On 17-18 September 2024, the Council of Europe’s Project "Support to the Office of the Ombudsperson in the Protection of Human Rights in the Republic of Moldova - Phase I" organised a two-day training on third-party interventions before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The aim of the training was to strengthen the People’s Advocate Office’s (PAO) ability to participate in the adjudication process of ECtHR judgments.
The event was facilitated by Philip Leach, an expert in international human rights, practicing lawyer, and professor of human rights law at Middlesex University, London. During the two days, 20 PAO staff members engaged in interactive group exercises, case studies, exchanges of best practices, and in-depth discussions focusing on the practice and procedures of third-party interventions.
“This mechanism will enable the People’s Advocate Office to provide expert opinions and critical insights that could significantly influence legal outcomes, shape legal precedents, and contribute to the development of the human rights legal framework, both in Moldova and across Europe,” mentioned Mr. Marius-Ciprian Toth, Deputy Head of the Council of Europe Office in Moldova.
Present at the event, Mr. Ceslav Panico, the People’s Advocate of the Republic of Moldova, added: “This training aligns with our Office’s strategic objective to more actively engage in the protection of human rights and cooperate with key international human rights institutions.”
The training was based on a previously developed Guide on drafting amicus curiae briefs. Both the Guide and the training are part of a series of ongoing activities designed to strengthen the People’s Advocate Office's interaction with the European Court of Human Rights system.
Once a case has been communicated by the ECtHR, other parties, including National Human Rights Institutions, may request permission to intervene in the Court proceedings via third party interventions. The main goal of this process is to provide the Court with additional information or arguments that are either broader or distinct from those presented by the parties involved in the case.
