CASE OF GIRGINOVA v. BULGARIA
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Girginova v. Bulgaria:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns a journalist’s request for access to the reasons for acquittal of a former Minister of Internal Affairs in Bulgaria after the high-profile criminal case against him was classified. The Court found that the refusal to provide access to the judgment violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 13 (right to effective remedy) of the Convention. The Court emphasized that even in cases involving national security and classified information, complete concealment of court judgments from the public cannot be justified, and techniques exist to accommodate security concerns without eliminating fundamental procedural guarantees.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The Court found the case admissible despite government objections regarding time limits and ratione materiae compatibility
– The Court applied four criteria to determine if access to information was instrumental for freedom of expression: purpose of request, nature of information, role of seeker, and availability of information
– The Court found that complete secrecy of judgment reasons was not “necessary in a democratic society” even for national security purposes
– The Court established that judicial review proceedings in Bulgaria did not provide an effective remedy for such information access requests
– The decision awarded costs but no damages as none were claimed
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The Court established that journalists have a right to access court judgments, including in sensitive cases, as part of their role in scrutinizing the judicial process
– Even when national security is involved, courts must consider partial disclosure or redacted versions rather than complete secrecy
– The Court emphasized the special importance of publicity for judgments acquitting high-ranking officials of serious charges
– The decision creates a strong precedent for transparency in judicial decisions while balancing legitimate security concerns
– The Court stressed that effective remedies must include substantive review of necessity and proportionality, not just formal legal compliance
: The decision has implications for Ukraine as it establishes standards for transparency in high-profile criminal cases involving senior officials and national security matters, which is particularly relevant given Ukraine’s ongoing judicial reform efforts and anti-corruption initiatives.
CASE OF K.M. v. NORTH MACEDONIA
Here’s my analysis of the ECHR decision:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns North Macedonia’s failure to protect a 14-year-old girl from sexual abuse by an adult who touched her inappropriately. The Court found that the domestic legal framework at the time did not provide adequate criminal law protection against non-consensual sexual acts committed without force against persons aged 14 and above. The civil remedies available also failed to provide effective protection, leading to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private life).
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines both criminal and civil law aspects of protection against sexual abuse
– Key focus is on the legal gap in North Macedonia’s criminal code at the time, which only criminalized forced sexual acts or acts against children under 14
– The Court analyzed whether civil remedies could compensate for lack of criminal protection
– The judgment emphasizes states’ positive obligations to protect minors from sexual abuse through effective criminal legislation
– Notable changes in North Macedonia’s laws after the incident are mentioned but weren’t applicable retroactively
3. Most important provisions for use:
– States must criminalize and effectively prosecute any non-consensual sexual act, even without physical force
– Protection of minors from sexual abuse requires criminal law measures, civil remedies alone are insufficient
– The best interests of the child require particular attention when addressing sexual abuse cases
– Legal frameworks must provide practical and effective protection, not just theoretical
– When fundamental values and essential aspects of private life are at stake, states must ensure effective criminal law provisions and their practical application
The decision is significant as it establishes clear standards for protecting minors from sexual abuse and emphasizes the need for comprehensive legal frameworks that include both criminal and civil protections. It also highlights the importance of addressing non-forcible sexual abuse through criminal law measures.
CASE OF MILASHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on a case involving threats and intimidation against journalists of Novaya Gazeta newspaper and its publishing company after they reported on mass abductions, torture and killings of LGBTI people in Chechnya in 2017. The Court found that public statements by Chechen officials and religious leaders amounted to a concerted campaign of intimidation against the journalists, resulting in further threats capable of inciting violence. The Court held that Russia violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 8 (right to private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to protect the journalists and investigate the threats properly.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court examined two main aspects:
– Violation of Article 10 regarding freedom of expression
– Violation of Article 8 regarding right to private life
2. Key findings:
– The threats from officials constituted unlawful interference with journalistic activity
– The state failed to investigate threats and protect journalists
– The campaign of intimidation had a serious chilling effect on freedom of expression
– The authorities effectively condoned threatening statements by Chechen officials
3. Compensation awarded:
– €7,500 to the publishing company
– €9,800 to each of the three individual journalists
– €5,585 for legal costs and expenses
Most important provisions for use:
1. The Court established that public officials’ threatening statements can engage state responsibility under the Convention when they interfere with journalistic activity.
2. The decision confirms that states have positive obligations to:
– Create an environment conducive to public debate
– Protect journalists from threats and intimidation
– Conduct effective investigations of threats against journalists
– Take preventive measures when journalists face serious risks
3. The Court emphasized that dehumanizing statements by religious authorities that could be perceived as condoning violence require criminal law protection and investigation.
4. The ruling reinforces that threats aimed at deterring journalists from reporting on human rights violations constitute interference with both freedom of expression and private life requiring state protection.
CASE OF BUZATU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
The essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights examined eight applications against Romania concerning the ineffective investigation of ill-treatment of citizens during the events of December 1989 that led to the fall of the communist regime. The applicants were beaten by militia forces and most of them were detained; some suffered injuries requiring medical care. The Court found that Romania violated Article 3 of the Convention due to the lack of an effective investigation into these cases.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court joined eight similar applications due to their common subject matter.
2. The Court rejected the Government’s preliminary objection regarding temporal jurisdiction, confirming its competence to examine complaints about investigations carried out after Romania’s ratification of the Convention (20 June 1994).
3. The Court found the investigation procedurally defective due to:
– Excessive length and long periods of inactivity
– Lack of victims’ involvement in the proceedings
– Insufficient public information about the investigation’s progress
4. The Court awarded each applicant €12,500 in non-pecuniary damages.
Most important provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed that a favorable decision for applicants is not sufficient to deprive them of “victim” status unless national authorities acknowledge the breach and provide redress.
2. The Court emphasized that the investigation’s effectiveness should not depend on whether victims joined as civil parties, as the investigation was opened ex officio.
3. The Court confirmed that procedural obligations under Article 3 continue even for events that occurred before the Convention’s ratification if significant investigative steps took place after ratification.
This decision is particularly significant as it relates to the investigation of human rights violations during a crucial historical period – the fall of communism in Romania, and establishes important standards for the effectiveness of such investigations.
CASE OF DAVIDOVIĆ v. SERBIA
The essence of the decision:
The case concerns a Serbian mother who was awarded custody of her child in 2013 but faced significant delays in enforcing this decision. Despite multiple enforcement attempts over four years, the father and child’s grandparents repeatedly evaded authorities, preventing the mother from seeing her child. The European Court of Human Rights found that Serbia violated Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for family life) due to authorities’ failure to effectively enforce the custody decision.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court examined the chronology of failed enforcement attempts from 2013 to 2017
2. The Constitutional Court of Serbia had already found a violation but provided insufficient compensation
3. The ECtHR confirmed the violation of Article 8 and awarded additional compensation
4. The Court awarded €4,000 in non-pecuniary damages to the applicant
5. The Court rejected the claim for costs and expenses due to lack of supporting documentation
Key important provisions:
1. The Court emphasized state authorities’ positive obligations to ensure effective enforcement of custody decisions
2. The Court established that domestic authorities failed to use all available enforcement measures
3. The decision confirms that mere recognition of rights violation without adequate compensation is insufficient to remove victim status
4. The judgment sets a precedent for compensation amounts in similar cases against Serbia
5. The Court reinforced that state authorities must take all reasonably expected steps to ensure effective enjoyment of parental rights
CASE OF ELİBOL AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s the analysis of the ECHR decision in the case of Elibol and Others v. Türkiye:
Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns the arrest and pre-trial detention of 51 Turkish judges and prosecutors in the aftermath of the July 15, 2016 coup attempt in Turkey. The applicants were detained on suspicion of membership in FETÖ/PDY (Fetullahist Terror Organisation), which Turkish authorities considered responsible for the coup attempt. The Court found that the pre-trial detention of the applicants was unlawful as it did not follow procedures prescribed by law, violating Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The decision addresses the initial arrests and detentions that occurred immediately after the coup attempt
2. The Court examined the complaints under Article 5 § 1 regarding the lawfulness of detention
3. The Court joined all 51 applications due to their similar subject matter
4. The decision follows the precedents set in previous cases (Baş v. Turkey and Turan and Others v. Turkey)
5. The Court awarded each applicant EUR 5,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs
Key important provisions:
1. The Court found that even during a state of emergency, the detention measures must be strictly required by the situation’s exigencies
2. The pre-trial detention was deemed unlawful because it didn’t follow proper legal procedures for detaining members of judiciary
3. The Court rejected claims for pecuniary damages but awarded non-pecuniary compensation
4. The decision confirms that special procedural safeguards for members of judiciary must be respected even in extraordinary circumstances
5. The Court emphasized that contextual factors (coup attempt) should be considered but don’t override basic legal requirements for detention
The decision reinforces the importance of maintaining proper legal procedures even during crisis situations and establishes standards for the treatment of judicial officials in emergency circumstances.
CASE OF GANHÃO v. PORTUGAL
The essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of a Portuguese journalist who was convicted of aggravated defamation and ordered to pay substantial damages for publishing an article about a businessman’s tax-related conviction. The Court found that the domestic courts’ decision violated Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression), as the penalties imposed were disproportionate and could have a chilling effect on press freedom.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The case concerned a journalist’s article reporting on a criminal conviction of an advertising executive for tax offenses.
2. The domestic courts found the journalist guilty of defamation due to inaccuracies in reporting (describing tax embezzlement as tax fraud and not mentioning the suspension of the prison sentence).
3. The Court analyzed the interference with freedom of expression using the three-part test: legal basis, legitimate aim, and necessity in a democratic society.
4. The Court emphasized the essential role of the press and the public interest in reporting criminal proceedings.
Key important provisions:
1. The Court established that news is a perishable commodity, and journalists should not be required to delay publication to wait for confirmation from the subject of the article.
2. The Court found that the inaccuracies in reporting were not as serious as the domestic courts held, especially considering the satirical nature of the column and the mention that the conviction was subject to appeal.
3. The sanctions (EUR 2,600 fine and EUR 73,000 in damages) were deemed disproportionate and potentially deterring media from discussing matters of legitimate public concern.
4. The Court held that finding a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction, and the applicant may request reopening of the domestic proceedings.
CASE OF PÁPICS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Here’s the analysis of the ECHR decision in Pápics and Others v. Hungary:
Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns 16 Hungarian prisoners who were sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The applicants challenged their sentences, arguing that mandatory pardon proceedings could only take place after serving 40 years of their life sentences, which they claimed constituted inhuman and degrading punishment under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court unanimously found a violation of Article 3, ruling that the Hungarian legislation did not offer de facto reducibility of whole life sentences.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court joined all 16 applications due to similar subject matter
2. The Court rejected the Government’s argument about non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
3. The Court found the complaints admissible and not manifestly ill-founded
4. The Court relied on its previous case law (T.P. and A.T. v. Hungary) regarding the compatibility of life imprisonment without parole with Article 3
5. The Court awarded costs and expenses to 15 applicants (250 euros each) but made no award for non-pecuniary damage
Key important provisions:
1. The requirement to serve 40 years before consideration for release through mandatory pardon procedure makes the sentences not de facto reducible
2. The lack of sufficient procedural safeguards in the pardon procedure violates Article 3
3. The Court maintained its previous position that whole life sentences without realistic prospect of release are incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention
4. The finding of violation was considered sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage
5. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that life sentences must have a realistic prospect of review and possible release
CASE OF RADANOVIĆ v. SERBIA
Here’s the analysis of the Radanović v. Serbia judgment:
Essence of the Decision:
The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention in a case where the Serbian Court of Appeal failed to provide the applicant with an opportunity to comment on the Appellate Public Prosecutor’s written observations regarding his appeal. The Court emphasized that the right to an adversarial trial requires both prosecution and defense to have the opportunity to know and comment on observations filed by the other party, regardless of whether these comments would have influenced the final decision.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The case concerned criminal proceedings where the applicant was convicted of causing criminal damage to property.
2. The Court of Appeal transmitted the applicant’s appeal to the Appellate Public Prosecutor’s Office but did not share the prosecutor’s response with the applicant.
3. The Court established that this procedural failure violated the principle of adversarial proceedings, even without proving specific prejudice to the applicant.
4. The Court awarded the applicant €900 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,500 for costs and expenses.
Key Important Provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed that the right to adversarial proceedings requires both parties to have knowledge of and ability to comment on all evidence and observations submitted to the court.
2. The Court rejected the government’s argument that the prosecutor’s observations were merely procedural, emphasizing that it’s for the applicant to judge whether a document requires their comment.
3. The Court established that a violation can exist even without demonstrable prejudice to the applicant, as the mere denial of the opportunity to comment on the prosecutor’s observations constitutes a violation of fair trial rights.
4. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts must proactively ensure parties have the opportunity to participate properly in proceedings by sharing all relevant submissions.
CASE OF RIGÓ v. HUNGARY
1. Essence of the decision:
The case concerns a Hungarian prisoner who was denied leave to attend the funerals of his mother and brother during the COVID-19 pandemic. The European Court of Human Rights found that the Hungarian authorities violated Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life) by refusing the prisoner’s requests without proper individual assessment and solely based on general pandemic restrictions, despite the fact that many other COVID-19 restrictions were being lifted at that time.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The Court examined whether the interference with the applicant’s right to family life was justified under Article 8
– The decision acknowledges that healthcare policy matters fall within states’ margin of appreciation
– The Court established that while the restrictions had a legal basis and legitimate aim (protection of health), they were not “necessary in a democratic society” because:
* Decisions were issued after the funerals had already taken place
* No individual assessment of the applicant’s circumstances was conducted
* Authorities didn’t consider alternative protective measures
* The general ban effectively prevented any consideration of the applicant’s personal interest
3. Most important provisions:
– The Court confirms that Article 8 doesn’t guarantee an unconditional right to attend funerals, but authorities may refuse only for compelling reasons and if no alternative solution is possible
– The authorities must conduct an individual assessment of circumstances even during a health crisis
– General restrictions must be balanced against personal rights and circumstances
– The Court awarded the applicant €3,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,500 for costs and expenses
– The decision establishes that even during emergencies like a pandemic, blanket bans without individual assessment may violate Convention rights
CASE OF SCIORTINO AND VELLA v. MALTA
1. Essence of the decision:
The case concerns the expropriation of property in Malta where the owners (Sciortino and Vella) received inadequate compensation for their property taken by the State in 2012. The Court found that while the expropriation was lawful and pursued public interest, the compensation offered was disproportionately low compared to the market value, violating Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The case examines two periods of property interference: control of use (1964-2012) and full expropriation (2012)
– The Court focused on the 2012 expropriation, finding that the Constitutional Court’s approach of calculating compensation based on 1964 values was incorrect
– The decision confirms previous case law (particularly Carmelina Micallef v. Malta) regarding property rights and fair compensation principles
– The Court awarded €150,000 in pecuniary damages and €5,000 for legal costs to the applicants jointly
3. Key provisions for use:
– The Court reaffirms that compensation for expropriation should be based on the property’s market value at the time of the taking (2012 in this case), not the initial interference date
– The decision establishes that when different types of property interference occur (control of use followed by expropriation), they should be treated as separate issues under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
– The judgment clarifies that domestic courts cannot artificially shift the date of violation to avoid providing adequate compensation
– The Court emphasizes that compensation offered must have a reasonable relationship with the property’s market value to avoid placing an excessive burden on the property owners
CASE OF STOJEVIĆ v. CROATIA
The essence of the decision:
The case concerns the confiscation of EUR 100,000 in cash from a Croatian national who failed to declare it when exiting Croatia. The European Court of Human Rights found that while the failure to declare cash was an administrative offense, the confiscation of the entire amount (in addition to a fine) was disproportionate and violated the applicant’s right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court established that the applicant had a legitimate property right over the confiscated money, despite claims it was borrowed, as he was in possession of it and no contrary evidence was presented.
2. The Court distinguished this case from previous similar cases (Dagostin v. Croatia and Dolić and Hasani v. Croatia) where applicants denied ownership of the confiscated money.
3. Following its precedents in Boljević v. Croatia and Imeri v. Croatia, the Court held that:
– The confiscation constituted interference with property rights
– Sanctions must be proportionate to the breach (failure to declare) rather than presumed offenses
– Confiscation of the entire amount plus a fine was excessive when no criminal offenses were charged
Key important provisions:
1. The Court ordered Croatia to pay the applicant:
– EUR 100,000 in pecuniary damages (the confiscated amount)
– EUR 5,749.75 for costs and expenses
– Interest at the ECB rate plus 3% if payment is delayed
2. The Court confirmed that possession of cash creates a presumption of property rights unless proven otherwise
3. The decision reinforces the principle that administrative sanctions for failing to declare cash must be proportionate to the offense and not punitive as if criminal activity was proven.
