Review of ECHR decisions for 11/04/2025

Okay, I will help you to understand this decision of the European Court of Human Rights.

Here’s a breakdown of the Morabito v. Italy case:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Italy violated Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) regarding the continued placement of Giuseppe Morabito, an elderly Mafia boss, under the restrictive “41 bis” prison regime due to his cognitive decline. While the Court acknowledged the legitimacy of special prison regimes for dangerous criminals, it found that in Morabito’s case, the domestic authorities failed to provide sufficiently compelling reasons for extending the “41 bis” regime given his age, deteriorating mental state, and doubts about his ability to maintain meaningful contact with his criminal organization. The Court, however, found no violation regarding his detention per se, considering the medical treatment he received for his physical ailments.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The decision begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the compatibility of the applicant’s health with his imprisonment, the medical care provided, and the “41 bis” regime given his cognitive decline. It then presents the facts, including Morabito’s conviction for Mafia leadership, his detention history, and his various health issues. A significant portion details the medical evidence, including prison medical journals, reports, and private expert opinions, focusing on his physical and mental state. The decision outlines the legal proceedings, including challenges to the extensions of the “41 bis” regime and applications for release on health grounds. It then references the relevant Italian legal framework concerning prison conditions, medical care, and the “41 bis” regime itself.
The Court then assesses the admissibility of the complaints, addresses the arguments of both parties (applicant and the Italian government), and determines the scope of the application. The Court distinguishes between factual updates to existing complaints and new complaints, finding some of the applicant’s submissions inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
The decision then addresses the merits of the case. It examines the complaint regarding continued detention and medical treatment, finding no violation of Article 3. It then examines the complaint regarding the “41 bis” regime, finding a violation of Article 3 due to the insufficient justification for its continued application.
Finally, the decision addresses Article 41 (just satisfaction), determining that the finding of a violation is sufficient compensation.
Judge Balsamo’s partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion is attached, expressing disagreement with the finding of a violation regarding the “41 bis” regime.

3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Article 3 Violation:** The core finding is the violation of Article 3 due to the unjustified extension of the “41 bis” regime. The Court emphasized that as restrictions under such regimes are imposed for a substantial length of time, detailed and compelling reasons should be given, taking into account the evolution of the prisoner’s state of health and of other circumstances of the specific case during the course of the special regime.
* **Individualized Assessment:** The decision highlights the importance of an individualized assessment when extending special prison regimes, especially considering a prisoner’s health and changing circumstances.
* **Cognitive Decline:** The Court considered the impact of the applicant’s cognitive deterioration on his ability to maintain contact with his criminal organization, questioning whether he still posed a real danger.
* **Balancing Security and Human Rights:** The decision underscores the need to balance legitimate public order considerations (combating organized crime) with the fundamental human rights of prisoners. The Court acknowledged the importance of the “41 bis” regime in preventing contact between detainees and criminal networks but stressed that its application must not be arbitrary or undermine human dignity.
* **Medical Evidence:** The decision shows the importance of medical evidence in assessing the compatibility of detention conditions with a prisoner’s health. The Court scrutinized the medical reports and expert opinions to determine whether the authorities had adequately considered the applicant’s condition.

Let me know if you need more details on any aspect of the decision!

Here’s a breakdown of the Sahibov v. Azerbaijan decision:

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Azerbaijan violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to a fair hearing) in the case of Mr. Sahibov. The violation stemmed from the quashing of a final and enforceable first-instance judgment in his favor, a breach of the principle of legal certainty, inadequate reasoning by higher courts, and the applicant not being duly informed of the appellate court hearing. The Court awarded the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.

The decision begins with an introduction outlining the applicant’s complaints. It then details the facts of the case, including the lease agreement between the applicant and the State Property Ministry, the subsequent court proceedings, attempts to enforce the initial judgment, and the appeal lodged by the State Shipping Company. The judgment outlines the relevant Azerbaijani legal framework and practice concerning property rights, lease agreements, and civil procedure. The ECtHR then assesses the admissibility of the application and the merits of the applicant’s claims under Article 6 § 1, focusing on the right to a reasoned decision, the principle of legal certainty, and the right to be informed of court hearings. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding damages and costs to the applicant. There are no changes to previous versions of the text, since this is the first edition.

The most important aspects of this decision are the emphasis on the principle of legal certainty, the requirement for domestic courts to provide adequate reasoning for their decisions, and the importance of ensuring that parties are duly informed of court hearings to allow for effective participation. The ECtHR stressed that higher courts should only overturn final judgments to correct fundamental errors, not for a simple re-examination of the case. The court also considered that the Ministry’s failure to provide vacant possession of premises and the higher court failure to explain why the applicant should have continued paying the rent even during the period when he had no physical access to the premises, constituted a breach of fair trial.