Review of ECHR decisions for 10/04/2025

Here’s a detailed analysis of the European Court of Human Rights decision in Morabito v. Italy:

1. Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns the continued placement of an elderly prisoner (aged 90) under a special restrictive prison regime (section 41 bis) despite his progressive cognitive deterioration. The Court found that the extended application of this regime was insufficiently justified given the applicant’s advanced age, length of time under the regime (almost 20 years), and cognitive decline which cast legitimate doubt on his ability to maintain meaningful contact with his criminal organization. While finding no violation regarding his continued detention and medical treatment, the Court held that the failure to provide compelling reasons for extending the special regime and to address the potential detrimental effects of limited human interactions violated Article 3 of the Convention.

2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines two distinct complaints under Article 3:
* The compatibility of continued detention with the applicant’s health condition and adequacy of medical treatment
* The justification for continued placement under the special restrictive regime
– The Court analyzed each complaint separately, considering:
* The applicant’s state of health and effects of imprisonment
* Quality of medical care provided
* Justification for continued detention/special regime
* Domestic authorities’ assessment and reasoning
– Key changes from previous decisions:
* More emphasis on need for increasingly detailed justification over time
* Greater focus on cognitive decline’s impact on dangerousness
* Stronger requirement to consider alternatives to full restrictions

3. Most important provisions for use:
– Extended application of restrictive regimes requires increasingly detailed and compelling reasons over time
– Advanced age and lengthy detention under special regime require particularly strong justification
– Cognitive deterioration must be explicitly assessed regarding ability to maintain criminal contacts
– Authorities must address potential negative effects of restrictions on mental health
– Must consider possibility of lifting or easing some restrictions to accommodate health needs
– Medical evidence of cognitive decline creates legitimate doubt about dangerousness that must be specifically addressed
– Domestic courts must provide thorough assessment based on current medical evidence rather than past behavior alone

The decision sets important precedents for balancing security needs with humane treatment of elderly and mentally declining prisoners under special regimes.

Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Sahibov v. Azerbaijan:

1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns the quashing of a final and enforceable first-instance court judgment after a considerable time lapse. The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to lack of adequate reasoning by higher courts, breach of the principle of legal certainty, and failure to properly notify the applicant about the appellate court hearing. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.

2. Structure and main provisions:
– The case centered on a dispute over lease rights to state-owned commercial premises
– The first-instance court’s judgment from 2004 became final and enforceable but was quashed in 2009
– The Court examined three main aspects:
* Adequacy of reasoning by higher courts
* Compliance with the principle of legal certainty
* Proper notification of court hearings
– The Court found that higher courts failed to provide adequate reasoning for quashing the first-instance judgment
– The Court determined that the review was not aimed at correcting judicial errors but merely at obtaining a rehearing

3. Most important provisions for use:
– The Court reaffirmed that Article 6 requires domestic courts to adequately state reasons for their decisions
– Higher courts must address essential issues submitted to their jurisdiction, not merely endorse lower court findings
– Legal certainty requires that final court rulings should not be questioned except for substantial and compelling reasons
– A review should be exercised to correct judicial errors and miscarriages of justice, not for fresh examination
– Proper notification of hearings is essential for ensuring the right to fair trial
– The Court emphasized the importance of balancing between individual rights and the effectiveness of the justice system

The decision provides important guidance on requirements for reasoning in court decisions and standards for reviewing final judgments while respecting legal certainty principles.