CASE OF F.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights found Russia violated Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labor) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights in a case concerning five female migrants from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan who were victims of human trafficking and labor exploitation in Moscow convenience stores between 2002-2016.
Structure and main provisions:
The Court found Russia failed in three key obligations:1. Failed to put in place adequate legislative and administrative framework to prohibit and prevent trafficking and protect victims2. Failed to take operational measures to protect the applicants as potential victims of trafficking3. Failed to conduct effective criminal investigation into credible allegations of trafficking, forced labor and gender-based violenceThe Court determined the women were victims of cross-border trafficking and servitude, subjected to exploitation, confinement, physical abuse, and sexual violence. The authorities’ discriminatory passivity and inaction reflected bias against female migrant workers and created conditions conducive to trafficking.
Key provisions for use:
CASE OF MARTINEZ ALVARADO v. THE NETHERLANDS
CASE OF RAMAJ v. ALBANIA
CASE OF PAPADOPOULOS v. GREECE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Papadopoulos v. Greece, concerning double prosecution for smuggling and violation of the presumption of innocence. The Court found violations of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (ne bis in idem principle) and Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (presumption of innocence).The decision addresses three main aspects:
- The violation of the ne bis in idem principle, as the applicant was subjected to both criminal and administrative proceedings for the same smuggling offense
- The disregard of the applicant’s criminal acquittal by administrative courts in subsequent proceedings
- The violation of the presumption of innocence when administrative courts held the applicant liable for the same offense for which he had been acquitted
Key provisions of the decision:
- The Court confirmed that both administrative and criminal proceedings were of criminal nature due to the severity of the customs fine and its deterrent effect
- The Court emphasized that administrative courts must consider, of their own motion, the effect of a criminal acquittal in administrative proceedings
- The Court rejected the applicant’s complaint regarding the disproportionate amount of the fine due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
- The Court followed its previous case law, particularly Kapetanios and Others v. Greece, in reaching its conclusions
CASE OF PAPAKYRIAKOU v. GREECE
The case concerns a Greek national who was subjected to both criminal and administrative proceedings for smuggling related to the sale and circulation of a vehicle imported without paying customs duties. The Court found violations of the Convention regarding double jeopardy (ne bis in idem principle) and the presumption of innocence.The decision addresses two main legal issues:
- The violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (ne bis in idem principle) because the applicant was tried and convicted in administrative proceedings for the same offense for which he had been acquitted in criminal proceedings
- The violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) as the administrative courts failed to respect the presumption of innocence stemming from the criminal acquittal
Key provisions of the decision include:
- The Court confirmed that both administrative and criminal proceedings were of a criminal nature due to the severity of the customs fine and its deterrent effect
- The administrative courts’ refusal to consider the effect of the final criminal acquittal violated the ne bis in idem principle
- The Court awarded EUR 9,800 in non-pecuniary damages to the applicant
- The Court followed its previous case law, particularly Kapetanios and Others v. Greece, in finding these violations
CASE OF MATHIANTONIS v. GREECE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in the case of Mathiantonis v. Greece concerning two Greek nationals who were subjected to both criminal and administrative proceedings for fuel smuggling. The Court found violations of the ne bis in idem principle and the presumption of innocence after the applicants were acquitted in criminal proceedings but still faced administrative fines.The case revolves around two main legal issues: First, the violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (ne bis in idem principle) where the applicants were subjected to administrative proceedings despite being acquitted in criminal proceedings for the same offense. Second, the violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) as the administrative courts failed to respect the applicants’ criminal acquittal.The key provisions of the decision include:
- The Court confirmed that both administrative and criminal proceedings were of a criminal nature due to the severity of the customs fine and its deterrent effect
- The administrative courts’ failure to consider the effect of the final acquittal judgment in light of the ne bis in idem principle was found to violate the Convention
- The Court awarded each applicant EUR 9,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage
- The decision reinforces the precedent set in the Kapetanios and Others v. Greece case regarding the relationship between criminal acquittals and subsequent administrative proceedings
The most significant aspects for practical application are the Court’s emphasis on administrative courts’ obligation to consider criminal acquittals of their own motion when raised by parties, and the confirmation that severe administrative fines can be considered ‘criminal’ in nature for the purposes of Convention protections.
CASE OF PETROVA v. BULGARIA
The case concerns a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) in relation to the sanctioning of a Bulgarian social services employee who complained about workplace harassment by her supervisor.The Court found that while public servants may need protection from offensive attacks, the applicant’s complaints about workplace harassment were neither insulting nor derogatory, but rather an expression of grievances about perceived experiences at work. The complaints were made through proper channels to relevant authorities, not publicly disclosed, which aligns with the duty of loyalty and discretion expected from civil servants.The key provisions of the decision are:
- The Court emphasized that the ability to report alleged irregularities in public officials’ conduct is a fundamental precept of the rule of law
- A distinction was drawn between criticism and insult – the applicant’s statements were found to be the former
- The impact on the supervisor’s reputation was limited since the complaints weren’t made public
- The sanctions imposed on the applicant (criminal proceedings and fines of over EUR 1,500) were deemed disproportionate
The Court concluded there was no pressing social need to sanction the applicant and ordered Bulgaria to pay compensation for both pecuniary (EUR 1,693) and non-pecuniary damage (EUR 3,600), plus costs (EUR 705).
CASE OF NIKOLOV v. BULGARIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined two applications concerning disciplinary proceedings against a Bulgarian lawyer, Svetlozar Anastasov Nikolov, who was sanctioned with suspension of his right to practice and fines for professional misconduct and unethical behavior.The Court found that there was no violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding access to a court, as the high disciplinary tribunals which heard the cases met the requirements of a ‘tribunal’ under the Convention. They were established by law, independent from the executive, and possessed the necessary structural and personal independence and impartiality.However, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the lack of public hearings. Despite the applicant’s requests, the hearings were closed to the public without sufficient justification. The Court determined that the situations did not fall among exceptional circumstances that would justify dispensing with a public hearing, and the tribunals failed to confine the measure of excluding the public to what was strictly necessary.The Court rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 regarding the right to appeal, finding that the disciplinary proceedings did not involve the determination of a ‘criminal charge’ and therefore this provision was not applicable. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 500 for costs and expenses but found that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage.
CASE OF PETKOV v. BULGARIA
The case concerns a civil liability dispute where Mr. Petkov was ordered to pay damages for complaining about the conduct of a public official (chief architect M.Y.) to relevant authorities regarding a construction permit issue.The Court found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) because:
- The applicant’s statements, though serious, were not made to humiliate or denigrate the official but represented allegations of misconduct in professional duties
- The complaints were made in writing to competent authorities, not disseminated publicly
- Private citizens must be able to complain about public officials to their superiors without risk of sanctions
- The damages ordered (EUR 767 plus costs) were considered a disproportionate interference that could stifle legitimate complaints against public officials
The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,600 in non-pecuniary damages, emphasizing that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, private persons should be able to report alleged irregularities in the conduct of public officials to competent authorities without facing disproportionate consequences, even if the allegations later prove groundless.
