CASE OF GEVORGYAN v. ARMENIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Gevorgyan v. Armenia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns a journalist, Ani Gevorgyan, who alleged that police officers obstructed her work, used force against her, and damaged her equipment while she was covering a leaflet distribution event. The Court found a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) because the police interfered with her journalistic activities without justification. However, the Court found that the physical force used by the police, while established, did not reach the threshold of degrading treatment under Article 3. The Court also addressed the effectiveness of the investigation into the journalist’s complaints.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Facts:** The judgment details the events of February 12, 2014, when Gevorgyan, a journalist, was covering a leaflet distribution by an opposition party. It describes the confrontation with supporters of the ruling party, the arrival of the police, and the journalist’s subsequent arrest.
* **Complaints:** Gevorgyan complained under Article 3 about police violence and the lack of an effective investigation, and under Article 10 about obstruction of her journalistic work, seizure, and damage to her equipment.
* **Article 3 Analysis:** The Court acknowledged that police used physical force, resulting in a minor injury. However, it concluded that the actions did not amount to degrading treatment, considering the brief encounter, the absence of intent to humiliate, and the minor nature of the injury.
* **Article 10 Analysis:** The Court found that the police actions interfered with Gevorgyan’s freedom of expression. It determined that this interference was not justified because the government failed to demonstrate that the police actions were lawful or pursued a legitimate aim.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court awarded Gevorgyan 4,500 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 1,000 euros for costs and expenses.
* **Dissenting Opinion:** Judges Harutyunyan and Sârcu dissented on the Article 3 violation, arguing that any unnecessary use of force by law enforcement diminishes human dignity and violates Article 3, regardless of the severity.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The decision reinforces the importance of protecting journalists’ freedom of expression and ensuring they can perform their duties without undue interference from authorities.
* It clarifies the threshold for establishing degrading treatment under Article 3, particularly in situations involving police force.
* The judgment highlights the need for governments to justify any measures that restrict journalistic activities and to demonstrate that such measures are lawful, pursue a legitimate aim, and are necessary in a democratic society.
* The dissenting opinion serves as a reminder of the strict standard set by the Court’s Grand Chamber in *Bouyid v. Belgium* regarding the use of force by law enforcement.
This decision underscores the Court’s commitment to safeguarding freedom of the press while also setting boundaries on what constitutes degrading treatment in the context of police actions.
CASE OF IORDAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Iordan v. the Republic of Moldova, concerning a judge’s complaint about a journalist who disseminated allegedly untrue statements suggesting corruption. The domestic courts refused to punish the journalist in administrative offence proceedings, leading the applicant to claim a violation of his right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECtHR found that the domestic courts had applied several relevant criteria from the Court’s case law when balancing the competing rights of freedom of expression and protection of reputation. The Court highlighted that the limited extent of the balancing exercise was largely due to the applicant’s choice of a criminal law remedy rather than a civil defamation one. Ultimately, the ECtHR concluded that Moldova had not failed to discharge its positive obligation to secure effective means of protecting the applicant’s reputation, finding no violation of Article 8.
The decision begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the domestic courts’ refusal to punish a journalist for disseminating allegedly untrue statements about the applicant. It then presents the facts, including the applicant’s position as a judge, the journalist’s video recording and commentary, the subsequent publication of the video, and the domestic proceedings initiated by the applicant. The judgment then outlines the relevant legal framework, including Article 70 of the Moldovan Code of Administrative Offences and Article 16 of the Civil Code. The Court then addresses the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention, first considering admissibility, including the Government’s argument regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and then the merits of the case, including the parties’ submissions and the Court’s assessment. The decision concludes with the Court’s operative provisions, declaring the application admissible and holding that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. There are no changes compared to previous versions mentioned in the text.
The most important provision of this decision is the Court’s assessment of whether the respondent State discharged its positive obligations in respect of both publications, notably by looking into how the domestic courts balanced the two competing rights in the light of the criteria mentioned in paragraph 29 and having regard to the Government’s position that the availability of civil defamation proceedings, not tried by the applicant, secured the requisite protection.
CASE OF DANEVYCH v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the Danevych v. Ukraine judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned the dismissal of the applicant, Mr. Danevych, from his position as First Deputy Head of the State Treasury under Ukraine’s Government Cleansing Act (GCA), also known as the Lustration Law. He complained about the excessive length of the court proceedings related to his attempted reinstatement and the lack of effective domestic remedies for this delay. The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention due to the length of the proceedings and the lack of a remedy for that length. However, the Court deemed his complaints regarding the violation of his right to private life (Article 8) due to the dismissal itself and the related lack of remedy as premature, citing the possibility of obtaining an individual assessment of his situation in Ukrainian courts following changes in domestic case-law after the *Polyakh and Others* judgment.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** This section outlines the core issues: the applicant’s dismissal under the GCA, the length of reinstatement proceedings, and the lack of remedies.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Article 6 § 1 and 13 Violation:** The Court declared the complaints regarding the length of proceedings admissible. It referenced the *Karnaushenko v. Ukraine* case, noting similarities. It acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings (over ten years) and the absence of an effective remedy.
* **Article 8 and 13 Violation:** The Court referenced its earlier judgment in *Polyakh and Others*, which addressed the lustration process in Ukraine. It noted that after the *Polyakh and Others* judgment, Ukrainian courts began to offer individual assessments in lustration cases. Because of this, the Court considered the applicant’s complaint regarding his dismissal as premature, as he had not pursued these new avenues for an individual assessment.
* **Application of Article 41:** The applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage was rejected, but he was awarded EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 for costs and expenses.
* **Operative Provisions:** The Court declared parts of the application admissible and others inadmissible, held that there had been violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, and specified the amounts to be paid to the applicant.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Length of Proceedings:** The judgment reinforces the principle that reinstatement proceedings must be conducted within a reasonable time.
* **Effective Remedy:** The decision highlights the importance of having effective domestic remedies for excessive delays in court proceedings.
* **Individual Assessment in Lustration Cases:** The Court’s emphasis on the possibility of an individual assessment following the *Polyakh and Others* judgment is crucial. It suggests that individuals affected by lustration measures should pursue these avenues in domestic courts before seeking recourse at the ECtHR.
* **Prematurity of Complaints:** The judgment illustrates that complaints to the ECtHR may be considered premature if domestic legal avenues have not been fully explored, especially when there are ongoing developments in domestic case-law.
**** This decision is relevant to Ukraine as it concerns the application of the Lustration Law and its impact on individuals. The judgment underscores the need for Ukraine to ensure that court proceedings are conducted efficiently and that individuals have access to effective remedies for violations of their rights. It also highlights the importance of individual assessments in the application of lustration measures.
CASE OF GURYANOVA v. UKRAINE
Okay, here’s a breakdown of the Guryanova v. Ukraine decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
In the case of Guryanova v. Ukraine, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found a 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 applicant, Ms. Guryanova, complained that she was not able to attend the hearing of her appeal on points of law because she received the summons after the hearing had already taken place. The Court emphasized that the State had a duty to properly inform her of the hearing date, but failed to do so by sending the summons to the wrong prison. This prevented her from presenting her arguments and rebutting the prosecutor’s submissions, thus violating the principle of equality of arms. As a result, the Court awarded her EUR 900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** This section outlines the applicant’s complaint, focusing on the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 due to her absence from the appeal hearing. It also summarizes the background of the criminal proceedings against her, including her conviction for large-scale fraud and subsequent appeals.
* **The Court’s Assessment:** This is the core of the decision.
* It begins by declaring the application admissible, meaning it meets the criteria for the Court to consider it.
* It then reiterates the general principles of equality of arms, referencing previous case law.
* The Court emphasizes the State’s duty to inform the applicant of the hearing and highlights the failure to do so due to the summons being sent to the wrong prison.
* It concludes that this failure violated the principle of equality of arms, as the applicant was unable to participate effectively in the hearing while the prosecutor was present.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** This section deals with the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction (compensation). The Court rejects her claim for pecuniary damage due to lack of evidence but awards her EUR 900 for non-pecuniary damage.
* **Operative Provisions:** The decision formally declares the application admissible, holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1, specifies the amount of compensation to be paid, and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **State’s Duty to Inform Detained Individuals:** The decision reinforces the State’s obligation to ensure that individuals in detention are properly informed of court hearings, particularly when their presence is necessary for a fair trial. Sending summonses to the correct location is crucial.
* **Equality of Arms:** The judgment underscores the importance of the principle of equality of arms, meaning that all parties in a legal proceeding must have a reasonable opportunity to present their case under conditions that do not place them at a substantial disadvantage compared to their opponent.
* **Consequences of Procedural Violations:** The decision highlights that procedural failings, such as preventing an individual from attending a hearing, can lead to a violation of Article 6 § 1 and result in the State being required to pay compensation.
**** This case has implications for Ukraine, highlighting the need for its authorities to ensure proper communication and procedural fairness in its justice system, especially concerning detained individuals.
