European Union

More and more companies are luring consumers with sales offers on Black Friday and Cyber Monday before the Christmas shopping season actually begins. Commentators take a critical look at the shopping frenzy mentality that is often encouraged by e-commerce.

According to a report by the World Anti-Doping Agency Wada, Russia has intentionally manipulated doping test results. Its compliance review committee has therefore recommended that Russian athletes be banned from participating in all major sports competitions for four years - an unprecedentedly harsh punitive measure. The final decision is to be made in December. Is a ban justified, and does it make sense?

AMENDMENTS 1 - 4 - Draft opinion on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Isabel Wiseler-Lima

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights recently delivered a judgment on a case concerning the murder of a Turkish Cypriot family. Nasia Hadjigeorgiou examines how this has broken new legal ground, while raising questions about the Court’s ability to address legal challenges in contexts of frozen conflict.

© Corgarashu / Adobe Stock

In January 2019, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in Güzelyurtlu and others v. Cyprus and Turkey (Güzelyurtlu). This case breaks new legal ground, while questioning the Court’s ability to address legal challenges in contexts of frozen conflict.

In order to understand the complexities of Güzelyurtlu, a brief explanation of the political situation on the island of Cyprus is necessary. The island is inhabited by Greek Cypriots, making up about 80%, and Turkish Cypriots, consisting of 18%, of the overall population. Since Turkey’s 1974 military invasion of Cyprus, it has been de facto divided in two: while the Republic of Cyprus (RoC) technically retains sovereignty over the whole of the island, it only exercises effective control over the south, which is inhabited mostly by Greek Cypriots. Turkish Cypriots primarily reside in the north of the island that remains under the military, economic and political control of Turkey, despite having declared itself as the independent ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ (‘TRNC’). In compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 541 (1983) the ‘TRNC’ has not been recognised by any state, except Turkey.

Güzelyurtlu arose from the murder of a Turkish Cypriot family, which was (rather exceptionally) residing in the south of Cyprus. Following police investigations by the RoC, 6 Turkish Cypriots and 2 Turkish nationals were identified as being allegedly involved in the murder. However, by the time these investigations were completed, the suspects had returned to the north of the island and out of the RoC’s effective control.

At the same time, the ‘TRNC’ police started their own murder investigations and identified the same suspects. Problematically, Cyprus’s de facto division and the lack of recognition and cooperation between the RoC and the ‘TRNC’ meant that the suspects were in the north of the island, while the physical evidence linking them to the murder was in the south. There was no way of bringing the two together and beginning the prosecution process.

Consequently, the deceased persons’ relatives brought a case both against the RoC and Turkey (as the state that exercises effective control in the north of Cyprus). The accusation was of failure to carry out an effective investigation into their family members’ deaths, in violation of the right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

In an interesting development of the law, the Chamber held, and the Grand Chamber ultimately confirmed, that the two respondent states had an obligation to cooperate with each other in order to carry out an effective investigation into the victims’ deaths. The Court had already held that such an obligation to cooperate existed (notably, in another case against Cyprus). But, surprisingly, considering the longevity of the frozen conflict on the island, this was the first case in which it was held that cooperation between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot authorities was necessary.

Moreover, although this was a rather straightforward case legally speaking, it was politically very controversial, because cooperation between police forces of different states is inextricably connected with international recognition of these states. As expected, while the ‘TRNC’ tried to capitalise on the case and force the RoC to directly engage with it, the RoC was justifiably hesitant to act in any way that lent support to an illegal regime operating within its territory.

Although the Chamber and Grand Chamber agreed that there was an obligation to cooperate for the effective investigation of the death, there was disagreement as to what this obligation entailed. Initially, the Chamber found that the unwillingness of the RoC and the ‘TRNC’ to cooperate (the former by refusing to grant over evidence and the latter for not extraditing the suspects) resulted in a violation of Article 2 by both respondent states.

Arguably, this ruling asked too much from the RoC. Sharing evidence with the ‘TRNC’ so that the suspects could be tried in ‘TRNC’ courts would undermine its position – a position confirmed in numerous UN resolutions – that it is the only legitimate government on the island. This argument was taken more seriously by the Grand Chamber, which held that the RoC did not violate the procedural right to life, as it had done everything that was reasonably expected of it.

Conversely, Turkey was found to be in violation of Article 2. It had blatantly ignored all attempts at communication, and requests for the extradition of the suspects to the areas under the RoC’s control.

This outcome is undoubtedly more satisfying to the RoC. Yet, it potentially unduly lowers the bar of human rights protection, because all Turkey had to do to comply with its obligations was to respond to the extradition request. Even a negative response would have been sufficient for the Court, although it would not have actually resulted in a more effective investigation of the deaths.

Güzelyurtlu breaks new legal ground by expanding the obligation to cooperate in contexts of frozen conflicts. In light of the ECtHR’s tendency to transplant case law from Cyprus to other frozen conflict contexts, such as Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria, it is likely that we will see more such cases being adjudicated in the future.

Yet, if the Chamber judgment is criticised for being too interventionist, while the Grand Chamber judgment is criticised for not being interventionist enough, could any approach by the Court ever be truly satisfactory? And if not, perhaps it is worth considering whether the Court was right to intervene in the first place. Is it the judiciary’s place to adjudicate what are essentially political disagreements, especially in societies divided by frozen conflict?

A greater analysis of these questions, focusing on Cyprus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Northern Ireland and South Africa can be found in Nasia Hadjigeorgiou, Protecting Human Rights and Building Peace in Post-violence Societies: An Underexplored Relationship, to be published by Hart Publishing in January 2020. This monograph is part of the Human Rights Law in Perspective Series.

Nasia Hadjigeorgiou | @NHadjigeorgiou

Nasia Hadjigeorgiou is an Assistant Professor of Transitional Justice and Human Rights at the University of Central Lancashire Cyprus. She does research on the protection of human rights and the building of peace in post-violence societies.

Comments and Site Policy

Please note that this article represents the views of the author(s) and not those of the UACES Graduate Forum, UACES or JCER.

The post Güzelyurtlu and Others v. Cyprus and Turkey: An Important Legal Development or a Step Too Far? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee will allow for a first exchange between the new EU leadership and parliamentarians from the national Parliaments and the European Parliament, at the outset of the new mandate. Mr Joseph Borell, High Representative/Vice-President-designate of the European Commission and Mr Olivér Várhelyi, Commissioner-designate for Enlargement and Neighbourhood, are invited to participate at the meeting.
The half-day meeting will take place from 14:30-18:30 on Wednesday, 4 December 2019 in room JAN 2Q2 at the EP premises in Brussels.
Further information
Live video streaming on eptv
Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

SEDE organises a public hearing on 'Opportunities and challenges of the use of Artificial Intelligence - enabled systems in security and defence' on Tuesday 3 December 2019, from 10.30 to 12.30hrs, with external experts.
Location : SPINELLI 3E2
Further information
Programme
Poster
Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

SEDE organises a public hearing on 'Opportunities and challenges of the use of Artificial Intelligence - enabled
systems in security and defence' on Tuesday 3 December 2019, from 10.30 to 12.30hrs in room SPINELLI 3E2, with external experts.
Further information
Programme
Poster
Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 4 - Draft opinion on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Isabel Wiseler-Lima

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Being a member of the EU costs on average only around 34p a day each. That’s a bargain, especially as the value of EU benefits far outweigh the cost.

The Confederation of British Industry has calculated that EU membership is worth around £3,000 a year to every British family — a return of nearly £10 for each £1 we pay in.

 So, in reality, EU membership costs NOTHING – it makes Britain, and Britons, BETTER OFF. EU membership is PROFITABLE.

(Source: CBI Report: Our Global Future, page 11)

The calculations for our annual EU membership fee have been published by the UK’s Office of National Statistics. (Source: The UK Contribution to the EU budget – Office for National Statistics)

When deducting from the EU membership fee all the money we get back from the EU, including our £5 billion rebate, the net cost of EU membership in 2016 was only £8.1 billion – or £156 million a week, or just 34p per person per day.

That’s far short of the claim made on Boris Johnson’s campaign bus that we send £350m a week to the EU. That was entirely incorrect.

But after the referendum, the Vote Leave campaign director, Dominic Cummings wrote:

“Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests no.”

(Source: The Spectator ‘Dominic Cummings: How the Brexit referendum was won)

So, we are leaving the EU based on a whopper of a lie (actually, lots of whopping lies).

Ok, if Mr Johnson had instead put the accurate figure of ‘£156m a week’ on his bus, it would still have seemed a lot of money. But something Brexiters never like to do is reveal how much we get back in return for the membership fee.

Back in 2011, this was estimated by the government to be between £30 billion and £90 billion a year – a return of between 800% and 2370%.

(Source: UK government ‘The UK and the Single Market’ – Department for Business, Innovation and Business Skills)

Can anyone name any other government expenditure that gives a return of over 800%?

 Let’s put this in another context.

In 2016, the government spent £814.6 billion on all aspects of public spending. This means that the net annual EU membership fee represented only 1% of all UK government expenditure. (A minuscule amount.)

Furthermore, the EU funds many thousands of projects in the UK every year, that our national government would be unlikely to finance. Such as Liverpool’s John Lennon Airport, or superfast broadband in Cornwall.

(Source: EU Commission – Financial Transparency System)

In addition, across Europe, our annual membership fee helps to fund projects that benefit our continent and its people as a whole – such as Galileo, to give Europe its own satellite navigation system. (That Britain will miss out on if we leave).

And the Horizon 2020 project – the world’s biggest multinational research programme, funding leading-edge research in all aspects of science and innovation that will directly benefit all EU citizens. (That Britain will miss out on if we leave).

Individual European countries could not afford to take on the projects that the EU helps to fund for the welfare and prosperity of its half-a-billion citizens.

 The advantages of EU membership considerably outweigh the cost of membership. So, why leave?

There is not even one valid or validated benefit for Brexit. Not even one.

Indeed, by NOT paying the annual EU membership fee, we will all be POORER, according to the UK government’s own impact assessment reports.

(Source: The Guardian ‘UK significantly worse off under all Brexit scenarios’ – official forecast)

In the General Election on 12 December, vote for a democratic reversal of Brexit. We’ll all be better off by remaining in the EU.

• Watch this one-minute video:

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• Follow my Stop Brexit campaign on Facebook: Reasons2Remain
  ________________________________________________________
• Join and share the discussion about this article on Facebook:

 

 

The post EU membership for just 34p a day each appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

The 2018 Sakharov Prize winner, Ukrainian film director and human rights activist Oleg Sentsov, received his award in Strasbourg on 26 November.

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP