In March 2020, I wrote an article revealing several conflicts of interest between judges at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg and NGOs funded by George Soros. The source of the article was a detailed report published by The Strasbourg-based European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ) which had conducted extensive research using records from within the Court and interviews with a former judge.
I followed that up with a further article in November 2021 with news of some limited improvements in the ethics and conduct of the affairs of the ECHR following debates in several parliaments of countries within the Council of Europe excluding Ireland.
Now, four years later comes news that the ECHR has agreed to establish a procedure for challenging its judges in cases of a conflict of interest. This necessary amendment to the Rules of the Court has resulted from the publication of the two reports by the ECLJ.
The first report, titled NGOs and the Judges of the ECHR, published in 2020, gained worldwide attention and exposed the ECLJ to multiple reprisals. It revealed that at least 22 out of the 100 permanent judges of the ECHR come from seven NGOs active at the ECHR and have ruled on more than a hundred cases brought by their own NGOs, thereby placing themselves in a clear conflict of interest. That report caused a particular scandal as it disclosed that among these NGOs, George Soros’s Open Society Foundation is notably prominent with at least twelve judges originating from its network. Furthermore, it funds the other six NGOs from which the remaining ten judges come.
Three years later, the ECLJ did further investigation into the internal dysfunction of the ECHR and published a further report titled The Impartiality of the ECHR – Problems and Recommendations. This contained several recommendations addressed to the States and the Court to strengthen its impartiality. Leading among those recommendations was the adoption of a recusal procedure. This has now been accomplished in Article 28 of the Rules of Court, namely, Inability to Sit and Recusal.
The Court has also adopted a 4-page Practice Directions on the recusal of the judges, appended to its Rules, which outlines the recusal procedure. In doing so, it has incorporated two additional recommendations from the ECLJ. One aims to allow applicants to know in advance the identity of the judges likely to decide their case. The other explicitly clarifies the possibility of requesting the reopening of a case after a decision of inadmissibility. Such a possibility is necessary, especially if the applicant discovers that a judge who issued the decision was in a conflict of interest. These are technical, but significant improvements to the functioning of the Court.
The adoption of these internal reforms is the culmination of a lengthy process accompanying the publication of the ECLJ reports and initiated notably by the submission of a petition with 60,000 signatories to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. As a result of that pressure, several member states of the Council of Europe requested and obtained the establishment of an inter-governmental Committee of Experts tasked with drafting a report on ways to strengthen the independence and impartiality of judges. Grégor Puppinck, Director of the ECLJ, participated in that group.
The dual pressure exerted through the Parliamentary Assembly and the Member Governments which drove the European Court to adopt these essential reforms. The challenge for the ECHR system was to address the significant issue of conflicts of interest without publicly acknowledging its existence, so as not to undermine the credibility of the Court.
The adoption of this recusal procedure is the most meaningful change achieved through the reports of the ECLJ. In the previous years, two other reforms had also been adopted by the ECHR, and they too followed ECLJ recommendations.
In September 2021, the Court adopted a new Resolution on Judicial Ethics strengthening the ethical obligations of the judges, particularly their obligations of integrity, independence and impartiality. Echoing the ECLJ report, this resolution requires judges to be independent of any institution, including any “private entity” referring to NGOs and other foundations. Regarding impartiality, the text adds explicitly that “Judges shall not be involved in dealing with a case in which they have a personal interest,” thereby, reinforcing the prevention of conflicts of interest.
In March 2023, another response was provided by the ECHR to the ECLJ reports through the publication of a Practice Directions on third party interventions. This aims to enhance transparency in the actions of NGOs at the Court. The ECLJ had revealed that NGOs often operate covertly, both as applicants and interveners in the same case, concealing their ties to parties or judges.
The ECLJ is very satisfied with these internal reforms within the ECHR and is pleased that its advocacy work is bearing fruit. It emphasises that its intention in this advocacy work has always been to serve justice and, consequently, the proper functioning of the Court.
The ECLJ will continue its assessment of the functioning of the ECHR. In this regard, it recommends that the Court continues its internal reforms, notably by requiring judges to publish a declaration of interests. It urges the Court to ensure transparency in its registry and the impartiality of its members. This involves publishing the list of its members, following the good practice of the European Court of Justice or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
The ECLJ also recommends that States no longer propose activists from NGOs as judges at the ECHR but only judges with extensive judicial experience. It further advises applying the same selection criteria to the appointment of “ad hoc” judges, i.e., substitutes.
Beyond these institutional aspects, Grégor Puppinck says that “the ECLJ will continue to engage with the Court to ensure that its jurisprudence adheres to a fair interpretation of human rights and the interests of the peoples of Europe”.
For too long vested interest groups and NGOs funded by George Soros had unacceptable influence in the affairs of the ECHR. It is sad that the ECLJ had to expose poor governance and bad practices in such an important European judicial institution before remedial action was taken by the Court and the Council of Europe. It is equally sad that the Oireachtas or the Irish Government took no interest in the matter.
(Additional reporting by the ECLJ is acknowledged).
Matt Moran is a writer and author living in Cork. His books – The Legacy of Irish Missionaries Lives On and The Theology of Integral Human Development can be purchased on www.buythebook.ie