Aug 21, 2018 | News
The ICJ and its Polish Section (ICJ Poland) today expressed their support for the actions of the Supreme Court to defend the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in Poland, including by recourse to the European Court of Justice (CJEU).
This happened in the face of repeated attack by political figures and authorities.
Preserving and safeguarding the independence of the courts is essential for the protection of human rights in Poland, the organizations said.
The ICJ and ICJ Poland urged the Polish executive and legislative authorities to cease all interference with the conduct of the Supreme Court in the carrying out of its legitimate functions.
The law on the Supreme Court that has led to the forced “retirement” of one third of the Supreme Court, including the President of the Court, Małgorzata Gersdorf, must be repealed and the judges reinstated in office, the ICJ and ICJ Poland stressed.
On 2 August, the Supreme Court of Poland took the welcome step, in accordance with European Union law, of submitting a preliminary ruling request to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) seeking its interpretation on the compliance of the recent legislation on retirement ages of judges with EU law.
Specifically, the Supreme Court enquired as to the legislation’s compliance with the principle of irremovability of judges and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age under Directive 2000/78. The Supreme Court has suspended the implementation of the law during the proceedings before the CJEU.
The ICJ and ICJ Poland condemn the attacks against the Supreme Court by political authorities, including President Andrzej Duda, who claimed that the suspension of the law’s implementation has no legal basis.
On the contrary, the Supreme Court of Poland acted in compliance with its duties under article 267 of Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union to raise a question concerning the interpretation of the Treaties and, in conformity with the case-law of the CJEU, to suspend the application of such measures which may violate the law of the European Union, pending resolution of the question.
The legislation raises serious issues of EU law, both in regard to protection of the rule of law under Article 2 of the TFEU, and in regard to discrimination on grounds of age.
This attack against the actions of the Supreme Court occurs amid a systematic undermining of the independence of the judiciary in Poland by the Polish executive and legislative authorities, which the ICJ, ICJ Poland, and judges of the global ICJ network have repeatedly condemned.
The organizations emphasize that irremovability of judges is one of the main pillars of judicial independence and therefore of the rule of law. An ICJ letter of 11 July 2018, signed by 22 senior judges from all regions of the world, urged the Polish government to act immediately to reinstate the forcibly retired judges in office.
Dec 18, 2014 | News
Today’s Opinion by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg on the European Union’s (EU) accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a regrettable setback for human rights in Europe, said Amnesty International, the ICJ and the AIRE Centre.
Dec 2, 2014 | News
Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in the joint cases of A, B and C v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie.
It affirms the need for national authorities to undertake individualized credibility assessments in asylum cases involving claims of persecution based on sexual orientation.
The ruling concerned a request for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands, through its Council of State, to the CJEU.
The cases arose from three applications for asylum in the Netherlands by three men claiming a well-founded fear of persecution in their countries of origin based on their alleged same-sex sexual orientation.
The Dutch authorities rejected each asylum claim on the basis that each applicant had failed to prove his same-sex sexual orientation.
The Council of State asked the CJEU what limits the EU Qualification Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in particular article 3 (right to the integrity of the person) and article 7 (respect for private and family life), impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and whether these limits are different from those applying to the assessment of credibility in asylum claims based on other grounds.
Interpreting the Qualification Directive in light of articles 3 and 7 of the Charter, as well as article 1, i.e. human dignity, the Court held that EU law does impose certain requirements on refugee status determination authorities.
The ICJ welcomes the Court’s determination that the competent domestic authorities must ensure that any credibility assessment method must allow for an individualized consideration of each applicant’s claim, having regard to its specific features, and that it is the duty of the State to cooperate with the applicant in the context of the assessment of all the relevant elements of her or his claim.
The ICJ welcomes a number of other aspects of the ruling, including:
- The emphasis on the Netherland’s need to comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
- The fact that the Court firmly came down against seemingly intrusive and lewd questioning of an applicant’s sexual practices and proclivities, which it held to be contrary to respect for private and family life; and,
- The Court’s awareness of the particular challenges relating to the disclosure of one’s sexuality. The court noted that an applicant may be understandably reticent in revealing intimate aspects of his or her life and that therefore late disclosure of same-sex sexual orientation should not necessarily undermine the applicant’s credibility.
See also the ICJ’s commentary on the CJEU judgment in X, Y and Z v. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel.
Jun 3, 2014 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs
The ICJ’s commentary analyses in detail the 7 November 2013 judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in joined cases arising from three asylum claims asserting a well-founded fear of persecution based on same-sex sexual orientation.
Positively, in X, Y and Z v. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel, the Court found that asylum applicants who have a same-sex sexual orientation and come from countries where consensual homosexual conduct is criminalized, form a particular social group for the purposes of EU refugee law.
Further, the Court’s recognition that sexual orientation is a characteristic so fundamental to one’s identity that one cannot be expected to renounce or conceal it, or to exercise greater restraint in its expression than heterosexuals, is welcome.
Likewise, the Court’s finding that the enforcement of a term of imprisonment that sanctions consensual homosexual acts must be regarded as a disproportionate or discriminatory punishment, and is thus persecutory, is a step forward, particularly given that in some EU countries this was hitherto not the case.
However, in some important respects this judgment represents a missed opportunity. The Court failed to clarify the inconsistency between secondary EU refugee law and the UNHCR’s authoritative interpretation of “a particular social group” in the Refugee Convention’s definition of a refugee.
Further, in choosing to maintain the narrow scope of the questions referred to it, the Court ended up with an unwarrantedly restrictive reading of EU refugee law, which ignores the numerous persecutory effects of criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Court missed a chance to state that these laws, even when they are not enforced in the sense that there exists a recent record of enforcement through the actual imposition of terms of imprisonment, have a persecutory effect, as they criminalize an essential characteristic of one’s identity.
Background
The ICJ decided to publish this commentary for a number of reasons.
First, the CJEU plays an important role in shaping international refugee law jurisprudence.
Further, asylum applications based on a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of real or imputed sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression are unfortunately likely to increase, both within the EU and beyond.
Moreover, the CJEU’s judgment in this case is likely to have a bearing on the determination of asylum claims premised on membership of other particular social groups.
Lastly, the implementation by the EU and its Member States of the recently “recast” Common European Asylum System will likely give rise to several new referrals to the Court, whose interpretation of the recast instruments will also depend on its asylum case law precedents, including the CJEU’s judgment in this case.
CommentaryXYZ-Advocacy-2014
