Case Hirst No.2 V. United Kingdom and case Greens and M.T. v. United Kingdom

Case Hirst No.2 V. United Kingdom and case Greens and M.T. v. United Kingdom

To: DGHL.Execution

Dear Genevieve Mayer

Thank you for your email sent on 14 November 2011.

In my view, you have not answered the points I raised in my email.

Why are you bending over backwards to please or appease the UK, the losing party in Hirst v UK (No2) and failing to protect the winning party which is myself? This denial of justice merely adds insult to injury.

In effect, you are claiming that I am not entitled to the human rights under the Convention because the UK has claimed that the Grand Chamber judgment is wrong.

STATUTE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Article 3

Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the princi­ples of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdic­tion of human rights and fundamen­tal freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council as specified in Chapter I.

Article 8

Any member of the Coun­cil of Europe which has seriously vio­lated Article 3 may be suspended from its rights of repre­sentation and re­quested by the Committee of Ministers to withdraw under Arti­cle 7. If such member does not comply with this request, the Commit­tee may decide that it has ceased to be a member of the Council as from such date as the Committee may determine.

It is my contention that the UK has seriously violated Article 3.

It is further contended that the Committee of Ministers is choosing to ignore this serious violation, thereby compounding the breach of human rights.

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Article 44 – Final judgments

The judgment of the Grand Chamber shall be final.

The judgment of a Chamber shall become final:
when the parties declare that they will not request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber; or
three months after the date of the judgment, if reference of the case to the Grand Chamber has not been requested; or
when the panel of the Grand Chamber rejects the request to refer under Article 43.
The final judgment shall be published.

Article 46 – Binding force and execution of judgments

The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.

The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.

The Convention is clear that the judgment in Hirst No2 is final. There is no provision within the Convention for the UK to further appeal against Hirst No2 in either Greens and MT v UK or Scoppola v Italy. Therefore for the Council of Europe to allow the UK to further appeal Hirst No2 the Council of Europe has acted ultra vires.

The President of the Court allowed the UK to appeal Hirst No2 in Scoppla v Italy, this was not within his jurisdiction to allow. Even if it is claimed that he had jurisdiction, to deny myself or my lawyer from attending to defend the case is unlawful under the equality of arms.

In effect, with your decision to operate a hands-off policy, you have given the UK a licence to ignore the Convention and continue to abuse human rights.

Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 7th report

A. Draft resolution

1. The Parliamentary Assembly considers itself duty-bound to contribute to the effective implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court), on which the authority of the Court primarily depends.

2. Although, according to Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention or ECHR), it is the Committee of Ministers which supervises the execution of Court judgments, the Assembly and national parliaments must now play a much more pro-active role in this respect; if this is not done, the key role of the Convention, its supervisory mechanism and the Council of Europe as a whole, in guaranteeing the effective protection of human rights in Europe is likely to be put in jeopardy.

3. The Assembly has therefore decided to give priority to the examination of major structural problems concerning cases in which extremely worrying delays in implementation have arisen...

5. The Assembly notes with grave concern the continuing existence of major systemic deficiencies which cause large numbers of repetitive findings of violations of the Convention and which seriously undermine the rule of law in the states concerned.

6. The Assembly deplores the above implementation problems, and intends to do its utmost, in cooperation with national parliaments, to assist States Parties to the Convention and the Committee of Ministers to eradicate the disgraceful situation of non-compliance with the Court judgments.

7.10. The United Kingdom must put to an end the practice of delaying full implementation of Strasbourg Court judgments with respect to politically sensitive issues, such as prisoners’ voting rights.

8. The Interlaken Declaration and Action Plan of February 2010 specified that priority should be given to full and expeditious compliance with the Court’s judgments. In line with the aims of the Interlaken process, the Assembly considers that it too should remain seized of this matter in order, in parallel, to ensure regular and rigorous parliamentary oversight of implementation issues – both at the European and national levels.

10.5. reserves the right to take appropriate action should the state concerned continuously fail to take appropriate measures required by a judgment of the Court, or should the national parliament fail to exert appropriate pressure on the government to implement judgments of the Court;

10.6. in view of the imperative need for States Parties to the Convention to accelerate execution of, and fully comply with judgments of the Court, and in the light of major problems encountered in this respect in several states, resolves to remain seized of this matter and to continue to give it priority.

B. Draft recommendation

1. The Parliamentary Assembly, referring to its Resolution ... (2011) on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court), urges the Committee of Ministers to increase, by all available means, its effectiveness as the statutory guarantor of the implementation of the Court's judgments and to that effect recommends that it:

1.1. ensure special priority treatment for the most important problems in the implementation of the Court’s judgments, notably systemic problems identified in Resolution ... (2011) and regularly inform the Assembly on the results achieved towards resolving these problems;

1.2. induce States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights with structural problems to provide comprehensive strategies which outline a clear and detailed approach to execute Court judgments, and ensure effective assessment of the adequacy of measures taken through such action plans;

1.3. strongly encourage governments to improve, and where necessary, to set up, domestic mechanisms and procedures to secure timely and effective implementation of the Court's judgments through action of all national actors concerned, co-ordinated at the highest political level;

1.4. increase pressure and take firmer measures in cases of dilatory and continuous noncompliance with the Court’s judgments by States Parties, and to work more closely on this subject with the Parliamentary Assembly.
http://www.assembly.coe.int/Communication/20101109_arretsCE_E.pdf

As you can see, the Council of Europe says one thing but in my case it does something else. This is gross hypocrisy.

I note that the Council of Europe fails to provide any grievance procedure. Lord Woolf has stated that there was a lack of justice in prisons when no such grievance procedure existed.

I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully

John Hirst