CASE OF I.C. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in I.C. v. Republic of Moldova:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
– The case concerns Moldova’s failure to protect an intellectually disabled woman from trafficking and servitude after her removal from State care and placement with a family on a farm through a “deinstitutionalization” procedure. The Court found violations of Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labor) due to the State’s failure to prevent trafficking/servitude and conduct an effective investigation, Articles 3 and 8 (prohibition of inhuman treatment and right to private life) regarding ineffective investigation of rape allegations, and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) due to discriminatory treatment of the applicant as a woman with disabilities. The Court awarded the applicant €35,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €8,587 in costs.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines four main aspects:
1) Whether the circumstances amounted to trafficking/servitude under Article 4
2) State’s positive obligations to prevent trafficking and protect victims
3) Effectiveness of investigation into rape allegations
4) Discriminatory treatment based on gender and disability
Key changes/provisions compared to previous decisions:
– Clarifies that trafficking cases involving persons with disabilities require special procedural accommodations
– Establishes that consent is irrelevant when abuse of vulnerability is involved
– Emphasizes need for systemic approach to deinstitutionalization beyond just closing institutions
– Highlights intersection of gender and disability discrimination in trafficking cases
3. Most important provisions for use:
1) On trafficking and vulnerability:
– Abuse of vulnerability of persons with disabilities can constitute trafficking even without physical coercion
– States must ensure proper risk assessment and monitoring in deinstitutionalization cases
– Consent is irrelevant when abuse of vulnerability is involved
2) On investigations:
– Special procedural accommodations required for victims with disabilities
– Need to assess all elements of vulnerability, not just physical evidence
– Investigators must avoid stereotypes and secondary victimization
3) On discrimination:
– Intersectional discrimination based on gender and disability requires special attention
– States must provide reasonable accommodation in legal proceedings
– Institutional passivity regarding violence against women with disabilities constitutes discrimination
4) On remedies:
– States must provide both preventive and compensatory remedies
– Need for effective criminal law mechanisms
– Importance of support services and monitoring after deinstitutionalization
The decision provides important guidance on protecting persons with disabilities from trafficking and exploitation, particularly in the context of deinstitutionalization reforms.
CASE OF SALAY v. SLOVAKIA
The essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Slovakia violated Article 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) in the case of a Roma student who was placed in special education classes. The Court found that the testing and placement procedures used to determine intellectual capacity were potentially culturally biased against Roma children and lacked adequate safeguards to prevent discrimination. The Court concluded that Slovakia failed to provide sufficient guarantees to avoid misdiagnosis and inappropriate placement of Roma pupils in special education, which had a disproportionately prejudicial effect on the Roma community.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The decision examines whether there was discrimination in the placement of Roma children in special education classes, focusing on:
– The existence of a difference in treatment through statistical evidence showing overrepresentation of Roma children in special education
– Whether any difference in treatment had objective and reasonable justification
– The proportionality of the measures used, including testing procedures
– The adequacy of safeguards to prevent discrimination
2. Key findings:
– Statistical evidence showed Roma children were disproportionately placed in special education
– Testing procedures were potentially culturally biased
– Placement in special classes was de facto permanent with no systematic retesting
– Lack of adequate safeguards to protect Roma pupils’ rights
– State failed to prove measures were proportional and non-discriminatory
3. Changes from previous decisions:
– Builds on previous case law regarding Roma education rights (D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic)
– Places stronger emphasis on need for culturally appropriate testing
– Highlights importance of systematic monitoring and retesting
– Focuses on permanent nature of special education placement
Most important provisions for use:
1. The Court established that statistical evidence showing disproportionate placement of Roma children in special education creates a prima facie case of indirect discrimination, shifting burden of proof to the State
2. Testing procedures for special education placement must:
– Be culturally appropriate and unbiased
– Include adequate safeguards against misdiagnosis
– Allow for regular reassessment and potential transfer to mainstream education
3. States have positive obligations to:
– Prevent perpetuation of past discrimination
– Provide appropriate guarantees against misdiagnosis
– Ensure special education placement is not de facto permanent
– Consider special needs of Roma pupils as members of a disadvantaged class
4. The Court emphasized that racial discrimination requires “special vigilance and vigorous reaction” from authorities, with strict interpretation of any justification for differential treatment based on ethnicity.
CASE OF X v. CYPRUS
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in X v. Cyprus:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns Cyprus’s failure to effectively investigate allegations of rape made by a British woman against multiple men in July 2019. The Court found that the investigation was marked by numerous shortcomings, including hasty termination, failure to properly examine consent, gender stereotyping, and re-victimization of the complainant. The Court held that Cyprus violated Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to properly investigate and prosecute the rape allegations, despite having an adequate legislative framework.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines whether Cyprus fulfilled its positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 to effectively investigate rape allegations
– Key focus areas:
* Thoroughness of investigation
* Treatment of victim and evidence
* Assessment of consent
* Gender bias and stereotyping
* Re-victimization
– Main changes/findings:
* Identified systemic failures in investigation process
* Highlighted importance of consent-focused investigations
* Emphasized need to avoid gender stereotyping
* Stressed importance of victim-sensitive approach
* Awarded €20,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €5,000 for costs
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The Court established that effective rape investigations must:
* Focus on consent rather than physical resistance
* Avoid gender stereotypes and victim-blaming
* Follow all reasonable lines of inquiry
* Protect victims from re-victimization
* Consider context and circumstances when assessing victim statements
– The decision emphasizes that prior sexual conduct cannot justify dismissing rape allegations
– Investigation failures can create a “background of impunity” discouraging victims from trusting the criminal justice system
– States must ensure practical implementation of legislative frameworks through effective investigation and prosecution
– The judgment sets standards for victim-sensitive approaches in sexual violence cases
The decision represents a significant development in establishing standards for investigating sexual violence cases and protecting victims’ rights.
CASE OF DZHANDZHGAVA v. CYPRUS
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Dzhandzhgava v. Cyprus:
1. Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns the unlawful detention of Mr. Dzhandzhgava in Cyprus between September 2017 and August 2020 pending his extradition to Russia. The Court found violations of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty) and Article 5 § 4 (right to speedy review of detention) of the Convention due to excessive length of detention and delays in judicial proceedings. The Court particularly criticized lengthy periods of inactivity in the proceedings and the authorities’ handling of detention during the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines two main complaints: unlawful detention (Article 5 § 1) and lack of speedy review (Article 5 § 4)
– The Court analyzed the total detention period of 2 years, 11 months and 18 days
– Key focus was on:
* The habeas corpus appeal proceedings lasting 2 years, 2 months and 15 days
* Periods of inactivity by authorities
* Impact of COVID-19 on detention extension
* State’s obligation to pursue extradition proceedings with due diligence
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The Court established that states must actively pursue extradition proceedings and cannot justify long periods of inactivity
– Even during COVID-19 pandemic, authorities must have clear understanding of when extradition is possible and regularly assess the situation
– The Court reinforced that while applicant’s behavior can contribute to delays, it’s still state’s responsibility to ensure speedy proceedings
– The decision clarifies that requiring multiple habeas corpus applications would place excessive burden on detainees
– The Court awarded EUR 15,000 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 3,800 for costs and expenses
The decision is particularly significant as it sets standards for detention pending extradition during extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic and reinforces states’ obligations regarding speedy judicial review.
CASE OF FIODOROV & CO S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
The essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on a case concerning an unlawful search of Fiodorov & Co S.R.L.’s business premises in Moldova. The police conducted a search without a valid warrant, as the warrant they had was issued for another company’s premises. The Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence) and awarded the company compensation for damages and legal costs.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The case focused on the search conducted on October 4, 2013, where police seized an inventory list of gold items from the applicant company’s pawnbroker office.
2. The Court rejected the Government’s argument about non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and found the complaint admissible.
3. The Court determined that the search was conducted without proper legal basis, as:
– There was no valid search warrant for the applicant’s premises
– No a posteriori judicial authorization was sought
– The domestic investigating judge declined jurisdiction to declare the search unlawful
4. The Court awarded EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.
Most important provisions for use:
1. The Court reaffirmed that searches without valid warrants constitute a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, even if conducted due to a material error in location.
2. The fact that company representatives did not object during the search does not legitimize an unlawful search.
3. When law enforcement realizes they are searching wrong premises, they must stop the search immediately.
4. The return of seized items does not remedy the violation of conducting an unlawful search.
5. A proper judicial review of the search’s lawfulness is required, either before or after the search.
CASE OF GLIJINSCHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
1. Essence of the decision:
The case concerns a property rights dispute in Moldova where a neighbor built a wall that blocked access to the applicant’s apartment. The Court found that the Moldovan authorities violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by authorizing the wall in 2011 without properly balancing competing rights and interests. The wall, initially considered unlawful and subject to sanctions in 2007, was later legitimized despite the applicant’s withdrawal of consent and complaints.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The Court examined whether there was interference with property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
– The Court analyzed the exhaustion of domestic remedies and found the application admissible
– The Court assessed the proportionality of the interference with property rights
– The Court found that authorities failed to balance competing rights and interests
– The decision awarded EUR 3,000 in non-pecuniary damages to the applicant
– The Court rejected claims for pecuniary damages and legal expenses
3. Most important provisions:
– The Court established that changing the legal status of an unlawful construction to authorized status constitutes interference with property rights
– The authorities must properly balance competing private interests and demonstrate how the general public interest is served when legitimizing previously unlawful constructions
– Consent given for construction must be in accordance with applicable construction, health and fire-safety rules
– The withdrawal of consent before final authorization should be considered by authorities
– The severity of limitation on property rights must be properly assessed when authorizing construction that affects access to property
The decision sets important precedents for property rights protection and the obligations of authorities when dealing with unauthorized constructions affecting neighboring properties.
CASE OF KRIEVIŅA v. LATVIA
The essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on the case Krieviņa v. Latvia concerning searches and seizures of electronic devices from the applicant’s apartment and her company’s premises by the Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption. The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention due to the prolonged retention of the applicant’s laptop computer for over three and a half years without reasonable justification. The case centered on the balance between law enforcement needs and protection of property rights.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court examined two main complaints:
– Under Article 8 (right to respect for private life) regarding the searches and seizures
– Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning the retention of electronic devices
2. Key findings:
– The Article 8 complaints were declared inadmissible
– The complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was found admissible and violated
– The Court awarded EUR 1,600 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses
Most important provisions:
1. The Court established that seizure of property for legal proceedings constitutes control of property use and must strike a “fair balance” between public interest and individual rights
2. The retention of devices must be justified throughout the entire period – copying relevant data should be sufficient if only the data has evidential value
3. Prolonged retention of electronic devices without reasonable explanation (over 3.5 years in this case) violates the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions
4. The Court confirmed that a sole shareholder can complain about measures affecting their company and its property, even though the company is a separate legal entity.
CASE OF M.S.H. v. HUNGARY
The essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on the case of an Iranian asylum seeker who was held in Hungary’s Tompa transit zone for 13 months. The Court found violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention due to the prolonged detention in inadequate conditions, particularly during summer heat. The applicant was awarded EUR 4,500 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 1,000 for costs.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court examined the conditions of confinement in the transit zone, focusing on:
– General living conditions (accommodation in containers, restricted movement)
– Specific issues (heat, food quality, noise levels)
– Duration of stay (13 months deemed particularly lengthy)
2. The Court’s assessment was based on:
– Previous case law (Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, R.R. and Others v. Hungary)
– CPT reports indicating transit zones were unsuitable for stays longer than several weeks
– Combination of prolonged detention and poor conditions exceeding severity threshold
Key important provisions:
1. The Court established that living conditions that might be acceptable for short-term detention become violation of Article 3 when extended over long periods
2. The 13-month detention period was deemed excessive, especially given the CPT’s recommendation of maximum several weeks stay
3. The Court confirmed that stay in transit zones constitutes de facto deprivation of liberty under Article 5
4. The combination of duration and conditions was crucial in determining the violation, rather than individual factors alone
CASE OF MARZOUKI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Marzouki and Others v. Bulgaria:
Essence of the Decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns a Tunisian national’s removal from Bulgaria and separation from his daughter (Bulgarian national). The Court found violations of Article 8 (right to family life) and Article 13 (right to effective remedy) of the Convention regarding the first applicant (father) and second applicant (daughter). The key issue was that the applicant was not given a fair chance to dispute allegations about him being a national security threat, as he was not properly notified about the decision that led to his removal.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The Court examined the existence of “family life” between applicants:
– Found no sufficient “family life” between first and third applicants (father and mother)
– Confirmed existence of “family life” between first and second applicants (father and daughter)
2. Key legal findings:
– The interference with family life was not “in accordance with law”
– The notification procedure was inadequate (standard refusal form at border)
– Lack of meaningful opportunity to contest security services’ allegations
– Third applicant’s (mother’s) complaints were declared inadmissible
3. Remedies awarded:
– EUR 3,150 to each of first and second applicants for non-pecuniary damage
– EUR 3,000 for legal costs and expenses
Most Important Provisions for Use:
1. The Court reaffirmed that “family life” requires real existence of close personal ties and sufficient constancy in relationships
2. The Court emphasized that proper notification of administrative decisions is crucial for ensuring effective legal remedies:
– Standard border refusal forms cannot substitute proper notification of security-related decisions
– Individuals must have meaningful opportunity to contest security services’ allegations
3. The decision establishes that even in national security cases, minimum guarantees against arbitrariness must be provided:
– Access to effective judicial review
– Proper notification of decisions
– Reasonable opportunity to contest allegations
The decision continues the Court’s line of cases regarding expulsion of aliens on national security grounds, emphasizing the need for procedural safeguards even in security-sensitive cases.
CASE OF SNOPOV v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on the case Snopov v. Ukraine concerning unfair conduct of proceedings in the Court of Appeal of Crimea. The case involved the quashing of the applicant’s acquittal in an administrative offense case without properly informing him about the appeal proceedings. The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the lack of equality of arms in the appellate proceedings and awarded EUR 3,000 in non-pecuniary damages.
Structure and main provisions:
The decision follows a standard ECHR structure, examining the subject matter, the Court’s assessment, and the application of Article 41. The key focus is on the violation of the right to an adversarial trial and equality of arms principles. The Court established that the appellate court failed to notify the applicant about the prosecutor’s appeal and the hearing, preventing him from participating in the proceedings that resulted in overturning his acquittal.
Most important provisions:
1. The Court affirmed that principles of adversarial trial and equality of arms apply to administrative offense proceedings, requiring proper notification of hearings at least three days in advance.
2. The absence of court minutes and lack of indication in the appellate court’s decision about proper notification of the applicant were considered crucial evidence of procedural violations.
3. The Court emphasized that when an appellate court makes a full assessment of guilt or innocence, it cannot determine the issue without direct assessment of evidence given by the accused in person.
4. The decision establishes that even in administrative proceedings, the right to participate in appellate hearings and respond to opposing party’s arguments is fundamental for ensuring fair trial rights.
CASE OF SZYPUŁA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
The essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on cases brought by same-sex couples against Poland regarding the lack of legal recognition of their relationships. The Court found that Poland violated Article 8 of the Convention by failing to provide a legal framework for recognition and protection of same-sex unions. The cases concerned both the general impossibility to formalize relationships and specific refusals to issue marriage eligibility certificates for marriages planned abroad.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court joined two applications (nos. 78030/14 and 23669/16) due to similar subject matter.
2. The main focus was on Article 8 violation (right to respect for private and family life).
3. The Court reaffirmed that member States must provide legal framework for same-sex couples’ recognition and protection, referring to Fedotova and Others v. Russia case.
4. While States have margin of appreciation in determining the exact nature of legal recognition, the protection must be adequate.
5. The Court dismissed Poland’s arguments about social and cultural background as insufficient to justify the complete lack of legal recognition.
Key important provisions:
1. The Court confirmed that same-sex couples in Poland are left in a “legal vacuum” without any form of official recognition.
2. The decision emphasizes that the need to apply to courts for protection of ordinary needs is an obstacle to respect for private and family life.
3. While the Convention does not require States to allow same-sex marriage, they must provide some form of legal recognition for same-sex unions.
4. The Court found that finding of violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction, without awarding monetary compensation.
5. The decision builds upon previous case law (Przybyszewska and Others v. Poland) confirming systematic violation of same-sex couples’ rights in Poland.
: This decision has implications for Ukraine as it reinforces the European legal standard requiring some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples, which is currently absent in Ukrainian legislation.
