Page - 3 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 1/2020

ALJ 2020 Benedek 2 major human rights violations existing at that time can still be found in the Council of Europe of today. Has there been a particular impact on the work of the Council of Europe at the time and what are the lessons learned for today? What are the similarities and differences at stake? What was the role of the personalities acting on behalf of the Council of Europe and what is the impact of its enlarged membership today? Furthermore, the institutions and tools at the disposal of the Council of Europe as the democratic conscience of Europe against democratic backsliding then and today will be compared asking the question what are the factors influencing the effectiveness of their use. Which are the factors influencing the “socialization” of member states to become guardians of common European values? In this context present-time challenges from anti-liberal forces and authoritarianism for democracy and human rights will be addressed using the recent practice of the Russian Federation and of Turkey, while other examples like Azerbaijan will not be dealt with in any detail for lack of space. How has the Council of Europe dealt with the state of emergency declared by Turkey in 2016 and how did it deal with the declarations of emergency in the so-called Corona crises? The conclusions will focus on what is the message of the “Greek Case” for a proper response to the challenges of democratic backsliding and a shrinking space for human rights and the rule of law in the Council of Europe today. Finally, some recommendations for the future will be made. II. Particularities of the “Greek Case” and Impact at the Time A. Particularities of the “Greek Case” 1. Responsibility taken by Member States In April 1967 the government of Greece was overthrown by a military coup. Efforts by the Council of Europe towards a return to democracy of the colonels remained without result. In this context the tool of an inter-state complaint was used by some concerned governments, i.e. Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands.2 The main particularity of the “Greek case” can be seen in the fact that those governments were not directly affected by the Greek events, but used the inter- state application for the sake of the common good, i.e. the preservation of trust in the European human rights system. The Consultative Assembly (which later became the Parliamentary Assembly - PACE), had an important role because it called in a resolution on member states to bring the case as a collective action. This kind of “actio popularis” was taken against massive pressures and lobbying. The case had two stages. One of the applicants, the Netherlands, did not join the others when they extended their application to cover also Article 3 violations, a crucial move for the whole case. To bring the case meant investing significant time and resources. Establishing the facts was a big challenge in the circumstances of the time. The applicant states, not least because of the 2 Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands vs. Greece Applications Nos. 3321-3323/67 and 3344/67 of 20th September 1967, Decisions of the Commission as to the Admissibility of Jan. 24, and of May 31, 1968; Report of the Sub-Commission on “The Greek Case” of Oct. 4, 1969, in 11 YECHR Vol. I (1969), Martinus Nijhoff/The Hague 1972.