newsitems

Controversial ECHR decision sends Cyprus' Refugees back to start anew after 20 Years Legal fight ?

Written by ACM

Friday, 05 March 2010

For the 1st time after more than 20 Years of Legal struggle at the European Court of Human Rights, a controversial grand Chamber's decision almost send Greek Cypriot Refugees back to a starting point, by asking them to submit their applications to a shady 2-stage mecanism set up in the Occupied Territories held by Ankara's Army since their Expulsion by the 1974 Foreign Military Occupation, before they might eventually come back to Strasbourg...

It's true that the 2010 decision by ECHR's grand Chamber (17 judges out of 47) was based on some changes mainly made between 2003-2006 , when Turkey was obliged to open the Dividing Line between the Free areas and the Occupied Territories and to establish there a Committee to deal with the Properties illegally usurpated from Greek Cypriot Refugees and Displaced Persons.

   Also, ECHR explicitly rejected any "indirect legitimation of a Regime Unlawfull under International Law" in the Turkish Occupied Territories of Cyprus, and clearly confirmed that "the government of the Republic of Cyprus remains the sole Legitimate Government" in the island. ECHR also spoke about People "living under Occupation", (etc), stressing the "Fact that there is an Illegal Occupation" by Ankara's Foreign Army, and reiterated that "the overall Control exerciced by Turkey over the territory of northern Cyprus entails her (i.e. Ankara's) Responsibility for the policies and actions of the "TRNC", and .. Turkey is accountable for Violations of .. (Human) Rights which take place within that territory".
---------------
   But one of the main "burning" points for the Victims, (in addition to the "Humiliation", as they said, to be obliged to step under a Foreign Occupation Army, after Years of Legal struggle in Strasbourg), is that this mecanism in the Turkish Occupied Territories seems to excessively restrict or practicaly exclude "Restitution" of Refugees' Family Homes, except only in a few, rare and/or delayed cases, and even to limit Financial Compensation, in case of definite deprivation of private property, in smaller amounts than normally due, which appear to be much less than its real Value.
   Briefly speaking, Turkey could definitively exclude almost all of them, and legalise the usurpation of their Family Homes and private Properties, as well as the hindrance to return to their Family Homes and Ancestral Land where they were born and lived before being forciblly expulsed by a Foreign Military Invasion, only by paying, after 35 Years' Delay, a small portion of their value, Victims' criticized.

This Risk appears even greater, when the controversial ECH grd. Chamber's "Decision" seems to add that, in the view of a Majority of its members, there is "Defect" only when there is total "LACK OF ANY provision for Restitution", while, "it is satisfied", on the contrary, when it finds "that (some) Restitution of property has occured", without even examining how many, nor whether this is exceptional or frequent enough..

Indeed, ECHR itself observes that, already, out of "433 cases" submitted to the controversial "Committee" in the Occupied Territories since 2006, after several Years, in 2010, only .. Four (4 !) cases of some "Restitution" were noted, i.e. .. less than one percent (1%)...

Or, both ECHR in various earlier judgements, and recently UNO in its New Official Doctrine, as well as International Human Rights NGOs (like "Redress", etc), strongly stress "Restitution" and, only if it's impossible : "Full Compensation", as the main Legal Principle, which allows also Refugees and Displaced Persons' inalienable Right to Return. (See infra).

In Socio-Political terms, this obviously could mean in practice that only a few Greek Cypriot Refugees might see their Human Rights to Return back to their Family Homes and Ancestral Land respected, provoking fears of a kind of "legitimation" of Turkey's aim to keep a tight Separation between Greekl Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in 2 different parts of the island, as Ankara illegaly imposed since its 1974 Military Invasion and Occupation, which still persists 36 Years after a provisional pretext given by a failed, short Greek Cypriot "Coup" inspired by the former Military Chunta in Athens, whose instigators were severely punished by long terms of Jail after the reestablishment of Democracy in Greece and Cyprus.

According to the recently established International Penal Court, Ethnic Cleansing in Occupied Territories, i.e. the massive import of its own Nationals by an Occupying power, in remplacement of the Native Population, obliged to flee a Foreign Military Occupation, tantamounts to a "War Crime". But Turkey is one of the rare CoE Member Countries which has not yet signed IPC's Statute, despite repeated calls by CoE Parliamentary Assembly's Resolutions for all its members to do so.
----------------------
Turkish Press and Turkish Cypriot Media in the Occupied Territories of Cyprus (where many Settlers from mainland Turkey were massively imported since the 1974 expulsion of the Greek Cypriot Majority by Ankara's Army, as CoE's Assembly repeatedly denounced in the 1990ies and 2000ies), reportedly cried "Victory" over ECHR grd. Chamber's decision, claiming that "ECHR slamed the door of Strasbourg at Greek Cypriots' faces", while, on the contrary, Greek Cypriot Press denounced an "unjust" "Shock", an "error", and/or a "Nightmare"..

Political analysts atributed ECHR grd. Chamber's "precipitation", as they said, to reject the Greek Cypriot Refugees' applications, as a way to support the current Leader of the Turkish Cyupriot Community, Mehmet Talat (considered as comparatively more "moderate"), against his main competitor, Eroglou, at the forthcoming so-called "Elections" in the Occupied Territories, exactly when the Political Campain was starting...

Given also that this controversial ECHR move, celebrated by Turkey, comes shortly before Ankara takes over CoE's Committee of Ministers' rotating Chair on November 2010 (until April 2011 included), after assuming also the Chair of CoE's ..Human Rights' meetings in just 2 Months : May 2010, while a Turkish MEP, Mevlut Cavusoglou, already got the job of CoE Parliamentary Assembly's President, for the 1st time in CoE's 60 Years' History, since January 2010 (for 2 Years), obviously, all these unprecedented events which converge towards a never seen before over-concentration of Institutional Power without any Safeguard, inevitably risks to provoke legitimate Concern and Fears by various People about eventual Risks against Human Rights and even Human Rights Defenders' Freedom around CoE in the forthcoming Months...
--------------------------------------------
The controversial ruling is not a "Judgement", but a procedural "Decicion" on the Admissibility of certain (8) applications.

Therefore, even if usualy ECHR follows its own practice, and might use now this decision as a "Pilot" case to massively reject many other Pending applications, Legally nothing deprives ECHR's freedom to decide, partially or totally, otherwise, in a differend way, at a future judgement.

It was taken by a formation of 17 Members out of the 47 ECHR's EuroJudges, and, even then, not unanimously but only "by a Majority".

Exceptionally, however, No Publication of the "Dissending Opinions" was made now, contrary to a long practice in almost all other important ECHR's rulings on Cyprus' issue.

Moreover, the Number of EuroJudges who disagreed was not published officialy, and ECHR's Press Service, contacted by "EuroFora", was unable yet to give that Number.
-----------------------
Refugees/Displaced Persons, Lawyers and Experts were also surprised by the fact that the controversial ECHR grd. Chamber's majority decision (unlike UNO's Principles) contests Refugees' Right to access their usurpated Houses "even if Restitution is materially possible" !

As for Refugees/Displaces persons obliged to flee from their Family Home, and hindered to Return, it's true that ECHR recognized their Right under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (protecting Family Life, etc), even if they were not proprietors.

But it rejected the only one application of that kind among the 8 present cases, concerning a young Girl which was even born at her Family Home from which she had been afterwards obliged to flee and still hindeed to return, mainly by observing the mere passage of Time, since her eviction ("some 28 Years" in that case), as if a Thief or a Criminal would be .. absolved from his Crime, if he continued and persisted to commit it continuously for many years, (as Turkey "continues" to violate Greek Cypriot Refugees'. Human Rights, by persisting to hinder their acces to their Homes for many years, as ECHR's traditional case-law had repeatedly denounced)..

Refugees/Displaced Persons also pointed, "inter alia, to the Time, effort and Humiliation that ...would involve, after Years of continuing and flagrant Violations", and many Years of Legal Fight in Strasbourg, to be obliged to start everything anew and submit their applications inside a territory under Foreign Military Occupation. ECHR grd. Chamber's majoriy decisionb replied that "similar argument might be raised ...by any victim of a violation who is faced with the prospect of asking for redress from a State which has been responsible for the injury suffered", i.e. curiously forgetting even to mention the specific character of these Cyprus' cases, which is the fact that the Victims would be obliged to submit to any humiliating and/or bothersome formalities that an illegal regime under Foreign Military Occupation might impose to them..

Mutatis-mutandis, several International NGOs, including fex. Human Rights Watch, etc., have recently criticized another ECHR's ruling which had earlier blocked all applications by Kurdish Refugees or Displaced persons from mainland Turkey, obliging them to go back to Turkish Courts, (contrary to ECHR's initial case-law), because, as NGOs denounced, after such an ECHR's Ruling, Turkish Authorities had reportedly .. multiplied practical and formalistic Obstacles against Refugees/Displaced persons' return to their Homes, artificially making it more and more restricted and Difficult in real practice, often almost impossible..
------------------
Victims : No Explanation for the 2010 rejection, 10 Years after "Freezing" cases since April 2000...
-------------------
Comments by Lawyers of the Victims criicized the fact that No clear Explanation was provided why, after some inside the ECHR "Freezed" (since April 2000) almost all pending Cases of Greek Cypriot Refugees, then, obliged the Victims to wait for .. a whole Decade before suddenly telling them, only on March 2010, exactly 10 (Ten !) Years later, that their application was "inadmissible" for purely Procedural motifs (i.e. because they didn't previously exhaust "remedies"), even concerning developments which did not exist when they lodged their applications...

Curiously, the 2010 controversial EU grd. Chamber's decision on Cyprus Refugees' Human Rights, even complaints that "the Court .. faced cases burdened with a Political, Historical and factual Complexity, following a Problem that should have been resolved by all parties ... finding a Solution on a Political level"...

It even goes as far as to explicitly acknowledge that "the .. evolution of the .. Political dispute must (sic !) inform the Court's interpretation and application of the (European) Convention" of Human Rights, as if individual persons were responsible for inter-Governemental issues, and as if Legal Principles on Human Rights should bow to Political points, (i.e. contrary to ECHR's traditional case-law)...
-----------------------
>>> But experienced Lawyer Achileas Demetriades, (who has become famous after winning the 1st landmark "Loizidou" case where ECHR judged in 1996, after an impressive, Historic Public Hearing at 1994, that a Displaced Woman had the Right to condemn Turkey for the continuing usurpation of its House in the Occupied Territories of Cyprus), reminded now that, in fact, ECHR's controversial 2010 decision "had been progressively prepared 9 Years earlier, i.e. since 2001" ...

Demetriades' reference pointed at ECHR's Grand Chamber's 2001 Judgement in the important Inter-State case "Cyprus v. Turkey", (which condemned Ankara's Government also many other, and much more Grave, continuing Human Rights Violations, as, f.ex. those commited against "Missing" People and their Families, etc), where EuroJudges hotly debated among them, as sharp Divisions between various, clearly Opposed "Dissending Opinions" revealed, an exceptional opening of a possibility for some institutional mecanisms set up by a Foreign Occupying Power to deal with Individuals' immediate needs, to eventually, under certain Conditions, be considered as "domestic remedies" that victims of Violations would be required to exhaust before lodging an application to Strasbourg.

However, "EuroFora" remembers that another Greek Cypriot Journalist, (during a Group visit in Strasbourg where they met the then CoE Secretary General Daniel Tarshys), had already warned that, in his view, "the Loizidou case can become the Graveyard of Cyprus' issue", as he said for a 1998 ECHR Judgement which had accepted that Turkey could only pay a Financial Compensation for the Displaced Woman's House in the Occuypied Territories, without explicitly asking for its Restitution.
-------------------
Evenmore, now, by giving the impression that Greek Cypriot Refugees should drop hopes to recover their usurpated Family Homes via the ECHR mecanism in the foreseeable future, after more than 15 to 20 Years of Legal struggles in Strasbourg which had repeatedly confirmed their Rights, (unbless they wish to prolonge the Legal fight for 7 to 10 Years more : i.e. some ... 22 to 30 Years in total, a Delay that would be an exceptional Scandal in ECHR's History !), this decision risks to give more importance to the growing EU and UNO's New Human Rights' mecanisms, at nearby Geneva and Luxembourg..

Indeed, UNO's famous "Pinheiro Principles", (officially supported by UNO's High Commissioners on Human Rights and on Refugees, as well as by UNO's Secretary General), strongly stress that "Restitution" should be the main redress for violations of Refugees and Displaced persons' right to their Homes, in addition to their Right to Return to their ancestral Land.

This is in line with the (long but largely succesful in recent Decades) World-wide efforts (from Africa to Asia and Latin America, including Balkans and East Timor) for the Return of Refugees and Displaced Persons, by famous Sergio de Mehlo, former UNO's High Commissioner on Human Rights (a former UN Official Expert on Refugees, that rumours pictured as a probable New UN SG), who was brutally murdered, together with other UN staff, in Beirut on 2003, shortly after Press Reports on plans for massive return of Kurdish Refugees at Northern Iraqi regions, whose Oil resources were recently disputed by a small group of "Turkmen" supported by Turkey.

Therefore, the nearby Geneva-based UNO's International Human Rights Council, set up after UNO's 60th Anniversary Summit of Heads of State and Government at New York on 2005, might result to be .. more protective of Refugees/IDP's Rights, than the Strasbourg-based PanEuropean CoE !

   EU being eager to prove the contrary : I.e. that Human Rights are better respected in Europe than elsewhere in the World, the obvious risk for ECHR is now that EU's Court of Justice, at nearby Luxembourg, after the entry into force of Lisbon Treaty with its Charter of Fundamental Rights since December 2009, could develop a much more protective and efficient case-law for EU Citizens, than in the rest of CoE's Member Countries.. "
   In this relation, Cyprus circulated this week at CoE's Committee of Ministers a copy of ECJ's recent Judgement on the "Orams" case, which recognized that Cypriot Courts' judgements' condemning to Fines and/or Jail anyone who might trespass on Greek Cypriot Refugees/Displaced persons' Family Homes and Properties in the Turkish Occupied Territories of Cyprus, are applicable in all d27 EU Member Countries.
   --------------
   Politically (as well as in real practice) ECHR grd. Chamber's controversial decision, obviously pushes Greek Cypriot Refugees to stop searching vindication of their Legal Rights in Courts, since they couldn't, no more, comme to Strasbourg, unless they have previously exhausted all procedures in the Turkish Occupied Territories (i.e. more than 3 to 5 Years, according to an experienced Lawyer, plus a new ECHR procedue, i.e, some 7, 8 or 10 Years in total, in addition to the Time and efforts already made earlier in Strasbourg : About .. 22 to 30 Years of Legal struggle in all, which would be an exceptional Record-high Scandal of Delay in ECHR's entire History !....

This point was, indirectly but explicitly, highlighted even at the controversial ECHR's decision which said that, if Refugees/Displaced persons don't want to submit to the Occupied Territories' mecanism, then, they "can wait a Political Solution" of the whole Cyprus' issue..

Something that certain Politicians immediately seized as an opportunity to cla im that Refugees' Human Rights will not be vindicated by the Victims' Individual Applications to the European Court of Human Rights, but by following the successive Governments' guidance in their (secret) Talks with the Turkish Cypriot leadership, set up under Ankara's Military occupation.

But, in fact, such calculations may Backfire, because they run also another Risk :

That of a sudden, Massive rush of most Greek Cypriot Refugees to the controversial "Commitee" set up by Turkey in the illegally Occupied Territories of Cyprus, asking massive Compensations for their usurpated properties that Ankara has repeatedly warned (even officially, inside the CoE in Strasbourg) that it cannot fund, because their real Value would total more than 22 Billions € !

In that case, this Turkish System would inevitably collapse.

Unless it's the PanEuropean Human Rights' system which might do so...

Because, in practice, this gives to Turkey another occasion to persist delaying for more than ..20 Years (from 1996 until later than 2010 !) in its failure to implement ECHR Plenary's 1996 landmark Judgement (rendered by ALL EuroJudges then) on the famous "Loizidou" case, (from the name of a Displaced Woman), which had already condemned Turkey for "continuing" violations of Human Rights for hindering Refugees to access their Houses in the Occupied Territories of Cyprus, revealing a "Systemic", or "Structural" Problem in that "Reference" case, which, according to ECHR's Principles, (recently re-affirmed with strength by the Ministerial PanEuropean Conference at Interlaken, Switzerland, on February 2010), should, normally, have obliged Ankara to take adequate General Measures in order to prevent Similar Violations, that inevitably provoke justified repetitive applications. (Comp. "EuroFora"'s PressReports from Interlaken).

***

(NDLR : "EuroFora"'s Subscribers/Donors already got a larger initial Draft, with more factual observations, but a final version is due to incorporate more accurate and/or critical observations on this exceptionally delicate affair).

***

Greek Economy and Goldman Sachs scandal: MEPs call to investigate 1999-2001 and earlier

Written by ACM

Thursday, 04 March 2010

pe__goldman_sachs_400

Calls to fully investigate what really happened in the Greek Economy, including from 1999-2001 or even earlier (i.e. 1980ies' period) multiplied in EU Parliament, in addition to similar moves at the National Greek Parliament (Vouli) and elsewhere.

The issue was reportedly raised, this week at the Conference of (Political Groups' Presidents) in view of next week's EU Parliament's plenary session in Strasbourg, where both the February 11 Brussels' EU Summit and EU's draft Economic Policy guidelines at the "2020" Horizon are due to be discussed and Resolutions voted.

Already, the experienced President of EU Parliament's Liberal Group, former Prime Minister of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt, stressed since February 24 in Brussels, that it's "Urgent" to "take the Initiative" "to determine what exactly happened in Greece" :

- "It is important" to know, the President of the Liberal Group stressed, pointing to the fact that " Investment banks – Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank – are minimising what they have done in the Greece case", as he said, speaking in Brussels shortly after revelations at New York of the Goldman Sachs' intervention scandal, which reportedly disguissed the real situation of Greece's Debt back in 2000, when the conditions and the Timing of its entry into EuroZone was decided.

- "We cannot talk about remedies, about solutions, about reforms in the EU if first of all we do not know what really happened in the case of Greece in 2008 and 2009 and before that", he pointed out, without Time-limits for the periods to examine.

That's why "it is the task of (EU) Parliament to organise Hearings with the relevant Committee, as quickly as possible, so that we can hear all the parties concerned on this matter. ...., I think it is absolutely necessary", Verhofstadt proposed.

Because, "we received contradictory information : Greece says that it has given all the information to the EU ... At the same time, the European Commission and Eurostat are saying that they did not receive all the necessary information", he observed, apparently speaking about the 2000 affair.

Similar calls were made earlier at EU Parliament's February Session in Strasbourg also by various other MEPs, as, f.ex. Austrian Hans Peter Martin, famous from his anti-Corruption endeavours, during a Debate on EuroZone.

EU Parliament's officials said now that special Hearings would be hold before the end of February on who is really responsible for provoking and/or hiding the true facts about Greece's huge debt. Witnesses from EU Commission, EuroStat, Greek Government, Goldman Sachs, Experts, etc. are due to speak at a forthcoming Hearing by the Economic Committee chaired by Brittish Liberal MEP Mrs Sharon Bowles.

Notoriously, a deal was brokered in 1999-2000, between former Socialist Governments in several EU Member Countries and the PASOK Government in Greece, according to which it accepted Turkey's controversial EU bid at December 1999 Helsinki Summit and the unfreezing of EU Funds for Turkey despite the non-fulfillment of Human Rights and International Law conditions by Ankara, in exchange of Athen's entry into EuroZone sooner than normal and even without the due preparatory reforms.

Many believe that, in case of Enquiry, EU Parliament couldn't credibly refuse full Investigations extended to recent Decades, including the way Greece's entry into EuroZone was prepared, after the recent revelations of the Goldman Sachs' scandal, dated since 2000-2001, when the American agency covered up the Socialist Greek Government's debt, while experienced EU Commission vice-President Almunia's (in charge of EU Financial affairs for 4 Years) latest data clearly indicated that Greece's Debt originated many years ago in the Past (See relevant Publication with Almunia's replies to "EuroFora"s questions : .. ).

Particularly when even USA's Federal Reserve's head Bernanke is reportedly investigating the 2001 Goldman Sachs' scandal, and Greece's main opposition party, Nouvelle Democratie, of former MEP Antonis Samaras, officially asked to extend an Investigation of the National Parliament, initiated by the governing PASOK Majority, "up to 1981", (i.e. from the start of "PASOK'" party's former governments)...

Meanwhile, experienced EU Commissioner in charge of Markets, Michel Barnier, anounced also a parallel EU Investigation on some Funds' alleged interference in Financial Markets on speculative operations aiming to buy Greek State's bonds at higher than normal intrest rates on March 2010 : A practice strongly denounced also by France, Germany and other EuroZone Member Countries, because it might threaten to progressively undermine parts of the Euro area by exploiting a few weak points earlier provoked.

***

Franco-Russian Summit Sarkozy-Medvedev to boost panEuropean area's development from 2010

Written by ACM

Tuesday, 02 March 2010

sarko_medved__wives_400

More agreements on Strategic and Hight-Tech issues of European interest between France and Russia, going even beyond those officialy anounced, are not excluded in the forthcoming period, well informed sources from the French Presidential Palace Elysee indicated to "EuroFora", while Presidents Sarkozy and Medvedev were meeting for a 3rd time this week in Paris for a long diner Tuesday evening.

In reply to "EuroFora"'s, questions on Space, High Speed Rail, and other High-Tech issues, Sarkozy's Spokesman, carefully, did not exclude that "other Agreements might have been signed, or are to be signed", between France and Russia, even if there might "not be any official information to communicate on that" now.

It's clear that they "spoke, in the most explicit terms, about a (PanEuropean) space for Economic Cooperation, Security and Circulation of Persons, (according to) the proposal (earlier) made by the President (Sarkozy), and on France's and EU's readines to engage a discussion on the (PanEuropean) Security debate", as well as about "many other particular issues", the Elysee Palace Official confirmed to "EuroFora".

mystral_ok_400

Meanwhile, France anounced deals about exporting High-Tech Helicopter carriers amphibius Boats "Mistral" to Russia, and Russia anounced that many Rockets "Soyouz" would be bought for the launch of EU's Satelite Navigation network "GALILEO" from the French Space Operation Center at Kuru (Guyane) later in 2010.

soyuz_400_02

This was added to the official signature of another Franco-Russian deal on High-Speed Train Industries, less than a year before Hungary takes over EU's rotating Chairmanship (Jan. 2011), while the planned Paris-Strasbourg's High Spead Rail connexion to Budapest, through Stuttgart and Munchen (Germany), and Wienna (Austria), known as "Magistrale", could, in fact, acquire a Trans-Continental importance, by linking EU's advanced Train Network to Russia's "TranSiberian" rail road up to the Pacific Ocean...

All this was placed inside a comprehensive GeoPolitical Vision for EU - Russia's Strategic Partrenship by Presidents Sarkozy and Medvedev's own public statements, where PanEuropean Security issues figured high, in coherence with other moves on Culture, History, Economy, and Legal/Human Rights' issues.

sarko_medved

- "France considers Russia as a Strategic Partner" and "a Friend", while "I trust President Medvedev", who is "a great friend of France", stressed Sarkozy from the outset, reminding that "we had to solve together some hard Crisis, and we did it", as he said in a reference to his famous August 2008 trip to Moscow and Tbilisi to stop War between Russia and Georgia.

- "There is a very large Identity of views between, Russia and France on big issues", Sarkozy revealed, citting f.ex. Iran, Middle East, Nagorno Karabach and Ossetia, as well as G8 and G20 (that France will chair soon), Climate (where "we worked closely together with Russia at UNO's Copenhagen Summit", as he reminded), and European Security.

Confirming, "on Bilateral relations", that "France pleads for the suppression of Visas for Russia inside the EU", the "very promising" agreements between ALSTOM and its Russian counterpart in Rail-road Industry, as well as GDF-SUEZ's entry into GAZPROM's "North Stream" Gas Pipeline project, as well as "exclusive negotiations for 4 Mistral" boats to be delivered by France, Sarkozy stressed that "we want to advance towards a Common Space (Area) with Russia", and that "we must support Russia's efforts for Modernization".

- "We have Strategic Relations .. between Friends and Partners, because this reflects our vision for Europe and concerns the Interests of our Countries", which "have relations during many Centuries", while, "the problems that existed during the 20th Century, no longer exist : We don't have Ideological differences, no more". On the contrary, "we have a Common Goal : To create a Modern and Calm World, respecting Human Righs and Rule of Law",said from the start Russian President Dimitri Medvedev.

- "We must solve between us the European issues", Medvedev stressed, after expressing also Russia's "readiness to help (France) face Natural Hazards", as that of Atlantic Storm Xythia, which killed many people, inondated several villages, and deprived millions from Electricity, etc.

- UNO Summit, "last year, at Copenhagen, didn't work well, it was a fiasco", observed Medvedev. But "we are going to continue and unite our efforts to lift the problems on Climate which affect all the World".

- On the "G20, naturally, we are both concerned by a new Global Financial Architecture. Not only it isn't perfect, but we haven't almost made any progres. The Crisis weakened a bit, but it depends on us to design the framework of a New Financial Architectyre", because "the Bretton Woods Agreements, despite their importance, don't reflect the current situation no more". That's why "we agreed to advance in this ditrection and probably to take Initiatives", Medvedev anounced.

For that purpose, "New Frameworks need to be created. F.ex. for issues related to the dissolution of ex-Yugoslavia and of Caucasus, we are ready to speak together", he promised.

- "On Bilateral relations, France stands now ahead of USA on Investments" in Russia, Medvedev noted.

- But, "Security issues in Europe are of a Crucial Importance", stressed the Russian President , in reply to a Journalist's question.

- F.ex. "we discussed what happened on August 2008" : "These issues were solved without using Global procedures (i.e. UNO, etc). Not in the framework of NATO - Russia relations, but by using EU's potential and a personal initiative of the French President, who was courageous enough, despite the electrifiied ambiance" of that moment : He came, and he helped to solve that really thorny issue"

- "This proves that we must try to solve European issues among us", Medvedev underlined. "How could it be with the current procedures ?. They are not sufficient. Helsinki Act, concluded in 1975, is a good base for discussions, but this is not enough. there are New Issues in Europe. We must create New Frameworks in order to discuss Security issues".

- "We had a fairly long discussion on this question with President Sarkozy. We are juist at the beginning of the road. Russia's proposal is not a Dogma. We can work on this base. Simply we expect adequate Replies to Security issue". Ad; "f.ex. the problems provoked by the Dissolution of Yugoslavia, and the situation in the Caucasus. We are ready to work together with France and our Partners", Medvedev concluded.

- "I was among the first to examine the proposals made at Evian, one year ago, by President Medvedev, for a New Security Architecture. What can be done ?", wondered French President Sarkozy.

- "France returned to NATO's integrated command", during NATO's Heads of State and Government Summit, April 2009 in Strasbourg, and "is USA's ally, but .. Russia has nbothing to fear from NATO. We shall be faithfull to this Alliance", he confirmed.

- "But, don't we have to think what should be the security architecture of the EU and Russia ? Don't we have to face Common Challenges ? I think, fex. to Terrorism. Isn't it our interest to think how, in a period of Budgets in deficit, with all our Public Finance problems, we could work together, instead of working one against the other ?"

- "If we don't do that, then, what's the use to have ended the Cold War ? We are no more in the Cold War. I am convinced that Russia is not an adversary, but a Partner", Sarkozy stressed.

- "I know that there is a History of the continent. And I know that we have to help evolve the ideas at the EU side", where "some are less enthousiast than others", and "also at the Russian side, where some are more or less enthousiastic", he acknowledged.

- But, at the end, if we, as Presidents, don't push towards an Alliance, comprehension, mutual respect, then, what are we useful for ? There are many things on which we could work together, while respecting our respective alliances", Sarkozy declared.

- "We want to turn the page of the Cold War", stressed the French President, confirming the sentence initially pronounced by German Chancellor Angie Merkel on February (See "EuroFora"'s NewsReports from Paris, then).

- "In this issue of the (European) Continent's Security, we (France)'d like to associate also the German) Chancellor (Angie) Merkel, and are due to take Initiatives together", Sarkozy anounced.

- "I have seen many People write and speak about the discussions that we had, President Medvedev and me, during the August 2008 Crisis", he reminded. "But I didn't express my views in detail on this issue. I think that he (Medvedev) served well Russia's interests by asking for the Russian Army to stop. And I think that France defended well EU's Interests and Georgia's Independence, by doing what we have done. We did it without using our Armies, without threats, we did it by Diplomacy, by Dialogue. It wasn't easy, not at all, but we learned to know each other, and to advance forward. Because, in our continent, there is all that History behind, and the Time has come to turn the page", the French President concluded.

Sarkozy, who chaired then the EU while Brussel's bureaucracy was absent to sleepy Summer Holidays, reportedly phoned also to German Chancelor Merkel, and, after a dramatic appeal even by Christian catholic Pope Benedict to act to stop bloodshed, destructions , more sufferings and divisions to European People, between "Christian brothers", took the initiative to flow immediately to Moscow and Tbilisi, in the middle of the War, that he succeeded to stop.(Comp. "EuroFora"'s publication from Brixen/Bressanone, area of Pope Benedict andf Chancelor Merkel's Holiday sites, at the eve of President Sarkozy's Historic flight to Moscow and Tbilisi).

russia_buzance_solidus_10th_century_the_other_half_of_europe_400

Next Day, "the profound Symbolism" reportedly found by French President Sarkozy in the "Holy Russia" Exhibition at the famous Louvre's Paris Museum, clearly highlighted the fact that Russia's History was closely linked to the rest of Europe for many Centuries, as President Medvedev stressed earlier. Initially via the Greek Culture and Christian Religion ( long before the chisme) of the former Byzantine Empire (which notoriously played a crucial role in the creation of a structured Russian area "in the way from the Scandinavians/Swedish to the Greeks", as it was called then the Kiev - Saint Petersbourg area linking the Baltic Sea to Constantinople, the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas).

panagia_nikon_grece_7e_s._ac_no_1_in_website_russiefrance_2010_400

And afterwards via the French and other Western European (fex. Dutch, Austrian German, etc) Philosophical, Scientific and Artistic influences. Even before the 18th Century of the "Enlightnement" and Peter the Great's strategic decision to transfert the Russian Government from Moscow to Saint-Petersbourg's Baltic Seaport, full of Paris-like architectural monuments, (including a superbe project for Smolny Monastery prepared by an Italian-origin architect, named "Resurrection")..

expo_smolny_resurrection_400

Meanwhile, Dimitri Medvedev's visit, together with his wife Svetlana, to Paris' Historic Christian Catholic Church of "Notre Dame", where the Russian Presidential couple respectfully made the sign of the cross, symbolically leaving centuries of Europe's division between Orthodox and Catholics or Protestants behind them, as when all Christians were initially United in Europe, further outlined the Louvre's exhibition's main message.

medvedev_with_wife_at_notre_dame_400

Stressing with an exceptional official Diner at Elysee Palace, next day, also his good Personal relations with the Russian President, Sarkozy reportedly expressed France's will to help Medvedev's declared aim for a "Modernization" of the country, with more developments on Human Rights' respect, Democracy and Rule of Law, as well as for closer cooperation in Science, Technology and Culture.

***

Van Rompoy succeeds to make a British EuroSceptic use a Pro-European Vocabulary...

Written by ACM

Thursday, 25 February 2010

(+Opinion). A 1st succes by EU Council's first President, the serious, profound and concise Herman Van Rompoy, wasn't only his obvious Pedagogical capacities, in the crystal-clear and substantial presentation he made to MEPs after the Solvay Library's EU Summit of February 11 in Brussels, both of the New EU Institutions, created by Lisbon Treaty's entry into force since December 2009, and of EU Heads of State/Government discussions how to draft EU's New Economic Strategy up to 2020, in addition to immediate concerns over the financial Crisis in Greece and elsewhere.

Van Rompoy made it clear that his "full time" role, after being elected by the 27 EU Countries' Governments for the next 2,5 Years, is mainly focused on EU's "overall Strategy", organizing and following up "Collective Decisions" of the "European Council" (i.e. the highest Summits of EU Heads of State/Government, able to reach official decisions each 6 Months, in addition to Informal Summits for political discussions), while also representing it both in Internal and External High-level meetings, (in the latter case by "working closely together" with EU Commission's vice-President on External Affairs, Barones Ashton, Head of EU's new Foreign policy service).

But it was more the frustration provoked to various MEPs by his careful abstention from early public appearances and frequent noisy statements on various current affairs, (as they were accustomed), which apparently created opposing, but strong feelings in some at EU Parliament.

From the one side, new leader of the French Governing Majority Party's MEPs, (UMP), Jean-Pierre Audy, who had vainly called for Van Rompuy to start debates at EU Parliament since December 2009 (see Audy's statements to "EuroFora", published then), friendly regretted that EU's 1st President didn't come first to speak to EU Citizens :

- "We can't do Politics without Democracy, and the Democratic Lecons of the 2005 French and Dutch Euro-Referenda, as well as in many other Countries, if People were consulted, is that EU Citizens are not against Europe, but feel that it's working without them, sometimes against them". That's why German Chancelor Merkel and French President Sarkozy tried to put EU Citizens back at the heart of the European construction : Nothing will be done without EU Citizens, nor without Member States' Governments, he said.

- "You have a duty to give a Meaning, to fix an Aim, to convince that Europe brings Solutions, protects, acts", Audy advised. - "EU walks on its 2 feet : Governments of States, and People. You should play the role of its Head, and it's from your capacity to attract States towards a Political Union that depends EU's Future", he concluded.

From the other side, British EuroSceptic MEP Nigel Farage, Chairman of the EFD Group, notoriously over-reacted, on the contrary, by a personal aggression against Van Rompoy, insulting his look as if it reminded a "damp rag" or a "low-grade Bank Clerk", and calling his Country, Belgium, "a Non-Country", (etc)... provoking protests from other MEPs.

Many Media pubished Farage's incident versus Van Rompoy, but nobody noticed yet what is perhaps the most important :

- For the 1st time in his career, Farage, whose party wants for the UK to withdtraw from the EU, instead of restricting himself only in his usual anti-EU criticism, on the contrary, now, speaking of Van Rompoy, he was incited to use an astonishingly .. pro-European Vocabulary :

- F.ex., he spoke about "the Peoples of Europe", praised "European Democracy", and practically supported that a "President of Europe" should be "Voted" by EU Citizens, and be someone "heard" allover Europe, as "a Giant Global Political Figure", a "Political Leader for 500 Million People", strengthened by a "Vote" giving him "Legitimacy", in order to "speak on behalf of the Majority of (EU) People", (etc).

I.e. by accusing Van Rompoy, in his view, not to fulfill yet the Promises made to -and not to meet yet the Expectations of- the People of Europe, Farage was surprisingly obliged to refer to even stronger pro-European Political integration aims than those contained in EU Lisbon Treaty, (which, f.ex. , does not provide yet for a direct election of an "EU President" by EU Citizens). And, indirectly but inevitably, (contrary to his own beliefs), attributed a great importance to such extremely advanced pro-European expectations...

Farage" even ..praised Van Rompoy for being "Competent and Capable", and therefore .."dangerous" for "Nation States"", as he said, returning back to a traditional EuroSceptic point of view.

But, meawhile, Van Rompoy's unexpected "miracle" had worked : His serious, reserved and careful personality, had obviously frustrated even an openly declared anti-E.U. as British "Independentist" MEP Mr. Farage, to the point to make him, unwillingly, adopt a pro-European Vocabulary valorizing EU Political Integration...

Smart move, President Van Rompoy !

***

ECHR President Costa +CoE Chair Swiss Justice Minister to EuroFora: Interlaken + Human Rights Future

Written by ACM

Friday, 19 February 2010

* Interlaken/- "Hopes" to "receive soon Positive Replies from (CoE's Member) States", mainly on some "serious "Problems Incompatible with Human Rights", which overload ECHR with many "Well founded" but "Repetitive Applications", were expressed by ECHR's President, professor Jean-Paul Costa, replying to "EuroFora"'s questions at the Press Conference which concluded Interlaken's PanEuropean Ministerial Summit on "ECHR's Future".

Costa told us that he based his hope mainly on the ''Political Level" of the Interlaken event, echoed by the CoE's 2010 Chairwoman-in-office on Justice affairs, Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmar-Schlumpf, who also denounced, in reply to "EuroFora", those "Major Structural Problems" with "extensive Human Rights Violations", which provoke, "for years and years", many pending cases, when a State persists in its failure to execute ECHR's judgements (See infra).

cedh_stats__turkey_unermines_coe_hr_system_only_the_essentials_400

In consequence, CoE's Committee of Ministers, in charge of supervising ECHR Judgements' execution, accumulated an overload of Non-implemented cases of "Systemic Problems", called "Reference cases", which threaten to undermine the efficiency and credibility of the PanEuropean mecanism for Human Rights' protection, much more than the growing influx of new cases, whose necessary management shouldn't restrict ECHR's cornerstone : Victims' Right for Individual Application to Strasbourg's Court, as many INGO's warned (See infra).

No 1 comes largely Turkey, with 15% of such "Reference Cases" Pending for Execution of ECHR's Judgements, according to ECHR's official data for the entire 1959-2010 period. At a distance of some 50% less, follow Bulgaria and Romania (9 and 8%, respectively). Russia comes afterwards with 7%, followed by Poland, Italy, Greece and Moldova with 5%. Ukraine and France are at 4%, Croatia at 3%, and Georgia at 2%, (etc. : See Graphic).

Comparing Citizens' Access to ECHR with States' lack of ECHR Judgements' execution, "EurroFora" questioned the risk of excessive practical obstacles to Citizens' Access by an unclear yet "Filtering mecanism", as NGO's denounced (See earlier "EuroFora"s publication), and the absence of any efficient "Tool" vis a vis the differend problem of "Repetitive" applications provoked by a State's refusal to apply ECHR's Judgements :

- At Interlaken, in "..the intervention of INGOs, there was a call (by INGOs' President Haydt) to pay attention to a "Filtering Mecanism", and how it could be eventually organized". Because, "in the (Interlaken) Declaration, there is a reference to a "Filtering Mecanism", but without concrete details. Are you sure that there will be enough Safeguards to guarantee that European Citizens, in real practice, not only on declarations of principles, won't lose the Accessibility and the Right of individual application to ECHR, which is a fundamental principle (of the PanEuropean system for the protection of Human Rights), as the (Interlaken Declaration) clearly undelines ?", asked "EuroFora".

- Meanwhile, "another problem, which was largely evoked, is that of the so-called "Repetitive cases", which are more than 50%" of admissible applications. "It's a New Problem in the History of ECHR, as, recently, there are many (such cases) that are outstanding. But, do you have the feeling that you have (enough) Tools to tackle this Problem, or, on the contrary, do you feel that these tools lack, and that something should be done after (the) Interlaken (Conference), because Interlaken raised this question ?", "EuroFora" added.

interlaken_micheline__schlumpf_hearing_agg_quest_400

------------------------------------------------------
ECHR's President Costa to "EuroFora" : - "On Filtering, there are many possible constructions"
----------------------------------------------------------
- "I can reply to both of your 2 Questions", reacted ECHR's President, professor Jean-Paul Costa, on "EuroFora"s query

- "As far as Filtering is concerned, there are many possible constructions, as several Ministers' interventions of many Countries showed here : Some, which can be set up from now, without necessarily changing the system, and others, which are more ambitious, and, therefore, at much more longer term".

- "In the framework of the Road Map ("Action Plan"), it's up to the (CoE's) Committee of Ministers, and other InteerGovernemental bodies, to examine such possibilities", he acknowledged.

- "F.ex. the procedure of one, Unique Judge, set up by Protocol 14, which, as (CoE Chairwoman, Swiss Foreign Minister Calmy-Rey) said, was ratified here (at Interlakebn) by the Russian Minister of Justice (Konovalov) just before the Conference starts, will enter into force, for all (CoE''s 47 Member) States on the 1st of June".

- "The one (1) Judge system already is a kind of "Filtering", since the unique Judge will have the task to reject applications obviously ill-founded", Costa explained.

"Inside the Court, we have thought about that since long, naturally, so that we shall set up a System for unique Judges, assisted by Rapporteurs, i.e. (ECHR's) Registry's Members, and may be a Rotation system in order to avoid for the same Judges to be always affected in less interesting tasks, but that's internal details, easy to solve'

- "On the long term, Filtering could be more ambitious : F.ex.. we could imagine that an Additional Judicial Corps, composed, f.ex. by Young Judges, or National Jurists or Judges, could be put at the disposal of ECHR, in order to free ECHR from the most Simple affairs, allowing it to focus on the most important cases", he suggested.

   In addition, Protocol 14, also establishes a "New Condition" for the Admissibility of complaints, asking for the applicants to "suffer a significant Damage" from the alleged violation :
   - "It all depends on how ECHR will interpret, in its forthcoming case-law, this new clause", (to which many Human Rights INGOs were opposed in the Past), as the Head of Sweden's Delegation to the Interlaken Conference, Foreign Ministry's General Director on Legal affairs, Ambassador Carl Ehrenkrona observed to "EuroFora". - "So, we (CoE's Committee of Ministers) should better wait to see how ECHR will react" on that point, the Swedish representative advised.
--------------------------
ECHR's President Costa to "EuroFora" on "Repetitive Applications" :

- "The Crucial point" is Timely Remedies by States
----------------------------------------------------

echr_pres_costa_entour_de_hammarberg__jagland_400

- "As far as it concerns the "Repetitive" Applications, You are right to say that this phenomenon is rather Recent, since some Years, already about 10 Years", particularly there where, "the more ECHR's case-law is established, the more risks appear for applications to become "repetitive", went on to reply ECHR's President Costa to "EuroFora"'s 2nd Question.

- The "Capital -Crucial- point" is that, "if (some) States don't take Measures able to remedy, soon enough, to a Problem, identified (by ECHR) as Incompatible with the European Convention (of Human Rights), then, there is a growing Risk to have many Applicants, maybe Hundreds, sometimes even Thousands, who lodge Similar Applications, which are Well - Founded, but that the ECHR could avoid to be oblged to examine", one by one, anew, he denounced.

- "Here, one of the means to remedy to that, are, naturally, the "Pilot - Judgements", where, as you know, since several Years, we (ECHR) started fex. by cases concerning Poland, (in fact, in parallel with Cyprus', i.e. ECHR's oldest Human Rights' Violations cases), but this is a real Problem for all (CoE's Member) Countries" :

- "Pilot Judgements consist into identifying a problem, and to ask to the (CoE's) Committee of Ministers and to the respondent State to take (General) Measures so that all other identical ("clone") applications are "Freezed", and, finally settled at National level, under (CoE's) Committee of Ministers' supervision, to avoid giving to the ECHR a Repetitive job".

- "The Mecanism of Pilot Judgements, will, certainly, be developed further, during the forthcoming years, and the (Interlaken) Declaration clearly refers to that"'; Costa anounced.

- "'There are, naturally, also less numerous "Repetitive" Cases, which don't give necessarily birth to "Pilot Judgements", but, at any case, the Appeal made by the (Interlaken) Declaration to the "Subsidiarity" is very clear :

   - '"It's up to (CoE's Member) States to settle, at a National level, these Problems, without waiting from the ECHR to render Repetitive Judgements".

   - "And, here, I have good Hope, that, really, mainly because of the Political level of Interlaken's Conference, and to the Political Commitment it gave, we shall soon be able to receive Positive Replies from the (CoE's Member) States", ECHR's President concluded.
-----------------
   Strong confirmation of Principles also by the Chairwoman of CoE's Committee of Ministers in Justice and Home affairs, Swiss Minister of Justice, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, in reply to "EuroFora"'s 2nd question :

- "Your Question concerns Major Structural Problems, where many applications are well-founded, because of Extensive Violations" of Human Rights, she denounced from the outset.

- But the question is to align the administration, law and practice in the Country concerned, according to the European Convention of Human Rights. Because, if the Problem continues to exist, in consequence, "for Years and Years", more and more Applicants find a "difficult situation"..

Therefore, it's better to find a Solution Domestically", by bringing the issue "back to the Country" concerned, she concluded.
---------------------------------------------
EU Commission's vice-President Reding :
- "Use all Tools to ensure Compliance" : "Zero Tolerance for Violations !"
---------------------------------------------------
   * Meanwhile, EU Commission's vice-President, Viviane Reding, in charge of Justice and Citizenship, referring to Interlaken Declaration's call "for an effective Implementation of the (European) Convention (on Human Rights) at National level, and for the full Execution of ECHR's Judgements", stressed EU's willingness to "contribute to address such calls through a Rigorous Policy" ;

- "My ...Priorities" will be "to ensure that ... Propose(d) Legislation, .. must fully respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights", "that the Final Texts ..are in line with the Charter", and that it "applies .. also to Member States when they implement EU Law"; she promised.

- For that purpose, "I will use all the Tools available under the (EU) Treaty to ensure Compliance with the Charter of National Legislation... I will apply a "Zero Tolerance policy" on Violations of the Charter. I will certainly not shy away from starting Infringement Proceedings, whenever necessary", Reding warned.

Because, "the Key Objective is to render as Effective as possible the Rights enshrined under the Charter, for the benefit of all People living in the EU", since "this is Indispensable to reach a High Level of Integration in the area of Justice, Freedom and Securiytu, as well as for the Credibility of EU's External Policy on Human Rights", she observed.

- "The (EU) Charter entrenches all the Rights found in the (CoE's Pan)European Convention of Human Rights", and "the Meaning and Scope of these Rights are the same as those laid down by the ECHR"

- "The (EU) Charter, however, goes further and alkso enshrines Other Rights.., including Economic and Social rights, . the so-called "3rd Generation" fundamental rights, such as Data Protection, guarantees on BioEthics, on Good and Transparent Administration", etc., she added.

- After the entry into force of EU's Lisbon Treaty, which provides for the "Accession of the EU to the (CoE's PanEuropean) Convention on Human Rights", this "will complete the System of Fundamental Rights' protection", "ensuring that the Case-Law of both Courts - in Strasbourg (CoE) and in Luxembourg (EU) - evolves in step", in order "to develop a Coherent system of Fundamental Rights' protection throughout the Continent". EU's "Accession will ..show that the EU itself, with its 27 Member States, will put its weight behind the Strasbourg system of fundamental Rights' protection : EU's judiciary will become part of the Strasbourg Court's system, and strengthen its Efficiency. This will make Strasbourg even more than it is today the European Capital of Fundamental Rights' protection", Reding promissed.
------------------
   * Similar determination apparently also from CoE's General Director on Human Rights and Legal affairs, the experienced Philippe Boillat from Switzerland, who, speaking earlier to "EuroFora", also stressed that "the implementation of ECHR's Judgements, must be dealt with. Both ECHR's President and CoE's Secretary General stressed that point. It's absolutely Necessary (fort the CoE) to be Equiped with Means which will allow to Execute the Judgements and to Accelerate this Execution",

   - "Because, as it is well known (that) the Key-stone of the System (of Human Rights' Protetion) is the Implementation : ... a Non-executed Judgement, whatever its interest might be, it will become Non-Existent", he warned.

   - For that purpose, "CoE's Legal Experts (CDDH) made some Proposals, and the Protocol 14, which will enter into force from June this year, is useful, in this regard : .. If a State persists in its refusal to implement an ECHR's judgement, then, we (CoE) shall have also this New opportuniy, for a Collective Complaint to ECHR against the recalcitrant State. But, of course, this will remain as un Ultimum Remedium for us, since the simple Threat to use such a strong measure should be sufficient" to produce results, Boillat concluded, rather optimistically..
-------------------
   - F.ex., "Turkey is a .. "good Client" of ECHR", and it's a "Fact that there are many Well-founded Applications against Turkey" (for Human Rights' Violations), confirmed ECHR's President Costa, in reply to a question raised by a Turkish journalist later.

   - Turkey "comes today 2nd in Applications' Number, (i.e. immediately after Russia, CoE's biggest Country, with a Population of 150 Million People, pro rata to which, Moscow comes in fact only 5th), having More than the Average of Applications per Inhabitant".

   - "Indeed, there are many and various cases concerning Turkey. Several among them are even old cases, because of Delays provoked at the Court". Some of them "concern, f.ex. the so-called "sitation at South-Eastern Turkey", (i.e. the Kurdish issue), "where the Politico-Social situation went somewhat better, but we (ECHR) have not even judged yet cases concerning a period of the Past", so that "a part of such cases have now an Historic interest", he regretted, (considering also the scandalous Impunity of Perpetrators of grave violations, that such peristing delays allow)..

   - In addition, "for the rest, Turkey obviously (still) is a country in Transition. It has had a Military Coup not long ago, (during the 1980ies : a Mlitary Regime having forged even the current Turkish Constitution, that CoE's Venice Commission's Jurists vainly asked Ankara to modify in 2009). And (Turkey) still is a Country where Democratisation's progress is realized Less fast than elsewhere", observed ECHR's President critically.

   It's, indeed, a fact that, unlike many former "Central-Eastern" European Countries, which succeeded, in less than 15 Years (1990-2004), to establish Western-like Democraties and basic mecanisms for Human Rights' respect, most becoming even EU Members, meanwhile, on the contrary, Turkey, despite having got a CoE Membership since the "Cold War" period of 1950ies, is still criticized by EU Parliament's last 4 years' Resolutions (2007-2010) to drag its feet and even mark several "Backward" steps on Human and Minority Rights (i.e. on Freedom of Expression, Torture, Kurdish issue, etc), Democracy (i.e. Political Parties, etc), and Rule of Law (i.e. Constitution, etc)..
-----------------------
INTERLAKEN DECLARATION
--------------------------------------

image_700_400

Meanwhile, the official "Declaration" of the PanEuropean Ministeral conferernce at Interlaken, deals extensively, at several points, with both 2 Questions raised at the Press Conference by "EuroFora", (without avoiding, however, some unanswered yet question marks) :

* Naturally, the "Interlaken Declaration", adopted by all the 47 CoE Member Countries at a Political level "stresses that full, effective and rapid Execution of the final Judgments of the Court is indispensable".

For this purpose, it underlines from the outset that "Measures are Indispensable and Urgently required in order to .... ensure the full and rapid Execution of Judgments of the Court and the effectiveness of its supervision by the Committee of Ministers".

In particular, it "calls for enhancing the efficiency of the system to Supervise the execution of the Court’s judgments", (i.e. CoE's Committee of Ministers' machinery).

Concerning the "Implementation of the Convention at the National level", the Interlaken "Conference recalls that it is first and foremost the Responsibility of the States, ..and consequently calls upon the States Parties to commit themselves to:... "fully executing the Court’s Judgments, ensuring that the necessary Measures are taken to prevent further Similar Violations".

That's why Member Countries must "..implement ..the Recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers to help States ..to fulfil their Obligations", while CoE "need(s) to enhance and improve ..other existing mechanisms.., including recourse by the Secretary General to Article 52 of the Convention", which provides for "Inquiries" allowing "CoE's SG" to "request" "any High Contracting Party (to) furnish an Explanation of the manner in which it ..ensures the Implementation" of Human Rights.

Specifically on "Repetitive applications", the Interlaken Declaration clearly "calls upon States ..to: ... "cooperate with the (CoE's) Committee of Ministers, ...in order to adopt and implement General Measures capable of remedying effectively the Structural Problems at the origin of repetitive cases".

As well as to "include all relevant parts of the CoE (i.e. Commissioner of Human Rights, Parliamentary Assembly, Congres of Local/Regional Authorities, Committee to prevent Torture, Constitutional Law Experts of "Venice Commission", etc) in order to present possible Options to a State ..required to remedy a Structural Problem revealed by a Judgment".

But it also " stresses the need for the Court to develop Clear and Predictable Standards for the “Pilot Judgment” procedure (See supra : Costa's reply to "EuroFora"), as regards Selection of applications, the Procedure to be followed and the Treatment of adjourned cases".

After several Critical observations, (mainly on the Time during which well-founded applications are "freezed", waiting for a final outcome to the "Pilot" case), Interlaken Declaration, asks ECHR "to Evaluate the Effects of applying such and similar procedures", vis a vis respondent State's obligation to implement ECHR's judgements.

Other "Practical" ways might be to "faciliate ...the adoption of friendly Settlements (if Victims accept) and Unilateral Declarations". But only "where Appropriate, within the Guarantees provided for by the Court and, as necessary, with the Support of the Court", in order to avoid possible abuses.

But it also "calls upon the (CoE's) Committee of Ministers to: consider whether Repetitive cases could be handled by Judges responsible for Filtering" Applications, (See supra and infra), a tool which raises several questions, (See, fex. ....)

   Particularly on "Supervision of Execution of (ECHR's) Judgments", the Interlaken Declaration "stresses the Urgent Need for the (CoE's) Committee of Ministers to... "Review its working Methods and its Rules to ensure that they are ...more Effective" , and, (more importantly) to "Develop the Means which will render its Supervision of the Execution of the Court’s Judgments more Effective and Transparent".

   "In this regard, it invites the (CoE's) Committee of Ministers to strengthen this supervision by giving increased Priority and Visibility, not only to cases requiring Urgent Individual Measures, but also to cases disclosing Major Structural Problems",
(i.e. precisely those evoked by "EuroFora"'s question : See supra).

   Meanwhile, it "invites the Court to ..continue to identify in its Judgments any Structural Problem capable of generating a significant Number of Repetitive applications".
------------
   * On the "Right of individual petition", the Interlaken "Conference reaffirms the fundamental importance of the right of individual petition as a Cornerstone of the Convention system, which guarantees that alleged violations that have not been effectively dealt with by national authorities can be brought before the Court" in Strasbourg.

   But it also "invites the Committee of Ministers to consider measures", "and to examine in particular under what conditions new procedural rules or practices could be envisaged", "with regard to the high number of Inadmissible applications", (90%).

   In this regard, the Interlaken Declaration "recommends, ..Filtering mechanisms", including for "the Court to put in place, in the Short term, a mechanism within the existing bench, (i.e. without need to change the Treaty), likely to ensure effective filtering", and for CoE's "Committee of Ministers to examine the setting up of a Filtering mechanism within the Court going beyond the Single Judge procedure (already provided by Protocol 14, which will enter into force on June : See supra).

   Naturally, this should be done "without deterring well-founded applications", and only in order to "enable the Court to concentrate on its essential role of guarantor of human rights and to adjudicate well-founded cases with the necessary speed, in particular those alleging serious violations of human rights", the Interlaken Declaration adds, as a kind of safeguard, which, nevertheless, remains obviously vague : F.ex. who and how could seriously ascertain that an application is "well founded", or not, without even examining its merits ? Until now, the PanEuropean Convention only asks, for an application to be Admissible, that it shouldn't be obviously ill-founded : I.e. considers sufficient a Lower level of Proof at a Preliminary stage...

   Concerns about eventual Restrictions might also be raised on some other points where, stressing a "Shared Responsibility between the States .. and the Court", the Declaration "invites ECHR to : ... apply .. Rigorously (sic) the Criteria concerning Admissibility and Jurisdiction"; to "give Full Effect to the New Admissibility Criterion provided for in Protocol No. 14" and to consider other possibilities of applying the principle de "Minimis non curat praetor"; to "take fully into account its (ECHR's) Subsidiary role in the interpretation and application of the (PanEuropean) Convention", and to "avoid reconsidering questions of Fact ...that have been considered and decided by National Authorities".

   Hopefully, the Interlaken Declaration, "stresses", however "the importance of maintaining the Independence of the Judges, and of preserving the Impartiality ..of the Court", "calling upon States ..and the CoE to ...grant to the ECHR ..the necessary level of Administrative Autonomy".

   But this doesn't go as far as to speak of a "Budgetary" Autonomy, which, in fact, is the only point on which ECHR still depends from decisions taken by CoE's Committee of Ministers and Secretariat, concerning Financial Ressources' allocation, as its President, Costa, recently observed at his Annual Press Conference, end of January 2010 in Strasbourg..
-----------------------
Interlaken Declaration's "RoadMap" for Human Rights' reforms in the 2010-2020 Decade
-------------------------------
   Meanwhile, Based on the adopted "Interlaken Declaration", the 47 Member Countries practically expect from the Swiss Chair of the CoE to deliver a concrete "Action Plan" to implement on ECHR's Short-term reforms before the Annual PanEuropean Ministerial Summit of May.

2010_swiss_government_coe_chair_to_deliver_action_plan_on_may_400

(2010 Swiss Government, CoE Chair, to deliver Action Plan before May)

    But ECHR's President Costa apparently left open "EuroFora"s question on whether a follow-up Political level PanEuropean Conference might be necessary in order to settle the main issues earmarked at Interlaken, particularly on some States' failure to execute ECHR's judgements, provoking many "repetitive" applicaions against persisting violations, (See supra).

    Turkey, who is due to take over the rotating CoE Ministers' Chair on November 2010, asked to organize itself another Conference on ECHR's Reform in Turkey, as PACE's Chair Mevlut Cavusoglou observed, (adding to "EuroFora" that he personally hoped to be in his hometown, Antalya).

   However, many other CoE Member Countries, including France, as Justice State Secretary Jean-Marie Bockel stressed at Interlaken, find better to give, first, enough Time to ECHR to test the New Tools provided by the entry into force of Protocol 14 from June 2010, (after its ratification by Russia at Interlaken : See relevant "EuroFora"s publication), before deciding when and where should be organized the next Political level Conference on ECHR's reform process, that it also deems necessary, but according to a progressive and well defined "Road-Map", as French Diplomatic sources told "EuroFora".

   Indeed, Interlaken "marks the Start of a Process" for ECHR's reform, to which it "gave New Political Impetus" by more than 30 Justice or other Ministers, stressed CoE's Chairwoman-in-office, Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, who revealed that the 1st crucial Date is "May 2010", when CoE's Foreign Ministers are due to formally endorse the "Interlaken Declaration" and its "Action Plan" which should be completed meanwhile in Streasbourg.

   After that, 2010 Interlaken's Declaration gives "Political Guidance for a Process towards Long-term effectiveness" of ECHR, which earmarks 3 main Rendez-Vous during the present Decade, up to 2020 :

a) the period between "June 2011" and "before the end of 2011" (i.e. during the Ukranian Chairmanship of the CoE, while the UK will be chairing the Human Rights' meetings, according to the usual practice), in order to conclude the "Implementation" of Protocol 14 and of Interlaken's "Action Plan", both by States and by CoE's bodies.

b) the Time Deadline of "June 2012" (i.e. during Albania's CoE's Chair, while Andorra will be chairing the Human Rights' meetings), in order for CoE's Committee of Ministers to prepare "Proposals for (further) Measures requiring Amendment of the (PanEuropean) Convention" on Human Rights.

c) the period between "2012 to 2015", in order for CoE's Committee of Ministers to "evaluate .. to what extend" the "situation of the Court" might have been "improved", so that, "before the end of 2015", (i.e. between Bulgaria's and Croatia's Chairmanships, just before Cyprus'), it "should decide .. on whethere there is a need for further action".

d) Finally, "before the end of 2019", (i.e. practically during the French Presidency of the CoE), its "Committee of Ministers should decide ...whether more Profound Changes are necessary", or not. If the answer is "Yes", they could be realized during the following "3 G" CoE's Chairmanships by Georgia, Germany (2020) and Greece, followed by Hungary and Iceland.