CASE OF AVAGYAN v. RUSSIA
Okay, here’s a breakdown of the Avagyan v. Russia decision, tailored for journalistic understanding:
1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated a woman’s right to freedom of expression (Article 10) and right to a fair trial (Article 6) after she was fined for posting comments on Instagram questioning the existence of COVID-19 cases in her region. The Court found that the Russian courts failed to adequately justify the interference with her freedom of expression, particularly because they didn’t establish that her comments were deliberately false or posed a real risk to public health. The ECtHR also criticized the lack of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings, which it saw as undermining the fairness of the trial. The fine imposed was considered a disproportionate penalty that could have a chilling effect on public debate. The Court awarded the applicant compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as legal costs.
2. The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the applicant’s prosecution for social media comments questioning COVID-19 cases. The “Facts” section details the applicant’s Instagram posts, the administrative charges against her, and the domestic court proceedings, including her defense and the courts’ reasoning for finding her guilty. A “Relevant Legal Framework” section cites the specific article of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) used to penalize her. The “Law” section then presents the Court’s legal analysis. It first establishes its jurisdiction, followed by an assessment of the alleged violation of Article 10, including the parties’ submissions and the Court’s evaluation of whether the interference with freedom of expression was justified. It examines whether the interference was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society. Finally, it addresses the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding the fairness of the proceedings. The judgment concludes with the application of Article 41, awarding just satisfaction to the applicant.
3. Several aspects of this decision are particularly important:
* **Burden of Proof:** The ECtHR emphasized that domestic courts cannot shift the burden of proof onto individuals to disprove the truth of their statements, especially in cases involving freedom of expression.
* **Context Matters:** The Court stressed the importance of considering the context in which comments are made, including the nature of the platform, the reach of the statements, and the applicant’s intention.
* **Disinformation vs. Scepticism:** While acknowledging the need to combat disinformation, the ECtHR distinguished between deliberately spreading false information and expressing scepticism or calling for greater transparency, particularly during a public health crisis.
* **Fair Trial Concerns:** The absence of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings was flagged as a structural deficiency that can compromise judicial impartiality.
* **Proportionality of Sanctions:** Fines for speech-related offenses must be proportionate and not have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
I hope this is helpful for your reporting.
**** This decision is related to freedom of speech during the COVID-19 pandemic and has implications for Ukraine and Ukrainians, as it sets a precedent for how governments can and cannot restrict speech during a public health crisis.
CASE OF JAUPI v. ALBANIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Jaupi v. Albania decision:
1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined the fairness of criminal proceedings against Mr. Kastriot Jaupi, who was convicted in absentia for murder and attempted murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court found no violation regarding Mr. Jaupi’s right to participate in the proceedings or to question witnesses concerning his murder conviction. However, the ECtHR identified a violation concerning his inability to question prosecution witnesses regarding his attempted murder conviction, as this evidence was decisive and lacked sufficient counterbalancing factors. The Court dismissed complaints about the Supreme Court’s reasoning and the length of the proceedings. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,200 in respect of costs and expenses.
2. The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the applicant’s trial in absentia. It then details the facts, including the background of the case, the investigation, and the proceedings on indictment and appeal. The judgment then references relevant domestic law, specifically the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure of Albania. The “Law” section outlines the scope of the case, followed by a detailed analysis of the alleged violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention, covering admissibility, the reasoning of the Supreme Court, the length of proceedings, and the merits of the applicant’s claims. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention regarding just satisfaction, including damages, costs, and expenses.
3. The most important aspect of this decision is the distinction the Court makes between the murder and attempted murder convictions. While the Court found no violation regarding the murder conviction, it did find a violation concerning the attempted murder conviction due to the applicant’s inability to question key prosecution witnesses whose evidence was decisive in that conviction. This highlights the importance of the right to examine witnesses and the need for sufficient counterbalancing factors when a defendant is unable to do so, especially when the untested evidence is a major component of the conviction.
CASE OF KAVEČANSKÝ v. SLOVAKIA
Okay, I will provide you with a detailed description of the decision in the case of Kavečanský v. Slovakia.
Here’s the breakdown:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Slovakia violated Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the case of Mr. Vojtech Kavečanský. The violation stemmed from searches conducted at his notary’s office and unoccupied non-residential premises, along with the seizure of his electronic devices. These actions were based on search warrants issued by an investigator and approved by a prosecutor, without prior judicial authorization. The Court emphasized the lack of sufficient judicial safeguards, both before the issuance of the search warrants and after the searches were carried out, leading to the conclusion that the interference was not “in accordance with the law.” The Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 7,580.90 for costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions of the Decision:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the searches of the applicant’s notary’s office and non-residential premises and the seizure of his electronic devices. It then details the facts of the case, including the applicant’s report of being kidnapped, the subsequent investigation, and the searches conducted by the police. The judgment references the relevant legal framework, specifically the Slovak Code of Criminal Procedure, outlining the conditions for searches and seizures. The Court then assesses the admissibility of the application, finding it admissible. The merits of the case are discussed, including submissions from both the applicant and the government. The Court analyzes whether there was an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 and whether that interference was justified. The Court concludes that there was a violation of Article 8 because the searches were not “in accordance with the law” due to the lack of judicial safeguards. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41, awarding damages and costs to the applicant.
3. **Main Provisions and Importance for Use:**
The most important aspect of this decision is the emphasis on judicial safeguards in search and seizure operations, particularly in professional settings like a notary’s office. The Court highlights that even if domestic law provides a general basis for such measures, it must also include sufficient judicial oversight to protect individuals from arbitrary interference. The absence of a prior judicial warrant or an effective judicial review after the fact was a critical factor in the Court’s finding of a violation. This decision underscores the need for a balance between law enforcement’s investigative powers and the protection of individual rights to privacy and the inviolability of one’s home and professional premises.
I hope this description is helpful for your journalistic purposes.
CASE OF TERGEK v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Tergek v. Türkiye:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned a Turkish prisoner, Abdül Samed Tergek, who complained that prison authorities violated his right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights) by refusing to deliver internet printouts sent to him by his wife. The Court found that the refusal was an interference with his right to receive information. However, the Court ruled that this interference was justified because it was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims (national security, prevention of disorder and crime), and the Turkish Constitutional Court had carried out a detailed assessment balancing the prisoner’s rights with the needs of prison administration and security. The Court emphasized that national authorities have a margin of appreciation in regulating how prisoners obtain printed documents. Ultimately, the Court concluded that there was no violation of Article 10.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets out the case’s subject matter: the refusal to deliver internet printouts to a prisoner.
* **Facts:** Details the applicant’s situation, the letters in question, and the decisions of the prison authorities and domestic courts. It outlines two incidents: one where a letter was initially withheld but later delivered, and another where a letter was withheld entirely.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Cites Turkish laws and regulations regarding prisoners’ rights to receive publications and correspondence, including Law no. 5275 and related regulations. It also references relevant case-law from the Turkish Constitutional Court, particularly the Diyadin Akdemir case.
* **The Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the Court.
* **Article 10 Violation:** Establishes that the applicant’s complaint falls under Article 10 (freedom of expression), specifically the right to receive information.
* **Admissibility:** Addresses the Turkish government’s objections regarding the applicant’s victim status and whether he suffered a significant disadvantage. The Court dismisses the objection regarding the first letter (as it was eventually delivered) but upholds the admissibility of the complaint regarding the second letter.
* **Merits:** Assesses whether the interference with the applicant’s right to receive information was justified. It considers whether the interference was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims, and was necessary in a democratic society. The Court emphasizes the margin of appreciation afforded to national authorities.
* **Conclusion:** States the Court’s decision: the complaint concerning the non-delivery of the second letter is admissible, but there was no violation of Article 10.
* **Dissenting Opinion:** Includes the dissenting opinion of three judges who disagreed with the majority’s finding of no violation. They argued that the blanket ban on internet printouts was not sufficiently justified and did not involve a careful balancing of the prisoner’s rights against security concerns.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Margin of Appreciation:** The decision underscores the principle that national authorities have a margin of appreciation in regulating prisoners’ access to information, particularly concerning prison security and administration.
* **Balancing of Interests:** The Court emphasizes the need for domestic courts to conduct a detailed and carefully balanced assessment of the competing interests involved when restricting a prisoner’s right to receive information.
* **General Measures:** The decision discusses the proportionality of general measures (like the blanket ban on printouts) and the importance of judicial review of such measures at the national level.
* **Prescribed by Law:** The dissenting opinion raises concerns about whether the restriction on access to printouts was sufficiently “prescribed by law” under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.
CASE OF DERREK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Derrek and Others v. Russia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns a police raid on an LGBT workshop in Yaroslavl, Russia. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Russian authorities violated the rights of the applicants (LGBT activists) under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court concluded that the police raid, personal searches, obligatory drug testing, and the subsequent lack of effective investigation were discriminatory and amounted to degrading treatment. The ECtHR also found violations related to the applicants’ unlawful deprivation of liberty and the disruption of their freedom of peaceful assembly. The Court highlighted the homophobic motivation behind the authorities’ actions and the chilling effect on the LGBT community.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction and Facts:** The judgment outlines the background of the case, including the police raid on the LGBT workshop, the treatment of the applicants during the raid, and their subsequent complaints to domestic authorities.
* **The Law:** This section details the relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including Articles 3, 5, 11, 13, and 14.
* **Jurisdiction and Correspondence with the Respondent Government:** The Court affirmed its jurisdiction over the case, noting that the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention.
* **Alleged Violations:** The judgment addresses the applicants’ complaints under various articles of the Convention, examining the admissibility and merits of each claim.
* **Article 3 (Degrading Treatment) and Article 14 (Discrimination):** The Court found a violation of Article 3, both substantively and procedurally, in conjunction with Article 14, due to the degrading treatment and the ineffective investigation into the discriminatory motives behind the police actions.
* **Article 5 (Right to Liberty and Security):** The Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1, noting that the applicants were unlawfully deprived of their liberty during the raid and subsequent transfer to a hospital and police station.
* **Article 11 (Freedom of Assembly):** The Court found a violation of Article 11, as the disruption of the workshop constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court declared other complaints admissible but found no need for separate examination due to its previous findings.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
* **Separate Opinion of Judge Zünd:** Judge Zünd partly dissented, disagreeing with the finding of a violation of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 14, arguing that the threshold for inhuman or degrading treatment was not attained.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Discrimination and Homophobia:** The decision emphasizes the importance of investigating potential discriminatory motives, particularly in cases involving hostility against the LGBT community.
* **Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty:** The judgment underscores the need for proper recording and procedural guarantees during any deprivation of liberty, even for short durations.
* **Freedom of Assembly:** The decision reaffirms the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and highlights that any restrictions must be justified by a “pressing social need” and be “necessary in a democratic society.”
* **Effective Investigation:** The decision highlights the importance of conducting a meaningful inquiry into allegations of ill-treatment with discriminatory intent by the police.
**** This decision may be relevant to Ukraine, particularly in the context of ensuring the rights and freedoms of LGBT individuals and preventing discrimination and ill-treatment by law enforcement authorities.
CASE OF LUBARDA AND MILANOV v. SERBIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Lubarda and Milanov v. Serbia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Serbia violated Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the right to a fair trial) in the cases of Mr. Lubarda and Mr. Milanov. Both applicants were convicted of minor road-traffic offences based on police reports they had initially signed but later disputed. The key issue was that they were not given the opportunity to cross-examine the police officers whose testimonies were crucial to their convictions. The ECtHR emphasized that the potential for imprisonment, even for minor offences, necessitates stronger guarantees of a fair trial, including the right to challenge witnesses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The judgment addresses the applicants’ complaints that they were denied the right to cross-examine witnesses in minor-offence proceedings related to road-traffic violations.
* **Facts:** Mr. Lubarda was convicted of failing to comply with a traffic light, and Mr. Milanov was convicted of driving under the influence. Both were fined and had their driving licenses suspended.
* **Admissibility:** The Court determined that the applications were admissible, rejecting the government’s argument that Mr. Lubarda did not suffer a significant disadvantage. The Court emphasized that the possibility of imprisonment triggered stronger fair trial guarantees.
* **Merits:** The Court analyzed the case based on the principles of the right to an oral hearing and the admission of untested incriminating witness evidence. It found that the applicants’ convictions were based on evidence they had no proper opportunity to challenge.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court rejected the applicants’ claims for pecuniary damage but awarded each applicant EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded Mr. Milanov EUR 2,765 for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses:** The decision reinforces the importance of the right to cross-examine witnesses, especially when their testimony is decisive for a conviction.
* **Minor Offences and Imprisonment:** The judgment highlights that even in cases of minor offences, the potential for imprisonment triggers stronger fair trial guarantees under Article 6 of the Convention.
* **Fairness of Proceedings:** The Court emphasized that the overall fairness of the trial must be assessed, considering whether the defendant had sufficient opportunity to challenge the evidence against them.
* **Counterbalancing Factors:** The decision underscores that if a defendant is unable to cross-examine witnesses, there must be sufficient counterbalancing factors in place to ensure the fairness of the trial.
This decision serves as a reminder that the principles of a fair trial, including the right to challenge witnesses, must be respected even in cases involving minor offences, particularly when the potential for imprisonment exists.
CASE OF PEKSERT v. BULGARIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of Peksert v. Bulgaria:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned a German national who had gold jewellery confiscated at the Bulgarian border for failing to declare it. The ECtHR found that Bulgaria violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (protection of property) because the confiscation of the jewellery, in addition to a fine, was disproportionate. The Court emphasized that the jewellery’s origin wasn’t suspicious, and the applicant’s only offense was failing to declare it. While Bulgarian law required declaration of precious metals above a certain amount, it wasn’t unlawful to transport them. The Court ordered Bulgaria to return the jewellery or pay compensation.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The judgment addresses the applicant’s complaint that the confiscation of his jewellery for failing to declare it at the Bulgarian border was an excessive penalty, violating his property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Background:** The applicant, traveling from Türkiye to Germany, was found to be carrying undeclared gold jewellery exceeding the permitted amount. Bulgarian customs officials seized the jewellery and issued a fine.
* **Domestic Proceedings:** The applicant challenged the penal order in Bulgarian courts, arguing he was unaware of the declaration requirement and had not been properly assisted by a translator. The Bulgarian courts upheld the order.
* **Admissibility:** The Bulgarian government argued the application should be inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The ECtHR rejected this, stating that the applicant had sufficiently raised the issue of disproportionality in the national courts.
* **The Court’s Assessment:** The ECtHR found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It acknowledged that the confiscation was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim (controlling the import/export of precious metals). However, it deemed the measure disproportionate because the jewellery’s origin was not suspicious, the applicant’s only offense was failing to declare it, and the confiscation served a punitive purpose without a clear justification for cumulating it with a fine.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court ruled that the finding of a violation was sufficient for non-pecuniary damage. It ordered Bulgaria to return the jewellery or pay EUR 33,825 in compensation, plus a small amount for translation costs.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Disproportionality of Sanctions:** The core takeaway is that even when a measure like confiscation is legal and pursues a legitimate aim, it must be proportionate. Combining a fine with confiscation can be considered excessive, especially when the origin of the goods isn’t suspicious, and the offense is simply a failure to declare.
* **Importance of Context:** The Court considered the applicant’s conduct (not hiding the jewellery), the nature of the jewellery (old and personal), and the fact that transporting it wasn’t inherently illegal if declared.
* **Punitive vs. Compensatory Measures:** The judgment highlights the distinction between confiscation as a means of compensating the state for a loss versus a purely punitive measure. The latter requires stronger justification.
CASE OF UMID-T LLC v. AZERBAIJAN
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in the case of UMID-T LLC v. Azerbaijan:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned the expropriation of the applicant company’s LPG filling station for a motorway reconstruction project. The ECtHR found that Azerbaijan violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (protection of property) because the expropriation was not carried out in accordance with domestic law. Specifically, the property was demolished on the same day the company received notification, and compensation was paid almost six months after the demolition. While the Court acknowledged the company received some compensation, it ruled the procedural flaws in the expropriation process constituted a violation. The Court awarded the company 3,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicant company’s complaint and the government’s response.
* It details the facts, including the company’s ownership of the LPG station, the government’s decision to expropriate the land, and the subsequent demolition and compensation.
* The Court then assesses the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, examining whether there was an interference with the applicant’s possessions, whether it was lawful, and whether a fair balance was struck between the public interest and the company’s rights.
* The judgment emphasizes that the domestic law requirements for expropriation, including the timing of notification and compensation, were not followed.
* Finally, the Court addresses the applicant’s claims for damages under Article 41, rejecting the claim for pecuniary damage but awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Unlawful Expropriation:** The key takeaway is that expropriation must strictly adhere to domestic legal procedures. Failure to follow these procedures, especially regarding notification and compensation timing, can lead to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Procedural Compliance:** This case underscores the importance of States ensuring that all steps in the expropriation process are meticulously followed.
* **Victim Status:** The Court reiterated that an applicant can still claim to be a victim if the national authorities have not acknowledged a breach of the Convention.
* **Compensation:** While the Court dismissed the specific claim for pecuniary damage in this case due to lack of substantiation, it reaffirmed the principle that fair compensation is a key element in lawful expropriation.
I hope this analysis is helpful.
