Supervisions by the Committee of Ministers
The Committee of Ministers is the main body responsible for supervision of the execution of the Court's judgments. Its supervision authority is confirmed by Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention, stating that “[t]he final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.” Supervision of the execution of the Court's judgments takes place at the special human rights meetings every year, where the Committee of Ministers invites the respondent State to inform the former of the measures taken in consequence of the judgment. The Committee of Ministers completes its supervision by adopting a final resolution, after having established that the respondent State “has taken all the necessary measures to abide by the judgment.” For more information on the rule of procedure of such meetings see the link.
When the respondent State refuses to take necessary measures to execute the judgment, the Committee of Ministers may apply the coercive means, such as: adoption of interim resolution, the threat to apply Article 8 of the Statute, and initiation of infringement proceedings in the Court. The Committee of Ministers may adopt interim resolution to encourage a state to execute the judgment when it considers the measures taken by the respondent State unsatisfactory for execution of the judgment.
A persistent refusal of the state to execute a judgment of the Court may result in application of Article 8 of the Statute, pursuant to which voting rights of the respondent State may be suspended, or such State may be excluded from the Council of Europe. However, this ultimate measure has never been applied by the Committee of Ministers.
Protocol No.14 to the Convention provided the Committee of Ministers with additional means of pressure to secure execution of judgments, such as infringement proceedings before the Court. The Committee of Ministers may bring infringement proceedings in the Court against any State which refuses to comply with the Court's judgment. As a result of infringement proceeding the Court has to decide whether the respondent State failed to abide by the judgment or not. If the Court finds a violation of such an obligation then it “[s]hall refer the case to the Committee of Ministers for consideration of the measures to be taken.” This infringement procedure is aimed at creating a political pressure that should “act as an effective new incentive to execute the Court's judgments.” The reformers felt that this political pressure should suffice for securing execution of the Court’s initial judgment by the state concerned. For more detailed explanation of these reforms see the link.
Taking into account that Protocol No. 14 to the Convention entered into force only on 1 June 2010, it is rather early to assess effectiveness of the reforms introduced by it. The Committee of Ministers plans to make such evaluation during the years 2012 to 2015. And before the end of 2019 the Committee will decide whether more profound changes are necessary. For more information see the link.
Parliamentary Assembly supervision
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe exercises its supervision functions in a number of ways. First, members of the Assembly may require the Committee of Ministers to present written or oral explanations regarding the failure to execute certain judgments.[1] The Parliamentary Assembly may also ask the Minister of Justice of the state to explain himself before the Assembly why certain judgments are not executed, especially in cases where the state is rather reluctant to execute the judgment.[2] According to Resolution 1226(2000) (see the link) the Assembly may also “adopt recommendations to the Committee of Ministers, and through it to the relevant States, concerning the execution of certain judgments if it notices abnormal delays,” hold an “urgent debate” “if the state in question has neglected to execute or deliberately refrained from executing the judgment,” “open a monitoring procedure” if the state refuses to execute the judgment, or “envisage, if theses measures fail, making use of other possibilities, in particular those provided for in its own Rules of Procedure and/or of a recommendation to the Council of Ministers to make use of Article 8 of the Statute.”
[1] Elisabeth Lambert-Abdelgawad, The Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, 40, Council of Europe Publishing, 2002.
[2] Id. at 41.
