8 October 2012
The negotiations on accession by the EU to the ECHR have recently entered their final stage. Representatives of the EU and of the forty-seven parties to the ECHR (the so-called Group 47+1, which has published the reports of its first and second meeting) are scheduled to meet twice this autumn to agree on a final accession agreement. It is likely that it will largely be based on the draft agreement on EU accession, which was made publicly available last year. Once final agreement has been reached, it is very likely that the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) will be asked for an Opinion on whether the agreement is compatible with the EU Treaties. Should the CJEU give the agreement a green light, the ratification process can begin.
This blog entry asks whether the co-respondent mechanism provided for in the draft agreement leads to a sensible allocation of responsibility between the EU and its Member States for violations of the Convention post-accession. (more…)
3 May 2012
On 16 April 2012, a Dutch Court in Rotterdam found that the Netherlands was jointly responsible with Turkey for the infiltration of Turkish nationals in an investigation in Turkey (LJN: BW3203). The case concerned a heroin transport from Turkey to the Netherlands in 2005. (more…)
Source: LJN: BW3203, Rechtbank Rotterdam, 10/602018-05 (in Dutch)
1 November 2011
On 27 October 2011, the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Stijkovic v France and Belgium, found that France had violated the rights to a fair trial of a Serb national who had been interrogated, at France’s demand, in Belgium, in relation to events that had taken place in France. Belgium did not provide for the presence of a lawyer. While the Court recognises that Belgium was primarily responsible for the violation of the Convention by not allowing for a lawyer in its legislation and even recognizing that France was bound, under international law, to respect the Belgium procedure when asking for an interrogation in that country, it still found that France should have taken measure to “cure” the violation in Belgium by not taking into account the declarations he had made in the absence of his lawyers. The case was declared inadmissible against Belgium because the request before the Court in relation to that country was filed more than 6 months after the violation. The decision (in French) is available here.