Introduction

In the beginning of the communication, a brief description of the case or of the problems revealed by the judgment (notably based on the “Case description” as presented in HUDOC-EXEC) may be useful to assess relevance of the potential observations/arguments to be submitted.^*

Specify submission type

Clearly indicate whether your submission focuses on individual measures (IM), general measures (GM), or procedural issues (e.g., classification of the case in enhanced or standard procedure, “triggering up” into enhanced procedure or “triggering down” to standard, closure of the case, etc.).

Please pay attention to the following recommendations

As regards individual measures (IM)

When drafting, NHRIs and CSOs should bear in mind that the aim of IM is to put an end to on-going violations and/or erase the consequences of the violations for the injured party, as far as possible - principle of restitutio in integrum.

If the NHRI or CSO has updated information on IM, including on the payment of just satisfaction, it may be included in the communication.

NHRIs and CSOs may wish to address the adequacy and effectiveness of the measures adopted/envisaged by the respondent state or available under existing domestic law and practice to provide individual redress.

If the IM appear to require the prior adoption of general measures (e.g. a new law on reopening of proceedings or revision of the time limits for reopening), it is important to indicate this and provide a reasoned view on how such measures should be conceived.

As regards general measures (GM)

General measures aim to prevent recurrence of violations similar to those found. 

As with IM, it is important for NHRIs and CSOs to indicate whether the measures already taken or envisaged by the respondent state are sufficient for the purpose of execution or whether additional measures are necessary. If not, identify clearly what needs to change. If the measures taken or planned by the state are deemed satisfactory in the view of the NHRIs or CSOs, its useful for the CM to be informed.

There is added value if alternatives to GM proposed/envisaged by the respondent state can be presented.

Scope

Defining the scope of the violations found by the Court and the measures required is part of the execution process. There can be legitimate arguments as to the scope of the case in this sense, and NHRIs and CSOs may wish to contribute to this discussion. However, only submissions that relate to execution measures which fall within the scope of the case, or related procedural issues, are covered by Rule 9. Please note that the Department for the Execution will not be able to accept submissions which clearly fall outside the scope of Rule 9, bring them to the attention of the state concerned or publish them within the terms of Rule 9 § 6.

Tone

Submissions are intended, in the first place, for the attention of the CM as well as the general public. They should avoid abusive language. Any submission containing such content will not be accepted.

Length

Keep submissions short and to the point. If they are longer than 3-4 pages, consider adding an executive summary at the beginning.

^*Please note that the summary of the judgment, as appearing in “the box” in HUDOC database of the Court is prepared by the Registry and does not bind the Court. It does not bind the Committee of Ministers or the Department either.

Timeline for submitting communications under Rule 9 on cases on the agenda of the CMDH meetings

All communications received from NHRIs and CSOs are sent immediately by the Council of Europe Secretariat to the state concerned.

If the state responds within five working days, both the communication and the response are brought to the attention of the CM and made public.

If there is no response within these five days, the communication is transmitted to the CM but is not made public. It is only made public ten working days after it was sent to the state, together with any response received within this time limit.

A state response received after these ten working days is circulated and published separately upon receipt.

NHRIs and CSOs may submit communications to the CM on any case at any time during the execution process, regardless of whether the respondent state has submitted an action plan or action report.

Any communication relating to a case due to be examined at a specific CMDH meeting should be sent as soon as possible after the indicative agenda of the CMDH meeting is made public.

Under the CM’s rules of procedure, the respondent state is required to submit an action plan or action report at the latest six months after the date on which the Court’s judgment becomes final. The national reflection procedure should, therefore, start shortly after the judgment becomes final. The views of NHRIs and CSOs may sometimes be useful at an early stage.

All action plans and action reports submitted by respondent states are immediately posted on the CM website (“Documents” – “Latest DH docs”) and available on HUDOC-EXEC, except in the very rare cases where a request for confidentiality is made by the state concerned.

After a CMDH meeting, the order of business of the meeting, with the relevant decisions and other documents, are published on the Execution Department’s webpage on CMDH meetings.  

NHRIs and CSOs can check the indicative annual work programme for examination of cases which is published after the December CMDH meeting every year and updated after every CMDH meeting. They can also check the the preliminary draft list of cases proposed for detailed examination for the next CMDH meeting on the home page of the Execution’s Department website. This list is available online after each CMDH meeting, together with the list of cases listed for detailed examination at future HR meetings by decisions of the Committee.