Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Review of ECHR decisions for 20/11/2024

CASE OF CLIPEA AND GROSU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA


1. Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights found violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights in a case concerning two Moldovan nationals with intellectual disabilities who underwent periodic treatment at a psychiatric hospital. The Court determined that the material conditions of their treatment and the ineffective investigation of their complaints amounted to inhuman treatment, and that they faced discrimination based on their intellectual disabilities.2. Structure and main provisions:
The decision addresses three main aspects:- Material conditions in the psychiatric hospital (lack of fresh air walks, poor sanitary conditions)- Investigation of complaints about ill-treatment- Discriminatory treatment based on intellectual disabilitiesThe Court found that even though the applicants were formally voluntary patients, their treatment was de facto involuntary due to various restrictions. The Court awarded each applicant €7,500 in non-pecuniary damages.3. Key provisions for practical use:
– The Court established that even voluntary psychiatric patients retain certain rights and the State has obligations to protect them from inhuman treatment- Mental health patients’ intellectual disabilities cannot be used as a reason to dismiss their complaints without proper investigation- The State must provide objective and reasonable justification for any difference in treatment based on disability- Psychiatric institutions must ensure adequate material conditions including access to fresh air and proper sanitary facilities- Investigations into complaints by persons with intellectual disabilities must be thorough and not dismissed solely based on their condition

CASE OF VIERU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

The case concerns the failure of Moldovan authorities to protect a woman (T.) from domestic violence by her ex-husband (I.C.), which culminated in her death after falling from the fifth floor of her apartment. The Court found violations of Articles 2 (right to life – procedural aspect), 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment – both substantive and procedural aspects), and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Key findings:

  • The authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into credible allegations of physical and psychological domestic violence and into the circumstances of T.’s death
  • The legal framework and its implementation failed to effectively prevent a pattern of domestic violence consisting of psychological violence and physical violence which continued between former spouses
  • The authorities failed to assess the real and immediate risk of violence recurrence and to take preventive measures
  • There was institutional passivity and lack of awareness regarding domestic violence as a form of gender-based violence affecting predominantly women

The Court awarded €20,000 in non-pecuniary damages to the applicant. The case highlights systemic issues in Moldova’s response to domestic violence, particularly regarding risk assessment, protection of victims, and prosecution of perpetrators.

CASE OF TSIOLIS v. GREECE


CASE OF DIMOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on a case concerning the violation of fair trial rights in Serbian criminal proceedings. The case involved four Serbian nationals who were convicted of attempted aggravated theft and sentenced to imprisonment.The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) due to the applicants’ inability to comment on the written observations submitted by the Higher Public Prosecutor to the Court of Appeal. The Court emphasized that both prosecution and defense must have the opportunity to know and comment on observations filed by the other party in criminal proceedings.The key aspects of the decision include:

  • The Court rejected the Government’s argument that the applicants had not suffered significant disadvantage, stating that in criminal cases involving imprisonment, the existence of a violation is conceivable even without proven prejudice.
  • The Court distinguished this case from previous precedents, noting that criminal proceedings resulting in imprisonment require special attention to adversarial principles.
  • The absence of domestic law provisions requiring communication of prosecutor’s submissions to the defense cannot justify the failure to ensure the adversarial nature of the proceedings.

As a result of the violation, the Court awarded each applicant EUR 900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage but rejected their claims for costs and expenses due to lack of supporting documentation.

CASE OF SZABO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) case Szabo v. the Republic of Moldova concerns the quashing of a final judgment in criminal proceedings by accepting a time-barred appeal, which resulted in an increased sentence and property confiscation for the applicant.The Court found violations of both Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) based on the following key elements:

  • The prosecutor’s appeal was filed with the wrong court (Court of Appeal) instead of the first-instance court as required by law
  • The subsequent filing with the correct court was made after the 15-day statutory deadline
  • No legal procedure for reinstatement of the missed deadline was initiated
  • The domestic courts’ acceptance of the late appeal violated the principle of legal certainty
  • The resulting confiscation of the applicant’s car constituted an unjustified interference with property rights

The Court emphasized that the principle of legal certainty requires that once a court’s judgment becomes final, it should not be called into question. The acceptance of a time-barred appeal without proper legal basis undermined this principle and imposed an excessive individual burden on the applicant through the increased sentence and property confiscation.

CASE OF MALAI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

The case concerns the unlawful detention and video surveillance of Ms. Nicoleta Malai, a former village mayor in Moldova, who was arrested on corruption charges and held in custody for almost six months between November 2017 and May 2018.The Court found two violations of the European Convention on Human Rights:

  • A violation of Article 5 § 3 due to the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The Court noted that domestic courts used stereotyped and abstract reasoning without considering important factors like the applicant’s conduct before arrest.
  • A violation of Article 8 regarding unlawful video surveillance during police custody. The Court found that permanent video surveillance constituted a serious interference with privacy rights and was not properly regulated by domestic law.

The Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. Other complaints under Articles 3 and 5 § 1 were declared inadmissible.Key provisions of the decision include:

  • The requirement for courts to provide concrete and individualized reasons when ordering pre-trial detention
  • The need for proper legal framework and safeguards for video surveillance in detention facilities
  • The importance of periodic review of surveillance measures and the availability of effective remedies
  • The prohibition of unrestricted power to place detainees under permanent video surveillance without proper justification

Leave a comment

E-mail
Password
Confirm Password