MEDEL

For many years, judges and prosecutors have been unduly detained in Turkey, under the alleged pretext of being members of - or supported - armed terrorist organisations. The Turkish judiciary has been persistently disappointing their hope of a fair trial, which is unsurprising due to the fact that the Turkish judiciary is fully dependent on the Turkish President.

Many of our Turkish colleagues have long been expecting their liberation from this nightmare, or at least to get an affirmation from the highest European human rights guardian about the truth of what happened and how the violation of arbitrary detention took place.

MEDEL at the Spring Session of the Conference of INGOMEDEL is present at the Spring Session of the Conference of INGO, of the Council of Europe, being held on April 4-6 in Strasbourg.

A wide range of topics will be discussed, such as:

- How to ensure respect for economic and social rights in times of war and of declining
multilateralism;
- Social protection needed in times of war as seen by civil society;

MEDEL

The ongoing war in Ukraine has confronted the world with scenes that mankind has been struggling hard to leave in the past but unfortunately keep coming back. The images of bodies of civilians shot dead, lying on the ground with their hands tied behind their backs, are an undeniable evidence that war crimes have been committed in this war and that all limits of humanity have been crossed.

The only way for justice to be brought to the victims of these crimes – the direct victims, and especially their families and the communities where they live – and for Rule of Law to prevail in the middle of the chaos that war always represents is to have an independent, accurate and thorough investigation of all the crimes that have been committed and that were brought before the world in the terrible images seen in the last days.

MEDEL

Today at 7pm (CET) join MEDEL, IUSTITIA and, our partner organisations at the online event "The March of a Thousand Gowns two years later. Sovereignty and rule of law – the role of the courts in post-pandemic era".

Zoom link: http://bityl.pl/IkvB7

MEDEL

We have only one world in which justice is a precious value in democracy and where the independence of justice and the principles of the rule of law and separation of powers should prevail.
If the cruel news of the invasion of Ukraine occupies our minds and our mobilizations, MEDEL remains attentive to the attacks on these principles in many countries and especially in Tunisia, a country where despite many difficulties after the Jasmine Revolution, we could have hope for a democratic rule of law. Several members of MEDEL had the opportunity to accomplish missions there and to appreciate the hospitality of the Tunisian people and their commitment to the democratic change initiated by the revolution.

Everyone has in memory the images of the Tunisian uprising of December 2010-January 2011. This sudden manifestation of the popular strength of democratic ideals shook many other Arab countries. Interest in the "Arab Spring" weakened, however, when, despite the legitimate aspirations of the people, authoritarian regimes were installed, tolerated by the concert of nations in the name of the fight against Islamic terrorism.

In Tunisia, however, this historic moment was believed to have been stabilized in time thanks to a successful transition to an innovative Constitution and an active civil society. Justice was central to the reform of institutional organization. The Constitution was expected to achieve a significant transformation: the independence of all justice systems - administrative, financial and judicial - was proclaimed, including the magistrates of the Public Prosecutor's office.

In this new institutional landscape, the establishment of a new Supreme Council of the Judiciary became the cornerstone of the construction of an independent judiciary. In the CSM created by the constitution and by law, judges, academics and lawyers were all elected by their peers.

The CSM had administrative and financial autonomy. It elected its president from among its members, who were magistrates of the highest rank, and drew up a draft budget, which it presented to the relevant committee of the Parliament.


The end of the transition to democratic Rule of Law in Tunisia?


After assuming full power by freezing the Parliament, Tunisian President Kaïs Saïed attacked the judiciary. First, he announced his intention to dissolve the High Council of the Judiciary (CSM), which was denounced by all international bodies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the European Union, which supports the country's democratic transition.

President Kaïs Saïed has, despite everything, issued the decree of dissolution of the High Council of the Judiciary and set up a provisional council, without time limit.

Each of the three councils is composed of four members sitting because of their functions. For the judiciary, these are the heads of the Court of Cassation, the Director of Judicial Services at the Ministry of Justice and the President of the "Real Estate Court" of Tunis. In addition, there are three members appointed by the president who must be retired.

The president may "oppose" transfers and promotions decided by the provisional council. If the latter does not comply, he can decide himself on the magistrates concerned.

In disciplinary matters, it will be up to the president to ask the CSM to dismiss the magistrates appointed by him. The CSM will then be obliged to suspend the magistrates concerned and to decide within a period of one month. If this deadline is not met, the president will dismiss the judges himself.

All new members of the provisional high council have now been sworn in.

The violation of the Constitution by the dissolution of the CSM and the subsequent takeover of a "provisional" CSM by the executive branch seriously undermines the rule of law, the principle of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary as enshrined in international law.

MEDEL cannot remain silent in the face of these serious events in Tunisia and will continue to mobilize alongside Tunisian judges and all democrats in this country who aspire to a serene future in the fullness of a democracy leaving all its place to an independent justice and a free right of defense.

MENACE SUR L’INDÉPENDANCE DE JUSTICE EN TUNISIE : IL NE FAUT PAS ABANDONNER LA CAUSE D’UNE JUSTICE DÉMOCRATIQUE EN TUNISIE


Nous n’avons qu’un seul monde dans lequel la justice est une valeur précieuse en démocratie et où devraient régner l’indépendance de la justice ainsi que les principes de l’Etat de droit et de la séparation des pouvoirs.

Si la cruelle actualité de l’invasion de l’Ukraine occupe nos esprits et nos mobilisations, MEDEL reste attentif aux atteintes à ces principes dans bien des pays et tout particulièrement en Tunisie, pays où malgré bien des difficultés après la révolution de jasmin, on pouvait avoir l’espérance d’un état de droit démocratique. Plusieurs membres de MEDEL avaient eu l’occasion d’y accomplir des missions et d’apprécier l’hospitalité du peuple tunisien et son attachement au changement de régime initié par la révolution.

Tout le monde a en mémoire les images du soulèvement tunisien de décembre 2010-janvier 2011. Cette manifestation soudaine de la force populaire des idéaux démocratiques ébranla bien d’autres pays arabes. L’intérêt pour le « printemps arabe » a cependant faibli quand, au mépris des légitimes aspirations des peuples, s’installèrent des régimes autoritaires, tolérés par le concert des nations au nom de la lutte contre le terrorisme islamiste.

En Tunisie, toutefois, ce moment historique s’était, croyait-on, ancré dans la durée grâce à un passage réussi vers une Constitution novatrice et à une société civile active. La justice y occupait une place centrale dans la réforme de l’organisation institutionnelle. C’est de la Constitution que l’on attendait une transformation significative : l’indépendance de toutes les justices – administrative, financière et judiciaire – y est proclamée, incluant les magistrats du ministère public.

Dans ce nouveau paysage institutionnel, l’instauration d’un nouveau Conseil supérieur de la magistrature était devenue la pierre angulaire de l’édification d’une justice indépendante. Au sein du CSM créé par la constitution et par la loi, magistrats, universitaires et avocats étaient tous élus par leurs pairs.

Le CSM était doté de l’autonomie administrative et financière. Il élisait son président parmi ses membres magistrats du plus haut grade et élaborait un projet de budget, qu’il présentait devant la commission compétente de l’Assemblée des représentants du peuple.

La fin de la transition vers un état de droit démocratique en TUNISIE ?

Après s’être arrogé les pleins pouvoirs en décrétant le gel du Parlement, le président tunisien, Kaïs Saïed, s’est attaqué à la justice. Ce fut tout d’abord l’annonce de sa volonté de dissolution du Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature, dénoncée par toutes les instances internationales comme la Haute-Commissaire des Nations Unies aux Droits de l’Homme et l’Union Européenne qui apporte son soutien à la transition démocratique de ce pays.

Le président Kaïs Saïed, a, malgré tout, publié le décret de dissolution du conseil supérieur de la magistrature et mis en place un conseil provisoire, sans limitation de durée.

Chacun des trois conseils, est composé de quatre membres de droit siégeant en raison de leurs fonctions. Pour la justice judiciaire, il s’agit des chefs de la Cour de cassation, du directeur des services judiciaires au ministère de la justice et du président du « tribunal immobilier » de Tunis. Siègent, en outre, trois membres nommés par le président qui doivent être des retraités.

On est loin du CSM créé par la constitution et par la loi, dans lequel magistrats, universitaires et avocats étaient tous élus respectivement par leurs pairs !

Le président pourra faire « opposition » à des mutations et avancements décidés par le conseil provisoire. Si celui-ci n’obtempère pas, il pourra décider lui-même du sort des magistrats concernés.

En matière disciplinaire, il appartiendra au président de demander au CSM de révoquer les magistrats désignés par ses soins. Celui-ci aura, alors, l’obligation de suspendre les intéressés et de se prononcer dans le délai d’un mois. Faute de respect de ce délai, le président révoquera lui-même les magistrats.

Tous les nouveaux membres du conseil supérieur provisoire ont désormais prêté serment.

La violation de la Constitution par la dissolution du CSM puis la prise de contrôle du pouvoir exécutif sur un CSM "provisoire" porte gravement atteinte à l’État de droit, au principe de la séparation des pouvoirs et à l'indépendance de la justice telle que consacrée par le droit international.

MEDEL ne peut rester silencieux face à ces graves événements qui frappent la Tunisie et continuera à se mobiliser aux côtés des magistrats tunisiens et de tous les démocrates de ce pays qui aspirent à un avenir serein dans la plénitude d’une démocratie laissant toute sa place à une justice indépendante et une défense libre.

 XII Congress of Portuguese ProsecutorsMEDEL was present last weekend at the XII Congress of Portuguese Prosecutors, of our Portuguese member association Sindicato dos Magistrados do Ministério Público, that took place in Vilamoura, Portugal.

An important event where relevant topics were discussed, such as the independence of the Prosecution service, the role of Public Prosecution in the protection of consumers or the environment or how to better communicate justice.

MEDEL

The Court of Justice of the European Union issued today the decision in case C-508/19 (Prokurator Generalny (Chambre disciplinaire de la Cour suprême - Nomination)), finding inadmissible the demand of a preliminary ruling presented by the Sąd Najwyższy (Izba Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) (Supreme Court (Labour and Social Insurance Chamber) of Poland.

Despite this finding, this decision of the CJEU is important as it reaffirms the principles already set out in a long line of decisions regarding Rule of Law and the violation of EU Law by the Polish government when it comes to the appointment and the disciplinary regime of judges.

MEDEL CA in ClujMEDEL is today holding its Council of Administration at the Appeal Court of Cluj, Romania, and also online.

Discussion topics include the situation in Ukraine and the protection of Rule of Law in the EU.

Conference "Rule of law vs rule by law"MEDEL and its Romanian member association organise today in Cluj, Romania, the conference "Rule of law vs rule by law", addressing topics such as "Criminal justice in the communist regime. Consequences on the present. Special look on the role of education in the law field" or "Transition of justice from totalitarianism", as well as an insight on the situation of Turkey.

Watch live on juridice.ro, juridice.ro/live, https://www.facebook.com/JURIDICE.ro and youtube.com/c/videojuridice.

IMG 20220318 WA0003

Conference "Rule of law vs rule by law"

 


Agenda of the Conference "Rule of law vs rule by law" in Cluj178.95 KB

MEDEL

MEDEL and four other NGO's (Defence for Children International (DCI), European Federation of National Organisations working with the Homeless (FEANTSA), Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) and International Movement ATD Fourth World) submitted to the Executive Secretary of the European Committee of Social Rights a collective complaint against the Kingdom of Spain regarding the situation in the shantytown of Cañada Real, in Madrid.

The complaint contains an urgent request for immediate measures and priority to examination.

You are here: MEDEL News Europe News