- In the final Position of the European Union regarding its association with Turkey (ASSOCIATION WITH TURKEY, Establishment of the position of the European Union, for the 47th Association Council meeting (Brussels, 19 May 2009):

“…the EU recalls that on 14 March 2009 the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe delivered its opinion on the Turkish legal provisions governing the closure of political parties. The EU invites Turkey to amend these provisions in line with the case law of the European Court of Human rights and taking into account the above-mentioned opinion of the Venice Commission.”

- At the 13th meeting of the EU-Ukraine Cooperation Council in Luxemburg on 16 June 2009 in the press release:

"...The EU recalled the critical importance of constitutional reform carried out in a transparent and inclusive manner. Ukraine was encouraged to continue consulting the Venice Commission in this process. ..."

-          The US House of Representatives in its Resolution H. Res. 171 on Bosnia and Herzegovina, calling inter alia for further constitutional reforms in the country and quoting the Venice Commission’s “Opinion on the Constitutional Situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Powers of the High Representative” CDL-AD(2005)004, adopted by the Venice Commission on 11-12 March 2005:

“…the Council of Europe's Venice Commission has concluded that the current constitutional arrangements of Bosnia and Herzegovina are neither efficient nor rational, and that the state-level institutions need to become more effective and democratic if the country is to move toward EU membership,” the resolution reads.

The opinion

Resolution H.Res.171 "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the need for constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the importance of sustained United States engagement in partnership with the European Union (EU)."

The European Court of Human Rights

The work of the Venice Commission is increasingly used by the European Court of Human Rights for the purpose of interpreting the scope of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention. Today, more than thirty rulings and decisions cite the Commission's work.

The first reference was made in 2001 in the case Banković and others v. Belgium and 16 other Contracting States, where the report on the preferential treatment of national minorities by their kin-state, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 48th Plenary Meeting (19-20 October 2001), was quoted in the context of determining the scope of Article 1 of the Convention.

Guidelines on prohibition and dissolution of political parties (CDL-INF(2000)001) and the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters (CDL-AD(2002)023), respectively adopted by the Venice Commission at its 41th, 51th and 52th sessions, are the most cited by the ECHR.

In 2005, in the case Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Venice Commission as a third party has submitted its opinion adopted at its 63th plenary session on 10-11 June 2005 (CDL-AD (2005)020) on the nature of proceedings before the Human Rights Chamber and the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 2006, in the case Basque Nationalist Party - Regional Organisation of Iparralde v. France, the Venice Commission has produced, at the invitation of the Court, a notice adopted at its 66th plenary session (17-18 March 2006, CDL-AD(2006)014) on the financing of political parties through foreign funds.

Link to the ECHR database

(click on "HUDOC collection", then type "venice commission or commission de venise" in the search field and click on English and French to get the full list of judgements containing references to the Commission' s documents)

International Human Rights NGOs

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have referred to

the Commission in dozens of their documents.

Examples of References by the Human Rights Watch