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 from non-official sources, and expressions of support for Ukraine. The measures included criminal prosecution, administrative fines, pre-trial detention, and closure of independent media outlets like Novaya Gazeta and Dozhd TV.The Court determined that the interference with freedom of expression was not justified in a democratic society and was part of a broader campaign to suppress dissent regarding military action in Ukraine. The Court emphasized that even in situations involving national security concerns, there must be very strong reasons for restricting political speech and debate on matters of public interest.Key aspects of the decision include:
- The Court found that Russia’s laws on ‘discrediting’ the military and spreading ‘fake news’ lacked sufficient clarity and foreseeability
- The domestic courts failed to analyze statements within their specific context or balance competing interests
- The penalties imposed were of exceptional and disproportionate severity, fostering an environment of self-censorship
- The measures amounted to a systematic campaign to suppress dissent rather than address specific security threats
- The Court awarded compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages
The judgment is significant as it documents systematic restrictions on freedom of expression in Russia related to the war in Ukraine and establishes important principles regarding the protection of anti-war speech and independent journalism during armed conflicts.
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 due to sudden request for costs
- The applicant company’s representative was present at the hearing and offered to pay the deposit on the spot
- Similar exceptions had been made in other domestic cases
The Court awarded the applicant company EUR 3,000 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 8,000 for costs and expenses. 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 emphasizes that while procedural rules serve legitimate aims of legal certainty and proper administration of justice, their overly rigid application can amount to excessive formalism that impairs the essence of the right of access to court. The Court stressed that domestic courts should consider the specific circumstances of each case rather than applying rules mechanically.
CASE OF BAGIROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision in the case of Bagirov and Others v. Azerbaijan concerns 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 European Convention on Human Rights.The decision addresses three main aspects:
- The use of metal cages in courtrooms during hearings, which the Court found to be degrading treatment in violation of Article 3
- The failure to provide sufficient reasons for extended pre-trial detention, violating Article 5 § 3
- A complaint about the violation of presumption of innocence (Article 6 § 2) which was declared inadmissible due to time limitations
Key provisions of the decision include:
- The Court reaffirmed that holding persons in metal cages during court proceedings constitutes degrading treatment, regardless of the severity of charges
- The Court emphasized that domestic courts must provide relevant and sufficient reasons for extending pre-trial detention and considering alternative measures
- The Court awarded each applicant €3,900 in non-pecuniary damages and €500 for costs and expenses
- The Court rejected the government’s argument that security considerations justified the use of metal cages, maintaining its position that such practice is incompatible with civilized behavior in a democratic society
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 about the facts they are accused of but also about the legal characterization of these facts.
- Even if an appellate court has jurisdiction to reclassify an offense, it must ensure defendants can exercise their defense rights in a practical and effective manner.
- The fact that the reclassification was based on the same facts does not eliminate the need to allow defendants to present 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 law was part of a judicial reform aimed at reducing the size of chambers and establishing a three-tier judicial system.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 applicants’ lack of access to domestic courts to challenge the termination of their terms of office. The Court rejected the Government’s arguments that the reform pursued legitimate aims and respected acquired rights.The key provisions of the decision include:
- The Court confirmed that judges have a right not to have their terms of office terminated arbitrarily, and this right should be protected by access to courts
- The Court found that at the time when applications were lodged (2016-2017), individual applications to the Constitutional Court would not have offered reasonable prospects of success
- The Court awarded each applicant €3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage
- The Court rejected claims for pecuniary damage as no causal link was established between the violation and the alleged damage
The most important aspects for application of this decision are:
- It establishes that even during major judicial reforms, judges must have access to courts to challenge the termination of their terms of office
- The decision confirms that the right of access to court cannot be limited even when reforms are implemented through legislation
- It sets standards for determining when domestic remedies must be exhausted, particularly regarding the certainty and effectiveness of Constitutional Court appeals
CASE OF TETUNASHVILI v. GEORGIA
The case concerns a Georgian citizen’s complaint about unlawful arrest and ill-treatment by police officers in April 2020, as well as the ineffectiveness of the subsequent investigation. The Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) in its procedural aspect but no violation in its substantive aspect.The Court’s decision focuses on three main aspects:
- The assessment of the applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment by police officers
- The effectiveness of the investigation conducted by Georgian authorities
- The award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage
The key provisions of the decision include:
- The Court found that the investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment was ineffective due to several shortcomings:
- Failure to assess the extent of the applicant’s alleged resistance during arrest
- Delayed and limited forensic medical examination
- Inability to obtain video evidence from the police station
- Unjustified delay in the investigation (over four years)
- The Court could not conclude ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the applicant suffered treatment contrary to Article 3, thus finding no violation of the substantive aspect
- The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, significantly less than the claimed EUR 150,000
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. The applicants complained that they had no legal means to challenge the premature and allegedly arbitrary termination of their positions.The Court found that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was applicable to this case and that there had been a violation of the right of access to a court. The Court determined that the exclusion of the applicants from having access to a court to challenge the termination of their positions was not justified on objective grounds and undermined the interest of a State governed by the rule of law.Key provisions of the decision include:
- The Court confirmed that judges have an arguable right not to have their terms of office arbitrarily terminated, based on the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law.
- The Court rejected the Government’s argument that the lack of access to court was justified by the judicial reform introducing regional courts of appeal.
- The Court awarded each applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus various amounts for costs and expenses where documented.
The Court emphasized that members of the judiciary should enjoy protection from arbitrariness by legislative and executive powers, and that only oversight by an independent judicial body can make such protection effective. The decision reinforces the principle that access to court is a fundamental safeguard for protecting judicial independence.
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 decision 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
- 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 principle of free disposition of the parties
- While the case did not require special expedition, it still warranted reasonable speed as it concerned the applicant’s property title to her residence
- The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,200 in non-pecuniary damages but rejected the claim for pecuniary damages (EUR 30,000) as there was no causal link between the violation and the claimed property value