Why this matters: Winning a case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR/ECtHR) is not the end of the story. The real fight often begins after judgment: execution. The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers supervises whether Norway actually changes laws, guidance, and practice to prevent repeat violations. Rule 9 communications are one of the most practical “outside the box” tools available to civil society.
What is the Committee of Ministers’ supervision?
After an ECtHR judgment becomes final, the respondent State must implement:
- Individual measures (where possible): actions to remedy the applicant’s situation (e.g., reopening proceedings, restoring contact, compensation where relevant).
- General measures: changes to law, policy, training, and practice so the same human-rights breach does not happen to others.
The Committee of Ministers (CM) reviews State action plans, receives updates, and can adopt decisions urging concrete reforms.
What is a Rule 9 communication?
Rule 9 is part of the CM’s Rules for supervising execution of judgments. It allows external actors to submit information relevant to execution:
- Rule 9(1): communications from applicants and their representatives about execution of their judgment.
- Rule 9(2): communications from NGOs and National Human Rights Institutions about execution (often focused on systemic reform).
When should Do Better Norge (or allies) use Rule 9?
- Systemic problems are continuing despite judgments (e.g., “reunification in theory, adoption in practice”).
- Norway’s action plan looks good on paper but is not measurable or not implemented.
- There is a pattern of repeat Article 8 violations: low contact, weak reunification efforts, procedural deficits, or expert dominance.
What makes a strong Rule 9 submission?
- Anchor to a specific judgment group (a “group of cases” against Norway) or a specific execution file.
- Evidence-based: statistics, anonymised case patterns, excerpts from decisions, audit reports, Ombudsman findings, research.
- Concrete asks: “Adopt new binding guidance on minimum contact”, “Publish reunification metrics”, “Training + audit”, “Legislative amendment”, etc.
- Feasible measures: link your asks to realistic administrative steps and timelines.
Do Better Norge perspective
Rule 9 is powerful because it shifts the debate from “one tragic case” to “repeatable failures of law and administration.” It is not a court procedure; it is a public accountability mechanism aimed at forcing measurable reform. For child welfare and Article 8 cases, the CM supervision process is where Norway’s promises are tested.
Comments (0)
You must be logged in to comment Login
No comments yet. Be the first to start the conversation.