CASE OF KOOMEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
Here’s a breakdown of the Koomen v. Netherlands ECHR decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined a case concerning the death of the applicants’ son, who was fatally shot by a police officer during a scuffle. The applicants argued that the use of lethal force was not “absolutely necessary” and that the investigation into the incident was inadequate. The ECHR ruled that, in the specific circumstances, the police officer’s use of lethal force was justified as “absolutely necessary in defence of any person from unlawful violence” and that the investigation was effective and impartial, thus finding no violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life).
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets the stage, outlining the case’s focus on the death of the applicants’ son and the complaints under Article 2.
* **Facts:** Details the events leading to the death, including the celebration by a soccer team, the arrest of two individuals for public intoxication, the ensuing scuffle, and the police officer’s use of his firearm. It also covers the investigations conducted, including forensic analysis, witness interviews, and an on-scene reconstruction.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Provides context by outlining the relevant laws and regulations in the Netherlands regarding the use of force by police officers, the procedures for investigating such incidents, and the organization of the police and prosecution services.
* **The Law:** Presents the applicants’ complaints under Article 2, focusing on the alleged violations of both the substantive (use of force) and procedural (investigation) aspects of the right to life.
* **Admissibility:** States that the Government did not contest the admissibility of the complaint and the Court declared the application admissible.
* **Merits:** Contains the core legal analysis.
* **Substantive Limb:** Examines whether the use of force was “absolutely necessary.” It references established case law, assesses the circumstances from the perspective of the police officer, and concludes that the officer’s belief that his life was in danger was subjectively reasonable.
* **Procedural Limb:** Assesses whether the investigation was effective, prompt, involved the family, and was independent. It concludes that the investigation met the required standards, despite some potential weaknesses.
* **Conclusion:** States the Court’s final decision that there was no violation of Article 2.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Assessment of “Absolutely Necessary” Force:** The decision reinforces the principle that lethal force must be “absolutely necessary” and proportionate, even when used by law enforcement. It emphasizes the need to consider the circumstances from the perspective of the officer at the time.
* **Requirements for Effective Investigation:** The decision highlights the key elements of an effective investigation into potential violations of the right to life, including independence, promptness, thoroughness, and victim involvement.
* **Independence of Investigation:** The decision clarifies the requirements for ensuring the independence of investigations, particularly when the investigation involves members of the same police force.
* **Role of CCTV Footage:** The decision emphasizes the importance of CCTV footage in establishing the facts of the case and assessing the credibility of witness statements.
CASE OF MATCHAVARIANI v. GEORGIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Matchavariani v. Georgia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned the arrest and subsequent administrative conviction of Mr. Aleksi Matchavariani for attempting to bring firewood to a demonstration in Georgia. The Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) due to the arbitrariness of his detention, as the domestic courts failed to demonstrate that his detention was necessary in the circumstances. However, the Court found no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) regarding impartiality, nor of Articles 10 and 11 (freedom of expression and assembly). The Court ordered Georgia to pay the applicant EUR 1,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets the stage, outlining the case’s subject matter: the applicant’s administrative detention and conviction.
* **Facts:** Details the background of the case, including the political context of protests following the 2020 parliamentary elections in Georgia, the applicant’s role as an activist, his arrest for attempting to bring firewood to a demonstration, and the subsequent administrative proceedings against him.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Provides the relevant Georgian laws, including the Code of Administrative Offences and the Assemblies and Demonstrations Act.
* **The Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning and findings of the Court.
* **Article 5 Violation:** The Court analyzes whether the applicant’s arrest and detention were arbitrary and unlawful, focusing on the necessity of the detention.
* **Article 6 Allegations:** The Court examines the applicant’s complaints regarding the fairness of the proceedings, specifically addressing the impartiality of the trial court.
* **Articles 10 and 11 Allegations:** The Court assesses whether the applicant’s rights to freedom of expression and assembly were unjustifiably interfered with.
* **Article 41 Application:** Addresses the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction (compensation) for the alleged violations.
* **Operative Provisions:** States the Court’s decision, declaring parts of the application admissible and others inadmissible, holding that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1, holding that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1, ordering the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 1,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and dismissing the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Arbitrariness of Detention:** The Court emphasizes that detention, even if lawful under domestic law, must not be arbitrary. It highlights the need for authorities to demonstrate the necessity of detention, considering less severe measures.
* **Impartiality of Tribunal:** The Court reiterates the importance of an impartial tribunal and clarifies the criteria for assessing impartiality, including the subjective and objective tests.
* **Freedom of Expression and Assembly:** The Court acknowledges the importance of these freedoms but clarifies that explicit refusal to comply with police orders does not enjoy the same level of protection as political speech or peaceful manifestation of opinions.
* **Margin of Appreciation:** The Court recognizes that domestic authorities have a margin of appreciation in balancing competing rights, but this margin is not unlimited.
This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that any deprivation of liberty is not only lawful under domestic law but also necessary and proportionate in the specific circumstances of the case.
CASE OF RUSS v. GERMANY
Here’s a breakdown of the Russ v. Germany decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Germany violated Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the case of Mr. Benjamin Russ. Mr. Russ was criminally convicted and fined for wearing a plastic visor during a peaceful demonstration, which was deemed a breach of the German law prohibiting “protective weapons” at public assemblies. The ECHR found that the German courts failed to provide sufficient reasons for the conviction, did not adequately balance Mr. Russ’s right to peaceful assembly with the aims of the ban, and did not sufficiently assess the overall circumstances of the demonstration. The Court concluded that the interference with Mr. Russ’s right was not “necessary in a democratic society.”
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the case, the applicant, and the relevant articles of the Convention.
* **Facts:** Details the demonstration, the applicant’s actions (wearing the visor), and the subsequent criminal proceedings, including the District Court, Regional Court, and Court of Appeal decisions.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Explains the German laws regarding the prohibition of protective weapons at public assemblies (sections 17a(1) and 27(1) of the Act on Public Assemblies and Processions) and the interpretation of “protective weapons” based on legislative history.
* **Alleged Violation of Articles 10 and 11:** Presents the applicant’s arguments that his conviction violated his rights to freedom of assembly and expression, and the government’s counter-arguments that the assembly was not peaceful and the interference was justified.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* Discusses the relationship between freedom of expression (Article 10) and freedom of assembly (Article 11), concluding that Article 11 is the primary focus in this case, but must be considered in light of Article 10.
* Determines that the applicant’s conviction interfered with his right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
* Examines whether the interference was justified, specifically if it was “prescribed by law,” pursued a legitimate aim, and was “necessary in a democratic society.”
* Finds that while the ban on protective weapons was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims, the German courts did not sufficiently justify the criminal conviction as “necessary in a democratic society,” particularly given the simple construction of the visor and the lack of evidence that it posed a threat to public safety.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 7:** Addresses the applicant’s complaint that the domestic courts exceeded the limits of acceptable interpretation when interpreting the term “protective weapon”.
* **Application of Article 41:** Discusses just satisfaction, including damages and costs, ultimately finding that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.
* **Operative Provisions:** Formally declares the complaint under Article 7 inadmissible, the remainder of the application admissible, holds that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention, and orders Germany to pay the applicant EUR 7,305.35 for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **The Right to Peaceful Assembly:** The decision reinforces the importance of the right to peaceful assembly as a foundation of a democratic society.
* **Proportionality of Restrictions:** It emphasizes that any restrictions on freedom of assembly must be narrowly interpreted and convincingly justified as “necessary in a democratic society.”
* **Balancing Test:** National courts must balance the right to freedom of assembly with legitimate aims such as preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others.
* **Assessment of Circumstances:** Courts must assess the specific circumstances of a demonstration when considering restrictions, including the nature of any “protective weapons” and whether they pose a genuine threat to public safety.
* **Criminal Sanctions:** Criminal sanctions for demonstrators require special justification, and peaceful demonstrations should not be subject to the threat of criminal penalties.
* **The decision highlights the need for national courts to provide sufficient reasoning when restricting the right to freedom of assembly, particularly when imposing criminal sanctions.**
I hope this is helpful for your journalistic purposes.
CASE OF ALIYEVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan, concerning complaints about the allegedly unlawful demolition of the applicants’ properties. The applicants alleged violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concluding that the expropriation of the applicants’ properties was not carried out in compliance with the conditions provided for by law. The Court held that there was no need to examine the complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, considering that it had already dealt with the main legal question raised by the case. The Court awarded the applicants amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the subject matter of the case, outlining the applicants’ complaints regarding the demolition of their properties and referencing similar cases. It then details the facts, including the order for demolition issued by the Baku City Executive Authority (BCEA), the involvement of a private company (Cooperative B), and the compensation offered to residents. The decision further describes the domestic court proceedings initiated by the applicants, the judgments rendered by the Sabail District Court, the Baku Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Azerbaijan. The Court’s assessment addresses the admissibility of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, specifically regarding the plots of land and the residential properties, and determines whether the applicants could claim to be victims of a violation. The Court then examines the merits of the Article 1 complaint, finding that the expropriation was not carried out in compliance with the law. Finally, the decision addresses the applicants’ other complaints under Articles 6 and 8 and applies Article 41 of the Convention, awarding just satisfaction for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as postal expenses.
The main provisions of the decision are:
– The Court declared inadmissible the complaints regarding the additional surface area of the flats and the plots of land underlying the building.
– The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention due to the unlawful expropriation of the applicants’ properties.
– The Court awarded specific amounts to each applicant in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as postal expenses for one applicant.
– The Court found it unnecessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.
CASE OF AROUTSIDIS v. GREECE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Aroutsidis v. Greece, concerning a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees the presumption of innocence. The applicant, Mr. Nikolaos Aroutsidis, was acquitted in criminal proceedings for tax evasion related to false invoicing. However, subsequent administrative proceedings imposed fines on him based on the same facts, with the administrative court concluding that the documents were indeed false, disregarding the prior criminal acquittal. The ECHR found that the administrative court’s decision violated Mr. Aroutsidis’ right to be presumed innocent, as it effectively imputed criminal liability despite his acquittal. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The judgment begins by outlining the facts of the case, including the initial criminal proceedings, the subsequent administrative proceedings, and the relevant domestic law. It then assesses the admissibility of the application, finding it admissible under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. The Court reiterates the general principles concerning the applicability of Article 6 § 2 in proceedings following criminal proceedings, referencing its previous judgments in Allen v. the United Kingdom and Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom. The judgment concludes by addressing the application of Article 41 of the Convention regarding just satisfaction, dismissing the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage but awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage. This decision does not introduce significant structural changes but reinforces existing principles regarding the presumption of innocence in subsequent proceedings.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the principle that an acquittal in criminal proceedings must be respected in any other proceedings, regardless of their nature. The Court emphasizes that authorities cannot disregard a valid acquittal judgment by directly or indirectly referring to the criminal responsibility of the acquitted party. This principle is crucial for safeguarding the presumption of innocence and ensuring that individuals are not penalized based on allegations for which they have already been acquitted in a criminal court.
