CASE OF SEKSIMP GROUP SRL v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in the case of Seksimp Group SRL v. the Republic of Moldova:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The case revolves around a Moldovan company, Seksimp Group SRL, and a dispute over a tenancy agreement. The company complained that it was unfairly ordered to pay a disproportionate amount of compensation due to alleged breaches of contract. The ECtHR found that while the initial trial occurred without the company’s participation, this was later remedied by a full appeal hearing. However, the Court identified two key violations: the domestic courts failed to provide adequate reasoning for their decisions, particularly regarding the proportionality of the compensation, and the state failed to protect the company’s property rights effectively, leading to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets the stage, outlining the case’s subject matter: a private dispute over contractual obligations and the applicant’s claims under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Facts:** Details the factual background, including the tenancy agreements, the initial court proceedings held in the applicant’s absence, the auction of the company’s assets, and subsequent appeals.
* **Relevant Domestic Law:** Cites the specific articles of the Moldovan Civil Code relevant to the case, particularly those concerning the extent of compensation and liability for damages.
* **The Law:**
* **Government’s Preliminary Objections:** Addresses and dismisses the Government’s objections regarding the applicant’s victim status and the prematurity of the complaints due to ongoing domestic proceedings.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1:** Examines the applicant’s complaints regarding the fairness of the proceedings, specifically the trial in absentia and the lack of adequate reasoning in the court decisions.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** Assesses whether the applicant’s property rights were violated, focusing on the proportionality of the compensation order and the State’s positive obligations to protect property rights.
* **Application of Article 41:** Addresses the issue of just satisfaction but defers a decision, inviting further submissions from both parties.
* **Operative part:** Declares the application admissible, holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention in relation to the proceedings in absentia before the first-instance court, holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in relation to the lack of adequate reasoning in the domestic courts’ decisions, holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, holds that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention is not ready for decision and accordingly reserves the said question.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Fair Hearing & Reasoning:** The judgment underscores the importance of domestic courts providing clear and sufficient reasoning for their decisions, especially when addressing arguments crucial to the case’s outcome.
* **Positive Obligations & Property Rights:** It highlights the State’s duty to ensure a fair legal framework that allows individuals to effectively assert their property rights, even in disputes between private parties. The State must ensure that court decisions are not arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.
* **Proportionality:** The decision emphasizes the need for domestic courts to assess the proportionality of compensation awards, particularly in relation to the actual conduct of the parties and the risks assumed.
* **Proceedings in absentia:** The Court reiterates that a defect at first instance may be remedied on appeal, as long as the appeal body has full jurisdiction to quash the impugned decision and either to take the decision itself, or to remit the case for a new decision.
**** This decision may be relevant to Ukraine, particularly in the context of ensuring fair trials, protecting property rights, and providing adequate reasoning in court decisions, especially in cases involving economic disputes.
CASE OF VACHIK KARAPETYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Vachik Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia, concerning three separate applications where the applicants alleged they were denied access to superior courts due to unjustified application of procedural time-limits, violating Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The ECHR found violations in all three cases, emphasizing that the applicants’ right of access to a court had been impaired. The Court highlighted issues with the foreseeability of time-limit applications, excessive formalism by the Court of Cassation, and procedural errors by the Civil Court of Appeal. It underscored that the method of calculating appeal time-limits created uncertainty and that domestic courts had failed to adequately address the applicants’ requests. As a result, the ECHR awarded damages to two of the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
The decision is structured as follows:
* Introduction: Briefly describes the essence of the applications.
* Facts: Details the factual background of each application, including court proceedings and relevant dates.
* Relevant Legal Framework: Outlines the domestic laws and Constitutional Court decisions pertinent to the cases.
* The Law:
* Joinder of the Applications: Explains the decision to examine the applications jointly.
* Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention:
* Admissibility: Assesses the applicability of Article 6 § 1 and the admissibility of the complaints.
* Merits: Examines the applicants’ arguments, the Government’s submissions, and the Court’s assessment based on established principles.
* Application of Article 41 of the Convention: Addresses the issue of just satisfaction.
* For These Reasons, the Court: States the Court’s decision, including the finding of violations and the awarding of damages.
* Appendix: Provides a list of cases with applicant details.
The main provisions of the decision are:
* **Article 6 § 1 Violation:** The Court found that Armenia violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in all three applications, as the applicants were denied fair access to courts.
* **Foreseeability of Restrictions:** The Court determined that the application of time-limits for appeals was not always foreseeable for the applicants, given the inconsistencies in domestic court practices and the interpretation of Constitutional Court decisions.
* **Excessive Formalism:** The Court criticized the Court of Cassation for adopting an excessively formalistic approach in disregarding the applicants’ requests for the restoration of time-limits.
* **Procedural Errors:** In one case, the Civil Court of Appeal made incorrect factual statements, leading to the dismissal of an appeal without proper examination.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court awarded damages to two of the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and costs, while denying the claim of the third applicant, who did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.
CASE OF VERSACI v. ITALY
Okay, I will provide you with a detailed description of the decision in the case of Versaci v. Italy.
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined the case of Mr. Versaci, whose application for a public security license to conduct bookmaking activities in Italy was denied due to his failure to meet the “good character” requirement under Italian law. The denial was based on his family connections and associations with individuals who had criminal records. Mr. Versaci argued that this decision violated his right to respect for private and professional life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECtHR found that Article 8 was applicable because the reasons for the license refusal were linked to his private life. However, the Court concluded that the Italian authorities’ decision was “in accordance with the law” and “necessary in a democratic society,” finding no violation of Article 8.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the refusal of a public security license due to the “good character” requirement. It then details the facts, including the administrative and judicial procedures Mr. Versaci underwent in Italy. The judgment thoroughly examines the relevant domestic legal framework and practice, including Royal Decrees, Laws, Circulars from the Ministry of the Interior, and case-law from the Constitutional Court and administrative courts.
The ECtHR then addresses the alleged violation of Article 8, first considering the admissibility of the complaint, including the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the applicability of Article 8. After declaring the complaint admissible, the Court assesses the merits, examining whether the measure was “in accordance with the law,” pursued a “legitimate aim,” and was “necessary in a democratic society.” Finally, the Court addresses the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, finding it manifestly ill-founded. The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision and separate opinions from dissenting judges.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
The ECtHR clarified several key points:
* **Applicability of Article 8:** The decision confirms that Article 8 can be engaged when a professional restriction is based on reasons related to an individual’s private life, such as family connections and social associations.
* **”In Accordance with the Law” Requirement:** The Court found that the “good character” requirement, despite its vagueness, was sufficiently foreseeable due to clarifications in administrative guidance and domestic case-law.
* **Judicial Review:** The ECtHR emphasized the importance of sufficient judicial review to safeguard against arbitrary interferences by domestic authorities, but found that such review was present in this case.
* **Margin of Appreciation:** The Court acknowledged the wide margin of appreciation afforded to domestic authorities in areas such as gambling regulation, where there is a need to prevent crime and money laundering.
* **”Necessary in a Democratic Society” Requirement:** The ECtHR found that the Italian authorities provided relevant and sufficient reasons for the license refusal, and the measure was proportionate to the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime.
I hope this description is helpful for your journalistic purposes.
CASE OF BIKBULATOV v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Bikbulatov v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Russia in violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to inadequate conditions of detention during the transport of the applicant, Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Bikbulatov. The Court determined that the conditions, including overcrowding and restricted access to basic facilities, fell below acceptable standards. This decision is based on facts that occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022, so the Court retained jurisdiction. While the applicant raised other complaints, the Court found them inadmissible. As a result of the violation, the Court ordered Russia to pay the applicant 1,000 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** Details the application process, noting the date it was lodged and the notification to the Russian Government.
* **Facts:** Provides background information on the applicant and the specifics of the complaint.
* **Law:**
*Jurisdiction:* Affirms the Court’s jurisdiction over the case because the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
*Alleged Violation of Article 3:* Focuses on the applicant’s complaint regarding inadequate detention conditions during transport, referencing previous case law on similar issues. The Court emphasizes the presumption of a violation when detainees have less than 0.5 square meters of space per person during transport.
*Remaining Complaints:* States that other complaints raised by the applicant were either inadmissible or did not reveal a violation of the Convention.
*Application of Article 41:* Addresses the issue of just satisfaction, awarding the applicant compensation and dismissing the remaining claims.
* **Appendix:** Includes a table with specific details of the applicant’s case, such as dates of transport, space per inmate, and the amount awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court explicitly states its jurisdiction over cases related to events that occurred before September 16, 2022, even after Russia’s cessation as a party to the Convention.
* **Article 3 Violation:** The judgment reinforces the Court’s established case law regarding the minimum standards for detention conditions during transport, particularly concerning personal space (at least 0.5 square meters per person).
* **Compensation:** The decision sets a precedent for compensation in similar cases, awarding 1,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage resulting from inadequate detention conditions during transport.
CASE OF ÇELİK v. TÜRKİYE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Çelik v. Türkiye (application no. 19840/21), finding a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the excessive length of proceedings before the Turkish Constitutional Court. The applicant, Yücel Çelik, complained that the duration of the criminal proceedings, particularly within the Constitutional Court, exceeded a reasonable time. The ECHR determined that Article 6 § 1 was applicable as the Constitutional Court proceedings concerned the legal basis of his conviction and the fairness of the criminal proceedings. The Court considered the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties, and what was at stake for the applicant. Ultimately, the ECHR ruled that the length of over eight years for proceedings before a single judicial instance was excessive and not justified, even considering the state of emergency, increased workload, COVID-19 pandemic, and adjournment awaiting a leading judgment. The Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The judgment is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history, outlining the application to the Court. It then presents the facts of the case, including the applicant’s details and the nature of the complaint. The core of the judgment addresses the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, providing the Court’s reasoning for finding a breach. This section includes references to relevant case law, establishing the applicability of Article 6 § 1 to Constitutional Court proceedings and reiterating the criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41, determining the appropriate compensation. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions in the text.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, applies to proceedings before a Constitutional Court when those proceedings concern the determination of an individual’s civil rights or obligations, or of a criminal charge. The decision also highlights that even exceptional circumstances, such as a state of emergency or increased workload of the courts, do not automatically justify excessively long proceedings. This judgment serves as a reminder to Turkey and other member states of their obligation to ensure that judicial proceedings, including those before constitutional courts, are conducted expeditiously and without undue delay.
CASE OF DZHACHVLIANI AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the Dzhachvliani and Others v. Ukraine decision by the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to inadequate medical care provided to three applicants during their detention. The Court also identified violations related to the excessive length of pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings in two of the cases, as well as the lack of effective remedies for these issues. The applicants suffered from serious medical conditions that were not properly addressed by the Ukrainian authorities while in detention. As a result, the Court awarded the applicants sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as for costs and expenses. The Court joined the three applications due to their similar subject matter.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s origin, noting that the applications were lodged against Ukraine under Article 34 of the Convention. It mentions that the Ukrainian Government was notified of the applications.
* **Facts:** This section identifies the applicants and provides relevant details about their applications. The core complaint is that the applicants did not receive adequate medical care while in detention.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3:** This is the central legal analysis, focusing on the applicants’ complaints of inadequate medical treatment in detention, referencing Article 3 of the Convention. The Court refers to its established case-law, emphasizing that medical treatment in prison must be adequate and comparable to the quality of treatment available to the general population.
* **Other Alleged Violations Under Well-Established Case-Law:** In two of the applications, the Court found additional violations related to the length of pre-trial detention, criminal proceedings, and the lack of effective remedies.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court rejected some additional complaints raised under Article 5 of the Convention, finding that they did not meet the admissibility criteria.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court considered the issue of just satisfaction, awarding sums to the applicants for damages and costs, based on its case-law and the documents in its possession.
* **For These Reasons, The Court, Unanimously:** This section outlines the Court’s decisions, including the joinder of applications, admissibility of certain complaints, findings of violations, and the order for the respondent State to pay the applicants specified amounts.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a detailed list of the applications, including the applicants’ names, dates of introduction, medical conditions, shortcomings in medical treatment, other complaints, and the amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Inadequate Medical Care (Article 3 Violation):** The decision reinforces the principle that States must provide adequate medical care to detainees, comparable to the care available to the general population. Shortcomings such as delays in medical examinations, lack of specialized consultations, and inadequate drug therapy can constitute a violation of Article 3.
* **Excessive Length of Detention/Proceedings:** The decision highlights that excessively long pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings, along with a lack of effective remedies, can lead to violations of the Convention.
* **Just Satisfaction (Article 41):** The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for the violations found, covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it addresses systemic issues related to medical care in detention facilities and the administration of justice. It serves as a reminder of the State’s obligations to ensure the health and rights of individuals deprived of their liberty and to provide timely and effective judicial proceedings.
CASE OF F.D. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of F.D. and Others v. Russia:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to ineffective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals, including instances of domestic violence. The Court emphasized that states have an obligation to conduct effective investigations into such allegations, even when the ill-treatment is inflicted by private individuals. The Court found that Russia’s legal framework fell short of providing sufficient safeguards for victims of domestic violence and failed to establish an effective system for punishing all forms of such violence. The Court also addressed other complaints raised by some applicants under the Convention, finding violations based on its well-established case-law. As a result, the Court ordered Russia to pay compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications lodged against Russia concerning ineffective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment.
* **Facts:** The facts section refers to the appended table, which lists the applicants and details of their applications.
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court affirmed its jurisdiction to examine the applications because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3:** The Court focused on the applicants’ complaints regarding ineffective investigations into ill-treatment, particularly domestic violence. It reiterated that states must conduct effective investigations into such allegations, even when the perpetrators are private individuals.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court addressed other complaints raised by some applicants, finding violations based on its well-established case-law, particularly concerning the lack of a proper legal framework to combat domestic violence in Russia.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants the sums indicated in the appended table as compensation for damages.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a detailed list of the applications, including applicant information, factual background, specific grievances, other complaints, and the amount awarded to each applicant.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **State’s Obligation to Investigate:** The decision reinforces the state’s obligation to conduct effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment, even when committed by private individuals.
* **Domestic Violence:** The judgment highlights the issue of domestic violence as a general problem affecting all member states and emphasizes the need for active state involvement in protecting victims.
* **Criteria for Effective Investigation:** The Court reiterates that an effective investigation should be capable of establishing the facts of the case, identifying, and punishing those responsible.
* **Russia’s Legal Framework:** The decision criticizes Russia’s legal framework for not defining domestic violence as a separate offense or an aggravating element of other offenses and for establishing a minimum threshold of gravity of injuries required for launching public prosecution.
* **Compensation:** The Court awarded compensation to the applicants, recognizing the damages they suffered due to the ineffective investigations and the lack of adequate legal protection.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainians who have suffered from domestic violence or other forms of ill-treatment in Russia, as it highlights the state’s obligation to conduct effective investigations and provide adequate legal protection to victims.
CASE OF K.K. v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) judgment in the case of K.K. v. Russia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The ECHR found Russia in violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention due to the unlawful and unrecorded detention of the applicant, K.K., pending his removal from the country. The Court also ruled that Russia violated Article 34 of the Convention by failing to comply with an interim measure (Rule 39) that prohibited the applicant’s removal while his case was being considered. The applicant was forcefully removed to Kyrgyzstan despite the Court’s instruction. Other complaints raised by the applicant were deemed inadmissible or did not disclose a violation of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros in damages.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with procedural information, including the applicant’s details and representation. It then outlines the facts of the case, focusing on the applicant’s complaint of unlawful detention. The Court addresses its jurisdiction, noting that it can hear the case because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention. The judgment then examines the alleged violation of Article 5 § 1, emphasizing the importance of protecting individuals from arbitrary detention and the need for detention to be recorded and lawful. The Court also addresses the violation of Article 34, noting that Russia failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court. Finally, the judgment addresses other complaints and the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding the applicant damages.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
The most important aspects of this decision are the reaffirmation of the right to be free from arbitrary and unrecorded detention under Article 5 § 1 and the emphasis on the binding nature of interim measures indicated by the Court under Rule 39, as protected by Article 34. The decision highlights that any detention of an individual must be carried out in accordance with national procedures and that authorities have a duty to account for an individual’s whereabouts when they have assumed control over them. The judgment also underscores that States must comply with interim measures issued by the Court to ensure the effectiveness of the right to individual petition.
CASE OF KARTYZHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of *Kartyzhev and Others v. Russia*, concerning 16 applications related to restrictions on freedom of expression. The applicants complained about being convicted under Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences for expressing disrespect towards the President of Russia, State and municipal officials, and the general public. The ECHR found that these convictions violated Article 10 of the Convention, which protects freedom of expression. The Court emphasized that political speech, including criticism of the head of State, enjoys a high level of protection and that politicians should be more tolerant of criticism than private individuals. The ECHR also found violations of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention in some cases, related to unlawful deprivation of liberty and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings. The Court awarded the applicants between EUR 10,000 and EUR 13,000 each in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
The decision begins by outlining the procedure, the facts of the case, and the legal framework. It then addresses the joinder of the applications and confirms the Court’s jurisdiction, noting that the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention. The judgment also addresses the issue of procedural succession in one application following the death of the original applicant. The core of the decision focuses on the alleged violation of Article 10, where the Court analyzes the applicants’ complaints about restrictions on their freedom of expression. Additionally, the decision addresses other alleged violations under well-established case-law, specifically concerning Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. Finally, the judgment outlines the application of Article 41, which deals with just satisfaction, and specifies the amounts to be awarded to the applicants.
The main provisions of this decision highlight the importance of protecting freedom of expression, especially in the context of political debate and criticism of public officials. The ECHR reiterated that satire and provocative speech are legitimate forms of expression and that criminal sanctions for such expression can have a chilling effect on public discourse. The decision also underscores the need for fair and impartial legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving administrative offences. The judgment clarifies that even after Russia’s departure from the Convention, the ECHR retains jurisdiction over cases concerning events that occurred before September 16, 2022. **** This decision may be important for Ukrainians, as it concerns freedom of expression and criticism of political leaders, which are relevant in the context of the ongoing conflict and political situation in Ukraine.
CASE OF KASHAPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Kashapov and Others v. Russia decision:
1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled in favor of multiple applicants against Russia, finding violations of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of expression. The cases involve various restrictions imposed by Russian authorities on the applicants’ right to express themselves, often related to accusations of extremism. The ECtHR found that Russian courts had interpreted the concept of “extremism” too broadly, failing to provide adequate safeguards against overly restrictive measures. The Court emphasized that the domestic courts did not properly apply the principles established in its own case-law. Additionally, the Court addressed other complaints raised by some applicants under different articles of the Convention, finding violations based on its well-established case-law. The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
2. The decision begins with a procedural overview, outlining the case’s origin and notification to the Russian Government. It then presents the facts, summarizing the applicants’ complaints regarding restrictions on freedom of expression and other alleged violations. The legal analysis includes the joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter and confirms the Court’s jurisdiction over the cases, as the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention. The core of the decision addresses the alleged violation of Article 10, referencing previous similar cases where the Court found violations related to the overly broad interpretation of “extremism” in Russia. The decision also considers other alleged violations under well-established case-law and addresses remaining complaints, stating that it is unnecessary to examine them separately. Finally, it outlines the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding sums to the applicants. The decision includes an appendix with a detailed list of applications, summarizing the facts, legal issues, relevant case-law, and amounts awarded to each applicant.
3. **** The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation that Russia’s application of its laws on extremism has been excessively broad and has led to violations of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. This confirms the ECtHR’s consistent stance on this issue, as seen in previous cases like *Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia*. The decision also highlights the retrospective application of prohibitions, where individuals were penalized for actions that were not illegal at the time they were committed, which is a crucial point for assessing the fairness and legality of such measures. Furthermore, the decision awards monetary compensation to the applicants, reinforcing the tangible consequences for the Russian State for violating the Convention.
CASE OF KıR v. TÜRKİYE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in the case of Kır v. Türkiye that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the excessive length of civil proceedings in Turkey. The applicant, Oğuzhan Kır, complained that the duration of his civil proceedings before the administrative courts was unreasonably long. The Court found that the length of the proceedings, which lasted seven years, two months, and ten days, was not justified, even considering the state of emergency and the COVID-19 pandemic. Referencing its previous case-law on similar issues, the ECHR concluded that the proceedings failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1. As a result, the Court declared the application admissible and awarded the applicant 3,000 euros for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and 250 euros for costs and expenses.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history, outlining the application to the Court. It then presents the facts of the case, followed by the applicant’s complaint regarding the excessive length of civil proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court assesses the complaint, referencing relevant case-law and considering the arguments presented by the Turkish Government. Ultimately, the Court finds a violation of Article 6 § 1 and proceeds to apply Article 41 of the Convention, which concerns just satisfaction. The decision concludes with the operative provisions, declaring the application admissible, holding that there was a breach of Article 6 § 1, and ordering the respondent State to pay the applicant specified amounts for damages and expenses. The appendix provides a summary table of the application, including key dates, names, and awarded amounts.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the ECHR’s stance on the “reasonable time” requirement in civil proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court emphasizes that the length of proceedings must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant. This decision serves as a reminder to Turkey and other member states of their obligation to ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted efficiently and without undue delay.
CASE OF KLIMOV v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in the case of Klimov v. Russia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR ruled that Russia violated Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) of the Convention on Human Rights due to the criminal prosecution of Mr. Klimov, a Jehovah’s Witness, for engaging in the activities of a liquidated local religious organization. The Court found that Russia’s extremism legislation was applied too broadly in this case. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to Mr. Klimov’s detention, citing a lack of reasonable suspicion and insufficient justification for its extension, referencing previous case-law. The Court ordered Russia to pay Mr. Klimov 15,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 250 euros for costs and expenses. The Court has jurisdiction because the facts occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s origin, the applicant’s representation, and the notification to the Russian Government.
* **Facts:** It summarizes the relevant details of the applications, focusing on the applicant’s criminal prosecution for extremism related to his activities as a Jehovah’s Witness.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court affirmed its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 9:** The Court referenced its prior judgment in *Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia*, which established that prosecuting Jehovah’s Witnesses for peacefully practicing their religion based on broadly applied extremism legislation violates Article 9. It found no reason to deviate from this precedent in Klimov’s case.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court addressed other complaints related to the applicant’s detention, finding them admissible and also disclosing violations of the Convention, referring to established case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** Some complaints were deemed inadmissible or not requiring separate examination.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined the just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, referencing previous case-law.
* **Operative Provisions:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision to join the applications, affirm its jurisdiction, declare certain complaints admissible, find violations of Article 9 and other Convention articles, order the respondent State to pay the applicant specified amounts for damages and expenses, and dismiss the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 9:** The core finding is that prosecuting individuals for peacefully practicing their religion as Jehovah’s Witnesses, based on broadly defined extremism laws, violates Article 9 of the Convention.
* **Unlawful Detention:** The judgment highlights that detention orders must be based on concrete evidence and sufficient reasons, aligning with the Court’s established case-law on Article 5.
* **Precedent:** The judgment reinforces the precedent set in *Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia*, making it a key reference point for similar cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court’s assertion of jurisdiction for events prior to Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention is crucial for pending and future cases related to that period.
CASE OF KURKOV v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Kurkov v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the unreasonably lengthy pre-trial detention of the applicant, Mr. Kurkov. The Court determined that Mr. Kurkov’s detention, lasting one year, three months, and seven days, was excessively long. The Russian courts had employed fragile reasoning, made unsupported assumptions about risks of flight or obstruction of justice, and failed to conduct the proceedings with due diligence. Despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention on September 16, 2022, the Court asserted jurisdiction because the events occurred before that date. As a result, the Court awarded Mr. Kurkov €1,400 in damages.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s origin, noting that the application was lodged on December 20, 2021, and that the applicant was represented by a lawyer in Moscow. It also mentions that the Russian Government was notified of the application.
* **Facts:** This section briefly describes the applicant’s details and refers to an appended table for specific information relevant to the application, particularly focusing on the applicant’s complaint regarding the length of his pre-trial detention.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court explicitly states its jurisdiction to examine the application, emphasizing that the relevant events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 5 § 3:** This section forms the core of the judgment. It reiterates the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and references previous judgments establishing principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court addresses the issue of just satisfaction, referencing its case-law and the documents in its possession to justify the awarded sum of €1,400 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
* **Operative Provisions:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision, unanimously holding that it has jurisdiction, declaring the application admissible, finding a breach of Article 5 § 3, and ordering Russia to pay the applicant €1,400 within three months, with interest accruing thereafter.
* **Appendix:** A table provides specific details such as the applicant’s name, date of birth, representative’s information, detention period, courts involved, specific defects in the detention, and the amount awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Jurisdiction Post-Withdrawal:** The judgment confirms the Court’s jurisdiction over cases concerning events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, which is crucial for pending and future applications against Russia.
* **Violation of Article 5 § 3:** The Court’s finding of a violation due to unreasonably lengthy pre-trial detention, supported by specific examples of deficiencies in the domestic court’s reasoning and procedures, provides a clear standard for assessing similar cases.
* **Award of Damages:** The decision to award €1,400 offers a benchmark for compensation in cases involving similar violations and circumstances.
* **Specific Defects:** The identified defects, such as “fragility of the reasons employed by the courts” and “use of assumptions…of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice,” serve as specific indicators of what constitutes a violation of Article 5 § 3.
: This decision may have implications for Ukrainians who have experienced similar violations related to pre-trial detention by Russia before September 16, 2022.
CASE OF LEONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Leonov and Others v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
This judgment addresses multiple applications concerning the degrading treatment of applicants in Russian courts due to their confinement in metal cages or glass cabins during criminal proceedings. The Court consolidated these cases, asserting its jurisdiction despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, as the events occurred before its departure. The Court found that such confinement, along with other violations related to detention conditions, length of pre-trial detention, restrictions on participation in public assemblies, and absence from civil proceedings, constituted breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court awarded sums to the applicants in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** Details the initiation of the case and notification to the Russian Government.
* **Facts:** Lists the applicants and provides relevant details of their applications.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** Explains the decision to examine the applications jointly.
* **Jurisdiction:** Affirms the Court’s authority to hear the cases based on the timing of the events.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3:** Focuses on the complaints regarding confinement in metal cages or glass cabins, referencing previous case law establishing that such practices can constitute degrading treatment.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** Addresses additional complaints related to the speediness of review of pre-trial detention, solitary confinement, unjustified pre-trial detention, prisoners’ right to vote, disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies, and absence from civil proceedings.
* **Remaining Complaints:** Addresses and dismisses other complaints raised by some applicants.
* **Application of Article 41:** Determines the just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicants.
* **Decision:** Formally declares the Court’s rulings, including the admissibility of certain complaints, findings of violations, and orders for payment of compensation.
* **Appendix:** Provides a list of applications, details of the applicants, and the amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Degrading Treatment:** The reaffirmation that confining defendants in metal cages or glass cabins in courtrooms can, in itself, constitute degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention.
* **Jurisdiction Post-Withdrawal:** The Court’s assertion of jurisdiction over cases concerning events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Other Convention Violations:** The judgment highlights several other potential violations related to detention conditions, pre-trial detention, and restrictions on fundamental rights, referencing relevant case law for each.
* **Compensation:** The amounts awarded to the applicants provide a benchmark for similar cases.
**** This decision is related to Russia, but it may have implications to Ukraine and Ukrainians, because it concerns human rights violations during criminal proceedings, specifically regarding degrading treatment and fairness of judicial processes.
CASE OF MAGLEVANNAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Maglevannaya and Others v. Russia*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that Russia violated Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (freedom of expression) in a series of cases. These cases involve various restrictions imposed by Russian authorities on the applicants’ right to express themselves, primarily through online publications and statements. The Court found that Russian courts failed to strike a fair balance between protecting the rights and reputations of others and upholding the applicants’ freedom of expression. The ECtHR determined that the domestic courts often did not adequately analyze the facts, distinguish between statements of fact and value judgments, or consider the broader context of the expressions. As a result, the applicants were unfairly penalized for expressing their opinions or disseminating information on matters of public interest.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events leading to the alleged violations occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Violation of Article 10:** The core of the judgment focuses on the violation of Article 10, which protects freedom of expression. The Court referenced its previous case-law, emphasizing that freedom of expression is a cornerstone of a democratic society.
* **Failure to Apply Convention Standards:** The Court found that Russian authorities failed to conduct a Convention-compliant balancing exercise, as required by Article 10. This included not properly considering the context of the statements, the public interest involved, and the potential for harm.
* **Remaining Complaints:** While some applicants raised additional complaints under Articles 6 and 18, the Court deemed it unnecessary to examine them separately, as the main legal issues were addressed through the Article 10 findings.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded each applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as related to costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Emphasis on Balancing Exercise:** The decision underscores the importance of national courts conducting a thorough balancing exercise when freedom of expression is restricted. This involves weighing the need to protect the rights and reputations of others against the importance of allowing individuals to express themselves freely, especially on matters of public interest.
* **Contextual Analysis:** Courts must consider the context in which statements are made, including the political and social background, the potential for harm, and the reach of the expression.
* **Distinction Between Facts and Value Judgments:** The decision highlights the need to distinguish between statements of fact and value judgments. Value judgments are generally afforded greater protection under Article 10.
* **Protection of Whistleblowers and Critics:** The judgment reinforces the protection of individuals who report potential misconduct by state officials or criticize public institutions. Restrictions on such expression require particularly strong justification.
This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting freedom of expression, even when the ideas expressed may be offensive, shocking, or disturbing. It also provides guidance to national courts on how to properly balance competing interests when restricting this fundamental right.
CASE OF MIRZAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Mirzayev and Others v. Russia, concerning complaints about inadequate detention conditions, particularly solitary confinement. The applicants alleged violations of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court found that the applicants were subjected to such treatment due to extended periods of solitary confinement under poor conditions, including limited access to outdoor exercise, restrictions on family visits, and poor material conditions. The Court emphasized that prolonged solitary confinement without adequate mental and physical stimulation can have damaging effects. Despite Russia ceasing to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022, the Court asserted jurisdiction because the relevant events occurred before this date. The Court awarded the applicants sums of 5,000 and 10,000 euros respectively in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history, outlining the applications made to the Court. It then presents the facts of the case, focusing on the applicants’ complaints regarding detention conditions and solitary confinement. The legal analysis includes the joinder of the applications, the Court’s jurisdiction, and an assessment of the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court refers to its established case-law on inadequate detention conditions and solitary confinement, particularly citing the cases of Kudła v. Poland, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, and Razvyazkin v. Russia. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, which concerns just satisfaction, and outlines the compensation awarded to the applicants. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions in the provided text.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the ECtHR’s stance on solitary confinement and detention conditions, particularly concerning Article 3 of the Convention. The Court emphasizes that prolonged solitary confinement, especially when combined with poor material conditions and other restrictions, can constitute inhuman and degrading treatment. This decision highlights the importance of providing adequate mental and physical stimulation to detainees and ensuring that their basic needs are met, in line with human rights standards.
CASE OF POSTICA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of Postica v. the Republic of Moldova:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned a Moldovan national who complained about the search of his home and seizure of his possessions, arguing it violated his right to respect for his home under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court found a violation of Article 8, emphasizing that the search warrant was too broad, granting the police unrestricted discretion in determining which items to seize. The Court highlighted that neither the prior judicial authorization nor the subsequent judicial control provided adequate safeguards against potential abuses of power during the search. The Court considered that the search of the applicant’s home and correspondence constituted an interference which was not proportionate to the aim sought. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Briefly outlines the applicant’s complaints regarding the search of his home and seizure of possessions.
* **The Facts:** Details the timeline of events, including the criminal investigation against the applicant, the decision to search his home, the search itself, and subsequent appeals and complaints.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Alleged Violation of Article 8:** Declares the complaint admissible and assesses the proportionality and justification of the search. It emphasizes the need for relevant and sufficient reasons to justify such measures and the importance of effective safeguards against abuse.
* **Other Complaints:** States that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.
* **Application of Article 41:** Addresses the applicant’s claim for damages and costs, awarding EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage but dismissing the claim for costs and expenses due to lack of supporting documents.
* **Operative Provisions:**
* Declares the complaint under Article 8 admissible.
* Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
* Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints.
* Orders the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
* Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Specificity of Search Warrants:** The decision underscores the importance of search warrants being sufficiently precise, especially in financial fraud investigations. Warrants should not grant unrestricted discretion to law enforcement in determining which items to seize.
* **Judicial Review:** The judgment emphasizes that judicial review of search warrants must assess whether the scope of the warrant was respected during the search.
* **Proportionality:** The Court reiterates the principle that any interference with an individual’s home and correspondence must be proportionate to the aim sought, and that broad search warrants can lead to disproportionate interferences.
* **Safeguards Against Abuse:** The decision highlights the need for appropriate safeguards against potential abuses of power during the execution of search warrants, including prior judicial authorization and subsequent judicial control.
This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing law enforcement’s need to investigate crime with the protection of individual rights, particularly the right to respect for one’s home and correspondence.
CASE OF POZHARSKA v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Pozharska v. Ukraine:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. The case concerned a situation where a final judgment in favor of the applicant, Ms. Pozharska, regarding her pension recalculation, was quashed following a belated appeal by the State Pension Fund. The ECtHR concluded that reopening the proceedings and overturning the final judgment infringed the principle of legal certainty, a key component of the rule of law. The Court emphasized that departures from the principle of legal certainty are only justified by substantial and compelling circumstances, which were not present in this case. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** This section outlines the applicant’s complaint, which is based on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, arguing that the quashing of a final judgment in her favor was unjustified and violated the principle of legal certainty. It details the initial court decision in favor of Ms. Pozharska, the subsequent appeal lodged by the State Pension Fund out of time, and the decisions of the appellate and cassation courts.
* **The Court’s Assessment:** This is the core of the decision, where the ECtHR assesses the merits of the application.
* It first addresses and rejects the Government’s objection regarding the six-month time limit for lodging the application.
* The Court then reiterates the importance of the principle of legal certainty as part of the rule of law.
* It references previous similar cases where it found violations in similar circumstances.
* The Court concludes that the decision to reopen the proceedings and quash the judgment in the applicant’s favor violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** This section deals with the applicant’s claims for compensation.
* Ms. Pozharska sought EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.
* The Court awarded EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage but rejected the claim for costs and expenses due to a lack of supporting documentation.
* **Operative Provisions:** The judgment formally declares the application admissible, holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, specifies the amount to be paid to the applicant for non-pecuniary damage, and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Principle of Legal Certainty:** The decision reinforces the importance of the principle of legal certainty. National courts should be very cautious when considering reopening cases where a final judgment has been issued.
* **Justification for Reopening Cases:** Departures from the principle of legal certainty are only justified by substantial and compelling circumstances, such as the correction of fundamental defects or a miscarriage of justice. Simple errors or disagreements with the initial judgment are not sufficient grounds.
* **Time Limits for Appeals:** The decision highlights the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for lodging appeals. Excuses for missing deadlines must be thoroughly substantiated, and extensions should not be granted lightly, especially when domestic law appears to prohibit such extensions.
* **Burden of Proof:** Parties seeking to overturn final judgments or extend appeal deadlines bear the burden of providing evidence to support their claims.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine and has implications for Ukrainians, as it concerns the fairness and legal certainty of judicial proceedings within the country, particularly in cases involving social benefits and pensions.
CASE OF PROKUDIN AND SHCHEGOLEV v. RUSSIA
This decision concerns two applications against Russia regarding discrimination in parental and sick child leave entitlements for male personnel in the police/penal system compared to female personnel. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Russia violated Article 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for family life). The Court emphasized that the difference in treatment was not reasonably and objectively justified and lacked proportionality. The applicants, who were denied leave to care for their children, were awarded EUR 7,500 each in damages. The Court joined the two applications and declared some complaints admissible while rejecting others.
The decision is structured as follows: It begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and notification to the Russian Government. The facts section describes the applicants’ complaints regarding discriminatory leave policies. The “Law” section includes the joinder of the applications and the Court’s jurisdiction, noting that the relevant events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The core of the decision addresses the alleged violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, referencing previous similar cases where violations were found. The Court then dismisses additional complaints under Article 8 as inadmissible. Finally, it outlines the application of Article 41, awarding damages to the applicants. The appendix provides a detailed list of the applications, factual circumstances, and the amounts awarded.
The most important provision is the finding of a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, specifically concerning the discriminatory treatment in parental and sick child leave entitlements. This reaffirms the principle that differences in treatment based on sex in family-related benefits must be objectively and reasonably justified, with a proportionate relationship to a legitimate aim. The decision highlights that maintaining the operational effectiveness of the police/penal system does not justify discriminatory leave policies.
CASE OF SEYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Seyidov v. Azerbaijan (application no. 38203/12), finding violations of Article 5 § 1 and Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant complained about the lack of justification for his pre-trial detention and his detention without a valid court order. The Court found that the domestic courts failed to adequately justify the need for the applicant’s pre-trial detention, violating Article 5 § 3. Additionally, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 due to the applicant’s detention without a valid court order between March 6 and March 29, 2013. The applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, regarding inadequate medical care in detention, was deemed inadmissible. The Court awarded the applicant 4,300 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 500 euros for costs and expenses.
The structure of the decision includes sections on Procedure, Facts, Law (Alleged Violation of Article 5 § 3, Other Alleged Violations under Well-Established Case-Law, Remaining Complaint), Application of Article 41 of the Convention, and operative provisions. The decision references previous case law, such as Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, Isayeva v. Azerbaijan, and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, to support its findings regarding the violation of Article 5 § 3. It also refers to Isayeva and Haziyev v. Azerbaijan for the violation of Article 5 § 1. The decision explicitly addresses and dismisses the applicant’s complaint under Article 3, finding it either inadmissible or not disclosing a violation.
The main provisions of the decision are the findings of violations of Article 5 § 1 (detention without a valid court order) and Article 5 § 3 (lack of justification for pre-trial detention). The Court emphasizes that domestic courts must provide sufficient justification for pre-trial detention and ensure that detention is not arbitrary. The decision also highlights the importance of having a valid court order for detention. The decision also awards specific amounts for damages and costs, providing a tangible outcome for the applicant.
CASE OF T.V. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of T.V. and Others v. Russia:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled against Russia in a set of cases concerning ineffective investigations into allegations of domestic violence. The Court found that Russia failed to adequately investigate claims of ill-treatment committed by private individuals, specifically repeated acts of domestic violence. This failure was deemed a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court also highlighted Russia’s shortcomings in establishing a legal framework that effectively punishes all forms of domestic violence and provides sufficient safeguards for victims, referencing its previous findings in similar cases. The ECHR emphasized that domestic violence is a widespread problem requiring active state involvement and that Russia’s legal system fell short of these requirements. The applicants were awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications against Russia related to similar issues.
* **Facts:** The applicants complained about ineffective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment by private individuals, specifically domestic violence.
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention (September 16, 2022).
* **Article 3 Violation:** The Court focused on the ineffective investigation of domestic violence allegations, citing the state’s obligation to protect individuals from inhuman or degrading treatment, even when inflicted by private individuals. It reiterated that investigations must be effective, capable of establishing facts, identifying, and punishing those responsible.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court addressed other complaints under the Convention, referencing its established case-law. It highlighted the absence of a specific offense for domestic violence in Russian law and the lack of a comprehensive legal framework to protect victims.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded the applicants compensation for damages and dismissed the remaining claims.
* **Decision:** The Court unanimously held that Russia violated Article 3 of the Convention due to the ineffective investigations and other related violations based on established case-law.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **State’s Obligation:** The decision reinforces the state’s obligation to conduct effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment, even when perpetrated by private individuals, particularly in cases of domestic violence.
* **Effectiveness of Investigations:** The judgment emphasizes that investigations must be prompt, thorough, and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.
* **Legal Framework for Domestic Violence:** The decision underscores the importance of a comprehensive legal framework that defines domestic violence, punishes all its forms, and provides sufficient safeguards for victims.
* **Referenced Case-Law:** The decision refers to previous cases, such as Volodina v. Russia and Tyagunova v. Russia, which further elaborate on the state’s obligations in addressing domestic violence and ensuring gender equality.
* **Compensation:** The Court awarded compensation to the applicants, setting a precedent for similar cases involving ineffective investigations into domestic violence allegations.
**** This decision may be relevant to cases involving Ukrainian victims of domestic violence, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict and its impact on the effectiveness of investigations and the availability of legal remedies.
CASE OF TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL – R v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Transparency International – R v. Russia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression. The case concerned defamation proceedings initiated against Transparency International – R (TI-R) following an online publication about the misuse of public funds. The Russian courts ruled against TI-R, ordering them to retract the publication and pay damages. The ECtHR determined that the Russian courts failed to apply Convention standards when deciding on the defamation dispute, thus the interference with TI-R’s freedom of expression was not “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court also addressed other complaints under its well-established case-law, finding additional violations of the Convention.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment outlines the case’s origin, the parties involved, and the representation.
* **Facts:** It summarizes the facts of the case, including the defamation suit against TI-R and the decisions of the Russian courts.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court confirmed its jurisdiction to examine the application because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Article 10 Violation:** The Court focused on the complaint regarding the defamation suit, referencing a previous case (Kunitsyna v. Russia) with similar issues. It found that the domestic courts failed to adequately assess the facts and provide sufficient reasons for their decisions, leading to a violation of Article 10.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court also addressed other complaints under its established case-law, finding them admissible and disclosing further violations of the Convention.
* **Article 41 Application:** Regarding just satisfaction, the Court rejected TI-R’s claim for pecuniary damage due to a lack of causal link. It awarded EUR 600 for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 10:** The core finding is that Russia violated Article 10 by failing to apply Convention standards in the defamation proceedings against Transparency International – R.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction over cases related to events that occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention.
* **Well-Established Case-Law:** The decision highlights the importance of adhering to the Court’s established case-law when examining similar complaints.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court’s approach to pecuniary damage claims requires a clear causal link between the violation and the alleged damage.
This decision underscores the importance of protecting freedom of expression and ensuring that domestic courts apply Convention standards in defamation cases.
CASE OF VANSLOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Vanslova and Others v. Russia, concerning the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment suffered by the applicants. The applicants were passengers in a van attacked by armed men in 2016. The attackers physically assaulted the passengers and damaged their property. The Court found that the Russian authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the incident, violating Article 3 of the Convention. The Court also addressed additional complaints under Articles 10 and 13 but found it unnecessary to examine them separately due to the conclusions regarding Article 3.
The judgment begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and the parties involved. It then presents the facts, summarizing the applicants’ complaints regarding the ineffective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. The legal analysis addresses the joinder of the applications and the Court’s jurisdiction, noting that the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention. The core of the judgment focuses on the alleged violation of Article 3, referencing previous case law and concluding that the investigation was ineffective. Finally, the judgment addresses other alleged violations and the application of Article 41, awarding compensation to the applicants. There are no changes compared to previous versions.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment, even when the perpetrators are private individuals. The Court emphasized that the investigation must be capable of establishing the facts, identifying, and punishing those responsible. This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of thorough and prompt investigations in cases of alleged ill-treatment to uphold the principles of the Convention.
CASE OF YAVUZ v. TÜRKİYE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Yavuz v. Türkiye, concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicant. The Court unanimously found that Türkiye had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. The applicant, Mr. Mehmet Yavuz, had his criminal proceedings last for 9 years, 8 months, and 7 days, across two levels of jurisdiction. The Court determined that this duration was excessive and not justified by any arguments presented by the Turkish Government, including the state of emergency and the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and 250 euros for costs and expenses.
The structure of the decision begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and representation. It then presents the facts, focusing on the applicant’s details and the essence of the complaint. The core of the judgment lies in the legal assessment, specifically addressing the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court refers to its established case-law, including previous judgments against Türkiye for similar violations, such as Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey. The decision concludes with the application of Article 41, determining the compensation to be awarded to the applicant. The judgment is accompanied by an appendix providing a detailed table of the relevant information, including the applicant’s details, the timeline of the proceedings, and the amounts awarded.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the ECHR’s stance on the “reasonable time” requirement in criminal proceedings, particularly in the context of Türkiye. The Court explicitly states that neither the state of emergency nor the COVID-19 pandemic can justify excessively long proceedings. This reinforces the obligation of the Turkish authorities to ensure the timely administration of justice, and it serves as a precedent for similar cases involving delays in the judicial system. The specific amounts awarded for damages and costs also provide a benchmark for future cases concerning similar violations.
