CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 9 mars 2022

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sD67E8F64 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.85pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#ffffff } .sC91ABB0B { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3561545 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#333333 } .s9BD57404 { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA9C92997 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#333333 } .s5511CAC6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#333333 } .sF1474A11 { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s8DF6C4 { font-family:Arial; color:#333333 } .s1A8C3523 { border:1pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sB056A3E5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:4.9pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sC5ECFB78 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s3C5C3DF { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s18012FAE { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:4.9pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#ffffff } .s74909865 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#ffffff } .s35C4D9B9 { padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#ffffff } .s7891394A { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s454DB9F { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#333333 } .sF6881024 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; color:#333333 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCDE2503 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#129af0 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s3C48324A { font-family:Arial; font-size:5pt; vertical-align:super; color:#333333 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s62E13439 { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s543492F9 { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:0.05pt; font-size:10pt } .s660ED72C { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2022)47 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Baka against Hungary (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 March 2022 at the 1428 th   meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 20261/12 BAKA 23/06/2016 Grand Chamber The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”); Recalling that the Court found violations of the Convention on account of the undue and premature termination of the applicants’ mandates as President ( Baka ) and Vice-President ( Erményi ) of the former Hungarian Supreme Court through   ad hominem   legislative measures: in the   Baka   case through legislative acts of constitutional rank and beyond judicial control, prompted by views and criticisms he expressed on reforms affecting the judiciary and exerting a “chilling effect” also on other judges and court presidents; in the closed   Erményi   case ( CM/ResDH(2019)242 ), in respect of which the question of general measures required continues to be examined within the framework of the   Baka   case,   through an ordinary legislative act, unsuccessfully challenged before the Constitutional Court, found by the Court, on the basis of its findings in the   Baka   case, not to pursue any legitimate aim; Reiterating the importance, stressed by the Court in its case-law, including the   Baka   judgment, of procedural fairness in cases involving the removal of a judge from office, including the intervention of an authority independent of the executive and legislative powers in respect of every decision affecting the termination of the office of a judge, and of effective and adequate safeguards against abuse when it comes to restrictions on judges’ freedom of expression; Noting the declaration made by the Hungarian Minister of Justice on 31 March 2021, at the Committee of Ministers’ ordinary 1400 th   meeting, which underlined that Hungary is fully committed to the implementation of the Court’s judgments and to the rule of law and that the measures criticised in the   Baka   case all resulted from a one-time constitutional reform, which was a unique event in the constitutional development of Hungary that is completed; Noting with grave concern the continuing lack of progress, almost six years after the present judgment became final, as regards the required general measures with respect to Parliament’s competence, established in 2012 following the facts of the   Baka   case, to impeach the President of the Kúria without judicial review and deeply regretting that the authorities’ announcement to consider amending the legislation in this respect, so far, remained without any results; Noting further with regret that the authorities did not respond to the Committee of Ministers’   invitation in its decision of September 2021 to submit information on the outstanding issues in an updated action plan; Emphasising the legal obligation of every State, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the final judgments of the European Court in any case to which they are a party, fully, effectively and promptly; RECALLED the absence of safeguards to prevent an   ad hominem   constitutional-level legislation terminating a judicial mandate but noting at the same time that since the completion of the constitutional reform in 2012, no similar violations have occurred; UNDERLINED that, in the current circumstances, the declaration made by the Hungarian Minister of Justice, at the Committee of Ministers’ ordinary 1400 th   meeting, must be interpreted to the effect that Hungary will fully abide by the Convention requirements as set out in the   Baka   and   Erményi   judgments, so that no similar violations of the Convention will occur in the future; STRONGLY URGED the authorities to step up their efforts to find ways, in close cooperation with the Secretariat, to introduce the required measures to ensure that a decision by Parliament to impeach the President of the Kúria will be subject to effective oversight by an independent judicial body in line with the European Court’s case-law ; RECALLED, once again, the authorities’ undertaking to evaluate the domestic legislation on the status of judges and the administration of courts, and urged them to present the conclusions of their evaluation, including of the guarantees and safeguards protecting judges from undue interferences, to enable the Committee to make a full assessment   as to whether the concerns regarding the ‘chilling effect’ on the freedom of expression of judges caused by the violations in these cases have been dispelled; INVITED the authorities to submit an updated action plan, including information on all the above issues, by 30 September 2022 at the latest, and decided to resume consideration of this case, in the light of the information received, at its DH meeting in March 2023 at the latest.