CASE OF A.B. AND Y.W. v. MALTA
The decision concerns two Chinese nationals of Uighur ethnicity and Muslim faith from Xinjiang who were refused international protection in Malta and issued a removal decision. The Court found that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention if the applicants were removed to China without a proper assessment of risks they would face.The Court examined whether Malta fulfilled its procedural obligation to assess the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 before confirming the removal of the applicants. The key issue was that while the Immigration Appeals Board (IAB) had competence to examine risks related to refoulement, it merely relied on an asylum assessment from 6 years earlier without conducting a fresh evaluation, despite significant changes in the situation in Xinjiang during that period.The main provisions of the decision are:
- The Court found that Malta failed to conduct a rigorous ex nunc assessment of risks the applicants would face if returned to China as Uighur Muslims and rejected asylum seekers
- The Court held that the IAB should have conducted a fresh risk assessment rather than simply relying on a 6-year-old asylum decision
- The Court emphasized that passage of time and deteriorating situation in Xinjiang required new evaluation of risks
- The Court maintained its interim measure preventing removal of applicants until the judgment becomes final
The most important aspects for implementation are:
- States must conduct rigorous risk assessments before removal, especially when significant time has passed since initial asylum decisions
- Appeals boards examining removal orders must independently assess non-refoulement risks rather than just rubber-stamping prior decisions
- Changed circumstances in country of origin require fresh evaluation of risks, even if asylum was previously denied
- The assessment must consider both general situation and individual circumstances just prior to removal
CASE OF BAZHENOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The case concerns the failure of Russian authorities to adequately respond to and investigate incidents where personal data of three LGBTI individuals was disclosed without their consent on social media platforms in a discriminatory and homophobic context. The European Court of Human Rights found that Russia violated Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to protect the applicants from discrimination based on their sexual orientation. The key provisions of the decision include:
- The Court emphasized that sexual orientation-based discrimination requires particularly convincing justification and states have a narrow margin of appreciation in such cases
- The authorities failed to conduct effective investigation into the homophobic motives behind the disclosure of applicants’ private data
- The Court noted that LGBTI community in Russia is particularly vulnerable and requires special protection from discriminatory treatment
- The Court awarded each applicant €7,000 in non-pecuniary damages
The most important aspects for practical application are:
- States have a positive obligation to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation, including in relations between private individuals
- When investigating privacy violations against LGBTI persons, authorities must specifically examine potential homophobic motives
- The vulnerability of LGBTI community requires heightened protection from stigmatizing statements and discriminatory actions
- Non-consensual disclosure of information about sexual orientation falls within the protected sphere of private life under Article 8
CASE OF KLIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The decision concerns several cases related to restrictions on LGBTI-related content in Russia, particularly focusing on the promotion of homosexuality among minors.The Court found violations of Article 8 (right to privacy) regarding collection of personal data from social networks, and Article 10 (freedom of expression) regarding convictions for administrative offenses and blocking of websites/social media pages for ‘promoting homosexuality among minors’.Key provisions of the decision:
- The Court ruled that collection of user data from social networks by security services without adequate safeguards violated privacy rights
- Restrictions on LGBTI-related content based solely on sexual orientation considerations were found incompatible with the Convention
- The Court emphasized that it is not justifiable to restrict children’s access to information about same-sex relationships where there is no evidence such information is harmful
- The Court found that convictions for third-party content posted on social networks without prior moderation were based on overly broad interpretation of law
Most important provisions for application:
- The Court established that collection of social network user data requires proper legal safeguards and judicial oversight
- Restrictions on LGBTI-related content must be based on evidence of actual harm, not just sexual orientation considerations
- Administrators of social network groups cannot be held liable for third-party content without clear legal provisions establishing such liability
- Age restriction warnings may be sufficient for content control rather than outright bans
CASE OF SKUČAI v. LITHUANIA
CASE OF FRROKU v. ALBANIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined a case concerning the Albanian Constitutional Court’s decision-making process, specifically focusing on the lack of reasoning in its judgment when dismissing a constitutional complaint due to failure to reach a required five-judge majority.The case originated from criminal proceedings where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in absentia for murder and unlawful possession of firearms. After unsuccessful appeals to the Supreme Court, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint which was dismissed by the Constitutional Court with a 4-2 vote, without providing substantial reasoning for the decision.The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the right to a reasoned decision. The ECHR determined that merely stating the voting results without providing grounds for dismissal of claims did not satisfy the requirements of a fair trial. This finding follows the precedent set in the Meli and Swinkles Family Brewers N.V. case.Key provisions of the decision include:
- The Constitutional Court must provide adequate reasoning for its decisions, even when dismissing cases due to failure to reach a qualified majority
- Simply stating voting results without explaining the grounds for dismissal violates the right to a fair trial
- The most appropriate form of reparation would be the reopening of proceedings before the Constitutional Court
The Court rejected the applicant’s claim for monetary compensation, stating that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction, and that the applicant has the opportunity to seek reopening of proceedings before the Constitutional Court under domestic law.
CASE OF SALAMOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
The case concerns the unlawful expropriation of properties in Baku, Azerbaijan, where multiple applicants’ properties were demolished by the Baku City Executive Authority (BCEA) for the construction of a new garden-park complex called ‘Winter Park’. The applicants were offered compensation of 1,500 Azerbaijani manats per square metre through contracts of sale with individuals acting on behalf of the BCEA.The Court found that the expropriation violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention because:
- The BCEA did not have the authority to expropriate private property
- No lawful expropriation order was issued by a competent State authority
- The interference constituted a de facto deprivation of possessions
- The contracts of sale were deemed irrelevant as they were entered into after the demolition
The Court’s key findings include:
- The expropriation was not carried out in compliance with ‘conditions provided for by law’
- The State failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention in application no. 52066/13
- The Court reserved the question of just satisfaction (Article 41) for later determination
- Claims regarding land plots underlying apartment buildings were deemed inadmissible as they could not be regarded as separate ‘possessions’
