DH-SYSC-V(2021)01REV
22/03/2021
STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
(CDDH)
________
COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON THE SYSTEM OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
(DH-SYSC)
________
DRAFTING GROUP ON ENHANCING THE NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SYSTEM OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
(DH-SYSC-V)
_________
Draft Recommendation CM/Rec(2021)... of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the publication and dissemination of the European Convention on Human Rights, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and other relevant texts
Note
This draft has been prepared by the Secretariat under the supervision of the Chair of the DH-SYSC-V for consideration and possible finalisation by the Drafting Group at its 2nd meeting (29-31 March 2021) with a view to its transmission to the CDDH for possible adoption at its 94th meeting (16-18 June 2021).
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,
Recalling the essential role of the system of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No. 5, “the Convention”) in the effective protection of human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Europe;
Recalling the obligation of States Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention to everyone within their jurisdiction;
Considering that knowledge of the Convention system is a sine qua non condition for its viability and effectiveness since it facilitates the implementation of the Convention at the national level through enabling conformity of national decisions with the Convention, preventing violations of the Convention as well as the execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) and, therefore, requires the continued engagement and commitment of the States Parties to promote and strengthen such knowledge;
Building on the Brussels Declaration which called on the States Parties to promote the accessibility of the Court’s judgments, action plans and reports as well as to the Committee of Ministers’ decisions and resolutions, by developing their publication and dissemination to the stakeholders concerned, so as to involve them further in the judgment execution process at the national level[A1]; and by translating or summarising relevant documents, including significant judgments of the Court;
Building on the Copenhagen Declaration which called on States Parties, as part of their responsibility to implement and enforce the Convention at the national level, to promote translation of the Court’s case law and legal materials into relevant languages which contributes to a broader understanding of Convention principles and standards;
Recalling the Committee of Ministers’ Decision ‘Securing the long-term effectiveness of the system of the European Convention on Human Rights’ adopted on 4 November 2020 which resolved to ensure the continued effectiveness of the Convention system and called upon all States Parties, inter alia, to abide by the judgments of the Court rendered against them, to ensure the promotion and effective implementation of the Convention, and to translate and disseminate the Court’s case law at national level;
Recalling Recommendation Rec(2002)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the publication and dissemination in member States of the text of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and welcoming the work undertaken by the States Parties so far to implement this recommendation:
Taking into account that, since Recommendation Rec(2002)13 was adopted, the Convention has become an integral part of the domestic legal order in all its State Parties and the number and diversity of cases decided by the Court has significantly increased together with the number of authorities concerned whether national, regional or local;
Stressing the need for the member States’ action to implement the Convention at the national level to take into account the developments in the Convention system during the decade of reforms in the course of the Interlaken processas well as the evolving character of the notion of texts that are relevant to the Convention system;[A2] [A3]
Having regard to the current diversity of practices in the member States in relation to the translation and dissemination of the Court’s case-law and the need in several member States to have guidance on the main principles for such translation and dissemination so that the case-law can be effectively known and that the relevant national authorities can apply it;
Acknowledging the central contribution of the HUDOC databases in ensuring the continued effectiveness of the Convention system as well as the challenges faced by national authorities and other actors who do not have access to these systems or do not know the official languages of the Council of Europe;
Acknowledging the significant opportunities that information and communication technological developments offer to promote enhanced knowledge of the Convention system at the national level;
Stressing the need to continue to engage with national human rights institutions, Ombudsman institutions, equality bodies and other human rights structures in the implementation of the Convention as well as civil society organisations to promote knowledge of the system of the Convention at the national level;
Emphasising the importance of strengthening the Council of Europe support for member States in the implementation of the Convention at national level, including through co-operation projects such as the HELP Programme (Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals);
Taking into consideration the diversity of traditions and practices in Member States with regard to the publication and dissemination of the texts that are relevant to the Convention system;
Recommends that the governments of member States:
i. Ensure that the publication and dissemination of texts relevant to the Convention system are accessible, in particular that their publication and dissemination [A4]comply with the principles set out in the appendix of this Recommendation which replaces updates Recommendation Rec(2002)13;
ii. Ensure by appropriate means and actions a wide dissemination of this Recommendation in their language(s) to relevant authorities and stakeholders.
Appendix to Draft Recommendation CM/Rec(2021)... of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the publication and dissemination of the European Convention on Human Rights, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and other relevant texts
1. Use of terms
For the purposes of this Recommendation:
1.1. Major texts of the Convention system include:
(i) The text of the Convention, judgments of the Court (Grand Chamber judgments, pilot judgments, leading judgments, final Chamber judgments or judgments of the Committee within the meaning of Article 28 § 1 (b) of the Convention[1]), which contain legal positions that form the well-established case-law of the Court[2] (hereinafter – well-established case-law) in relation to the respective member State.The text of the Convention and the case-law of the Court in which the member State concerned is a Party, in particular the well-established case-law, which is understood within the meaning of Article 28 § 1(b) of the Convention[3]as interpreted by the Court to include case-law in which a particular issue has been addressed by a Grand Chamber judgment, a pilot judgment, a leading judgment or a recent final Chamber judgment concerning that particular issue in that member State.[4]
(ii) The well-established [A6]case-law of the Court, or legal summaries or excerpts thereof, in which the member State is not a Party, however, it if the member State [A7]considers that the publication and dissemination of such well-established [A8]case-law contributes to addressing systemic or structural problems identified by the Court as giving rise to repetitive cases in respect of that member State, to the prevention of violations of the Convention in its jurisdiction or to the development of its national system of protection of human rights[A9].[A10]
(i) Factsheets elaborated by the Registry of the Court on the case-law and pending cases in respect of the member State concerned.
Decisions and resolutions of the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of execution of judgments of the Court in respect of the member State concerned as well as the relevant action plans.[A12]
(iii) Rules of Court and Practice Directions issued by the President of the Court.[A14]
(iv) Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers to member States concerning the prevention of violations of the Convention and the effective execution of the Court’s judgments, notably Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)3 on effective remedies for excessive length of proceedings; Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)2 on effective means to be implemented at domestic level for the rapid execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; Recommendation Rec(2004)6 on the improvement of domestic remedies; Recommendation No. R(2000)2 on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
Recommendations and Resolutions and accompanying reports of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, reports of the Council of Europe monitoring and advisory bodies and the Commissioner for Human Rights wherever such reports are issued in respect of the member State concerned. [A15]
1.2. Other texts relevant to the Convention system include:
(i) The well-established case-law of the Court concerning different States[A17],[A18]which is understood, within the meaning of Article 28 § 1(b) of the Convention[5]as interpreted by the Court,[6] to include case-law addressing issues of relevance to the national context of the concerned member State.[A19]
(ii) (Am 1) [A20]Guidelines and materials elaborated by the Registry of the Court such as case-law guides or factsheets by articles of the Convention or by themes. Guidelines, materials, newsletters elaborated by the Registry of the Court on well-established case-law and pending cases against the member State concerned, as well as newsletters on articles of the Convention by or by themes.Guidelines and materials elaborated by the Registry of the Court such as case-law guides or factsheets by articles of the Convention or by themes.
(i)
(iii) Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers to member States concerning the protection and promotion of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention in various areas whenever this contributes to eliminate the systemic or structural problems highlighted by the Court in respect of the member State concerned or this is considered as reinforcing the implementation of the Convention in that member State.
(iv) Guidelines and materials elaborated by the Registry of the Court such as case-law guides or factsheets by articles of the Convention or by themes.[A21]
(v) (Am 1) [A22]Thematic reports, analyses, comments or materials issued by Council of Europe monitoring and advisory bodies whenever pertinent to reinforcing the implementation of the Convention in the member State concerned. Thematic reports, analyses, comments or materials issued by Council of Europe monitoring and advisory bodies whenever pertinent to reinforcing the implementation of the Convention in the member State concerned.[A23]
1.3. (Am 1) [A24]Non-State stakeholders include national human rights institutions (NHRIs) within the meaning of the Recommendation CM/Rec(2021)… of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the development and strengthening of the effective, pluralist and independent national human rights institutions, civil society organisations, academia and associations of legal professionals. (Am 2) [A25]Non-State stakeholders include national human rights institutions (NHRIs) within the meaning of the Recommendation CM/Rec(2021)… of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the development and strengthening of the effective, pluralist and independent national human rights institutions, civil society organisations, academia and associations of legal professionals.
2. General principles
2.1. Member States should ensure that the major texts of the Convention system are published and disseminated[A26]rapidly or in due time in their entirety or where appropriate when [A27][A28]and in exceptional cases justified by the national context in the form of [A29]substantial summaries or excerpts thereof together with appropriate references to the original texts in the language(s) of the country.[A30] [A31][A32]
2.2. Member States, taking into account the diversity of their national situations and as appropriate[A33], should ensure that all national authorities which are responsible for the implementation of the Convention, in particular judges, public prosecutors, law enforcement officials, the administration of the penitentiary system, legal advisers of the governments or parliaments, social authorities, and where appropriate non-State stakeholdersother structures and institutions[A34], have access to the major texts of the Convention system while having due regard to their fields of competence and responsibilities[A35].
2.3. Member States should ensure that national authorities directly involved in the execution of a judgment or decision of the Court to which they are a respondent State are rapidly informed about the Court’s judgment or decision (Am 1) [A36]by means of making available copies thereof, electronic access to or copy of the judgment or decision, where appropriate with an explanatory note or circular. (Am 2) [A37] by means of making available copies thereof, where appropriate with an explanatory note or circular in the format the member State deems appropriate.
2.4. Member States should assess, on a regular basis, [A38]the desirability and feasibility of publishing and disseminating other texts [A39]relevant to the Convention system (paragraph 1.2. above) and on this basis identify and prioritise the relevant texts to be published and disseminated in their own language(s). This assessment should be based on the needs of the national authorities to know other texts relevant to the Convention system having due regard to their fields of competence and responsibilities and, where appropriate, [A40]should be carried out in consultation and co-operation with relevant non-State stakeholders.
2.5. (Am P1) [A41]Member States should take the appropriate measures to disseminate, where applicable, the texts referred to in sections 1.1. and 1.2. above to non-State stakeholders. (Am P 2) [A42]Member States should take the appropriate measures to disseminate the texts referred to in sections 1.1. and 1.2. above to non-State stakeholders. (Am 3) [A43]Member States should take the appropriate measures to disseminate ensure that the texts referred to in sections 1.1. and 1.2. above are available to non-State stakeholders.
3. Means of publication and dissemination [A44]
3.1. Member States should ensure that the major texts of the Convention system and, wherever applicable, other texts relevant to the Convention system are accessible[A45] free of charge in printed or electronic formats where the relevant national authorities expect to find material relevant to the Convention system, for example official gazettes, newsletters or information bulletins from competent ministries, law journals and other media used by the legal community, internet websites or through other information and communication technologies (ICT)[A46].
3.2. Member States should ensure that when the publication and dissemination of major texts of the Convention system, as well as other texts relevant to the Convention system wherever available, is realised via the internet or ICTs the persons who do not have access to such tools can have other means to access to the texts[A47], such as in printed form.[A48] (Am P1) [A49]Member States should ensure that when the publication and dissemination of major texts of the Convention system, as well as other texts relevant to the Convention system wherever available, is realised via the internet or ICTs the persons who do not have access to such tools can have other means to access to the texts, such as in printed form. (Am 2) [A50]Member States should ensure, when applicable, that when the publication and dissemination of major texts of the Convention system, as well as other texts relevant to the Convention system wherever available, is realised via the internet or ICTs the persons who do not have access to such tools can have other means to access to the texts, such as in printed form.
4. Multi-stakeholder co-ordination and co-operation
4.1. Member States should (Am 1) [A51]proactively and regularly co-operate with relevant non-State stakeholders and, wherever appropriate, with private sector non-State actors with a view to undertaking or co-ordinating initiatives and activities aimed at publishing and disseminating the texts referred to in sections 1.1. and 1.2., seeking efficiencies and synergies in the allocation of financial resources and complementing each other’s work. (Am 2) [A52]consider proactively and regularly co-operateing with relevant non-State stakeholders and, wherever appropriate, with private sector actors with a view to undertaking or co-ordinating initiatives and activities aimed at publishing and disseminating the texts referred to in sections 1.1. and 1.2., seeking efficiencies and synergies in the allocation of financial resources and complementing each other’s work.
4.2. Member States, where appropriate, [A53]should promote multi-stakeholder dialogues and meetings between national authorities and, where appropriate other actors,[A54] non-State stakeholders regarding themes and issues of relevance in their national context addressed in the texts which have been published and disseminated with a view to facilitating their understanding and implementation by national authorities.[A55]
5. Quality
5.1. Member States should, where appropriate, [A57]encourage initiatives by universities and non-State stakeholders to ensure the rigour of translations of the major texts of the Convention system, in particular relevant case-law of the Court or summaries thereof, and wherever applicable other [A58]texts relevant to the Convention system in relation to the original English or French versions.[A59]
and the quality of the networks for publishing and disseminating the texts.[A60]
5.2. Member States should ensure [A61]that their translations of the major texts of the Convention system, in particular relevant case-law of the Court or summaries thereof, and wherever applicable texts relevant to the Convention system, are carried out or by professionals or on the basis of reliable[A62]and duly supervised electronic methods.[A63]
1.1. Member States should encourage initiatives by universities and non-State stakeholders to ensure the rigour of translations in relation to the original English or French versions and the quality of the networks for publishing and disseminating the texts.
6. Council of Europe resources
6.1. (Am 1) [A64]Member States should facilitate access to the major and relevant texts to the Convention system by means of promoting and facilitating effective access to the resources made available by the Council of Europe such as HUDOC databases, the HELP as well as the websites of the various bodies and services of the Council of Europe.(Am 2) [A65]Member States should facilitate access to the major and relevant texts to the Convention system by means of promoting and facilitating effective access to the resources made available by the Council of Europe such as HUDOC databases, the HELP as well as the publicly available parts of the websites of the various bodies and services of the Council of Europe.
1.1. Member States should, whenever pertinent, pay particular attention to seeking and making full use of the assistance that can be provided by the Council of Europe regional or country-specific co-operation programmes both in terms of translating major and relevant texts to the Convention system and training of relevant national authorities.
1.1.
6.2.
[1] “Well-established case-law” normally means case-law which has been consistently applied by a Chamber. Exceptionally, however, it is conceivable that a single judgment on a question of principle may constitute “well established case-law”, particularly when the Grand Chamber has rendered it. This applies, in particular, to repetitive cases, which account for a significant proportion of the Court’s judgments […]. Parties may, of course, contest the ‘well established’ character of case-law before the committee.” See the Explanatory Report of Protocol No.14, § 68.
[2] According to the policy decision of the Plenary Court of June 2017 the notion of “well-established case-law” (WECL) refers to case-law in which the particular issue has been addressed, in relation to the State concerned, by a Grand Chamber judgment, or – at Chamber level – by a pilot judgment or a leading judgment. Also, a recent (and final) Chamber judgment concerning the specific issue in the State in question will suffice to apply the WECL procedure.” See the document entitled “Follow-up to the CDDH Report on the Longer-Term Future of the system of the European convention on Human Rights – Information from the Court, document DD(2018)60, § 12.
[3]“Well-established case-law” normally means case-law which has been consistently applied by a Chamber. Exceptionally, however, it is conceivable that a single judgment on a question of principle may constitute “well established case-law”, particularly when the Grand Chamber has rendered it. This applies, in particular, to repetitive cases, which account for a significant proportion of the Court’s judgments […]. Parties may, of course, contest the ‘well established’ character of case-law before the committee.” See the Explanatory Report of Protocol No.14, § 68.
[4]According to the policy decision of the Plenary Court of June 2017 the notion of “well-established case-law” (WECL) refers to case-law in which the particular issue has been addressed, in relation to the State concerned, by a Grand Chamber judgment, or – at Chamber level – by a pilot judgment or a leading judgment. Also, a recent (and final) Chamber judgment concerning the specific issue in the State in question will suffice to apply the WECL procedure.” See the document entitled “Follow-up to the CDDH Report on the Longer-Term Future of the system of the European convention on Human Rights – Information from the Court, document DD(2018)60, § 12.
[5]See note 1 above.
[6] According to the policy decision of the Plenary Court of June 2017 “there can be well-established case-law where there are at least three recent and relevant judgments concerning different States. In line with the policy, the WECL procedure may be applied to different types of case: high-priority cases; cases pertaining to key/core Convention rights; cases that are factually complex and/or raise multiple Convention grounds; and cases that were communicated at Chamber level prior to the adoption of the policy.” See document entitled “Follow-up to the CDDH Report on the Longer-Term Future of the system of the European convention on Human Rights – Information from the Court, document DD(2018)60, § 12.
[A1]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation.
[A2]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation.
[A3]UK’s comment on the phrase “evolving character of the notion of texts that are relevant to the Convention system”: “We can see the idea but we would prefer this to be put in clearer terms, if possible explaining how the “character of the notion of texts that are relevant to the Convention system” is evolving and what this means in practice".
Amendments proposed by [A4]Switzerland with the following accompanying comments: « We suggest to put the principle that such documents should be accessible in compliance with the principles of points 2.2. or 3.1. below”
“Update appears more appropriate to us.”
[A5]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation.
[A6]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation.
[A7]Amendment proposed by Norway.
[A8]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation.
[A9]Comment by Czech Republic: “This seems to be very far-reaching, especially when combined with principle 2.1.: many judgments against third states may contribute to prevent violations, which should imply the need to proceed to translation (or summary, but this only in exceptional cases). This looks quite unrealistic. Moreover, a summary may prove to be much more efficient in ensuring taking account of the judgment in practice.”
[A10]Comment by Switzerland: « Are opinions of the Court in application of protocol no.16 of the ECHR part of the documents envisaged in this paragraph?”
[A11]Deletion of sub-para.(iii) proposed by the delegations of Switzerland and Russian Federation.
Comment by Czech Republic: “It is not entirely clear what is meant by factsheets. Is it, with respect to the Czech Republic, the following document: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Czech_Republic_ENG.pdf?
Whatever is meant, we do not think that factsheets should be ranked among major texts.”
[A12]Comment by Czech Republic in respect of the word ‘resolutions” contained in 1.1./(iv): “Do we also mean final resolutions? Their interest seems dubious. We suggest limiting it to interim resolutions and decisions in cases under enhanced supervision.”
[A13]Sub-paragraph (iv) deleted at the proposal of Russian Federation.
[A14]Amendment proposed by Norway with the accompanying comment “In our view, the recommendation should include Rules of Court and Practice Directions. Such documents are central to inform potential applicants and other actors in the CoE system.”
[A15]Comment by Czech Republic on item (vi) : “To which extent all this stuff is supposed to be related to the Convention? Shouldn’t there be a precondition that these texts have clear link to the Convention? Otherwise, this looks very wide.
[A16]Sub-para. (vi) deleted at the proposal of Russian Federatino.
[A17]Comment by Czech Republic: “Should not judgments deserve a better treatment than for example reports of monitoring and advisory bodies?”
[A18]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation.
[A20]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation.
[A21]The switch of places between paragraphs former sub-paras (ii) and (iii) is proposed by Switzerland with the following comment: “ We propose to transfer this paragraph after the one dealing with CM documents with a view to distinguishing more clearly between the principal bodies and the others.”
[A22]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation.
[A23]UK:” Whilst we appreciate that this falls within the “other texts” category and a different regime for dissemination, we would stress that national stakeholders (as enumerated at 1.3 and 2.2) mostly need access to primary sources (text of the Convention, judgments etc.) and not to interpretative material.”
Estonia: “that list of documents is not related to the decisions of the Court and should not be set out under “Major texts”. I suggest deleting this sub-clause or moving it under “Other texts”.”
[A24]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation.
[A25]Comment by ENHRI:
- “to amend para 1.3 to clarify NHRIs are independent state authorities with a legal mandate to promote and protect human rights, including the ECHR. Please do keep the current reference to the forthcoming CoM Recommendation on NHRIs (which indeed clarifies the independent status of NHRIs/ their role in promoting implementation of the ECHR);
- to add NHRIs in the list of state authorities under para 2.2
- on basis of para 1.3, it will be understood that NHRIs are included under all other relevant paras where reference is made to national authorities (paras. 2.4;3.1; 4.2) “
[A26]Phrase “rapidly or” deleted at the proposal of the Russian Federation.
[A27]Russian Federation proposed to delete the word “exceptional”.
[A28]Norway proposed to delete ‘and in exceptional cases’ with the phrase “ or where appropriate when”. It submitted the following accompanying comment :” In our view, depending on the national context and the general level of knowlegde of English/French, familiarity with the relevant texts and competence in information technology, it can be acceptet that certain Member States find it sufficient in general to publish summaries or excerpts of the texts, with appropriate references to the original texts. Thus, we find the original wording too restrictive and suggest certain amendments to the wording.”
[A29]The word “substantial” deleted at the proposal of the Russian Federation.
[A30]UK: “We believe that all the texts concerned should always be disseminated in their entirety. Summaries or excerpts can be helpful, but they should be in addition to, not instead of the full texts.”
[A31]Estonia’s comment on the phrase “ and in exceptional cases…..”: “the call set out for MSs regarding all “Major texts” should probably be more nuanced or the list of “Major texts” should further be revised. E.g. in p 1.1. (iii) the Factsheets in respect of the MS concerned are noted. Therefore, according to p 2.1, the States should translate and disseminate those Factsheets. In reality, it should be up to the Government Agent or any other body to decide how to distribute the information set out in the Factsheet. That information could be disseminated also in another format (e.g. in annual reports of the GA). The same applies to p .1.1 (iv) and the decisions and resolutions of the CoM. These texts are important, however, States should be free to decide how and in which format they distribute such information.
To sum up, para 2.1 should not refer to the list of “Major texts” but should rather reflect the idea that “the information set out in major texts” should be published and disseminated.”
[A32]The phrase “together with appropriate references to the original texts in the language(s) of the country” deleted at the proposal of the Russian Federation.
[A33]Amendment proposed by the UK with the following accompanying comment: “We suggest this should replace the phrase at the end (“while having due regard…”). “Fields of competence and responsibilities” might be given very different interpretations between countries and we would prefer “as appropriate” which, although a bit more general, makes clear that member States should take a pragmatic approach to disseminating the texts, also paying regard to other relevant factors, if any.”
[A34]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation.
[A35]UK proposes to delete.
[A37]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation
[A38]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation.
[A39]Comment by Norway: “Translation of texts is mentioned here in section 2.4 concerning “other texts”, but it is not mentioned in section sections 2.1 and 2.2 concerning “major texts”. Thus, it seems somewhat unclear whether the recommendation presupposes the translation of major texts. The need to translate these texts may vary from one Member State to another. In our view, the recommendation should take into account that translation may not be necessary in all Member States.”
[A40]Amendment proposed by the UK together with the following accompanying comment: “This should be encouraged but there might be circumstances where it is impractical for a member State to consult with all relevant non-State stakeholders on this (noting that this would have to be reviewed on a regular basis, as indicated in the first paragraph).”
[A41]Amendment proposed by the UK together with the following comment: “[A41]We find the interaction between 2.4 and 2.5 slightly confusing. 2.5 seems to pre-empt the outcome of the assessment under 2.4 i.e. that all the “other texts” listed under 1.2 should be disseminated to non-State stakeholders. I also note that, under 2.2 in its current drafting, it would only be recommended to disseminate major texts to non-State stakeholders “where appropriate”. If we understand correctly the purpose of 2.5, we propose this addition.”
Comment by the UK on point 2.5. “[A41]In any case, 2.5 seems like a very obvious point (if not too obvious to be made). It might be more helpful here to remind that some non-State stakeholders, in the private and third sectors, already have systems in place to access information about the Convention system and the Court’s case law, which could in fact link to the point about synergies at 4.1.”
[A42]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation.
[A44]Comment by Switzerland: “We suggest to add a paragraph dedicated to accessibility without barriers of the mentioned documents, taking into account requirements of the Convention regarding the rights of persons with disabilities.”
[A45]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation.
[A46]Comment by Norway: “The limits to the recommendation in section 3.1 are somewhat unclear. In our view, it should for instance suffice if the relevant ministry creates a website with links to the original documents in HUDOC and other relevant Council of Europe websites. We find it desirable to build on the existing systems.”
[A48]Comment by Czech Republic: “What are the people concerned – prisoners, socially disadvantaged…? What is the state supposed to do exactly?”
[A49]Proposal by the Russian Federation.
[A50]Amendment proposed by Norway with the accompanying comment: “Suggested addition, in order to take into account that access to printed copies may not be necessary in Member States where one can assume that the internet and ICTs are widely available.”
[A51]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation.
[A52]Amendment proposed by the UK with the following accompanying comment: “We think this should be left to the member States’ appreciation as this will not always be appropriate or even productive – non-State stakeholders may not have the necessary perspective to understand how best to disseminate this information. We agree however that, in certain circumstances, collaborating with non-State stakeholders can yield very positive results and should be encouraged.”
[A53]Amendment proposed by Norway.
[A54]Amendment proposed by Russian Federation.
[A55]Comment by [A55]Czech Republic on para. 4.2.: “This looks rather far-reaching. When there is translation or summary, it is made to ensure comprehension. But dialogue and meetings, this can be difficult in practice, possibly with the exception of some topics which are of particular relevance, but not in general.”
[A56]The switch of order of paragraphs 5.1. and 5.2 is proposed by Switzerland with the accompanying comment: “We prefer to change the order of the principles, (1) promoting initiatives (5.2.) (2) obligation to ensure the quality of their own translations (5.1.).
[A57]The phrase “where appropriate” added at the proposal of Norway.
[A58]The word ‘other’ added at the proposal of Norway.
[A59]The phrase “and the quality of the networks for publishing and disseminating the texts” has been deleted at the proposal of the Russian Federation.
Switzerland’s comment on this phrase: “The message is not clear, should the State supervise the private actors? It appears to us that it is indispensable to limit the obligation to the texts translated under the State’s own responsibility.”
[A60]Czech Republic: “This appears rather unclear.”
[A61]Comment by Switzerland: “The message is not clear, should the State supervise the private actors? It appears to us that it is indispensable to limit the obligation to the texts translated under the State’s own responsibility.”
[A62]Deletion proposed by Russian Federation.
[A63]Comment by Estonia: “the wording of this para is problematic, as the MSs cannot supervise all translations or prohibit translations which are not so good. Even if the State itself translates major texts, it cannot be guaranteed that, in parallel, same texts are not translated and disseminated by other persons. Therefore, a MS can ensure only the quality of the translations done or ordered by the MS.”
[A64]Amendment of the Russian Federation.
[A65]Amendment proposed by Norway with the following comment: “We suggest that section 6.1 is amended to reflect that access is limited to those websites which are publicly available, i.e. excluding websites with restricted access.”