DE CE DAVID CAMERON VREA SA DENUNTE CONVENTIA EUROPEANA A DREPTURILOR OMULUIWHY DAVID CAMERON WANTS UK OUT OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIG

dc1.jpeg

In pre-campania electorala in care Partidul Conservator s-a lansat cu forte noi, dupa succesul de la Referendumul din Scotia, dl. David Cameron a promis ca, daca in aplicarea sa, Conventiei Europene a Drepturilor Omului nu va fi reinterpretata, Marea Britanie se gandeste sa o denunte, respectiv sa se retraga din Tratat.
Nu este o problema noua, mai multe State semnatare, printre care Marea Britanie si Irlanda ocupa un loc de frunte, protestand fata de directia in care se indreapta Jurisprudenta Curtii, alienandu-se din ce in ce mai mult de valorile traditionale specifice statelor membre.
Irlanda este nemultumita de ingerinta Curtii in politica avorturilor, Marea Britanie de amestecul in politica sa de expulzare a persoanelor neagreate, Italia de condamnarile pentru lipsa garantiilor in domeniul proprietatilor, etc.
Ceea ce este de retinut este ca nu Conventia este criticata, dl.David Cameron dand asigurari ca prevederile acesteia urmeaza a fi preluate in legislatia interna, ci Curtea si jurisprudenta acesteia.
Iar decizia pronuntata recent in cazul Yukos vs Rusia intareste controversa ce a crescut incet in jurul politicii Curtii si a mecanismelor ce determina luarea hotararilor.
In 31 iulie 2014, Curtea Europena a Drepturilor Omului a obligat Rusia sa plateasca actionarilor societatii OAO Neftyanaya Konaniya Yukos (Yukos) suma de 1.87 miliarde Euro compensatii pentru incalcarea mai multor drepturi, printre care dreptul de proprietate si dreptul la un proces echitabil.
O decizie suprinzatoare dat fiind niveul daunelor la care a fost obligata Rusia si care naste speculatii cu privire la resorturile interne care determina adoptarea hotararilor Curtii.
Aceeasi Curte care, in cazuri care implica incalcari a dreptului la viata sau la integritate fizica, a tratatmentelor neomenoase si chiar a dreptului la proprietate, a acordat despagubiri de doar cateva mii de euro.
Romania a fost condamnata in dosarele Revolutiei la plata de daune cuprinse intre 3.000 si 20.000 Euro celor cateva sute de reclamanti, pentru genocid, in timp ce in dosarele Mineriadei, pentru evenimentele din perioada 13-15 iunie 1991, au fost acordate daune de 30.000 Euro reclamantei Mocanu al carei sot a fost omorat de catre mineri.
AMJ nu contesta gravitatea incalcarii dreptului la proprietate, un drept substantial in orice stat de drept si a carui respectare este esentiala.
Insa, tocmai pentru ca insasi Conventia statueaza ca toti oamenii sunt egali, deci si drepturilor lor au aceeasi origine si legitimitate, o astfel de masurare diferita a unor drepturi de catre Curte da nastere la indoieli cu privire la independenta si impartialitatea si, pana la urma, la moralitatea mecanismului decizional din cadrul Curtii.
Romania a cunoscut unele din cele mai grave incalcari ale dreptului de proprietate din Europa, abuzurile regimului comunist prelungindu-se pana in prezent, iar problema proprietatii ramand nerezolvata.
Cu toate acestea, incalcarea dreptului la proprietate de catre Statul Roman a fost sanctionata cu daune minime.
Mai mult, in prezent, Curtea a pactizat cu Statul Roman, prelungind sine die asteptarea fostilor proprietari pana la un moment neprecizat la care legislatia interna va fi modificata.
In aceste conditii, prin comparatie, nu numai ca despagubirile acordate actionarilor Yukos sunt disproportionat de mari, dar Curtea poate fi suspectata de politici discriminatorii si interesate.
Si atunci cand astfel de suspiciuni se nasc in legatura cu o institutie a carei legitimitate se bazeaza pe recunoastere voluntara din partea Statului,
Putem sa ne intrebam daca nu cumva dl.David Cameron are macar putina dreptate atunci cand ridica vocea impotriva Curtii si a politicilor sale.
Din pacate, Statul Roman nu are motive de nemultumire impotriva practicii CEDO, poate si pentru ca are o abordare mult mai balcanica: a inteles ca cel mai simplu mod de a castiga procesele la Curte este sa se asigure ca ele nu sunt niciodata judecate.
Aceasta prin declararea ca inadmisibile a petitiilor.
Iar aici, cel mai important rol il joaca personalul auxiliar, numit de fiecare parte contractanta, si care are puterea sa determine declararea ca inadmisibila a cererilor.
De cand Ministerul de externe roman a inteles acest lucru, gradul de inadmisibilitate a cererilor resortisantilor romani a crescut, iar personalul auxiliar roman a primit multumiri (si stagii suplimentare) din partea institutiilor romane.
Un exemplu de urmat, chiar si de dl. Cameron, pentru a nu aduce atingere unor institutii cu traditie cum este Curtea!In a sort of an electoral pre campaign of the Tories, launched with new forces after the rejection of the Scotland Referendum, Mr. David Cameron promised that UK might consider withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) after the elections if the European Court of Human Rights will continue to move further more from the principals that UK signed up at the very beginning.
This is no new issue, more and more members of the Convention, UK and Ireland being in the front line, protesting against the policy of Court stepping into some areas considered to be more a question of sovereignty exercise such as the right of vote for the prisoners, extradition, the right to abortion.
The important thing is that not the Convention in itself it is criticised, Mr. Cameron promising that the human rights convention will be replace by a Bill of Rights, but the Court and its jurisprudence.
It might be useful for understanding the nature of the controversy to recall the decision made by the Court in Yukos case.
On 31 July 2014, ECHR ruled against Russia and in favour of the shareholders of former Yukos company deciding that Russia must pay as compensation, for the violation of a fair trial right and the protection of property, 1.87 billions Euro.
Unexpected decision for the amount of the award and that can rise speculations related to the hidden resorts behind the Court’s decision.
The same Court that, in other cases where the right to life, physical integrity, inhuman treatments and even of the property right, awarded compensations of some thousands euros.
I.e., the Court ruled against Romania for the events of 1989 (Revolutie), awarding between 3.000 and 20.000 Euro compensations to the victims of genocide, while in the claims related to the events of 1991 (Mineriada), also qualified as genocyd, 30.000 Euro compensations were awarded to widowed for the death of her husband and father of her unborn child.
The Association for Monitorising the Justice does not contest the gravity of any violation of property right, a fundamental right in any State of Law.
However, as the Convention states that all human beings are equals, so their rights have the same source and legitimacy, such double standard raise doubts in relation to the independence, impartiality and, at the end of the day, to the morality of the decision-making process of the Court.
The property right has been violated in Romania almost more than in any other European country, a problem that still exists, but the claims of the Romanian nationals were awarded minimum compensations.
Lately, the ECHR made a pact with Romania suspending sine die all the claims of the Romanian nationals related to the violation of property rights.
Therefor, by comparing, not only that the compensations awarded in Yukos case are inconceivable big, but also the Court can be accused of discriminatory policies.
And when such suspicions rise related to an institution which legitimacy its based on the voluntary recognition of member States, we can ask ourselves if David Cameron does not have, at least a little bit right questioning the Court and it’s ruling.
On the contrary, the Romanian State has no critics for the ruling of the Court, maybe because its approach is a more balcanic one. Romania understood very quickly that the simplest way to win a litigation is by not having it ruled, meaning by having the claims rejected as inadmissible.
From this angle, the most important role is played by the Registry staff (administrative and legal support for the Court) that has the capacity to have the claims rejected as inadmissible before they even reach the panel, through a variety of procedures — bad translations, loss of evidences from the files, disjunction of claims, never-ending correspondence without any purpose but to delay the judgment, etc.
It has to be said that the Registry personnel is delegated by the State members to the ECHR and they mediate the relation between the jurisdictional Court and parties (claimant and defendant).
The moment that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania properly understood the mechanism, the percentage of inadmissibility of the claims skyrocketed and the personnel of the Registry received thanks and rewards and their mandate was extended.
A much simpler solution to Mr. Cameron’s problem.

Be Sociable, Share!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *