party (EPP) group had been rejected just slightly with 290 against 305 votes (via @bueti on Twitter). That was close!

Russia and the ratification of Protocol 14 (Update)

Finally: The New York Times reports that Russia is going to re-enter into the ratification process of Protocol 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) today.

The ratification will allow the long awaited reform of the European Court of Human Rights as well as open up the legal path for the EU to accede to the ECHR, which is stipulated by the Lisbon Treaty. (Update (noon):) The Council of Europe, the mother organisation of the ECHR, welcomes this move in a freshly published press release.

I wrote about the both, the indications that this might happen as well as the EU's work regarding the legal steps to join the ECHR, which you can find under the label "ECHR".

I am glad to see these developments, because like with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, Protocol 14 will not solve all the problems but it will allow to look ahead - and that is already a success after such a long stalemate.

Supplement: The ECHR Blog also quotes ITAR-TASS reporting the ratification of Protocol 14 today.

Update: The ECHR Blog has updated its post with the result of the Russian Duma vote - 392 of 450 - and the European Court of Human Rights issued a statement relief, although warning that Protocol 14 will not solve all the problems related to the heavy case load of the ECtHR.

EU country violating human rights: Secret CIA prisons in Lithuania

How can an EU country host secret CIA prisons violating human rights?

After previous allegations that Romania and Poland hosted secret prisons, it seems like Lithuania was actually having such secret prisons from 2002 - even two since 2004.

If this is true, the EU and its member states should act publicly - after disclosing all the other EU countries involved in similar grave human rights violations in the name of the war against terror.

The EU, the home of human rights and the respect for fundamental freedoms...

Switzerland forbids minarets in referendum: What a sad day!

Europe in the 21st century is a multicultural continent, with multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and multi-religions societies (including non-religious people) - and Switzerland doesn't seem to belong to Europe today.

The Swiss have shown that they truly don't want to belong to this continent by rejecting that minarets may be built together with mosques. They have shown to the world that they want to be a place apart from European values.

These values might have evolved in societies where the majorities were and are Christians, but they have also evolved on a continent that seemed to have learned that religious freedom - the freedom to believe or not to believe whatever one wants - as other individual and collective freedoms need to be respected.

These values have evolved in a continent where migrants and children of migrants and grandchildren of migrant are not a small minority anymore but an integral part of this our common society. In this society, having churches, church towers and their church bells must by as possible as having a minaret with a mosque - or as drawing satirical cartoons about Jesus and Mohammed.

The Swiss referendum rejects this European history and these European values, it is a rejection of the Europe of the 21st century, a Europe where majorities don't rule over the rights of minorities, where minorities are not threatened by what is "normal" or "acceptable" for the majority.

In the Europe we live in today, we try to find common solutions that allow the respect for the freedom and dignity of each and everyone, although this is hard sometimes. Yes, it might be necessary to debate about the shape of a free and multicultural society, but rejecting religious freedom including the right to build appropriate buildings in which this religion may be performed is not the solution.

This victory of xenophobia in Switzerland proves how much we have to fight for the rights of every citizen and person on this continent, it proves that what we regard as given today may be lost tomorrow - and I as a German think I know what I am talking about.

The Europe the Swiss have voted for today is not my Europe, and I hope no country of the European Union will ever follow this sad example!

PS.: And regarding the argument that "this is democracy", I just want to add that decisions against particular groups are decision against equal rights, thus against the foundation of democracy. Had the Swiss voted against all high towers representing a religious or non-religious belief, this would have been a democratic decision respecting its own foundations - forbidding just minarets is discrimination.

The EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): Waiting for controversies...

---

Follow-ups to this article: here, here & here.

---

With the Lisbon Treaty entering into force next month, one particular issue that has been part of legal and political discussions for years will become pertinent: The EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

All EU member states have ratified the Convention and most have also signed and ratified the additional protocols to the convention (including the protection of property rights and free elections [Protocol 1] or the prohibition of the death penalty under all circumstances).

The rights guaranteed by the ECHR are supervised by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. Since through its member states the legal traditions of the ECHR are also informally part of the EU's legal traditions, the European Court of Justice (the EU's court) is already taking into account rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, but so far there is no legal obligation for the Union to follow the Human Rights Convention's provisions.

However, now that the Lisbon Treaty will enter into force, the EU is getting legal personality and is thus able to join international agreements outside the scope of the former European Community, including the ECHR.

And, for those who did not have time yet to read the Lisbon Treaty, the document explicitly foresees that the EU will join the European Convention on Human Rights (which might mean that the EU institutions will be subject to rulings of the non-EU ECtHR). It deals with this matter in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and in the Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) as well as in the Protocol 8 and the Declaration 2 to the Lisbon Treaty.

In short, these provisions foresee that the EU shall in fact join the ECHR, but only after the EU and the member states have agreed on how the EU's legal and practical relations with the different control bodies of the convention will be and after it is clear how one will differentiate between law suits against the EU and those that would go against a member state (which could become difficult when it comes to the execution of EU law in the member states).

In the end, the Council needs to decide unanimously on the accession to the ECHR, and all member states will have to agree individually according to their constitutional provisions.

Although this is now clearly prescribed by the Lisbon Treaty, this is still going to be a very difficult legal and political process, not least seeing the debates around the Charta on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in some member states or the latest "outrage" in Italy against the Crucifix judgement by the ECtHR.

And so even though the Council of Europe - the international organisation built around the European Convention on Human Rights - is already starting to pressure on the EU start its accession procedures, this could take some time until the EU has ruled out all complex legal and practical problems related to this accession.

Therefore, I expect the process to be quite controversial already between the EU member states and EU institutions (including its legal services), but also between the EU and the Council of Europe (including the other 20 signatory states to the European Convention on Human Rights) - and the result will probably be an unprecedented case of legal interdependencies between two different supranational regimes.

Fuck you, homophobia (not just in Hungary)!

Since this event in Budapest has not passed unnoticed, the following video by Hungarian artists may not pass unnoticed either:

Eurovision Song Contest: Testing Europe-wide elections and tolerating homophobia (with Norway winning)

Okay, this is not really comparable to the European Parliament elections, but I suppose it will get much more attention, and it is not limited to the European Union.

Tonight, the Eurovision Song Contest will take place in Moscow, where today the Gay Pride was broken down by the police.

Congratulations, Russia, you have already won the contest of most tolerant country, when it comes to anti-gay demonstrations. I suppose this is why Russia is member of the Council of Europe.

For the "election" tonight, already 16 countries have been "eliminated" in semi-finals. Imagine this for the EP elections...?!

The final result will be be celebrated for a week, the winner brings fame to his country by bringing the event to her/his capital in the next year. So there is a lot at stake.

And maybe next year, this will be a city where tolerance is not only for those who practice intolerance. May the best win tonight!

Update: Well, it seems like with Norway a country that does not participate in the European Parliament elections but where Gay Prides are not forbidden has won the #ESC. What a fairy tale!

La Quadrature du Telecoms Package

La Quadrature du Net asks all of us to address MEPs before their Wednesday's session to prevent them from passing the "Telecoms package" in a way that would restrict citizens' rights and which would endanger the neutrality of the net:

“Call your MEPs and tell them to vote to protect Citizens rights. Direct opposition to the Council of EU is preferable to steps backwards on fundamental rights and freedoms, especially concerning Internet, which is so vital in structuring the future of our societies. Moreover the Citizens' Right Amendments do not directly oppose to the compromise negotiated with the Council, they strengthen it.” concludes Jérémie Zimmermann, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net.

More on La Quadrature du Net.

The scope of media freedom in Europe expanded by ECHR and ECJ

Contentandcarrier have analysed two recent judgements of European courts:

• one by the European Court of Human Rights (which belongs to the Council of Europe, is based in Strasbourg, and covers the whole European continent minus Belarus, Kosovo, Holy Sea)
  
• and one from the European Court of Justice (which belongs to the European Union, covers EU institutions and the 27 member states, and is based in Luxembourg)
  

on the role and freedom of media. The conclusions from contentandcarrier are:

"ECJ and ECHR have clearly moved to grant traditional press freedoms not only to traditional media, but also to SMS-information services (and, if implicitely, bloggers!) and NGOs engaged in 'the creation of forums for public debate'."

If these rulings are confirmed in the future and if the courts of the member states apply the rulings properly, this could move forward the role of new media based journalism in the future.

I'd hope that this would be the case!

Human rights and the rule of law in Moldova under attack after the protests

Without quoting particular sources, Nicu Popescu writes about the situation in Chisinau today:

An update on today from Chisinau: “No protests today. However, there have been lots arrests, principally of young people. Police are going to homes, asking for student lists at university. Procedures are apparently not respected – no arrest warrants, no special treatment for juveniles, not clear if distinctions are made between protestors and spectators. Families and lawyers do not have access to people who’ve been arrested. They are told by the police that no such person is in custody. Even the ombudsman has been denied access.

Many of the principal members of civil society have drafted a declaration, to be published today. It contains the following elements: Information on the situation on the ground; Asks authorities to keep within the law, to respect freedom of movement and others rights, and refrain from inflammatory acts; Makes public a partial list of people who’ve been arrested.

Moldovan Ombudsman suspects police is torturing arrested children.

This doesn't sound like a state that respects human rights and the rule of law. This doesn't sound like a democratic society where European values are respected. This sounds like the hard reaction of a state that is not interested in the respect for its citizens, no matter how negative the events of the last days have been.

(In between, the official final results have been announced: Communists 49.48%, Liberal Democrats 12.43%, Liberals 13.14% and Alliance "Our Moldova" 9.77% have made it into parliament; with these figures the Communists won't have the 61 seats they need to elect the president on their own, but will need one or two opposition votes. If they don't manage to do so, there will have to be new elections.)

British Irish Rights Watch wins European human rights prize

The British Irish Rights Watch has won the first ever Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Human Rights Prize.

According to the PACE press release, the jury praised

the organisation’s “courageous and outstanding work in monitoring and bringing to light human rights abuses, and its fight against impunity in Northern Ireland”. It also commended the NGO’s “vigilance” in ensuring that measures taken to combat terrorism were in confomity with international human rights standards.

British Irish Rights Watch – which takes no position on the eventual constitutional outcome of the conflict and works with all sides of the community – researches alleged human rights violations, provides consultancy services to lawyers, organises expert testimony and sends independent observers to trials, inquests and inquiries. Much of its work is carried out by volunteers.

Congratulations to the NGO - and let's hope that the peace process in Northern Ireland continues without violence as we have seen lately, full of embarrassment!

The European Court of Human rights tests online application in Swedish and Dutch

Interesting experiment in Strasbourg: The European Court of Human Rights is testing an online application procedure in Swedish and Dutch.

It will be interesting to see whether this experiment will work out and whether it will be extended to other countries and languages.

This could then become human-rights-online.int

Follow-up: EU working on a Passenger Name Record (PNR)

In August, I have written an article on the planned Passenger Name Record (PNR), and now a follow-up document (including Corrigendum 1 and Corrigendum 2) summarising discussions from July to November has been published by the EU Council.

Let me quote the most important lines from the document:

• [Air transport] operators are seeking the European Union's support to work towards the greatest possible harmonisation of the obligations imposed on them in order to limit the cost and the burden of legal responsibilities which they face to the minimum necessary.

• Mr Gilles de Kerchove [the EU anti-terrorism co-ordinator] relayed the views of counter-terrorism services which he had consulted. These views are that in Europe, as elsewhere in the world, PNR data are undeniably useful in the field of counter-terrorism, partly on account of the specific vulnerability of terrorists when crossing international borders and partly on account of the significant and intrinsic potential afforded by the PNR tool.

• [R]isks of discrimination, notably on ethnic or religious grounds, were eliminated by following the [Fundamental Rights] Agency's recommendations. 

• A significant effort was made as regards the clarification and coherence of the data protection rules applicable, since specific rules have to be identified in the instrument, in particular to ensure that the limits imposed on the use of PNR data are strictly complied with. 

• The approach of having a centralised PNR system at EU level has been rejected by a vast majority of delegations, and the Commission has refused it, particularly because of the technical complexity of such a tool which could have grave consequences for data security. 

• A Passenger Information Unit (PIU) would be set up in each Member State to act as the public authority hosting the PNR database and ensuring compliance with the rules in force. 

• The procedure for analysing the terrorist and criminal risk should be clearly delimited. 

• The list of data to be transmitted can be reduced compared with the original proposal since it was not deemed necessary to maintain the information relating to unaccompanied minors which it contained. 

• [R]igorous traceability of all access to the PNR database, all analyses and all transmissions made;
  

Still to be discussed are questions regarding sensitive data (i.e. special health needs of passangers), the retention period for data, as well as the possible exchange of bulk data.

In total, I am not really convinced that the effect of this PNR will outweight the reduction of privacy, and the risks of misuse of the data gathered by the authorities. Altogether, the progress report paints a rather positive and unproblematic picture, but I am not sure that the member states take due account of all critical matters connected to the database.

EU human rights report 2008: Negative conclusions?!

The EU has published its annual human rights report for 2008 (PDF).

In the conclusions of the document, several shortcomings are addressed:

Although the EU has achieved some undoubted successes (such as the UNGA Resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty), it nonetheless faces new challenges:

• In this year of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the universality of human rights is disputed, more than ever, by those who subscribe to relativism based on a tradition, religion, cultural affiliation or history.

• At a time when the European Union is increasingly expected to answer for the situation of human rights within its frontiers, it must be exemplary. It is a question both of consistency and of credibility on the international stage.

• Mainstreaming human rights across all the EU's internal and external policies is the key to ensuring that consistency.

If these are the conclusions, you can read between the lines that human rights are not really mainstreamed in European Union policies and politics, and that the European Union and its member states are not really exemplary.

Because why else would these statements appear in the conclusions?

And if this is what the Union is able to conclude after more than 200 pages of reporting its activities in the field of human rights for 2008, then I would interpret the document as a concession of failure, of inefficient use of funds (e.g. 140 Million for EIDIHR) and efforts.

Human Rights Watch: Violations from all sides (updated)

It is not surprising to hear but Human Rights Watch reports about the violation of human right from all sides - Russia, Georgia, and South Ossetia - in the recent war-like crisis in the Caucasus:

"Forces on both sides in the conflict between Georgia and Russia appear to have killed and injured civilians through indiscriminate attacks, respectively, on the towns of Gori and Tskhinvali, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch expressed its deep concern over the apparently indiscriminate nature of the attacks that have taken such a toll on civilians."

And the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) - which has binding authority over Georgia and Russia - has issued the following statement:

"[T]he current situation gives rise to a real and continuing risk of serious violations of the [European] Convention [on Human Rights]. With a view to preventing such violations and pursuant to Rule 39 [interim measures], the President calls upon both the High Contracting Parties concerned [Georgia and Russia] to comply with their engagements under the Convention particularly in respect of Articles 2 [Right to Life] and 3 [Prohibition of Inhuman and Degrading Treatment] of the Convention.

[...] [T]he President further requests both Governments concerned to inform the Court of the measures taken to ensure that the Convention is fully complied with."

The media and most of the blogosphere is talking about geopolitics, about who has gained or lost influence in the region, and who is to blame and who not. Commentators argue about diplomatic victories, political inability, present philosophical and legal assessments, care about international law and even refer to chaos theory. I myself have argued about the weakness of the EU Council conclusions, and in geopolitical terms I am right - but at least the text puts a lot of emphasis on humanitarian questions, which is actually the right thing to do.

The fact that human rights abuses have occurred and that a humanitarian crisis is on the way (yet another one, I might add), is much more important than all this political analyst chitchat (no offence intended to those linked in this article!).

But instead of really caring for human rights, the "leaders" of Russia and Georgia are playing games: Making war crime accuses the continuation of the war itself is nothing by cynical. Playing with human rights as political weapon while tolerating human rights abuses of their own troops is disgusting. Those political leaders are nothing but ignorant, because they miss the point of being the leaders of human beings.

History of mankind is the history of war, people killing people, reciprocity of cruelties, and suffering for nothing but national, regional, and global politics. Instead of solving conflicts, we spend hours and days talking about them, creating them through repetition and disguising the real issues behind the concepts of "nation", "territory", "international law". In fact, it is not Russia against Georgia, Georgia against South Ossetia, the East against the West, it is human beings killing human beings because other human beings (allegedly) have been killing other human beings.

Whether Russia has used cluster bombs or not is a detail, important to discuss if you are far away, but unimportant if you or your children have been killed.

There have been human rights abuses in this conflict as in most conflicts before. That is the message everyone should get!

The rest is nothing but winding each other up about political and legal terms.