DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Report 2013 European Court of Human Rights Annual Report 2013 Registry of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg, 2014 All or part of this document may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment of the source “Annual Report 2013 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”. Photographs: Council of Europe Cover: the Human Rights Building (Architects: Richard Rogers Partnership and Atelier Claude Bucher) ISBN: 978-92-871-9935-5 Printed in France, March 2014 VALBLOR Illkirch 12021555 CONTENTS Foreword 5 I. The Court in 2013 7 II. Composition of the Court 15 III. Composition of the Sections 19 IV. Speech given by Mr Dean Spielmann, President of the European Court of Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 23 V. Speech given by Ms Christiane Taubira, Garde des Sceaux, French Minister of Justice, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 31 VI. Speech given by Mr Theodor Meron, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, President of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 39 VII. President’s Diary 49 VIII. Activities of the Grand Chamber, Sections and single- judge formations 59 IX. Case-law information, training and outreach 63 X. Summary of the main judgments and decisions delivered by the Court in 2013 77 XI. Cases reported in the Court’s Case-law Information Notes in 2013 145 XII. Statistical information 189 Events in total (2012-2013) 191 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2013 (respondent States) 192 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2013 (main respondent States) 193 Court’s workload by state of proceedings and application type at 31 December 2013 194 Violations by subject matter at 31 December 2013 195 European Court of Human Rights – Annual Report 2013 Applications allocated to a judicial formation (2000-2013) 196 Judgments (2000-2013) 197 Allocated applications by State and by population (2010- 2013) 198 Violations by Article and by respondent State (2013) 200 Violations by Article and by respondent State (1959-2013) 202 4 FOREWORD In 2010, 2011 and 2012, during the respective Swiss, Turkish and British Chairmanships of the Council of Europe, three high-level conferences on the Court’s future were held with the aim of finding ways to guarantee the efficiency of the Convention system. 2013 is thus the first year, since 2009, in which no such conference has taken place. It has certainly not been unhelpful to have such a break, giving the Court time to implement the decisions adopted at Interlaken, İzmir and Brighton, which have also been followed up by the member States. In this connection, the most significant aspect, in my opinion, has been the introduction of reforms at the domestic level. Various examples are worthy of mention. For instance, in its Ümmühan Kaplan judgment of 20 March 2012, the Court invited Turkey to put in place, in its domestic legal order, an effective remedy by which to obtain appropriate and sufficient redress where criminal proceedings were not conducted within a reasonable time. On 19 January 2013 a law creating a Compensation Commission came into force in Turkey and this has been regarded by the Court as affording an effective remedy to be used in respect of such a complaint. Moreover, since 23 September 2012 a general remedy for human rights violations has been introduced before the Turkish Constitutional Court. The Court has already declared an application inadmissible for non-exhaustion in the light of this new remedy. In the case of Ruminski v. Sweden, which gave rise to a decision of 21 May 2013, we considered that, since an effective remedy had been created by domestic case-law that was capable of affording redress in respect of alleged violations of the Convention, the fact that the applicant had not sought compensation from the Swedish courts, on the basis of that remedy, rendered the application inadmissible. One last example: following the adoption of two pilot judgments against Bulgaria, two new compensatory remedies were introduced. The Court had occasion to analyse the new procedures and their effectiveness and regarded them as effective domestic remedies that the applicants were required to exhaust. What lessons can be learned from these examples? Quite simply that, where States create remedies at national level, they are upholding the concept of shared responsibility: provided, of course, that the remedies thus created are effective and, in that connection, it is obvious that the Court fully retains its supervisory role. Generally speaking, we rely greatly on the introduction of effective domestic remedies in order to alleviate the Court’s role. In 2013 the ongoing process of reform of the system was pursued and led to the adoption of Protocols Nos. 15 and 16 to the Convention, opened for signature in June and October respectively. The adoption of two new Protocols in the same year is noteworthy in itself. European Court of Human Rights – Annual Report 2013 One of the major events of the year is certainly the fact that we at last have a draft agreement for the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. Adopted on 5 April 2013, it is the result of almost three years of negotiations between the forty-seven member States of the Council of Europe and the European Commission. This is an outstanding accomplishment which should be highly commended. There will obviously be many other stages to go through before it comes into force. Nevertheless, the adoption of this draft agreement is a very significant step on the path towards the European Union’s accession. Accession will enable citizens to refer acts of the European Union institutions – the importance of which for our day- to-day life can no longer be in doubt – for the same external review as that which is already carried out by the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the acts of State institutions. This external supervision will, in my view, bring real added value in relation to the purely internal supervision within the European Union. This report contains, as it does every year, statistical data on the Court’s activity over the past year. The figures are impressive and attest to the intensive activity of our institution: we have delivered over 900 judgments and over 1,100 decisions. In addition, single judges have declared inadmissible or have struck out some 80,500 applications. The number of pending applications, which stood at 128,000 at the end of 2012, had been reduced to just under 100,000 by the end of 2013. As I had occasion to observe in my speech for the opening of the judicial year: the Court is no longer a victim of its own success. I am happy to be able to repeat that observation now that the year has come to an end. Dean Spielmann President of the European Court of Human Rights 6 I. THE COURT IN 2013 THE COURT IN 2013 The European Convention on Human Rights passed another milestone in 2013, marking sixty years since it took effect. Ten ratifications were required in order to bring the Convention into force. It was Luxembourg’s ratification on 3 September 1953 that allowed the Convention to take effect that same day. President Spielmann marked the occasion by issuing the following statement: “Those who deposited the instrument of ratification believed that the Convention would form the bedrock of democratic Europe, an enterprise for peace and freedom. They considered it a great honour for Luxembourg to make possible the entry into force of what they described as ‘the finest European undertaking to date’. Sixty years on, we strive every day to continue on the course they charted for us.” Surveying the year 2013 at the Court, two main themes can be discerned. The first is the continuing growth in judicial activity. The Court managed once again to increase its throughput of cases by a significant degree, attaining an unprecedented level of productivity.1 These results attest to the value of the reforms introduced by Protocol No. 14, now in their fourth year of operation. They attest too to the determination of the Court to utilise them fully, and to modernise its case-processing and administrative procedures. The remarkable impact of the reforms is also due to the willingness of States to accept these innovations, which entail certain abridgments of their procedural rights when it comes to repetitive cases. States have been active at national level, in keeping with their undertakings at the Interlaken, İzmir and Brighton Conferences, to improve implementation of the Convention, particularly by improving domestic remedies. One example of this in 2013 was the creation of a new Compensation Commission in Turkey to afford redress to persons affected by excessive delay in domestic judicial proceedings. This new remedy, which was Turkey’s response to the Ümmühan Kaplan pilot judgment2, enabled the Court to redirect over 2,500 pending applications back to the domestic level3. Overall, the number of applications pending before the Court decreased by approximately 28,000 bringing the total at the end of the year 2013 to just under the 100,000 mark. The improvement is all the more striking when regard is had to the situation in 2011, when the number of pending applications peaked at just over 160,000. In the space of two years, and with no fall-off in the number of new applications, the Court’s docket has been cut by more than a third.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conseil De L'europe Council of Europe Cour Européenne Des Droits De L
    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Applications nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 29 June 2007 2 O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT In the case of O’Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Luzius Wildhaber, Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Rıza Türmen, Volodymyr Butkevych, Josep Casadevall, Matti Pellonpää, Snejana Botoucharova, Stanislav Pavlovschi, Lech Garlicki, Javier Borrego Borrego, Alvina Gyulumyan, Ljiljana Mijović, Egbert Myjer, Ján Šikuta, judges, and Vincent Berger, Jurisconsult, Having deliberated in private on 27 September 2006 and on 23 May 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two British nationals, Mr Gerard O’Halloran and Mr Idris Richard Francis (“the applicants”), on 3 April 2002 and 15 November 2001 respectively. 2. The applicants, one of whom had been granted legal aid, were represented by Mr J. Welch of Liberty, London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 3. Mr O’Halloran alleged that he had been convicted solely or mainly on account of the statement he had been compelled to provide under threat of a penalty similar to the offence itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2013 Prov
    European Court of Human Rights Annual Report 2013 Provisional Version Registry of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg, 2014 All or part of this document may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment of the source “Annual Report 2013 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”. Photographs: Council of Europe Cover: the Human Rights Building (Architects: Richard Rogers Partnership and Atelier Claude Bucher) – Photograph: Michel Christen, Council of Europe CONTENTS Foreword 5 I. The Court in 2013 7 II. Composition of the Court 15 III. Composition of the Sections 19 IV. Speech given by Mr Dean Spielmann, President of the European Court of Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 23 V. Speech given by Ms Christiane Taubira, Garde des Sceaux, French Minister of Justice, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 31 VI. Speech given by Mr Theodor Meron, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, President of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 39 VII. President’s Diary 49 VIII. Activities of the Grand Chamber, Sections and single- judge formations 59 IX. Case-law information, training and outreach 63 X. Summary of the main judgments and decisions delivered by the Court in 2013 77 XI. Cases reported in the Court’s Case-law Information Notes in 2013 147 XII. Statistical information 191 Events in total (2012-2013) 193 Pending cases allocated
    [Show full text]
  • Case of Jussila V. Finland
    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Case of Jussila v. Finland (Application no. 73053/01) Judgment Strasbourg, 23 November 2006 CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT O F HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF JUSSILA v. FINLAND (Application no. 73053/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 November 2006 2 JUSSILA v. FINLAND JUDGMENT In the case of Jussila v. Finland, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Nicolas Bratza, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Peer Lorenzen, Lucius Caflisch, Loukis Loucaides, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Volodymyr Butkevych, Josep Casadevall, Matti Pellonpää, Kristaq Traja, Mindia Ugrekhelidze, Antonella Mularoni, Elisabet Fura-Sandström, Ljiljana Mijović, Dean Spielmann, Ján Šikuta, judges, and Erik Fribergh, Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 5 July and 25 October 2006, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 73053/01) against the Republic of Finland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Finnish national, Mr Esa Jussila (“the applicant”), on 21 June 2001. 2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr P. Lappalainen, a lawyer practising in Nokia. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr A. Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 3. The applicant alleged that he had not received a fair hearing in the proceedings in which a tax surcharge was imposed as he had not been given an oral hearing.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2012 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”
    European Court of Human Rights Annual Report 2012 Provisional Version Registry of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg, 2013 All or part of this document may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment of the source “Annual Report 2012 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”. Photographs: Council of Europe Cover: the Human Rights Building (Architects: Richard Rogers Partnership and Atelier Claude Bucher) – Photograph: Michel Christen, Council of Europe – Graphic design: Publications Unit of the Registry of the Court CONTENTS Foreword 5 I. The Court in 2012 9 II. Composition of the Court 17 III. Composition of the Sections 21 IV. Speech given by Sir Nicolas Bratza, President of the European Court of Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 27 January 2012 29 V. Speech given by Mr Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 27 January 2012 39 VI. Visits 51 VII. Activities of the Grand Chamber, Sections and single- judge formations 57 VIII. Publication of information on the Court and its case-law 61 IX. Short survey of the main judgments and decisions delivered by the Court in 2012 71 X. Cases reported in the Court’s Case-law Information Notes in 2012 103 XI. Statistical information 147 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2012 (respondent States) 149 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2012 (main respondent States) 150 Court’s workload by state of proceedings and application type at 31 December 2012 151 Violations by Article and by respondent State (2012) 152 Violations by Article and by respondent State (2012) (continued) 153 Applications allocated to a judicial formation (1999-2012) 154 Judgments (1999-2012) 155 European Court of Human Rights – Annual Report 2012 Allocated applications by State and by population (2009-2012) 156 4 FOREWORD The year 2012 almost exactly corresponded to the term of office of my predecessor Sir Nicolas Bratza.
    [Show full text]
  • EBA Annual Report 2017
    European Business Association Armenia NARRATIVE REPORT 2017 www.eba.am 1 Message of the Head of EU Delegation to the Republic of Armenia, EU Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Dr. Piotr Antoni Świtalski The relations between the European Union and the Republic of Armenia have been consistently developing throughout our cooperation history. The growth and development of the EU - Armenia partnership proceeds in various directions among which are the three main EU priorities: private sector development, public administration reform and justice sector reform. The establishment of European Business Association (EBA) in Armenia has come at an appropriate time to assist with the above-mentioned developments and support European business community in the country, in order to further nurture bilateral relations and economic interactions between the EU and Armenia. The EBA will not only introduce the best practice for business environment improvement and business development solutions, but also will perform as a platform for Public- Private Dialogue and trade facilitation. In this context, the EBA has its crucial role in business advocacy process. The EU warmly welcomes the EBA's efforts in the area of the business environment improvement that aim to further promote foreign investments and trade in Armenia. I strongly believe that EBA will stimulate the improvements of business related legislation and positive changes in the Armenian business environment, as well as will assist in the establishment of solid ground for the mutually beneficial EU – Armenia cooperation. I wish the EBA and its members further success and achievements! 3 4 EBA Members 5 EBA TEAM 6 EBA’S MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT IMPROVEMENTS On July 7 European Business Association jointly with the Business Community and the European Diplomatic Community in Armenia conducted a business forum on “Business Perspectives, Impediments and Opportunities” for foreign and local companies/investors doing business in Armenia.
    [Show full text]
  • European Court of Human Rights
    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA (Application no. 55707/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 February 2009 ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Andrejeva v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Peer Lorenzen, Françoise Tulkens, Josep Casadevall, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Corneliu Bîrsan, Nina Vajić, Alvina Gyulumyan, Dean Spielmann, Davíd Thór Björgvinsson, Ján Šikuta, Ineta Ziemele, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 25 June 2008 and on 14 January 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 55707/00) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a “permanently resident non-citizen” (nepilsone) of Latvia who was previously a national of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Ms Natālija Andrejeva (“the applicant”), on 27 February 2000. 2. The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr V. Buzajevs, Member of Parliament. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Reine. 3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that by refusing to grant her a State pension in respect of her employment in the former Soviet Union prior to 1991 on the ground that she did not have Latvian citizenship, the national authorities had discriminated against her in the exercise of her pecuniary rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Armenia Relations Overview India Recognized Armenia on December 26, 1991, and India's Ambassador in Moscow Was Concurren
    India- Armenia Relations Overview India recognized Armenia on December 26, 1991, and India's Ambassador in Moscow was concurrently accredited to Armenia. The Protocol on establishment of Diplomatic relations between India and Armenia was signed on 31 August 1992 in Moscow. From September 1992, India's Ambassador in Kiev (Ukraine) was given the concurrent charge of Armenia. India opened its Resident Mission in Yerevan at the level of Charge d' Affaires on 01 March 1999; the first Resident Ambassador (Shri Bal Anand) assumed charge in Yerevan in October 1999. Armenia, which had opened its Honorary Consulate in April 1994, established its Embassy in New Delhi in October 1999 at the level of Charge d' Affaires, followed by the arrival of the first Resident Ambassador (Armen Baibourtian) in May 2000. Historical background According to literary evidence, there were Indian settlements in Armenia established by two Indian Princes who along with their families and large retinue had arrived in Armenia as early as 149 BC and were allotted land in Taron region (now in Turkey) by the then rulers of Armenia. Thomas Cana is said to be the first Armenian to have landed on the Malabar Coast in 780 AD. A few Armenian traders had come to Agra during the Mughal Empire. Emperor Akbar, who was believed to have an Armenian wife Mariam Zamani Begum, highly appreciative of the commercial talents and integrity of the Armenians, granted them numerous privileges and considerable religious freedom as also an opportunity to serve in his empire in various capacities. Indian classical singer Gohar Jaan, the first to be recorded on gramophone in 1902 was of Armenian origin.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2014
    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME Annual Report 2014 Provisional version European Court of Human Rights Annual Report 2014 Provisional Version Registry of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg, 2015 All or part of this document may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment of the source “Annual Report 2014 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”. Photographs: Council of Europe Cover: the Human Rights Building (Architects: Richard Rogers Partnership and Atelier Claude Bucher) – Photograph: Michel Christen, Council of Europe CONTENTS Foreword 5 I. The Court in 2014 9 II. Composition of the Court 17 III. Composition of the Sections 21 IV. Speech given by Mr Dean Spielmann, President of the European Court of Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 31 January 2014 29 V. Speech given by Prof. Dr Andreas Voßkuhle, President of the German Federal Constitutional Court, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 31 January 2014 39 VI. President’s Diary 49 VII. Activities of the Grand Chamber, Sections and single- judge formations 61 VIII. Case-law information, training and outreach 67 IX. Overview of the Court’s case-law in 2014 79 X. Statistical information 163 Events in total (2013-14) 165 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2014 (respondent States) 166 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2014 (main respondent States) 167 Court’s workload by state of proceedings and application type at 31 December 2014 168 Violations by subject matter at 31 December 2014 169 Applications allocated to a judicial formation (2000-14) 170 Judgments (2000-14) 171 Allocated applications by State and by population (2011-14) 172 Violations by Article and by respondent State (2014) 174 Violations by Article and by respondent State (1959-2014) 176 FOREWORD Looking back over 2014, we can take pleasure in a number of successes achieved by the Court this year.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Highlights
    ANNUAL HIGHLIGHTS 2018-19 ANNUAL HIGHLIGHTS Click to navigate CONTENTS 1. Highlights of the Year 10. Events and Conferences 18. Student Fellowship Programme 3. Thank You 11. Eleanor Roosevelt Statue Unveiling 20. Bonavero Research 4. Institutional Structure 12. Human Rights Network events 21. Research Seminars and Roundtable Discussions 5. Benefactors 13. Confronting Illiberalism 22. Staff Activities 5. Advisory Council 15. Book Launches 25. Global Reach 6. Founding Principles 16. Price Media Law Moot Court Competition 24. Contact details 7. Staffing 17. Programmes, Community & Student 8. Social Media Enrichment 9. Kofi Annan’s Visit HIGHLIGHTS OF THE YEAR The Bonavero Institute has been a busy place in its second year of operation. The year started with Secretary Hillary Clinton unveiling Penelope Jencks’ magnificent statue of Eleanor Roosevelt in the gardens of Mansfield just outside the Institute. Eleanor Roosevelt was the chairperson of Speakers included Adam Bodnar, the Polish the committee that drafted the Universal Ombud, Nic Dawes, Deputy Executive Director Declaration of Human Rights and guided for Media at Human Rights Watch, Michael Baroness Helena Kennedy QC its adoption by the United Nations General Ignatieff, the Rector of the Central European The Founding Fellow of the Bonavero Institute of Human Assembly in December 1948. She is an University, and Louise Richardson, the Vice- Rights and Principal of Mansfield College (2010-2018). inspirational historical figure: a woman with Chancellor of the University of Oxford. This little formal learning who became a global conference was the first of several important Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, former Principal of leader, striving untiringly with compassion and conferences hosted by the Bonavero Institute Mansfield College, was the driving force behind the commitment to promote and protect human during the year.
    [Show full text]
  • EITI Candidature Application of the Republic of Armenia
    EITI CANDIDATURE APPLICATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA RA Government Staff Republic of Armenia, Yerevan, 0010, Republic Square, Government Building, www.gov.am Content Applicant Country Information ..................................................................................................................... 3 Sign-up Steps ................................................................................................................................................. 4 EITI Requirement 1.1 ................................................................................................................................ 4 EITI Requirement 1.2 ................................................................................................................................ 5 EITI Requirement 1.3 ................................................................................................................................ 6 EITI Requirement 1.4 .............................................................................................................................. 12 About the Multi-Stakeholder Group ........................................................................................................... 14 2 Applicant Country Information Applicant Republic of Armenia Contact Person Davit Harutyunyan, Minister-Chief of Staff of the Government of the Republic of Armenia Email: [email protected] Tel.: (+37410) 51-57-03 Lusine Tovmasyan, Expert of Enhanced Transparency in the Mining Sector Project of the Republic of Armenia
    [Show full text]
  • Marion Dönhoff Working Paper: Principal Ecological Threats of The
    MARION DONHOFF WORKING PAPER 2020 Principal ecological threats of the mining industry in Armenia and its political and legal background Anna Vardanyan July 2020 Principal ecological threats of the mining industry in Armenia and its political and legal background Imprint Succow Foundation partner in the Greifswald Mire Centre Ellernholzstrasse 1/3 D-17489 Greifswald Germany [email protected] http://www.succow-stiftung.de http://www.greifswaldmoor.de Cite as: Vardanyan, A., 2020, Principal ecological threats of the mining industry in Armenia and its political and legal background, Marion Dönhoff Fellowship Working Paper, Michael Succow Foundation partner in the Greifswald mire Centre (self-published URL: https://www.succow- stiftung.de/fileadmin/Ablage/Projekte/Forschung_Weiterbildung/Anna_Vardanyan_pape r_MD.pdf) "Disclaimer: This work had been carried out within a fellowship programme funded by Marion Dönhoff Foundation, implemented and supervised by Michael Succow Foundation The authors are fully responsible for the content of this working paper Marion Dönhoff Foundation has no liability." 2 Principal ecological threats of the mining industry in Armenia and its political and legal background CONTENT 1.7. Political background of the Amulsar gold mine project…………………………..30 Abstract………………………………………..4 1.7.1.Inaction of the authorities…………….31 Targeted audience…………………………….4 1.7.2.Domestic political stakeholders of the Goals and objectives………………………….4 Amulsar conflict………………………………32 Targeted subjects……………………………..4 1.7.3.External political stakeholders of the Amulsar conflict………………………………33 Methods………………………………………..5 Literature and media research… ……………5 1.8. Interviews……………………………….35 List of Individuals and entities interviewed for study, questionnaire…………………………..5 1.9. Conclusions……………………………40 Findings………………………………………...7 1.9.1.Amulsar mining endangers Recommendations…………………………….8 environmental safety in Armenia…………...40 Introduction………………………………….10 Chapter 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Sir Nicolas Bratza, Judge in Respect of the United Kingdom, Today Elected President of the European Court of Human Rights
    issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 083 (2011) 04.07.2011 Sir Nicolas Bratza, judge in respect of the United Kingdom, today elected President of the European Court of Human Rights The European Court of Human Rights has today elected Sir Nicolas Bratza (British) as its new President. He will take office on 4 November 2011. The President was elected by secret ballot by the Court’s 47 judges. Sir Nicolas Bratza succeeds Jean-Paul Costa (French), whose mandate will come to an end on 3 November 2011, because he has reached the age limit fixed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Sir Nicolas was born on 3 March 1945. He studied law at the University of Oxford. After qualifying as a lawyer, he was appointed Junior Counsel of the Crown and then Queen’s Counsel. In 1993 he was elected a Bencher at Lincoln’s Inn and subsequently appointed a Recorder at the Crown Court. He was made a High Court judge in 1998. Sir Nicolas was a member of the European Commission of Human Rights between 1993 and 1998. He has been a judge at the European Court of Human Rights since 1 November 1998 and Section President since 2001 (he was also Section President between 1998 and 2000). Since 19 January 2007 he has also been Vice-President of the Court. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds.
    [Show full text]