Europe

ECHR Holds French Criminal Defamation Conviction of Workplace Harassment Plaintiff Violates Freedom of Expression

By: Molly Osinoff

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On January 18, 2024 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that a plaintiff’s criminal conviction of defamation following her pursuit of a workplace harassment lawsuit constituted an Article 10 violation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. 

 
France’s Prime Minister for Labour, Full Employment and Inclusion, on the left, and ILO Director-General on the right | Photo Courtesy of the International Labour Organization.
 

Earlier this month, the ECHR issued a ruling in the case of Allée v. France. The plaintiff was a French national living in France who was employed at an education association. In 2015, the plaintiff requested a transfer to another position due to harassment by the association’s executive vice-chair. A year later, the plaintiff’s husband wrote to the managing director, accusing the executive vice-chair of harassing and sexually assaulting his wife. The managing director advised the applicant to take sick leave until her contract could be terminated or she could find a new position.

The plaintiff sent an email titled “Sexual Assault, Sexual and Mental Harassment” to the association’s managing director. She then forwarded it to her husband, the State Labor inspector, the executive vice-chair, and her son, who was the association’s spiritual director. The plaintiff’s husband subsequently posted a message to Facebook to amplify his wife’s allegations, calling the situation a “sex scandal.” The message included the name of the executive vice-chair’s family and the name of the association. Later, the executive vice-chair brought claims against the plaintiff and her husband alleging public defamation.

The Paris Criminal Court found the plaintiff and her husband guilty of public defamation of a private individual, and the Paris Court of Appeals upheld the judgment. In the case brought to the ECHR, the plaintiff argued that her criminal conviction of defamation violated the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) Article 10, which provides the right to freedom of expression.

The ECHR held in the plaintiff’s favor, explaining that the plaintiff’s defamation conviction could have a chilling effect, ultimately discouraging people, and women specifically, from reporting experiences of workplace sexual harassment or assault. It concluded that the restriction on the plaintiff’s right to freedom of expression was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and that the plaintiff had suffered a violation of Article 10.

This case is not the only headway made in workplace combating harassment in France. On April 13, 2023, France officially ratified the International Labour Organization Violence and Harassment Convention’s 2019 standards (C190) for preventing and responding to workplace violence and harassment. France was the 27th country in the world, and the 5th in the European Union, to ratify C190. The Minister of Labor at the time said that “the world of work must not be a source of anxiety or insecurity for women.” The Convention affirms the right to a workplace free from violence and harassment and provides the first globally agreed upon definition of violence and harassment at work, including gender-based violence. While France was a driving force behind the Convention, it did not ratify C190 until four years after the convention.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – The Applicant’s Criminal Conviction for Public Defamation Following Claims of Mental and Sexual Harassment Breached Article 10 of the Convention – 18 Jan. 2024.

Human Rights Watch – France Ratifies Treaty to End Violence and Harassment at Work – 20 Apr. 2023.

International Labour Organization – France Ratifies Convention C190 on Violence and Harassment in the World of Work – 13 Apr. 2023.

 

 

European Court of Justice Finds Women Escaping Gender-Based Violence Qualify for Refugee Status

By: Christina Bradic

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

LUXEMBOURG – On January 16, 2023, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) ruled that women facing gender-based violence, including forced marriage, honor killings, and female genital mutilation, are eligible for asylum and can be granted refugee status and international protection.

 
A woman holds a sign during a rally against violence towards women in front of the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, 2019 | Photo courtesy of Salvatore Di Nolfi/Keystone via AP, The Columbus Dispatch
 

The Geneva Conventions and European Union Law state that a condition to obtain refugee status is persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership to a specific social group. The recent CJEU decision classifies all forms of physical and mental violence as persecution and declares women, as a collective whole, a specific social group. The court found that having a ‘common concept’ will provide greater protection for women facing physical and mental violence in their communities.

The case began when a Turkish woman fled to Bulgaria after her family forced her to marry at age fifteen. She faced regular violence and death threats from her husband and immediate family members during her marriage. Subsequently, she left Bulgaria to live with a relative in Germany where she filed for international protection. Germany ruled that the violence she experienced, as well as the death threats from her husband and her family, could not be linked to reasons for persecution laid out in the law on asylum and refugees. The case then moved up to the European Court of Justice.

The court considered two pieces of international law in this case: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Istanbul Convention and as European Union law. Both confirm a commitment to prevent and protect against gender-based violence. While ‘necessary protections’ are encouraged, this case highlighted the need for clarity around language to determine what international protections can be applied, especially when it comes to seeking asylum or refuge in a new country.

The ability to seek asylum hinges on the definition of a ‘particular social group’ and how it applies to women experiencing violence. The court started with the accepted fact that “a group is to be considered a ‘particular social group’ where two cumulative conditions are satisfied. First, the members of the relevant group must share at least one of the three following identifying features, namely an ‘innate characteristic,’ a ‘common background that cannot be changed’ or a ‘characteristic or belief that is so fundamental to identity or conscience that a person should not be forced to renounce it.’ Second, that group must have a ‘distinct identity’ in the country of origin ‘because it is perceived as being different by the surrounding society.’”

The court found that this definition can apply to women fleeing violence on the basis that:

  • Women that have escaped from a forced marriage or, for married women, have left their homes, may be regarded as a ‘common background that cannot be changed’ within the meaning of that provision.
  • It is clear that women may be perceived as being different by the surrounding society and recognized as having their own identity in that society, in particular because of social, moral or legal norms in their country of origin.

In cases where women do not meet the necessary conditions for refugee status, they also “may qualify for subsidiary protection status, in particular where they run a real risk of being killed or subjected to violence.”

This decision has been widely praised by international NGOs and leaders of European Union States. However, it has been noted that, in order for this ruling to have maximum benefit, women need to be aware that honor killings, forced marriages, female genital mutilation, and similar forms of violence qualify them for protection under international law.

For further information, please see:

Deutsche Welle – EU court rules gender-based violence ground for asylum– 17 Jan. 2024

EUR-Lex – WS v Intervyuirasht organ na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet – 16 Jan. 2024

InfoMigrants – Women suffering from gender-based violence can qualify for refugee status, says EU court of justice – 16 Jan. 2024

Irish Legal News – CJEU: Women can claim asylum due to gender-based violence – 18 Jan. 2024

 

 

 

ECHR Rules Lithuania Violated Prisoner’s Right by Assisting CIA in Secret Detainee Program

By: Jacob Riederer

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On January 16, 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Lithuania violated multiple articles of the European Convention on Human Rights by permitting the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to detain and mistreat prisoner, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al-Hawsawi, at a CIA facility between 2005 and 2006.

 
Inmates like al-Hawsawi were held in detention sites in Vilnius, Lithuania | Photo courtesy of Reuters.
 

Al-Hawsawi, a citizen of Saudi Arabia, was first captured in Pakistan in 2003 during the American “War on Terror,” following the September 11, 2001, Attacks. After being transferred to the custody of the United States, he was moved to a CIA facility in Lithuania, known as “Detention Site Violet.” 

While at Detention Site Violet, al-Hawsawi alleges he was subjected to physical and mental torture by the CIA. These allegations include sexual penetration by a foreign object, exposure to noise and light, continuous use of leg shackles, and solitary confinement. Al-Hawsawi claims he now suffers from many medical conditions, such as rectal hemorrhoids, hearing loss, and chronic migraines which he maintains were caused by the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques. Al-Hawsawi also alleges that he was denied access to communication with family members, counsel, and doctors during his detention. 

Al-Hawsawi asserts Lithuania enabled the alleged inhumane treatment by permitting his detention there and allowing him to be transferred to other CIA detention sites where he was subjected to similar mistreatment. The ECHR agreed with many of his complaints and found that Lithuania had violated the prohibition against inhuman and degrading treatment, as well as al-Hawsawi’s rights to a fair trial, liberty and security. The court awarded al-Hawsawi €100,000 in compensation, and Lithuania agreed to comply.

Essential to the court’s judgment was evidence from a 2014 declassified U.S. Senate Report, which gave details on the CIA’s secret detainee program.  The court also relied on prior cases including Al Nashiri v. Poland and Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania for relevant testimony from expert witnesses.

After his time at Detention Site Violet and another facility in Afghanistan, al-Hawsawi was transferred to Guantánamo Bay, where he is currently on trial with the U.S. Military Commission for his alleged role in al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks.

For further information, please see:

European Court of Human Rights, Case of al-Hawsawi v. Lithuania, January 16, 2024 

European Court of Human Rights, Press Release, Case of al-Hawsawi v. Lithuania , January 16, 2024

Reuters, Lithuania Broke Human Rights Laws In Case Tied to CIA Detention Program, European Court Rules, January 16, 2024 

The Guardian, ECHR Rules Lithuania Allowed “Inhuman” of Alleged 9/11 Suspect by CIA, January 16, 2024

Senate Intelligence Committee, Report Of The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Committee Study of The Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program, December 9, 2014

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Legal Case Demands Details About How CIA Used Windowless Warehouse In Lithuania As Secret Prison, September 2, 2015

 

ECHR Holds Polish Abortion Legislation Violates European Convention on Human Rights

By: Molly Osinoff

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

POLAND – On December 14, 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held that Poland’s legislative amendments that forced a woman to travel abroad to have an abortion breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for private and family life.

 
A protest in Krakow, Poland following abortion restrictions | Photo Courtesy of the New York Times.
 

Poland’s abortion laws are among the most restrictive in Europe. Prior to 2020, abortion was legal in Poland in only three situations: fetal abnormalities, pregnancies caused by rape or incest, and threats to the women’s life or health. In 2020, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling restricted abortion access even further. While the latter two reasons remain legal, the Tribunal banned abortions due to fetal abnormalities, which make up approximately 98% of the abortions performed annually in Poland, reasoning that terminating a pregnancy violates the unborn child’s Constitutional guarantee to life. As a result, the 2020 ruling is effectively a total abortion ban.

The plaintiff in the recent case, M.L. v. Poland, was scheduled for a legal abortion in early 2021 in a Warsaw hospital. After becoming pregnant in late 2020, she discovered that the fetus had Trisomy 21, also known as Down Syndrome. On the day before the procedure, however, the Constitutional Court’s judgment went into effect. M.L.’s doctors informed her that she could no longer have an abortion in the facility or in any other medical institution in Poland. As a result, M.L. traveled to the Netherlands, where she had an abortion in a private clinic.

M.L. alleged that she had been forced to make a choice between giving birth to a child with Trisomy 21 and traveling abroad to have an abortion, resulting in severe emotional suffering. The ECHR held in her favor, holding that Poland’s restriction on abortion in the instance of fetal abnormality, when sought for reasons of health and well-being, came within the Article 8 scope of the right to respect for her private life. Further, the Court noted that “private life,” as meant in Article 8 of the Convention, encompasses the right to personal autonomy and personal development and concerns subjects such as gender identification, sexual orientation, sexual life, physical and psychological integrity, including the decision whether to have a child or to become genetic parents.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – M.L. v. Poland – 18 Oct. 2021.

ECHR – Woman Forced to Travel Abroad to Have an Abortion Following Legislating Amendments in Poland Breached the Convention – 14 Dec. 2023.

New York Times – Near-Total Abortion Ban Takes Effect in Poland, and Thousands Protest – 27 Jan. 2021.

New York Times – Poland Court Ruling Effectively Bans Legal Abortions – 22 Oct. 2020.

Pulitzer Center – Poland’s Abortion Ban Is Changing Maternal Health Care – 13 Oct. 2023.

 

 

Russia Sends No Representation to ECHR Grand Chamber Hearing Regarding Russian Occupation of Crimea

By: Rachel Wallisky

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On December 13, 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held a Grand Chamber Hearing in the case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea). However, the Russian Government failed to notify the court of the names of their representatives prior to the hearing, nor did any representatives appear on its behalf. The ECHR elected to continue with the hearing, pursuant to Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of the Court. The Ukrainian Government is represented by Marharyta Sokorenko, Ben Emmerson, Iyrna Mudra, Andrii Luksha, and Oleksii Yakubenko.

 
The ECHR Grand Chamber Hearing of December 13, 2023, in the case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) | Photo Courtesy of the ECHR.
 

The Complaints

The Hearing relates to three inter-state applications filed by Ukraine in the ECHR over the past decade. Two applications submitted to the Court by Ukraine in 2014 and 2015 were joined in 2018. The ECHR issued a decision establishing its jurisdiction over the application on December 16, 2020.

The Ukrainian Government argues in its application that Russia has exercised “effective control” over Crimea, the City of Sevastopol, and integral parts of Ukraine since February 27, 2014. By doing so, the Ukrainian Government argues that Russia has violated several Articles of the Convention including Article 2 and Article 3, the Right to Life and Prohibition of Inhuman Treatment and Torture, respectively.

Specifically, Ukraine argues that between February 27, 2014 and August 16, 2015, Russia exercised an administrative practice of “enforced disappearances” of “perceived opponents to Russia,” especially Ukrainian soldiers, ethnic Ukrainians, and Tartars, and that Russia failed to engage in any adequate investigation of those disappearances.

The Hearing

The Hearing began with a reading of a summary of the applications being considered and the complaints surrounding them. The President of the ECHR, Síofra O’Leary, noted that Russia ceased to be a party to the ECHR on September 16, 2022. However, because Russia was a member of the Counsel of Europe at the time of the complaints, it cannot escape its obligations under the Convention. President O’Leary noted that though the ECHR had maintained communication with Russia regarding the allegations made against it by Ukraine, Russia has not communicated with the Court since leaving the ECHR.

When addressing the Court, Mr. Emmerson remarked that it was “unprecedented” that a Hearing continued though only one party was present for arguments. Mr. Emmerson argued that Russia’s “enforced disappearance” practices during its occupation of Crimea fell under Article 2 because the failure of the Russian government to acknowledge that a person had been imprisoned or killed increased the likelihood that they would be subject to inhumane treatment, regardless  of if the person is later released or their killing acknowledged.

A ruling from the ECHR can be expected “at a later stage” but a recording of the Grand Chamber Hearing is available on the ECHR’s website.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – European Court of Human Rights Communicates to Russia New Inter-State Case Concerning Events in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine – 1 October 2015

ECHR – European Court of Human Rights Deals With Cases Concerning Crimea and Eastern Ukraine – 26 November 2014

ECHR – Grand Chamber Hearing on Inter-State Case Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) – 13 Dec. 2023

ECHR – Interim Measure Granted in Inter-State Case Brought by Ukraine Against Russia – 13 March 2014

ECHR – New Inter-State Application Brought by Ukraine Against Russia – 27 August 2018

ECHR – Rules of Court – 30 October 2023

ECHR – Webcast of Grand Chamber Hearing in Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18) – 13 Dec. 2023