CASE OF ALASGAROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
Here’s the detailed analysis of the ECHR decision:
1. Essence of the decision:
The case concerns the unlawful interference by Azerbaijan authorities with applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of their possessions by erecting a wall around their plots of land, restricting their free access. The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and determined just satisfaction for the applicants, including both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The Court addressed the locus standi issue for deceased applicants, confirming their heirs’ legitimate interest to pursue the applications
– The Court determined that the most appropriate redress would be the removal of all obstacles restricting the applicants’ free access to their land
– Pecuniary damages were calculated based on the value indicated in the original title deeds due to lack of current valuation information
– Non-pecuniary damages were awarded at EUR 3,000 per family
– The Court dismissed claims for costs and expenses due to insufficient documentation
3. Key provisions for implementation:
– The State must remove all physical obstacles restricting applicants’ access to their land
– Monetary compensation must be paid within three months from the date the judgment becomes final
– Compensation includes both pecuniary damages (based on original land values) and non-pecuniary damages (EUR 3,000 per family)
– Interest will be payable if payment is delayed beyond the three-month period
– The State must convert the awarded amounts into national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement
The decision establishes a clear precedent for cases involving physical restrictions of property access by state authorities and provides specific guidelines for compensation calculation when current property valuations are unavailable.
CASE OF OBJECTIVE TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING COMPANY AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in the case of Objective Television and Radio Broadcasting Company and Others v. Azerbaijan:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns the refusal by Azerbaijan’s National Television and Radio Council (NTRC) to grant a radio broadcasting license to the applicant company following a call for tenders. The Court found that the licensing procedure lacked adequate protection against arbitrary interferences and that there was an apparent conflict of interest involving one of the NTRC members. The Court concluded that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression was not “prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention, resulting in a violation.
2. Structure and main provisions:
The decision examines several key aspects:
– The legal basis for licensing procedures in Azerbaijan
– The NTRC’s decision-making process and reasoning
– The independence and impartiality of the NTRC
– The transparency of the licensing procedure
– The conflict of interest issues
The main changes compared to previous decisions include a more detailed examination of conflicts of interest in regulatory bodies and their impact on licensing decisions.
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The licensing authority must provide duly reasoned decisions when denying broadcasting licenses
– The manner of appointment of regulatory body members must ensure their independence and impartiality
– Conflicts of interest must be adequately disclosed and addressed
– The licensing procedure must include sufficient safeguards against arbitrary decisions
– The regulatory body cannot exercise unlimited discretionary powers
– The selection criteria must be clear and applied transparently
– The licensing authority must carry out comprehensive and objective evaluation of applications
The decision establishes important standards for broadcasting licensing procedures, emphasizing the need for transparency, proper reasoning, and safeguards against arbitrariness. It particularly highlights the importance of preventing conflicts of interest in regulatory bodies and ensuring their independence from political influence.
CASE OF ROMANCHENKO AND KHARAZISHVILI v. GEORGIA
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in the Romanchenko and Kharazishvili v. Georgia case:
1. Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns the unlawful interception and recording of telephone communications of a company lawyer and her husband within criminal proceedings in Georgia. The Court found that Georgia violated Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private life and correspondence) because the procedure for authorizing surveillance measures did not effectively guarantee they were genuinely necessary and proportionate. The Court particularly emphasized the failure to consider the first applicant’s status as a practicing lawyer and the lack of proper safeguards for lawyer-client confidentiality.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines whether the interference with the applicants’ privacy rights was justified under Article 8 of the Convention
– The Court analyzed three key aspects:
* Whether the surveillance had a legal basis in domestic law
* Whether it pursued a legitimate aim
* Whether it was “necessary in a democratic society”
– The Court found that while the surveillance had a legal basis, the authorization procedure lacked sufficient safeguards against abuse
– Key deficiencies identified:
* The court order authorizing surveillance lacked detailed reasoning
* No proper assessment of necessity and proportionality was made
* The first applicant’s status as a lawyer was ignored
* Post-factum judicial review could not compensate for initial deficient scrutiny
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The Court established that retrospective justification of surveillance measures cannot compensate for deficient prior scrutiny
– The decision reinforces the special protection needed for lawyer-client communications, even when the lawyer is not acting as a defense counsel
– The Court emphasized that judicial authorization of surveillance must:
* Provide specific reasons based on the facts of the case
* Include individual assessment for each person under surveillance
* Consider any special status (e.g., lawyer) of the surveilled person
* Demonstrate genuine necessity and proportionality
– The judgment sets clear standards for the quality of judicial reasoning when authorizing surveillance measures
The decision is particularly significant as it strengthens the protection of lawyer-client communications and sets clear requirements for judicial authorization of surveillance measures in criminal proceedings.
