Page - 6 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 1/2020

ALJ 2020 Lessons Learned 5 constitutional protection of human rights. Again, in 1982, a similar group of member states, i.e. Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden resorted to an inter-state application, claiming the violation of a whole list of human rights. The European Commission on Human Rights declared the complaint admissible in December 1983. The Turkish military government had declared a state of emergency based on Article 15 ECHR, which was not considered justified by the applicants when they brought their case in 1982. However, the Turkish government made some steps towards re-establishing democracy by organizing elections in November 1983 and dissolving the National Security Council. In the end, the case was terminated by a friendly settlement in December 1985 after a delegation of the Commission had visited Turkey that year.11 Accordingly, Turkey committed to a progressive lifting of its martial law, an amnesty and guarantees of the Convention rights. It should also be noted that by not recognizing the credentials of the Greek and later also of the Turkish deputies in 1969 and 1981 respectively, the Assembly used its powers to exclude them from the work of the Assembly, whereas in later cases like the ones of Russia in 2000, 2014 and 2015 PACE limited itself to a suspension of voting rights.12 2. Role of Council of Europe in Democratisation of Europe In the inter-state complaint of Austria v. Italy the European Commission on Human Rights formulated the principle that the Convention was not about reciprocal rights and national interests, but that its purpose was “to realise the aims and ideals of the Council of Europe, as expressed in its statute, and to establish a common public order of the free democracies of Europe with the objective of safeguarding their common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law.”13 This principle appears to have been followed in the Greek case. The experience of the Greek case had also its effect on the accession of Portugal and Spain, when in spite of the enthusiasm about this enlargement after the democratization of the two countries the Assembly required a stringent scrutiny of the new candidates in order to ensure there was no backlash.14 III. Relevance for Present-Day Challenges for Human Rights and Democracy A. Nature of present-day challenges Present-day challenges are characterized by populist and authoritarian governments, neglect of European values, violations of key human rights, lack of respect for the division of powers, which 11 France, Norvay, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands and Luxembourg vs. Turkey, Application Nos. 9940-9944, Report by the European Commission on Human Rights of Dec. 7, 1985, YECHR 28, 150. 12 Andrew Drzemczewski, The Parliamentary Assembly’s key role in upholding the Council of Europe’s core values, in El future de la Union Y la amenaza de uno no Europa. La crisis de valores de la UE (The crises of Values and the Future of Europe) 10, S. Sanz Caballero ed., Aranzadi. 2020). 13 European Commission of Human Rights, Austria v. Italy, No. 235/56, Decision of 10 June 1958, 2 YECHR, 256. 14 Roger Massie, An Iberian dawn, Portugal and Spain – 1974-1977, in EUROPE: A HUMAN ENTERPRISE, 30 STORIES FOR 70 YEARS OF EUROPEAN HISTORY 1949-2019, 39 et seq. (Council of Europe, 2019).