CASE OF BRD – GROUPE SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE S.A. v. ROMANIA
Let me provide a detailed analysis of this European Court of Human Rights decision.
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns complaints by BRD – Groupe Société Générale bank against Romania regarding two types of searches conducted on its premises: an unannounced inspection by the Competition Council in 2008 and searches/seizures during criminal investigations in 2012-2014. The Court found no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for home and correspondence) regarding the competition inspection, as it had adequate procedural safeguards and effective judicial review. However, the Court found a violation of Article 8 regarding the 2014 seizure and search of computers during the criminal investigation, due to lack of meaningful judicial review and the prolonged duration of the investigation.
2. Structure and main provisions:
The decision is structured around two main sets of proceedings:
Competition proceedings:
– Examined whether the unannounced inspection had legal basis, legitimate aim and was necessary in democratic society
– Analyzed procedural safeguards available during and after inspection
– Found adequate safeguards existed through:
* Detailed inspection reports
* Presence of company representatives
* Possibility to request confidentiality
* Available judicial review
Criminal proceedings:
– Examined two separate criminal cases from 2012 and 2013
– For 2012 case – complaint rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
– For 2013 case – found violation due to:
* Lack of prior judicial authorization
* Absence of effective judicial review
* Prolonged investigation without resolution
3. Most important provisions for use:
a) Competition inspections:
– Unannounced inspections without prior judicial warrant can be compatible with Article 8 if accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards
– Key safeguards include:
* Detailed documentation of inspection
* Presence of company representatives
* Limited scope of documents seized
* Possibility for judicial review
b) Criminal investigations:
– Seizure and search of electronic devices requires:
* Either prior judicial authorization or
* Effective ex post facto judicial review
* Reasonable duration of investigation
* Clear legal basis for electronic searches
c) General principles:
– Need to balance investigative powers with safeguards against abuse
– Importance of having clear procedures for handling confidential/privileged information
– Necessity of effective judicial review within reasonable time
The decision provides important guidance on required safeguards for both competition and criminal investigations involving business premises and electronic data.
CASE OF FARHAD MEHDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Farhad Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns the unlawful termination of a lawyer’s right to practice just days after his readmission to the Azerbaijani Bar Association (ABA). The Court found that revoking the applicant’s readmission to the Bar without following proper legal procedures violated his right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court determined that the interference with the applicant’s rights was not “in accordance with law” since domestic law required a court decision for termination of lawyer activity due to non-payment of membership fees, which was not obtained in this case.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The case examines whether revoking a lawyer’s readmission to the Bar violated Article 8 (right to respect for private life)
– The Court first established that Article 8 was applicable since the measure prevented the applicant from practicing law and affected his professional relationships
– The Court found the interference was not “in accordance with law” because:
* Domestic law required a court decision for termination due to non-payment of fees
* The Bar Association’s powers to revoke admission decisions lacked clear legal framework
* The interpretation used bypassed legal safeguards against arbitrary decisions
– The Court awarded €4,500 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,500 for costs and expenses
3. Most important provisions for use:
– Confirmation that disbarment or prevention from practicing law falls within scope of Article 8 protection of private life
– Requirement that interference with lawyer’s practice must have clear legal basis and safeguards
– Bar associations cannot exercise unfettered discretion in revoking membership without proper legal framework
– Need for court decision in cases of termination for non-payment of fees
– Importance of procedural guarantees and protection against arbitrary interference with lawyer’s practice
The decision establishes important standards for protection of lawyers’ rights and limitations on bar associations’ powers to terminate membership. It emphasizes need for clear legal procedures and judicial oversight in such cases.
CASE OF MUSTAFA AYDIN v. TÜRKİYE
The essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) in the case of Mustafa Aydin v. Turkey, where the applicant was convicted of membership in a terrorist organization. The Court determined that the Turkish courts failed to provide adequate reasoning for the conviction, did not conduct an individualized assessment of the applicant’s criminal liability, and did not properly address the applicant’s key defense arguments. The Court emphasized that while courts can use similar reasoning for groups of defendants in similar situations, they must still provide individualized reasoning for each defendant in criminal cases.
Structure and main provisions:
1. Admissibility
– The Court rejected Turkey’s objections regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and manifest ill-foundedness
– The application was declared admissible as it met all requirements
2. Merits
– The Court examined whether domestic courts fulfilled their duty to deliver a reasoned judgment
– Found that the trial court failed to:
* Provide adequate reasons for the conviction
* Make an individualized assessment of criminal liability
* Address key defense arguments
* Show evidence of alleged phone calls with organization leaders
* Properly evaluate crucial evidence like the two-page printout
3. Just satisfaction
– Awarded €6,000 for non-pecuniary damage
– Awarded €75 for costs and expenses
– Rejected claims for pecuniary damage
Key important provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed that domestic courts must provide specific and explicit replies to arguments decisive for case outcomes
2. While courts can use similar reasoning for groups in similar positions, they must provide individualized reasoning in criminal cases
3. The duty to give reasons requires courts to:
– Establish facts supporting accusations
– Apply law to facts logically
– Examine specific and important points raised by the accused
– Tailor reasons to each defendant’s circumstances
4. The Court emphasized it will not act as a fourth instance court by reassessing evidence, but will examine if proper reasoning was provided
This decision reinforces important standards for reasoned judgments in criminal cases and the need for individualized assessment of criminal liability.
CASE OF MIKLIĆ v. CROATIA
The essence of the decision:
The case concerns the lawfulness of pre-trial detention in Croatia where the authorities failed to review the detention within the statutory two-month time limit. The Court found that a 46-day delay in reviewing the applicant’s detention made it arbitrary and unlawful under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, even though it remained lawful under domestic law. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 9,000 in damages and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The case examines whether pre-trial detention remains lawful when authorities fail to comply with statutory review deadlines
2. The Court analyzed two main aspects:
– Whether the detention remained lawful under domestic law despite missing the review deadline
– Whether the detention could be considered arbitrary due to the delay in review
3. Key changes from previous positions:
– The Court emphasized that even if detention remains lawful under domestic law, delays in review can make it arbitrary under the Convention
– The Court highlighted the importance of clear safeguards against unreasonable delays
Most important provisions:
1. Non-compliance with statutory review deadlines can make detention arbitrary even if it remains technically lawful under domestic law
2. A 46-day delay in reviewing detention is considered significant and cannot be justified without proper safeguards
3. The absence of clear thresholds for acceptable delays in domestic law raises issues of legal certainty and foreseeability
4. Courts must take the fundamental right to liberty seriously by having clear rules about review deadlines
5. The burden to initiate review should not fall on the detained person when statutory deadlines are missed
CASE OF TADIĆ v. CROATIA
Here’s the detailed description of the ECHR decision in Tadić v. Croatia:
Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns a minority shareholder’s inability to judicially challenge the compensation amount awarded during a company squeeze-out. The European Court of Human Rights found that Croatia violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by completely denying the applicant access to court to dispute the compensation amount for his compulsory share transfer. The Court determined that such complete denial of access to court could not be justified by aims of proper administration of justice and protection of others’ rights.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The case originated from a squeeze-out situation where Mr. Tadić was forced to sell his minority shares for 16.50 Croatian kunas per share
2. The applicant attempted to challenge the compensation amount through:
– Commercial courts (which considered his request withdrawn)
– Administrative courts (which declared lack of legal interest)
– Constitutional Court (which declared the complaint inadmissible)
3. The Court found the application admissible despite government objections regarding Article 6 applicability and non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
4. The Court awarded the applicant:
– EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage
– EUR 2,490 for costs and expenses
– Rejected the claim for pecuniary damage due to possibility of case reopening
Most important provisions for use:
1. The decision establishes that in cases involving compensation to minority shareholders during squeeze-outs, complete denial of access to court cannot be justified
2. The Court references EU Directive 2004/25/EC, emphasizing that decisions of supervisory authorities should be subject to review by independent courts
3. The ruling confirms that even in takeover situations, shareholders must have effective access to court to protect their rights
4. The decision creates a precedent for similar cases where administrative procedures completely block judicial review of compensation amounts in corporate squeeze-outs
5. The Court’s position aligns with both ECHR case law and EU Court of Justice practice regarding protection of minority shareholders’ rights
