Review of ECHR decisions for 08/01/2025

This judgment concerns just satisfaction (compensation) in cases related to property confiscated or nationalized by the communist regime in Romania. The key aspects are:The Court found that Romania violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 due to prolonged non-enforcement of judgments ordering property restitution, lack of effective remedies, annulment of property titles without compensation, and failure to ensure compensation reasonably related to current property values.The Court established that:

• Romania must ensure enforcement of outstanding judgments ordering property restitution within 12 months
• If restitution is not possible, compensation must be paid based on current property values using notarial grids (official property value tables)
• Compensation amounts must be adjusted for inflation when payment is delayed
• Claims for loss of use/profit were generally rejected as speculative, except in one case where domestic courts had already established such damages

The judgment is significant as it establishes clear principles for calculating compensation in property restitution cases:

• Notarial grids are accepted as the main valuation tool
• Property condition at time of payment should be considered rather than condition at time of confiscation
• Values must be updated annually or increased by 13% per year if grids are not updated
• Compensation must remain reasonably related to market value at time of actual payment

The case concerns a series of discriminatory articles published by an Armenian newspaper targeting LGBT rights activists. The European Court of Human Rights found violations of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. The essence of the decision is that Armenia failed to protect LGBT rights activists from hate speech and discrimination when a newspaper published articles calling them ‘enemies of the state’ and inciting discrimination against them based on their activism and perceived sexual orientation. The main provisions of the decision include:

• The Court found that Article 8 (right to private life) was applicable as the articles constituted serious attacks targeting the applicants’ psychological well-being, dignity and reputation
• Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) was also applicable as the attacks were motivated by hostility towards the LGBT community
• The domestic courts failed to properly balance freedom of expression against protection from hate speech and discrimination
• Armenia lacked an effective legal framework to protect against homophobic hate speech and discrimination
• The Court awarded €2,000 to each applicant in non-pecuniary damages

The most important aspects for implementation are:

• States must provide effective legal protection against hate speech and discrimination based on sexual orientation
• Courts must properly assess discriminatory motives and balance competing rights when dealing with hate speech cases
• Civil remedies must be effective both in theory and practice in protecting against hate speech
• Media freedom does not protect speech that promotes hatred and discrimination against minorities