Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case Commission v Greece

Date of article: 12/05/2021

Daily News of: 12/05/2021

Country:  EUROPE

Author: Court of Justice of the European Union

Article language: en

Link: Greece has failed to fulfil its obligations by failing to recover unlawful aid paid to Greek farmers as compensation for adverse weather conditions (europa.eu)

Languages available: es de el en fr it pt

Court of Justice of the European Union

PRESS RELEASE No 77/21

Luxembourg, 12 May 2021

udgment in Case C-11/20 Commission v Greece (Aid to farmers)

Greece has failed to fulfil its obligations by failing to recover unlawful aid paid to Greek farmers as compensation for adverse weather conditions

In 2009, the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) – a public body the purpose of which is to insure agricultural holdings against damage due to natural risks – paid Greek farmers compensation totalling €425 million for damage that had occurred in 2008 as a result of adverse weather conditions.

By decision of 7 December 2011, the Commission classified those measures as unlawful State aid incompatible with the internal market. 1 Accordingly, it ordered the Greek authorities to recover them from the beneficiaries. 

(...)

Read more

El Síndic propone un debate monográfico en el Parlamento sobre el modelo de implantación de las infraestructuras de energías renovables

Date of article: 12/05/2021

Daily News of: 12/05/2021

Country:  Spain - Catalonia

Author: Regional Ombudsman of Catalonia

Article language: es

Este debate debe permitir fijar las bases del modelo, los límites y los condicionantes a qué deben someterse los proyectos

También reclama que se suspenda la autorización de cualquier nuevo proyecto mientras no tenga lugar esta planificación y se establezca una moratoria durante dicho periodo

Considera que la elaboración y la aprobación de un marco planificador permitiría una armonización de los diferentes usos del suelo y una garantía de la viabilidad económica de las instalaciones, así como resolver las carencias de participación de los diversos actores en juego
 

El Síndic ha tenido conocimiento a través de los medios de comunicación del rechazo generado en diversos proyectos de infraestructuras de energías renovables (especialmente eólica y fotovoltaica) entre una gran parte de las personas que viven en los territorios donde se pretenden implantar. En concreto, estas personas y entidades remarcan que son proyectos impulsados por grandes grupos inversores multinacionales en lugar de inversores locales, que no responden a una coherencia en la planificación desde el Gobierno de la Generalitat, que no ha evaluado suficientemente su impacto negativo sobre el medio y el paisaje o que no han sido previamente consultados y debatidos con los actores del entorno donde se les quiere ubicar.

En este contexto, el pasado 13 de abril, el Síndic abrió una actuación de oficio que tiene por objetivo analizar la actuación de las administraciones públicas en relación con los proyectos de implantación de diversas infraestructuras de energías renovables. En el marco de esta actuación, el Síndic se ha dirigido a la Dirección General de Energía, Seguridad Industrial y Seguridad Minera del Departamento de Empresa y Conocimiento para obtener información detallada sobre los proyectos de parques eólicos y fotovoltaicos aprobados y en trámite. El Síndic también ha pedido a la administración de la Generalitat conocer cuál es la valoración que se realiza de la conveniencia de elaborar y aprobar un plan territorial sectorial de las energías renovables o, en su caso, el estado en que se encuentra su tramitación o sus trabajos de redacción.

En el mes de junio de 2018 el Síndic presentó en el Parlamento de Cataluña su informe titulado El aumento de los conflictos en materia ambiental y urbanística en Cataluña, que incluye una serie de recomendaciones y conclusiones dirigidas a las administraciones públicas. Cabe señalar que este informe ya advertía de los conflictos generados por la planificación energética, así como de los generados por los déficits en la planificación y gestión del entorno natural y en los instrumentos de planificación urbanística territorial.

En este marco, el Síndic también es conocedor de que Cataluña todavía está muy lejos de alcanzar los objetivos de producción de energía a partir de fuentes renovables. Hace dos años, en mayo de 2019, el Gobierno de la Generalitat aprobó la Declaración de emergencia climática que implicaba, entre otros, el compromiso para adoptar las medidas de simplificación administrativa necesarias para alcanzar los objetivos de mitigación del cambio climático y de transición energética.

Por su parte, el Estatuto de autonomía de Cataluña determina que los poderes públicos de Cataluña deben promover el desarrollo sostenible (artículo 4.3) y también establece que las personas tienen derecho a vivir en un medio equilibrado, sostenible y respetuoso con la salud, de acuerdo con los estándares y los niveles de protección que determinan las leyes (artículo 27). De acuerdo con ello, el Parlamento de Cataluña ha definido el desarrollo urbanístico sostenible como "la utilización racional del territorio y el medio ambiente y conlleva conjugar las necesidades de crecimiento con la preservación de los recursos naturales y de los valores paisajísticos, arqueológicos, históricos y culturales, a fin de garantizar la calidad de vida de las generaciones presentes y futuras".

El medio ambiente y el derecho a su conservación y protección constituyen un bien jurídico que parte del interés público en la consecución de objetivos tales como el control ambiental de la contaminación, el desarrollo sostenible, la protección de la biodiversidad y la salud pública. Si existe algún área en que la necesidad de transparencia y participación es más evidente es precisamente el medio ambiente. La sociedad civil (personas, plataformas y asociaciones) ha reivindicado de manera activa la necesidad de saber y conocer cuál es el estado del medio ambiente, cuáles son los riesgos que amenazan nuestro mundo y cuáles son las políticas públicas para consolidar un desarrollo sostenible. De acuerdo con la función de defensa de derechos que tiene encomendada el Síndic, esta institución vela por el pleno respeto de los derechos de las personas al acceso a la información pública y a la participación en materia de medio ambiente.

Por todo lo anterior, el Síndic propone que el Parlamento de Cataluña celebre un debate monográfico, o impulse la constitución de una comisión de estudio y seguimiento, sobre el modelo de implantación de las infraestructuras de energías renovables en el territorio, a fin de fijar las bases de su desarrollo por medio de la planificación territorial y sectorial adecuado, y determinar los límites y condiciones a qué deben someterse los proyectos de forma que se favorezcan ubicaciones para su implantación de manera preferente al suelo no urbanizable. Paralelamente, el Síndic también es partidario de suspender la tramitación y autorización de nuevos proyectos mientras no se apruebe esta planificación, así como de las posibles excepciones para instalaciones destinadas al autoconsumo o que se ubiquen en cubiertas de edificaciones existentes y futuras o en espacios degradados por actividades o afectados por infraestructuras existentes.

El Síndic considera que una planificación territorial y sectorial de la implantación de las infraestructuras relativas a las energías renovables debería constituir el marco orientador, en todo el territorio de Cataluña, de las políticas públicas en este ámbito y debería estudiar, con una visión estratégica y territorial, las características que deberían tener los espacios para adecuarse y acoger dichas infraestructuras. A la vez, la elaboración y aprobación de un marco planificador debería permitir una armonización de los diferentes usos del suelo y una garantía de la viabilidad económica de las instalaciones.

La planificación resolvería las carencias de participación de los diversos actores en juego y ofrecería una visión conjunta para resolver situaciones en que se concentren o se superpongan varios proyectos, se afecte de forma relevante al paisaje o se generen incoherencias con los modelos urbanísticos vigentes. La posibilidad de prever medidas compensatorias por los territorios más afectados o de regular la restauración o reparación de los suelos afectados por infraestructuras que sean obsoletas o en desuso también serían aspectos que podrían incluirse en el objeto de una planificación sectorial.

Read more

Statement from the Ombudsman, Mr Peter Tyndall, for the Joint Committee on Public Petitions on the work of his Office in the Direct Provision sector

Date of article: 12/05/2021

Daily News of: 11/05/2021

Country:  Ireland

Author: National Ombudsman of Ireland

Article language: en

Dear Cathaoirleach,

Thank you and the Committee for the invitation to talk to you today. I welcome the opportunity to tell you about the work of my Office in the sector and to discuss any particular interests or concerns as the Committee may like to raise with me.

As you will know, each year since my remit over the Direct Provision sector was confirmed in April 2017 I have published a Commentary on the work of my Office in the sector.  I discussed my Commentaries for 2017 and 2018 at my appearance on 25 September 2019 before the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality.

My Office’s Outreach Programme

You will recall from that previous appearance that I agreed to that Committee’s suggestion for me to include unannounced visits in the scope of my Office’s Outreach Programme of visits to centres where we felt such an approach was appropriate.  My Outreach team undertook a small number of such visits in the latter part of 2019, two of which I discussed in my Commentary for that year.  The team found the unannounced visits were a very valuable mechanism for following up on cases where our normal post-visit engagement with stakeholders had not led to resolution of complaints.  We also found unannounced visits were the best way to see for ourselves in real time situations highlighted in complaints where facts on the ground were disputed and therefore not suitable for our normal desktop examination.

In light of this experience, we intended to include a number of unannounced visits as appropriate in our Outreach programme for 2020.   However, as we are all too well aware, the Covid-19 pandemic emerged over the course of 2020.  The pandemic has had as severe an impact on our Outreach work as it has had every other walk of life.  I referred briefly to the then emerging Covid-19 situation in my Commentary for 2019, but as with most other people did not anticipate at that time just now severe its impact would be on all our lives.

Impact of the Covid pandemic

The pandemic featured as one of the main themes in my Commentary for 2020 published on 25 March last.  In it, I commented that the pandemic resulted in complaints to my Office about Covid-related curtailed movement within and between accommodation centres.  I also mentioned that the national travel restrictions we have all been subject to also directly impacted on the ability of my staff to physically visit centres under our Outreach programme.  As a result, we unfortunately had to significantly curtail the scale of our visits for 2020 compared to previous years.  This in turn negatively impacted on our complaint numbers from Direct Provisions residents, which at 61 for 2020 is a reduction of more than 60% over the 168 complaints we got from residents in 2019. 

With the recently announced easing of travel restrictions, I am confident we will be able to recommence our Outreach work later in the Summer and reconnect residents to what has proven to be by far the most effective mechanism for them to connect with my Office.  We have engaged with HIQA and the HSE, following which we modified the logistics of our visits to centres to ensure our contacts with residents and staff are consistent with the appropriate public health guidelines. 

During the one Outreach visit the team managed to undertake before Covid travel restrictions were re-imposed in October, residents raised issues about refusal of applications for driving licences and of difficulties in opening back accounts.  I was pleased to report that the Department of Transport has committed to deal with the driving licence issue in general road safety legislation it plans to introduce during the current Dáil term. The issue with bank accounts was that banks were refusing to accept correspondence sent to residents in their centres as proof of address for the purpose of opening an account.  I am also pleased to note that, since publication of my Commentary for 2020, the banking sector is moving to address this issue by indicating willingness to reconsider this previous refusal.

Despite the curtailment of our regular Outreach engagement with the sector, we continue to accept complaints from residents and third parties via our website and through email, telephone calls and the post.  We also offer residents the facility to engage with us remotely directly from their centres.  We continue to engage with the various public body stakeholders to examine issues raised by residents, most commonly relating to transfers, accommodation issues and access to health and welfare services.

Responsibility moves to a new Department

During 2020 the International Protection Accommodation Service (IPAS), which is the agency responsible for accommodating applicants for international protection under the Direct Provision system, was moved from the Department of Justice to the new Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. Some non-accommodation elements of the State’s interaction with protection applicants remain with the Department of Justice, in particular the Labour Market Access Unit. That Unit regulates access by protection applicants to paid employment while they await a decision on their application for international protection.

This transfer of functions means a new Department is now responsible for implementing the changes to the Direct Provision system set out in the Government’s White Paper on International Protection Accommodation and Supports which was published on 26 February 2021.   We will continue to liaise with the new Department on its implementation of the commitments in the White Paper.  This will include progress made by IPAS in undertaking full vulnerability assessment of all protection applicants (currently in a pilot scheme) and in developing policies for managing inter resident conflict in communal centres while such centres remain in operation.  

(...)

Read more

The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the Prison and Probation Service due to placing certain inmates in a more intrusive environment than necessary

Date of article: 18/05/2021

Daily News of: 10/05/2021

Country:  Sweden

Author: Parliamentary Ombudsmen of Sweden

Article language: en

  • The Prison and Probation Service has three buildings with a particularly high security classification. These premises are situated in the prisons Hall, Kumla and Saltvik (so-called high security units). The buildings were built to receive inmates covered by decisions pursuant to chapter 2, section 4 of the Prison Act implementing that the inmate is to be placed in a security unit. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has previously criticised the Prison and Probation Service for the fact that the high security unit at Saltvik prison has partly been used for the placement of inmates who should not be placed in security units, but who for various reasons need protection. Within the framework of this enquiry, the Parliamentary Ombudsman will continue to investigate how the Prison and Probation Service use these buildings.

    The investigation has shown that the Prison and Probation Service, despite previous criticism, has not taken necessary measures to adjust the situation for inmates in need of protection, who are placed in high security units. These inmates are still subject to more intrusive surveillance and control than is necessary. The Parliamentary Ombudsman finds this remarkable. Moreover, the Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Prison and Probation Service for taking a decision to establish shelters at Hall prison, despite the fact that the prison was not able to adapt their activities for these inmates as at Saltvik prison. It has also emerged that the Prison and Probation Service, during the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s ongoing investigation, decided to place groups of inmates, who are not covered by decisions on security placement, in high security units. This is a worrying development, according to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman does not question that the Prison and Probation Service has an urgent need to locate more space, due to the problematic occupancy situation. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding, however, it is not acceptable to place inmates within premises that hold more intrusive surveillance and control that what is necessary, violating the provisions set out in the Prison Act. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the Prison and Probation Service must be able to cater for an inmate’s needs for e.g. protection, regardless of the degree of surveillance and control that an inmate otherwise needs. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also holds that the high security units do not offer a flexible space and are limited in terms of adaptations to be able to compensate for the closed environment.

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the Prison and Probation Service due to the deficiencies that have been observed within the framework of this enquiry. A copy of the decision is sent to the government for knowledge.


     

Read more

(CoE) Journalists covering public assemblies need to be protected

Date of article: 30/04/2021

Daily News of: 06/05/2021

Country:  EUROPE

Author: Commissioner for Human Rights - Council of Europe

Article language: en

Journalism is a dangerous profession. Images of injured journalists on the fringes of protests have unfortunately become commonplace in Europe, and beyond. Cameramen, journalists, photographers and other media workers have been assaulted while they were just doing their job: reporting on public assemblies, including demonstrations, that are in the public interest. What is at stake here is the right to receive and impart information: journalists play a crucial role in providing independent coverage of public assemblies as well as information on the authorities’ handling of public demonstrations and the containment of possible disorder. They must therefore be given full access to all forms of public assembly and be able to report on them safely and without undue interference.

Press freedom and the right to receive and impart information

Obstruction of and interference with the coverage of public events by journalists and other media actors can take various forms, ranging from the seizing and/or damaging of their equipment to intimidation and physical attacks, sometimes resulting in broken bones and other serious injuries. In some cases, journalists have been arrested and jailed after covering unauthorised protests.

I recently spoke out about incidents involving police brutality against journalists covering demonstrations in the Russian FederationBulgaria and Albania, stressing that violence against journalists, especially at the hands of state officials, is contrary to states’ duty to uphold press freedom and to protect the safety of journalists.

The European Court of Human Rights has found that violence committed against journalists, particularly by agents of the state, may constitute a breach not only of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, but also of the right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10, which includes the right to receive and impart information. In the case of Najafli v. Azerbaijan for instance, the Court held that any measures which prevent journalists from doing their work may raise issues under Article 10 and concluded that there had been a violation due to the use of excessive force against the applicant. The latter had been wearing a journalist’s badge on his chest and had told the police officers that he was a journalist. Irrespective of whether there had been any intention on the part of the police to interfere with journalistic activity or not, what matters is that the journalist was subjected to unnecessary and excessive use of force, despite having made clear efforts to identify himself as a journalist who was simply doing his job and observing the event.

The Court also noted that, in the context of public demonstrations, the presence of journalists is a guarantee that the authorities can be held to account for their conduct vis-à-vis the demonstrators and the public at large, including the methods used to police large gatherings, to control or disperse protesters, or to preserve public order.

An alarming trend

The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated an alarming trend: violence against journalists is on the rise. Journalists covering anti-lockdown protests, for instance, have increasingly been subjected to physical assaults in recent months.

In many cases the violence was committed by bystanders and the demonstrators themselves. In Germany for instance, at least 43 journalists were prevented from carrying out their work by protesters at a Querdenker demonstration which took place in Leipzig last November. Many journalists were threatened with violence, while others were chased and physically attacked. The police, however, reportedly failed to take appropriate action to protect them and, in some cases, even impeded journalistic work.

But Germany is not the only member state facing attacks on journalists covering anti-lockdown protests. A recent study recorded at least 58 incidents involving assaults, physical aggression, threats and intimidation against journalists covering demonstrations linked to Covid-19 between September and December 2020 in Italy, Slovenia, Austria and Portugal in addition to Germany. While these attacks were predominantly the work of anti-mask, anti-lockdown or conspiracy theory groups, others were carried out by members of far-right groups which hijacked rallies to push their own agenda.

The fact that in most cases, the attackers knew that their victims, many of whom were wearing press badges or holding cameras, were journalists signals a growing sense of hostility and mistrust towards journalists and their work, in a context of increased polarisation and disinformation. There is a risk that this could lead to self-censorship: I was particularly struck to hear from some journalists that they had stopped covering certain public events due to fear of attacks or reprisals.

In times of crisis more than ever, public assemblies and the right to protest are crucial in making one’s opinion heard, articulating grievances and aspirations, and influencing public policy. While the pandemic has precipitated a human rights crisis, increasing isolation, fear and anxiety, assemblies should be preserved as places for democratic debate and discussion and not become another zone of fear and anxiety.

Police violence

This trend is all the more worrying when it is the police themselves who carry out the attacks. In many Council of Europe member states, policing of demonstrations has increasingly become an issue of concern, not least due to restrictions introduced to curb the spread of Covid-19 and to the way in which the applicable rules are being enforced by the police. At a time when we are seeing a growing willingness to use force when policing assemblies, I am deeply worried by numerous reports of physical attacks on journalists covering demonstrations by law enforcement officers, or of police hindrance and disruption of media workers’ reporting of demonstrations.

In France, there has been a disturbing rise in such incidents. In order to tackle this issue, the French Minister of the Interior presented on 17 September 2020 the new National Policing Plan, which recognises the need for “more consideration to be given to the presence of journalists during law enforcement operations, based in particular on better mutual understanding.” Several journalists’ trade unions and associations, however, have criticised the plan as discriminating between journalists “in possession of press cards and official accreditation”, who are the only ones authorised to wear protective equipment, and others. According to them, “the offence consisting in remaining in a crowd after having been warned does not suffer any exception, including for the benefit of journalists.”

These are important points, as the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity recognised when it stressed that “the protection of journalists should not be limited to those formally recognised as journalists, but should cover others, including community media workers and citizen journalists and others who may be using new media as a means of reaching their audiences”. Freelancers and citizens reporting are in a particularly vulnerable position in this regard, as they do not have press cards to prove their status and are thus more likely to be assaulted or roughed up by police or protesters.

In addition, a recent report by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media reiterated that journalists have a right to cover any form of public assembly, irrespective of its legal status. In the case of spontaneous demonstrations, for instance, which should not in principle be regarded as illegal, journalists are especially important as police behaviour is a particular issue on such occasions and problems are not uncommon.

What governments should do

As stressed by the Council of Europe 2016 Recommendation on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors, “member states should take into account the specific nature and democratic value of the role played by journalists and other media actors in particular contexts, such as in times of crisis, during election periods, at public demonstrations and in conflict zones. In these contexts in particular, it is important for law enforcement authorities to respect the role of journalists and other media actors covering demonstrations and other events.”

To uphold this role and ensure the rights of media workers to safely report on public assemblies, there are several steps member states can take.

Firstly, governments and politicians should give a strong signal that any attacks against journalists are unacceptable and will not go unpunished.

Secondly, the authorities need to initiate prompt, thorough and transparent investigations and bring perpetrators to justice, with punishments that reflect the seriousness of the crime. If journalists have been threatened, the authorities should act quickly to protect them.

At the same time, the authorities should promote co-operation between police and journalists. Dialogue between state authorities and journalists’ organisations should be encouraged in order to avoid friction or clashes between police and members of the media. In this regard, institutions such as media contact officers (Medienkontaktbeamte, or MKB) in the Federal police in Austria would seem to be a promising initiative.

In times of pandemic in particular, policing of assemblies should be based on communication and co-operation with the organisers and participants, so that appropriate measures are taken to ensure compliance with the existing restrictions (such as wearing masks and social distancing), with a view to preventing any problems related to possible spread of the disease, de-escalating tensions and avoiding the need to use force.

Lastly, I cannot overemphasise the importance of training. Police officers should be adequately trained in the role and function of journalists, especially during a public assembly. Journalists and media workers should be equally trained to cover public assemblies safely, including as regards the need to clearly identify themselves when reporting, for instance by displaying the word “press” on their clothing.

State authorities, law enforcement officials, media professionals: we all have a role to play in this.

The right to peaceful assembly is vital for a functioning democracy, and so is the public’s right to know about public assemblies. As we celebrate World Press Freedom Day, it is time to reiterate our commitment to defend journalism as an essential part of information as a public good. However, when journalists are assaulted or their work otherwise obstructed, their ability to cover demonstrations in person and to inform society is greatly diminished. To ensure access to information, they must therefore be protected.

Dunja Mijatović

Useful references:

  • Report by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
  • OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Guidelines on freedom of peaceful assembly
  • Guide on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - freedom of expression
Read more