Notes on the Agenda
16 July 2001
761 Meeting, 18 July
4.4 Turkey and the European Court of Human Rights
draft reply to the Written Question No. 390 by Mr Jurgens and
- CM/Del/Dec(2001)745/4.1, 748/4.5, 750/4.7
The Deputies are invited to consider the appended draft reply to
Written Question No. 390 with a view to its adoption.
Deputies considered Written Question No. 390 concerning execution by
Turkey of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights at
their 742nd, 745th, 748th and 750th
first of these exchanges of views, the Turkish authorities were
invited to provide additional information about the various measures
expected by the committee in the context of its supervision of the
execution of the judgments mentioned in the Written Question (cf.
the conspectus presented in document CM/Inf(2001)7 of 9 March 2001).
letter of 27 March 2001, the Turkish Delegation provided the text of
the “National Programme” drawn up in the framework of Turkey's
candidacy for European Union membership (text distributed to all
delegations on 28 March 2001). During the discussion at the 748th
meeting (3 April 2001) the need for additional clarification was
emphasised, particularly concerning the scope of the reforms
envisaged in the programme and the time-scale for their adoption
(cf. the Director General's letter of 2 April 2001 which was
distributed to all delegations at the 748th meeting).
May 2001, the Turkish Representation sent the Secretariat certain
additional information with a view to the preparation of a reply to
Written Question No. 390.
itself on the information available to date and on the observations
made concerning them in the Committee of Ministers, the Secretariat
has drawn up the appended draft reply in consultation with the
delegations of Turkey and other states concerned.
761th meeting – 18 July 2001
and the European Court of Human Rights
Revised draft reply to the Written Question
No. 390 by Mr Jurgens and others
(CM/Del/Dec(2001)745/4.1, 748/4.5, 750/4.7,
The Deputies adopted the following reply to
Written Question No. 390 submitted by Mr Jurgens and his
“1. The Committee of Ministers
acknowledges Written Question No. 390 submitted by Mr Jurgens
and his colleagues. It can assure the honourable Parliamentarians
that it is fully aware of the problems raised in the Question.
Member States of the Council of Europe must take rapid and adequate
action to comply with their obligation to abide by the judgments of
the European Court of Human Rights in cases to which they are
2. The execution of the
judgments referred to in the Question is regularly supervised by the
Committee of Ministers in accordance with its responsibilities under
Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention. In the course of this
examination, the Committee has acknowledged that significant
progress has been achieved in certain areas, while also noting that
certain specific individual and/or general measures referred to in
the Written Question have not yet been adopted. The importance and
urgency of such measures have been repeatedly emphasised,
particularly, in view of the seriousness of the violations found and
the time elapsed since the judgments concerned were delivered.
3. The Turkish
authorities have recently transmitted to the Committee of Ministers
the Turkish National Programme which sets out a comprehensive
framework of reforms envisaged for the adoption of the acquis
communautaire in the context of Turkey's candidature to the EU
(text transmitted to the Assembly on 18 April 2001 by the Chairman
of the Ministers' Deputies).
The Committee would emphasise that its examination of the
National Programme is strictly limited to those aspects which may be
relevant for the execution of the Court's judgments in cases
before it, including those referred to in the Written Question. A
preliminary examination of the National Programme suggests that it
could contribute to the rapid adoption of a number of the reforms
required in the context of the execution of these judgments. In this
context, the Committee welcomes the fact that certain important
reforms and initiatives mentioned in connection with pending cases
are scheduled for the short-term, i.e. are to be implemented by
March 2002. Of particular interest are the constitutional and
legislative reforms aimed at improving freedom of expression
(notably Article 312 of the Criminal Code, Articles 7 and 8 of the
Anti-terrorism Act), as well as the training programmes in human
rights for judges and prosecutors.
5. That said, the
National Programme does not in itself provide sufficient indications
on a number of points for the purposes of the Committee of
Ministers' specific duty under Article 46, paragraph 2 of the
Convention of supervising the execution of the judgments in
question. For example, despite the urgency of the matter,
there is no guidance on the question of immediate measures to erase
the continuing consequences for the applicants of criminal
convictions imposed in violation of the freedom of expression.
Certain other important reforms - which the Committee welcomes -
only appear as medium term priorities, i.e. for 2 or 3 years hence.
This is notably the case of the reforms aimed at creating efficient
remedies against abuses by members of the security forces (reforms
of the Criminal Code and of the Code of Criminal Procedure),
preventing unjustified dissolutions of political parties (reform of
the law on political parties) and reducing the length of police
custody. Given the urgency of these reforms, the Committee of
Ministers encourages the Turkish authorities to do their utmost to
accelerate their adoption.
6. With regard
specifically to the non payment of just satisfaction in the Loizidou
case, the Committee recalls its position as expressed in the recent
third Interim Resolution DH(2001)80 of 26 June 2001.
7. The Committee of
Ministers will continue to pursue its examination of these and other
outstanding points, until full and proper execution of the Court's
judgments has been secured, notably in the context of its regular
Human Rights meetings. It will define its strategy in the light of
the additional information and clarifications which it expects from
the Turkish authorities in the near future. In this context, the
Committee will bear in mind the States' collective responsibility
for the enforcement of the rights protected in the Convention and
the recent call from the Rome Ministerial Conference that the
Committee's execution control be made more effective and