Review of ECHR decisions for 11/02/2025

CASE OF NOVAYA GAZETA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The judgment concerns the prosecution of media organizations and individuals in Russia for expressing views critical of Russia’s military actions in Ukraine or disseminating information that diverged from official accounts. The Court examined 161 applications from media outlets and individuals who faced various forms of sanctions, including fines, detention, and closure of media organizations, for their anti-war expressions.The Court found that Russia violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) by imposing disproportionate restrictions on peaceful anti-war protests, factual reporting on events in Ukraine, and expressions of support for Ukraine. The measures included criminal prosecution, administrative fines, pre-trial detention, and closure of independent media outlets. The Court also found violations of Articles 3, 5, 8, and 34 of the Convention in relation to specific aspects of the cases.The judgment establishes several key principles regarding freedom of expression during wartime:

Even in situations of armed conflict, there must be room for public debate and dissenting views
Peaceful anti-war expressions, including use of terms like ‘war’ instead of official terminology, cannot be legitimately restricted
Media must be free to report facts from diverse sources, not just official accounts
Expression of solidarity with Ukraine or display of Ukrainian symbols constitutes protected speech
Historical comparisons and creative forms of protest, including satire, deserve protection

The Court emphasized that the restrictions were part of a broader campaign to suppress dissent regarding military action in Ukraine, fostering an environment of self-censorship through exceptionally severe penalties. The Court ordered Russia to pay compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

CASE OF AJD TUNA LTD. v. MALTA

The case concerns a dispute between AJD Tuna Ltd. and Malta regarding access to court rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The company’s appeal was dismissed due to failure to pay security costs within the required timeframe, which the company claimed was due to exceptional circumstances and amounted to excessive formalism.The Court found that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding access to court. The key factors in this decision were:

A five-year delay in appointing the first appeal hearing by the authorities
The reduction of the normal twelve-month payment period to just seven days
The company’s representative was present at the hearing and offered to pay the deposit on the spot
The domestic courts’ overly rigid and formalistic application of the rules without considering the specific circumstances

The Court awarded the applicant company EUR 3,000 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 8,000 for costs and expenses. Importantly, the Court noted that reopening the proceedings at the domestic level would be the most appropriate form of redress for the violation, although it lacks jurisdiction to order such reopening directly.The decision establishes an important precedent regarding the balance between procedural rules and effective access to justice, emphasizing that excessive formalism in applying procedural rules can violate the right to access to court when it prevents examination of a case on its merits without proper consideration of specific circumstances.

CASE OF BAGIROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Bagirov and Others v. Azerbaijan, concerning three Azerbaijani nationals who complained about their treatment during court proceedings and pre-trial detention. The Court found violations of Article 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment) and Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.The decision addresses three main issues:

The use of metal cages in courtrooms during hearings, which the Court found to constitute degrading treatment
The insufficient justification for extended pre-trial detention
A complaint about the violation of presumption of innocence (which was declared inadmissible)

The key provisions of the judgment include:

The Court reaffirmed that holding persons in metal cages during court proceedings constitutes degrading treatment and violates Article 3 of the Convention, regardless of security considerations
The domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for extending the applicants’ pre-trial detention and refusing alternative measures
The Court awarded each applicant €3,900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €500 for costs and expenses

The most significant aspects of this decision are:

The Court’s clear position that the use of metal cages in courtrooms is inherently degrading and incompatible with civilized behavior in a democratic society
The emphasis on the need for courts to provide specific and individualized justification when extending pre-trial detention
The confirmation of previous case law regarding the objectively degrading nature of metal cage confinement during court proceedings

CASE OF BENLİ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

The case concerns six applications against Turkey by former rapporteur judges and chief inspectors at the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) who were removed from their positions and transferred to other cities without their consent. The applicants complained about their inability to have judicial review of these decisions.The Court found that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) was applicable to the case and that there had been a violation of this Article. The Court emphasized that the absence of judicial review of HSYK decisions to remove and transfer judges and prosecutors did not pursue any legitimate aim and impaired the essence of the applicants’ right of access to a court.The key provisions of the decision include:

The Court rejected the Government’s argument that Article 6 was not applicable to HSYK decisions concerning members of the judiciary
The Court found that the exclusion of judicial review was not justified on objective grounds in the State’s interest
The Court emphasized the importance of upholding judicial independence and the rule of law
The Court awarded compensation to the applicants: EUR 2,500 to five applicants and EUR 2,000 to one applicant for non-pecuniary damage and costs

The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that members of the judiciary should have access to court review when decisions affect their professional positions, particularly in cases of non-voluntary transfers. The Court rejected post-factum justifications for the transfers and emphasized the need for proper reasoning at the time of the decisions.

CASE OF GLONTI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings against five Georgian nationals who were former officials of the Ministry of Defence. The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of the defendants’ rights to a fair trial due to improper reclassification of criminal charges during appeal proceedings.The key aspects of the decision are:

The applicants were initially charged with embezzlement but the Court of Appeal reclassified the offense to abuse of office without giving them an opportunity to defend against the new charges.
The Court emphasized that embezzlement and abuse of office are different offenses under Georgian law with different constituent elements that need to be proven.
The Court found that the defendants should have been informed about the potential reclassification and given adequate time to prepare their defense against the new charges.

The most important provisions of this decision are:

The Court reaffirmed that defendants must be informed in detail not only of the acts they allegedly committed but also of the legal characterization given to those acts.
When a court decides to reclassify criminal charges, it must ensure defendants can exercise their defense rights in a practical and effective manner and in good time.
The fact that the reclassification was based on the same facts does not eliminate the need to allow defendants to present specific arguments regarding the new legal qualification of the offense.

CASE OF MERĆEP v. CROATIA

The case concerns a dispute over access to court in Croatia, where the applicant’s civil action for defamation was declared inadmissible because he failed to report his compensation claim in pre-bankruptcy settlement (PBS) proceedings against the defendant company within the prescribed time limit.The Court found that declaring the applicant’s civil action inadmissible for failing to report his claim in PBS proceedings amounted to excessive formalism that violated his right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The key aspects of the decision are:

The purpose of PBS proceedings was to settle only consensual and incontestable debts, not all existing or potential debts between debtors and creditors.
The defendant company would have opposed the claim even if reported timely in PBS proceedings, meaning the claim would ultimately need to be determined in civil proceedings anyway.
The defendant company had control over whether the claim would be examined in civil or PBS proceedings, as it could have included the claim in its list of obligations.

The Court awarded the applicant €8,500 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,660 for costs and expenses. It also noted that under domestic law, the applicant could request reopening of the civil proceedings as the most appropriate way to obtain compensation for pecuniary damage.

CASE OF OLCAY AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

The case concerns the lack of access to a court for 30 applicants who were administrative judges at the Supreme Administrative Court of Turkey, whose terms of office were terminated following the entry into force of Law no. 6723 in July 2016. The applicants complained that they had no legal means to challenge the premature termination of their positions.The Court found that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) was applicable to the case and that there had been a violation of this Article due to the lack of access to a court. The Court rejected the Government’s arguments that the termination was part of a major judicial reform and that the Constitutional Court was an effective remedy.The key provisions of the decision are:

The Court confirmed that judges have the right to challenge the premature termination of their terms of office in court, even when such termination occurs through legislation
The Court found that at the time when the applications were lodged (2016-2017), individual applications to the Constitutional Court would not have offered reasonable prospects of success based on existing case law
The Court awarded each applicant €3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage

The most important aspects for application of this decision are:

The confirmation that legislative measures affecting judicial positions must be subject to judicial review
The principle that remedies must be clearly established and effective at the time when they need to be used
The recognition that changes to judicial positions, even as part of reforms, cannot deprive judges of their right of access to court to challenge such changes

CASE OF TOSUN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

The case concerns the lack of access to a court for 84 judges who were members of the Court of Cassation in Turkey, whose terms of office were terminated following the entry into force of Law no. 6723 in July 2016. The applicants complained that they had no legal means to challenge the premature termination of their positions.The Court found that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) was applicable to this case and that there had been a violation of this Article due to the lack of access to a court. The Court emphasized that members of the judiciary should enjoy protection from arbitrariness by legislative and executive powers, and only oversight by an independent judicial body can make such protection effective.The key provisions of the decision include:

The Court rejected the Government’s argument about incompatibility ratione materiae, confirming that judges have a right not to have their terms of office arbitrarily terminated
The Court found that the exclusion from access to court undermined the interest of a State governed by the rule of law
The Court awarded each applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage

The most important aspects of this decision for its use are:

The Court confirmed that judges have a right to judicial protection against arbitrary termination of their office
The decision establishes that legislative measures terminating judges’ terms of office must be subject to judicial review
The Court emphasized that judicial independence requires effective legal protection mechanisms for judges against arbitrary dismissal

CASE OF ZAALISHVILI v. GEORGIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Zaalishvili v. Georgia concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings. The case involved a property dispute over a family house that lasted for more than ten years and three months at three levels of jurisdiction.The Court found that Georgia violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial within reasonable time) due to unjustified delays in the proceedings, particularly at the Supreme Court level where the case remained pending for over five years without any explanation from the Government.The key provisions of the judgment include:

The Court rejected the Government’s argument that the case’s complexity justified its length, emphasizing that this alone cannot explain the extensive delay at the Supreme Court level
While acknowledging that the case did not require special expedition, the Court noted that property title matters still require reasonable speed of proceedings
The Court reaffirmed that States are responsible for organizing their judicial systems to comply with reasonable time requirements, even in civil proceedings governed by the parties’ disposition
The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,200 in non-pecuniary damages while rejecting the claim for pecuniary damages (EUR 30,000) as having no causal link to the violation

The judgment reinforces the Court’s established position that excessive delays in judicial proceedings, particularly those without proper justification, constitute a violation of the Convention, regardless of the case’s complexity or the parties’ conduct.