Guide for the drafting of action plans and reports for the execution of

DIRECTORATE GENERAL

HUMAN RIGHTS AND RULE OF LAW

DIRECTORATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS

DEPARTMENT FOR THE EXECUTION OF

JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT

OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Series « Vade-mecum » n° 1

Guide for the drafting of action plans and

reports for the execution of judgments of the

European Court of Human Rights

FOREWORD

In order for the system for the supervision of the execution of judgments of the European Court of

Human Rights to be effective, it is important for the respondent state to indicate as soon as possible

after a judgment has become final what it considers necessary for the judgment’s execution. This

requirement emerges clearly from the Rules of the Committee of Ministers and, to make it clear

what it expects from respondent states in this regard, the Committee introduced the notion of

“action plan” into its working methods in 2004

. Subsequently, in a decision on measures to improve

the execution of the Court’s judgments, adopted at the 1059

(DH) meeting in June 2009, the

Committee of Ministers invited States to provide an action plan and/or an action report as soon as

possible, and at the latest within six months of a judgment becoming final.

The reform of the working methods of the Committee of Ministers undertaken after the Interlaken

Conference, which resulted in the twin-track supervision process, gives action plans and reports a

crucial role in this process. The submission of action plans and reports accordingly became obligatory

in 2011.

In the declaration adopted on 27 March 2015 at the High Level Conference held in Brussels, the State

Parties were invited “to continue to increase their efforts to submit, within the stipulated deadlines,

comprehensive action plans and reports, key tools in the dialogue between the Committee of

Ministers and the States Parties, which can contribute also to enhanced dialogue with other

stakeholders, such as the Court, national parliaments or National Human Rights Institutions”.

Action plans and reports have thus become key elements in the supervision of execution, making a

major contribution to the increased transparency and dynamism of the execution process.

On the initiative of the Norwegian Chairmanship.

Reference documents:

Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly

settlements

Decision adopted at the 1100th (DH) meeting in December 2010 (point e.)

Information document CM/Inf/DH(2010)37, 6 September 2010 – Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions

of the European Court of Human Rights: Implementation of the Interlaken Action Plan – Modalities for a twin-track

supervision system

Information document CM/Inf/DH(2010)45 final, 7 December 2010 - Supervision of the execution of judgments and

decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: Implementation of the Interlaken Action Plan – Outstanding issues

concerning the practical modalities of implementation of the new twin-track supervision system

Conclusions of the Round table on action plans and reports in the twin-track supervision procedure, held in Strasbourg on

13-14 October 2014

The purpose of this document is to:

· clarify the structure of action plans and reports and the type of information required;

· reiterate the time-limits for submitting these documents to the Committee of Ministers and

updating them;

· present examples of good practices put in place by the authorities to optimise the collection

of the necessary information and the timely production of these documents, inter alia, in the

light of the discussions and conclusions of the Multilateral round table on States’ action plans

and reports for the implementation of the European Court’s judgments: current practice and

future perspectives, held in Strasbourg on 13 and 14 October 2014.

Contents

I – What is an action plan/report? .......................................................................................................3

A. Definition of action plan/report ..................................................................................................3

B. General aspects ..........................................................................................................................4

II - Structure of action plans and reports and type of information required .........................................5

A. Case description..........................................................................................................................5

B. Individual measures ....................................................................................................................6

C. General measures .......................................................................................................................7

D. Conclusion of the authorities .................................................................................................... 10

E. Appendices to action plans and reports ..................................................................................... 10

III – Procedural questions .................................................................................................................. 10

A. Submission of action plans and reports and updating of action plans ........................................ 10

IV – Current practices concerning measures to be taken by the authorities to optimise the collection

of the necessary information and the timely production of action plans and reports ........................ 12

A. Collection of information .......................................................................................................... 12

B. Drafting of action plans and reports .......................................................................................... 14

I – What is an action plan/report?

A. Definition of action plan/report

Action plan

An action plan is a document setting out the measures the respondent state has taken and intends to

take to implement a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, including an indicative

timetable for the adoption and implementation of those measures.

The plan will, if possible, set out all measures necessary to implement the judgment. Where it is not

possible to determine all measures immediately, the plan will set out the steps to be taken to

determine the measures required.

An action plan is an evolving document. It must be regularly updated throughout the execution

process with up-to-date information on developments that have occurred in the adoption of the

measures originally planned. An action plan must also be revised if the authorities consider that the

measures originally planned need to be revisited in the light of new developments.

Action report

An action report is a report by the respondent state setting out all the measures taken to implement

a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and/or an explanation of why no measures, or no

further measures, are necessary.

When all the measures described in the action plan(s) initially submitted by the State have been

adopted, the final updating of the action plan turns it into an action report. Where no measures are

required or the necessary measures were already taken at an early stage, the State directly submits

an action report.

It should be noted that an action plan or report is only required for:

· reference cases (“precedents”),

· groups of cases,

· repetitive (“clone”) cases whose precedents have been closed,

· friendly settlements containing specific undertakings (other than payment of a sum of

money).

With regard to repetitive cases added to groups of cases still pending before the Committee of

Ministers, information on the individual measures necessary for execution can usually be provided

when the action plan is updated for the group as a whole. However, if it appears from the judgment

that urgent individual measures are required, the relevant information will need to be provided as

quickly as possible, if necessary in a separate communication (see section III.A below). The

authorities will subsequently include this information in an updated action plan or in the action

report on the group as a whole.

Referencedocuments:

Information document CM/Inf/DH(2010)37, 6 September 2010 – Supervision of the execution of judgments and

decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: Implementation of the Interlaken Action Plan – Modalities for a

twin-tracksupervisionsystem,AppendixI,§§5-7

InformationdocumentCM/Inf/DH(2009)29revof3June2009–ActionPlans–ActionReport

B. General aspects

The purpose of action plans and reports is to enable the Committee of Ministers to exercise informed

supervision. It is vital, therefore, that these documents provide a clear and accurate picture of the

issues/problems raised by a case, the nature of the measures planned and/or adopted, as well as

their impact and their ability to resolve the problems involved.

Concision

An action plan/report must be concise and relate exclusively to the execution stage of the final

judgment in question. It is not useful therefore to information already laid before the Court which is

no longer relevant at the execution stage.

When the issues raised in a case form part of a wider set of issues, it may sometimes be difficult to

choose which information to include in the action plan/report. To facilitate this choice, it may be

useful to classify measures according to their relevance to the process of executing the Court’s

judgment. Two categories of measures can be identified:

· Measures necessary for the execution of the judgment: these measures must absolutely be

included and explained in the action plan or report;

· Additional measures, complementing the first category, which go beyond what is strictly

necessary to execute the judgment, but which, in a wider perspective than that of the

judgment, are useful for ongoing development of the national legislation referred to in the

judgment: these measures can be included in the action plan or report.

Clarity and accessibility

When drafting action plans or reports, it should be borne in mind that the readers of these

documents are not necessarily familiar with the domestic law of the country in question.

Furthermore, although they are intended primarily for the Committee of Ministers, action plans and

reports are public documents which are closely followed in the outside world too. Measures taken or

planned should therefore be presented and explained in a clear and accessible manner.

In this connection, it is important to ensure that action plans and reports permit an understanding of

the situation and of the execution status without there being any need to consult other documents

such as the Court’s judgment or previous submissions by the Government.

Referencedocuments:

Information document CM/Inf/DH(2010)37, 6 September 2010 – Supervision of the execution of judgments and

decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: Implementation of the Interlaken Action Plan – Modalities for a

twin-tracksupervisionsystem

InformationdocumentCM/Inf/DH(2010)45final,7December2010-Supervisionoftheexecutionofjudgmentsand

decisionsoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights:ImplementationoftheInterlakenActionPlan–Outstandingissues

concerningthepracticalmodalitiesofimplementationofthenewtwin-tracksupervisionsystem

InformationdocumentCM/Inf/DH(2009)29revof3June2009–ActionPlans–ActionReport

II - Structure of action plans and reports and type of information required

An action plan/report comprises the following sections: description of the case or group of cases

concerned (A), individual measures (B), general measures (C) and the conclusion of the authorities

(D) ; it may also include appendices (E).

Taken together, the main sections of the action plan or report (parts A to C above) must show that

the proposed measures meet the state’s obligation to produce a result. The case description must

establish the framework for execution: it sets out the source of the violation (or each violation if

there are several) which will enable an assessment of the relevance of the measures proposed to

remedy the violation. In the same way, the presentation of individual measures must bring out the

link between the just satisfaction awarded by the Court and other individual measures needed to

ensure, as far as possible, restitutio in integrum for the injured party.

If the general measures needed to redress one or more violations are being considered in the context

of other cases or groups of cases, a simple reference to the cases or groups of cases concerned is

sufficient.

A. Case description

The description of the case must show the origin of the violation found by the Court.

To be included:

- a brief indication of the subject of the case/group of cases

- a summary of the relevant facts with dates

- a brief description of the violation(s) found by the Court

To be avoided:

- a statement of all the grounds of complaint pleaded before the Court (only findings of violations

are relevant)

- an excessively long and detailed description of the facts (only the key elements constituting the

violation are relevant)

Advice:

- it is possible to use the case description published on the Execution Department’s website

Further details:

The description of the violation reflects what the Court found to be in breach of the

Convention. The aim is not to summarise the Court’s judgment but to identify the problem

identified.

The relevant facts are those which led to the Court’s findings. Even if this is explained in

detail in the section on general measures, the summary should highlight the cause of the

dysfunction.

It is essential to specify the date of the violation. By having a timeframe for the violation, the

authorities can identify the applicable legal or regulatory framework or the practice of the

courts at the material time and whether there have been any changes in the meantime. This

information is crucial for identifying the need to adopt measures.

For example, if the case is similar to another one pending before the Committee of Ministers,

the date makes it possible to determine whether the violation occurred before the general

measures taken in the reference case (in which case no further general measures are needed)

or whether, having occurred after the adoption of the general measures in the reference

case, the violation is a sign that those measures were insufficient and that additional general

measures are needed.

B. Individual measures

The purpose of individual measures is to ensure that the violation has ended and that the injured

party is restored, as far as possible, to his or her situation prior to the violation of the Convention.

This section must therefore describe:

- the consequences of the violation suffered by the applicant;

- the damages covered by the just satisfaction awarded;

- the measures taken or envisaged to remedy any consequences of the violation not covered by

the just satisfaction awarded.

It is important for the authorities to state their conclusion regarding individual measures:

- if no measure is considered necessary, it is important to explain why no consequences of the

violation persist or why the consequences suffered by the applicant as a result of the violation

cannot be redressed;

- if the consequences of the violation suffered by the applicant can only be partially redressed, it

is important to explain why;

- if the individual measures required depend on the prior adoption of general measures, it is

important to indicate this.

Further details:

The two aspects of individual measures

There are two aspects to the obligation to adopt individual measures and provide redress to

the applicant. The first is the obligation for the state to provide any just satisfaction – usually

a sum of money – which the Court may have awarded under Article 41 of the Convention.

The second aspect is related to the fact that the consequences of a violation for the applicant

are not always suitably redressed through the mere award of a sum of money by the Court or

the finding of a violation. Depending on the circumstances, the fundamental obligation to

ensure as far as possible restitutio in integrum may therefore call for additional measures (for

example, the reopening of criminal proceedings found to be unfair, the implementation of an

non-enforced national judicial decision or the revocation of an expulsion order issued against

a foreigner despite a real risk of torture or other forms of ill-treatment in the country of

return).

For this reason, although the new procedure for supervision of the execution of judgments of

the Court includes simplified registration of the payment of just satisfaction

, it is useful to

recall in the action plan/report what the sums, if any, awarded by the Court covered. The

Court may also have provided other indications under Article 41 which will be important for

assessing the individual measures required.

The presentation of individual measures in large groups of cases

It is recommended that information on individual measures be provided for all the cases

forming part of a group in the action plan/report for that group. If there are a large number of

cases, this information may also be set out in an appendix to the action plan/report. When a

It is sufficient to complete the special form for recording payment - which can be accessed by delegations on the

restricted collaborative space https://cs.coe.int/team21/DM_EXEC/Just%20satisfaction%20form/Forms/AllItems.aspx

- and return it to the Execution Department, which will register it and send an acknowledgement of receipt to the state

concerned. If the applicant raises any objection, the problem will be discussed by the Execution Department with the

delegation concerned on the basis of the supporting documents kept by the national authorities and in the light of any

other relevant information, in order to find an appropriate solution. In exceptional cases, if warranted by the situation, the

matter can be referred to the Committee of Ministers.

new case is added to a group, information on the individual measures required may initially

be set out in a separate communication, but will have to be added in due course to the action

plan/report when it is updated.

The importance of giving an indicative timetable for the further stages of the execution

process

Action plans which state that there are still individual measures to be taken must include an

indicative timetable for their implementation. This timetable plays an important role in the

execution process by ensuring that it is transparent and foreseeable for all concerned,

particularly applicants. Thus, in the case of a continuing violation, such as ongoing judicial

proceedings whose outcome is awaited, it is important not only to state the measures the

authorities intend to take to put an end to this situation, but also to indicate as far as possible

a timeframe for their implementation (next hearing, deadline for the submission of an

expert’s report, etc.). The same applies to individual measures intended to erase the

consequences of a violation which has ceased.

With specific reference to urgent individual measures, see section III.A below.

Referencedocuments:

Recommendation(2000)2of19January2000oftheCommitteeofMinisterstomemberstatesonthere-examination

orreopeningofcertaincasesatdomesticlevelfollowingjudgmentsoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights

Information document CM/Inf/DH(2008)7 final – Monitoring of the payment of sums awarded by way of just

satisfaction:anoverviewoftheCommitteeofMinisters'presentpractice

Information document CM/Inf/DH(2010)37, 6 September 2010 – Supervision of the execution of judgments and

decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: Implementation of the Interlaken Action Plan – Modalities for a

twin-tracksupervisionsystem

C. General measures

General measures must be taken to prevent further violations similar to those found and/or to put

an end to continuing violations.

This section should therefore present:

- the authorities’ assessment as to the source of the violation;

- their assessment of the extent of the violation and of the need for general measures;

- any measures already taken;

- measures still envisaged, including, where appropriate, interim measures, with an indicative

timetable for their adoption;

- the authorities’ assessment as to the impact – noted or expected – of these measures.

If a specific violation is regarded as an isolated case, it is important to explain briefly why it is

regarded as such.

In any event, as with individual measures, it is important that the authorities indicate clearly their

conclusion on the status of execution of this aspect of the case, specifying whether the measures

already taken are considered sufficient for the purposes of execution or whether additional

measures are necessary or envisaged, or whether the need for further measures has still to be

assessed.

Further details:

Origin/source(s) of the violation

To determine the appropriate measures it is first necessary to identify the origin of the violation

found by the Court. The action plan or report must therefore contain the authorities’ assessment

on this subject, including, where appropriate, a reference to the Court’s findings enabling the

sources of the violation to be identified. Any other information corroborating this assessment

may be added, such as details of domestic law and practice in the matter with which the

judgment is concerned.

A violation is sometimes the result of several different causes, such as the lack of an appropriate

legal framework combined with complex administrative procedures and an unforeseeable

change in the relevant case law. If this is the case, the action plan or report must set out all these

causes.

Assessment of the extent of the violation and of the need for general measures

The action plan should include the authorities’ assessment of the extent of the violation and of

the need to take general measures (or general measures complementing those already set out in

an earlier version of the action plan). The measures required will of course be assessed in relation

to the present situation. It is possible that the situation may have changed since the material

time. In such a case, any changes should first be presented in order to infer from them any

measures which may still be necessary. It is very important to clearly show how the proposed

changes will remedy the situation criticised by the Court’s judgment.

Presentation of measures taken and/or envisaged

The action plan should describe the measures to be taken and give an indicative timetable for

their implementation. If adopting the necessary measures is a lengthy process, it is important

also to indicate any interim measures adopted to prevent as far as possible similar violations

from occurring pending the adoption of more comprehensive or permanent reforms.

The action plan should also include an explanation of the expected effects of the measures. In

other words, the action plan or report should reveal how these measures will prevent similar

violations in future.

Impact of the measures adopted

In an action report, it may be necessary in some situations to present not only the measures

adopted but also an assessment of their impact. This is very important when the problem stems

from an administrative or judicial practice and it has to be shown that this practice has changed

as a result of the general measures.

The ability of the authorities to analyse the impact of measures adopted is also of paramount

importance in situations calling for a wide range of different measures (for example, in cases of

excessive length of proceedings or of prison overcrowding). In such circumstances, it may be

useful for the action plan/report to present not only information making it possible to assess the

impact of the measures adopted, but also the measures taken to ensure that the authorities are

able to assess the impact of the measures and respond quickly if further measures prove

necessary.

The importance of giving an indicative timetable for the further stages of the execution process

At national level, the indicative timetable may help, among other things, to establish a clear

framework for the actions of the different parties involved in the execution process. At European

level, the indicative timetable will help to determine the pace of the Committee of Ministers’

supervisory activity. It is also important for other interested parties, such as the European Court

of Human Rights and the Parliamentary Assembly, which may find grounds in this timetable to

consider that the execution process seems to be progressing in a foreseeable and justified

manner at national level.

As the term “indicative timetable” suggests, the timeframes indicated by the respondent state

are not final. The indicative timetable may be reviewed and adjusted depending on how the

execution process develops. It may be thought of as a kind of “roadmap” accompanying the

action plan, subject to change in the event of obstacles or difficulties encountered during the

execution process.

Question of the existence of domestic remedies

Given its importance for avoiding repetitive applications before the Court, the question of

effective remedies should always be addressed in the action plan/report, even where no

violation of Article 13 is found, especially if the Court’s judgment notes the existence of a

structural problem. Indeed, the Brighton Conference expressed concern at the large number of

repetitive applications pending before the Court and emphasised the importance for states to

provide remedies for all alleged violations of a right protected by the Convention (see also

Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers on the improvement of domestic

remedies, which encourages member states to examine their respective legal systems in the light

of the case-law of the Court and to take, if need be, necessary and adequate measures to

guarantee effective remedies as secured by Article 13 of the Convention).

Question of the publication/dissemination of the Court’s judgment

It should be stressed that the publication and dissemination of a judgment of the Court serve two

purposes. Generally, the aim is to inform interested parties about developments in the Court’s

case-law. In this context, it is useful to note that the Committee of Ministers has recommended

that states should ensure that judgments and decisions which constitute relevant case-law

developments are rapidly and widely published, in their entirety or at least in the form of

substantial summaries or excerpts (together with appropriate references to the original texts) in

the language(s) of the country, in particular in official gazettes, information bulletins from

competent ministries, law journals and other media generally used by the legal community,

including, where appropriate, Internet sites.

In some cases, publication/dissemination also has a specific purpose where it is conceived as a

general measure designed to bring about a change of practice on the part of those at whom it is

aimed (the parties involved in the violation). Sometimes it may even be the only measure

envisaged by the authorities to execute a judgment. In such situations, it is important for the

authorities to explain in the action plan/report what is expected of this measure and how it can

produce this result.

Isolated cases

A specific violation may be regarded as an isolated case where it is intrinsically linked to the

specific circumstances of the case. However, it is not enough to state without an explanation that

the case is an isolated one or a violation linked to the specific circumstances of the case. The

isolated nature of the violation must be demonstrated by indicating what specific circumstances

of the case rule out the occurrence of similar violations in future.

Reference documents:

Recommendation (2004) 6 of 12 May 2004 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the improvement of

domestic remedies

Recommendation (2002) 13 of 18 December 2002 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the publication and

dissemination in the member states of the text of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the

European Court of Human Rights

Information document CM/Inf/DH(2010)37 of 6 September 2010 – Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions

of the European Court of Human Rights: Implementation of the Interlaken Action Plan – Modalities for a twin-track

supervision system

D. Conclusion of the authorities

In the case of an action plan, the conclusion of the authorities should refer to the next stage in the

execution process, indicating when an updated version of the action plan may be submitted to the

Committee of Ministers.

An action report should state the conclusion of the authorities on the individual and general

measures adopted and invite the Committee to end its supervision of the case. If a repetitive

(“clone”) complaint is still under the Committee’s supervision in the context of another case or

group of cases, the action report’s conclusion should point this out, stating the commitment of the

authorities to resolving the problem in that context.

E. Appendices to action plans and reports

In view of the need for concision in an action plan/report, appendices can be a useful tool for

providing further information or examples in support of the statements made. For this tool to be

effective, however, it is important to avoid appending voluminous documents or documents in

languages other than the official languages of the Council of Europe. In such situations, it is

recommended that a summary of the information contained in the appendices be included in the

action plan or report. A reference in the text of the action plan or report is not enough.

III – Procedural questions

This section concerns the different stages which action plans/reports go through in the course of the

execution supervision process. Its purpose is to make it easier to understand where these documents

fit in to the process.

A. Submission of action plans and reports and updating of action plans

Initial time-limit

The action plan or report must be submitted as soon as possible, and in any event no more than 6

months after the judgment becomes final. It is important to under that this is the maximum time-

limit. Often, the action plan or report could be submitted earlier. An earlier submission will even be

necessary in urgent situations or in a pilot judgment which itself contains a deadline for the adoption

of certain measures prescribed by the European Court.

In the latter case, for example, the action plan must be submitted in time for the Committee to be

able to ensure compliance with the time-limit set by the Court.

For cases involving urgent individual measures, the authorities must provide information on

individual measures as soon as the judgment becomes final, if need be in a specific communication.

This information will subsequently be included in the full action plan or report which is to be

submitted within 6 months of the judgment becoming final.

Reminder

Under the new working methods, when states fail to comply with the 6-month time-limit for

submitting an action plan or report to the Committee of Ministers, the Execution Department sends

a reminder letter to the delegation concerned, setting a new time-limit of 3 months under the

standard procedure / 2 months under the enhanced procedure. If a member state has still not

submitted an action plan or report upon expiry of this new time-limit and offers no explanation of

this situation to the Committee of Ministers, the Secretariat is instructed to propose that the

question be examined in detail by the Committee of Ministers under the enhanced procedure

Compliance with the time-limit for submitting information in complex situations

Structural and/or complex problems call, for the most part, for a longer period of reflection to

identify optimal solutions and make a proper evaluation of the time needed to implement them. The

question which therefore arises is what the content of the “General Measures” section will be in the

initial action plan, including as regards the indicative timetable.

In such a situation, the authorities are not expected to submit an initial action plan containing actual

measures of execution, as they have not yet been identified. On the other hand, the action plan will

need to indicate the steps taken by the authorities to identify those measures.

The same applies to the indicative timetable. This will not be a timetable for implementation of the

measures which are supposed to result in execution of the judgment, but a “roadmap” for the

reflection undertaken by the authorities at national level as the first stage in the execution process

(setting up of a group of experts to analyse the situation, approximate timeframe for this group to

deliver its conclusions, etc.).

Updating the initial action plan

The idea underlying the system of continuous monitoring put in place by the twin-track supervision

procedure

is that the Committee of Ministers should be able to follow the progress of the execution

process through regular updating of the action plan.

The action plan must be updated as soon as there are any significant developments in the adoption

of the measures planned. This will involve presenting the measures implemented since the

submission of the previous version of the action plan together with an assessment of their impact. In

this way, the action plan will gradually evolve into the action report, on the basis of which the

Committee of Ministers will be able to decide to end its supervision.

It should be emphasised in this context that it is unnecessary to present an update for every

development in the execution process, but it is important to inform the Committee of Ministers of

any significant advances in the process. It is also necessary to ensure transparency with regard to

any problems or obstacles encountered in the implementation of the action plan and indicate the

solutions envisaged for overcoming those difficulties. Out of the same concern for transparency, the

authorities might wish to include in their updates certain comments made in submissions from NGOs

and the replies given

To aid understanding, it is useful to ensure that the updated action plan retains as far as possible the

structure of the initial plan. It is also desirable for the respondent state to set out all the up-to-date

information in a single document, without references to earlier communications. If, in exceptional

cases, it prefers to supplement its action plan with a separate communication, it is important to

ensure that this communication is followed as soon as possible by the submission of a consolidated

See section IV of information document CM/Inf/DH(2010)45final.

In this procedure, all cases are permanently on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers (an order of business specifying

the cases on which the Committee of Ministers will focus at a given meeting).

In accordance with the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the

terms of friendly settlements (see Rule 9.3), communications from NGOs are brought to the attention of the Committee of

Ministers together with any observations of the delegation concerned provided that the latter are transmitted to the

Secretariat within five working days of having been notified of such communication. Even if they have not replied to the

NGOs’ submissions within the prescribed time-limit, the authorities can still do so by means of a separate communication

submitted after the expiry of that time-limit or in the next updating of the action plan.

plan (or, if applicable, report) including the content of that separate communication. Generally, it is

undesirable for the Committee to have to refer to different documents from the authorities in order

to have an overview of the execution status of a case.

Submission of the action report

When the member state considers that all the measures have been taken and that it has discharged

its obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, the action plan is turned into an action report.

The Secretariat will make a final assessment of the action report at the latest within 6 months of the

submission of this information. If the member state and the Secretariat agree that the measures

implemented are appropriate and sufficient, the Secretariat will propose that the Committee adopt a

final resolution putting an end to its examination of the case.

Reference documents:

Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly

settlements

Information document CM/Inf/DH(2010)45 final, 7 December 2010 - Supervision of the execution of judgments and

decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: Implementation of the Interlaken Action Plan – Outstanding issues

concerning the practical modalities of implementation of the new twin-track supervision system. Also (2010)37

IV – Current practices concerning measures to be taken by the authorities to

optimise the collection of the necessary information and the timely

production of action plans and reports

This section outlines some examples of practices presented in the round tables held in Tirana and

Strasbourg. These examples are not exhaustive and have no binding force. They are intended to

serve as a source of inspiration to those who so wish.

Reference documents

Multilateral Round Table on efficient domestic capacity for rapid execution of judgments of the European Court of Human

Rights, Tirana, 15-16 December 2011

Multilateral round table on states’ action plans and reports for the implementation of the European Court’s judgments:

current practice and future perspectives, Strasbourg on 13 and 14 October 2014

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Themes/Tables_rondes/RoundTables_fr.asp

A. Collection of information

Autority(ies) responsible

The Committee of Ministers has recommended that member states appoint a co-ordinator – an

individual or a body – for the execution of judgments at national level, who/which should have the

necessary powers and authority to acquire relevant information

The Conclusions of the round tables are available at

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Source/Documents/Tables_rondes/TR_Strasbourg_13-

14%20octobre%202014/TR_Strasbourg_Conclusions_EN.pdf

See Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on efficient domestic capacity for

rapid execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as more recently the Brussels Declaration

(Action Plan part B 2) fully endorsed by the Committee of Ministers at the Ministerial session (May 2015).

In most member states, the role of general co-ordinator is played by the Agent of the Government.

But this is not always the case. In the United Kingdom, for example, the role of co-ordinator is

transferred from the Agent of the Government (Ministry of foreign affairs) to the Ministry of Justice

in the execution phase.

However, the primary responsibility for the execution of the judgment often falls to the authority

concerned by the judgment. Inter-ministerial committees or working groups may be set up to decide

the measures to be taken to execute the judgment, especially where the judgment reveals a

structural or complex problem.

Sources of information

To draw up a good action plan/report, it is crucial to first collect all the information relevant to

execution. It is therefore advisable not merely to consult the authorities concerned, but also to call

on other potential sources of information such as national human rights structures (national human

rights institutions and ombudsmen), the various specialist bodies within the Council of Europe (CPT,

ECRI, CEPEJ, etc.) and other intergovernmental organisations (EU, UN), civil society or the media.

Regarding co-operation with civil society, some participants in the round table held in Strasbourg,

sharing their experience in this regard, drew attention to the usefulness of initiating such co-

operation at the preparatory stage of action plans and reports in order to avoid prolonging the

process unnecessarily because of the need to amend the action plan after its publication to reflect

the observations made by NGOs.

Sometimes the necessary information has already been collected in the preparation of a report for

another international body on the same questions. This report can be a source of inspiration for the

action plan or report.

Measures to facilitate the collection of necessary information and to ensure publication of action

plans/reports

The Committee of Ministers has given a series of relevant recommendations for the collection of

necessary information for the drafting of action plans and report (see its Recommendation (2008)2

and the recent Brussels Declaration). In this context, it underlined in particular, the importance of

developing effective synergies between relevant actors in the execution process at the national level

either generally or in response to a specific judgment

One such measure is the establishment of an inter-institutional network with a rapid response

capacity. To facilitate the collection of information, it may be useful to identify contact persons

within the national authorities involved in the process of executing judgments, in accordance with

the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers

. In Germany, for example, liaison officers have

been appointed both at federal level and at the level of the Länder; in Austria, human rights co-

ordinators meet regularly to discuss, inter alia, questions relating to the execution of the Court’s

judgments; in the United Kingdom, human rights lawyers and government officials responsible for

human rights policies meet and stay in contact throughout the year.

See previously cited Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)2, as well as the Brussel’s Declaration.

Idem.

It is also recommended that steps be taken to ensure that relevant actors in the execution process

are sufficiently acquainted with the Court’s case law as well as with the relevant Committee of

Ministers’ recommendations and practice

. There are several ways of achieving this. Training

programmes can be put in place, like the seminars for judges in Slovakia. Annual conferences can be

organised for all contact persons, as is the case in Germany where meetings are organised every year

for liaison officers at federal and Länder level, in which Germany’s judge at the Court also

participates.

Another significant development is the growing practice on the part of governments to keep their

parliaments informed, as appropriate, of the situation concerning execution of judgments and the

measures being taken in this regard. Such practices were recommended by the Committee of

Ministers in its Recommendation (2008)2. They also respond to the calls by the Parliamentary

Assembly

to national parliaments to monitor the effective implementation of Convention standards

at national level and, in particular, ensure that the competent parliamentary committees play an

active role in the execution of the Court’s pilot judgments and other judgments revealing major

structural problems. In the same connection, the Parliamentary Assembly launched a training

programme in 2013 comprising visits to Strasbourg for lawyers responsible for advising the relevant

parliamentary committees on questions relating to the Convention, including as regards the

execution of the Court’s judgments

. Mention should also be made of the practice, established in

some countries, of annual reports on the case-law of the Court and the execution of its judgments,

which are produced by the government and submitted to Parliament. In Germany, for example, a

report of this kind, containing information on the execution procedure and the measures taken in

specific cases, is published on the website of the Federal Ministry of Justice and widely disseminated,

including in Parliament.

In this context, the Committee has also called upon States to promote the exchange of information

and good practices with other state parties, in particular for the implementation of general

measures. It has also called upon states to encourage access to the Committee of Ministers decisions

and resolutions as well as to action plans and reports.

Methods used to collect information

In some countries, standard forms or questionnaires have been drawn up to help the authorities

concerned provide the necessary information for the preparation of the action plan or report (for

example, in Belgium and the United Kingdom). This can also give the authorities concerned a greater

sense of responsibility and guide them in the execution process.

B. Drafting of action plans and reports

Autority(ies) responsible

Once the collection of information has been completed, the responsible authority drafts the action

plan or report. In a number of states this task falls to a specialised body, often the Government Agent

or sometimes a department focussed uniquely on the execution of judgments (for example in

Armenia). However, in some countries, this task is decentralised, such as in Ireland and the United

Kingdom, where the action plan is prepared by the authority most directly concerned by the Court’s

Idem.

See, inter alia, Resolution 1823(2011) and Resolution 1914(2013).

See Annual Report 2013.

judgment. Permanent Delegations may also be involved in the drafting of action plans or reports, as

in Estonia.

Depending on the complexity of the case and the type of general measures to be taken, an inter-

ministerial committee or a working group may also be set up.

Time-limits

In order to comply with the time-limit for submitting action plans/reports (normally 6 months), some

states use the first 3 months to analyse the judgment and think about the measures to be taken and

the last 3 months to draft the action plan (e.g. Germany and Ireland).

Sometimes, draft action plans have to be formally approved by the government, especially in cases

revealing systemic problems which require significant legislative amendments and/or budgetary

expenditure. It is thus often useful to also include a period of time for this step.

Language used for drafting

Sometimes, action plans and reports are drafted in the national language and then translated into

English or French. This facilitates compliance with the recommendation in the Brighton Declaration

that action plans for the execution of judgments should be made as widely accessible as possible,

including through their publication in national languages.

Reference document:

Recommendation (2008) 2 of 6 February 2008 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on efficient

domestic capacity for rapid execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights