CASE OF KALKAN v. DENMARK
Here’s a breakdown of the Kalkan v. Denmark decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Denmark in violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention due to the death of the applicant’s son while in prison. The son died after being restrained in a prone position leg lock for approximately thirteen minutes. The Court determined that Danish authorities failed to provide prison guards with clear and adequate instructions on the risks associated with the prone position and lacked sufficient training. This failure meant the prison officers involved did not possess the necessary competence to handle the life-threatening situation, leading to a breach of the state’s positive obligation to protect the right to life.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Outlines the applicant’s complaints regarding the restraint and subsequent death of her son in prison.
* **Facts:** Details the incident, including the son’s behavior, the prison officers’ actions, the medical findings, and the domestic legal proceedings. It also presents information about the legal framework and practices in Denmark and other countries regarding the use of the prone position.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Describes the domestic laws and regulations concerning the use of force in prisons, as well as relevant practices and guidelines. It also includes information from other countries and reports from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT).
* **Law:** Focuses on the alleged violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, with the Court deciding to examine the complaints solely under Article 2.
* **Admissibility:** Declares the application admissible, finding it not manifestly ill-founded.
* **Merits:** Presents the arguments of the applicant and the government, as well as comments from a third-party intervener. The Court assesses whether the Danish authorities provided adequate instructions and training to prison guards on the use of the prone position.
* **Application of Article 41:** Addresses the issue of just satisfaction, including damages and costs.
* **Decision:** Declares a violation of Article 2 of the Convention and orders Denmark to pay the applicant EUR 25,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Positive Obligation:** The decision emphasizes the state’s positive obligation under Article 2 to provide clear and adequate instructions and training to law enforcement officials, particularly regarding restraint techniques that carry a risk to life.
* **Risk Awareness:** The Court highlights the importance of authorities staying informed about the risks associated with restraint techniques and updating their instructions and training accordingly.
* **Competence Level:** The decision underscores the need for law enforcement officials to possess a high level of competence when dealing with situations that present a risk to life.
* **Prone Position Risks:** The Court acknowledges the evolving understanding of the risks associated with the prone position and emphasizes the need to minimize its use, especially when individuals are agitated or physically restrained.
This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of proper training and clear guidelines for law enforcement officials when using restraint techniques, especially those that can pose a risk to life.
CASE OF KÁRI ORRASON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Kári Orrason and Others v. Iceland:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Iceland did not violate the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly of three applicants who were fined for refusing to leave the lobby of the Ministry of Justice after closing hours during a protest. The Court found that while the applicants’ conviction constituted an interference with their right to freedom of assembly, this interference was justified because it was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim (prevention of disorder), and was proportionate to the aim pursued. The ECtHR emphasized that the applicants could have continued their protest outside the building and that the fines imposed were lenient. The Court also noted that the domestic authorities’ view that the applicants were not entitled to continue their protest within the building after closing hours was not unreasonable.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Outlines the case, the relevant articles of the Convention (Articles 10 and 11), and the background.
* **Facts:** Details the events leading to the applications, including the protests, the applicants’ refusal to leave the Ministry of Justice, their arrest, and the domestic court proceedings.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Cites the relevant articles of the Icelandic Constitution and the Police Act.
* **The Law:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 11:** This section addresses the applicants’ claim that their convictions violated their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
* **Admissibility:** The Court rejected the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
* **Merits:** This section contains the arguments of both parties and the Court’s assessment.
* **General Principles:** The Court reiterates the importance of freedom of assembly and expression in a democratic society.
* **Application of those principles to the present case:** The Court assesses whether there was an interference with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, whether the interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, and whether it was necessary in a democratic society.
* **Conclusion:** The Court held that there was no violation of Article 11 of the Convention.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Balancing of Interests:** The decision highlights the need to balance the rights of protestors with the rights and interests of other members of the public.
* **Margin of Appreciation:** The Court acknowledges that national authorities have a certain margin of appreciation in determining whether restrictions on freedom of assembly are necessary in a democratic society.
* **Proportionality:** The decision emphasizes that any interference with freedom of assembly must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
* **Importance of Domestic Reasoning:** The Court stresses the importance of domestic courts providing sufficient reasoning for their decisions, particularly when fundamental rights are at stake.
* **Context Matters:** The Court takes into account the specific context of the protest, including its location, timing, and the conduct of the protestors.
This decision provides valuable guidance on the application of Article 11 of the Convention in the context of peaceful protests and the limits that can be placed on such protests in the interests of public order and the rights of others.
CASE OF MARTINEZ FERNANDEZ v. HUNGARY
Here’s a breakdown of the Martinez Fernandez v. Hungary decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Hungary in violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention due to procedural deficiencies in the involuntary detention and treatment of an elderly woman with dementia in a psychiatric hospital. The Court highlighted the failure of the guardian ad litem to effectively represent the applicant’s interests and the lack of careful consideration regarding the impact of medication on her ability to participate in court proceedings. The Court emphasized that the domestic authorities did not ensure that the proceedings were lawful and devoid of arbitrariness. This case underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in cases involving the deprivation of liberty for individuals with mental health issues. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the case, focusing on the involuntary detention and treatment of an elderly woman with dementia and the relevant Article 5 of the Convention.
* **Facts:** Details the applicant’s background, the events leading to her hospitalization, the court hearing, and subsequent appeals. It covers the applicant’s dementia, her transfer to a psychiatric hospital, the circumstances of the court hearing, and the roles of the guardian ad litem and medical expert.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Cites Hungarian law regarding emergency treatment and civil procedure, as well as international guidelines on mental health and disability rights. It includes provisions from the Healthcare Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, along with findings from the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary and the Kúria regarding the practice of emergency treatment.
* **The Law:**
* **Alleged Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4 of the Convention:** Presents the applicant’s complaints regarding unjustified hospitalization and procedural rights violations.
* **Admissibility:** Addresses the Government’s argument that domestic remedies were not exhausted, with the Court ultimately rejecting this objection.
* **Merits:** Examines the applicant’s claims, the Government’s submissions, and the Court’s assessment of whether the detention was justified and the procedure fair.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Discusses the applicant’s claims for damages and costs, with the Court awarding EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses.
* **Operative part:** Declares the application admissible, holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and orders payments to the applicant.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Procedural Fairness:** The decision emphasizes the need for fair and proper procedures in cases of involuntary hospitalization, ensuring proceedings are lawful and devoid of arbitrariness.
* **Effective Representation:** It highlights the importance of guardians ad litem actively representing the interests of individuals with mental health issues, including visiting the patient, understanding their wishes, and challenging the necessity of treatment.
* **Impact of Medication:** The decision stresses the need for careful consideration of the effects of medication on a patient’s ability to participate meaningfully in court proceedings.
* **Systemic Problem:** The Court acknowledges the underperformance of guardians ad litem as a systemic issue in Hungary, emphasizing the need for improvement in this area.
CASE OF NEMYTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here is the analysis of the decision in *Nemytov and Others v. Russia*:
1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Russia violated the rights to freedom of expression and assembly of three applicants who were arrested, detained, and prosecuted for participating in public events or solo demonstrations during Covid-19 restrictions. The Court held that the blanket bans and restrictions imposed by Russian authorities were disproportionate and not “necessary in a democratic society.” While acknowledging the pressing social need to protect public health during the pandemic, the ECtHR found that the authorities overstepped the margin of appreciation by imposing sanctions capable of a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression and assembly. The Court also found violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of an impartial tribunal, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention.
2. The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the main concerns of the applications, followed by a detailed account of the facts, including background information on Covid-19 restrictions in Russia, specifically in Moscow and St. Petersburg. It then presents the facts of each applicant’s case, including their arrests, prosecutions, and the domestic court proceedings. The judgment includes a section on relevant domestic legal framework and practice, including laws on public events, sanitary welfare, and emergency protection, as well as decisions from the Constitutional Court and clarifications from the Supreme Court of Russia. It also cites relevant international materials, such as WHO guidelines and statements from UN Special Rapporteurs. The judgment then addresses preliminary issues such as the joinder of applications and jurisdiction, followed by an assessment of the alleged violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. Finally, it addresses other alleged violations of the Convention and the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction.
3. The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court emphasized that restrictions on freedom of assembly and expression must be “necessary in a democratic society” and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The decision highlights the importance of procedural safeguards and the need for domestic courts to conduct a meaningful balancing exercise between the requirements of public health and the free expression of opinions. The Court found that the blanket bans on public events and the severity of the sanctions imposed on the applicants were disproportionate, especially considering that other activities with comparable public health risks were allowed to continue.
**** This decision has implications for Ukrainians, as it concerns the violation of fundamental rights during restrictions, a situation that may be relevant in the context of martial law and other emergency measures.
CASE OF SELISHCHEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of Selishcheva and Others v. Russia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR ruled that Russia violated the rights of ten applicants by denying them the ability to run in municipal elections. The Court found that the collection and storage of the applicants’ political data, which was then shared with electoral authorities, was not “in accordance with the law” and therefore violated Article 8 (right to private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Additionally, the Court determined that barring the applicants from running for office based on their alleged “extremist” involvement, penalized them retroactively for lawful activities, violating their rights to freedom of expression and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court emphasized that these measures created a “chilling effect” on political participation and were not “necessary in a democratic society.”
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly describes the case’s focus on the refusal to register applicants as candidates due to alleged involvement with “extremist” organizations.
* **Facts:** Details the legislative changes in Russia that barred individuals involved with extremist organizations from running in elections. It outlines how the applicants, seeking to run in municipal elections, were denied registration based on police information about their alleged involvement with banned extremist organizations (linked to Alexei Navalnyy). The decision lists various activities used to justify the “involvement,” such as participation in protests, support for opposition coalitions, social media activity, and receiving payments from related organizations.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Cites the relevant sections of the Electoral Rights Act of the Russian Federation, as well as the Council of Europe’s Recommendation R(87)15 regarding the use of personal data in the police sector.
* **The Law:** This section contains the court’s reasoning.
* **Article 8 Violation:** The Court found that the collection and storage of the applicants’ political data was an interference with their right to private life. It emphasized the lack of a clear legal framework governing the collection and use of such data, the lack of means for applicants to access or challenge the data, and the sensitive nature of the political data requiring heightened protection.
* **Articles 10 and 11 Violation:** The Court determined that denying the applicants’ electoral candidacy based on alleged “extremist” involvement was a violation of their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. It highlighted the retroactive penalization for lawful activities, the vague concept of “involvement,” and the lack of a proportionality assessment.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** Briefly addresses additional complaints by one of the applicants but concludes that a separate ruling is unnecessary.
* **Article 41 Application:** Awards each applicant 10,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Data Collection and Privacy:** The decision underscores the importance of a clear and accessible legal framework governing the collection, retention, and use of personal data, especially sensitive political data. It emphasizes the need for safeguards against arbitrariness, including rules on data retention, deletion, and independent review mechanisms.
* **Freedom of Expression and Assembly:** The ruling highlights that restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and assembly must be “prescribed by law” with sufficient clarity and be “necessary in a democratic society.” Retroactive penalization for lawful activities and vague legal provisions that allow for broad disqualifications are incompatible with these principles.
* **Electoral Rights:** The decision reinforces that restrictions on the right to stand for election must be proportionate and not based on tenuous connections to “extremist” activities. Authorities must conduct a meaningful assessment of each individual’s engagement and establish a genuine link to extremist activities before imposing restrictions.
**** This decision is particularly relevant in the context of Russia’s political climate and its implications for individuals and organizations perceived as opposition. It highlights the potential for abuse of anti-extremism legislation to suppress dissent and restrict political participation.
CASE OF ARB SHPK AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of ARB SHPK and Others v. Albania, concerning complaints about the excessive length of judicial proceedings in Albania and the effectiveness of domestic remedies for such delays. The court found violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) in three of the four applications, relating to unreasonable delays in civil proceedings before the Supreme Court. The court also found a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 in one application, concerning excessive delays in proceedings related to a pension dispute. The court emphasized the need for Albania to improve the efficiency of its justice system and ensure effective remedies for excessive length of proceedings. The court awarded the applicants just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
The decision is structured around four applications, each addressing similar issues of lengthy proceedings and ineffective remedies. The judgment begins with an introduction and a summary of the facts, followed by a detailed examination of each application separately. For each application, the Court considers admissibility, including issues of exhaustion of domestic remedies and victim status, and then assesses the merits of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. The decision also addresses complaints lodged after the notification of the case to the government, ultimately deciding that there was no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of these additional complaints. Finally, the judgment concludes with the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) and Article 46 (execution of judgments), providing specific guidance to Albania on general measures to prevent future violations.
The main provisions of the decision that may be the most important for its use are those concerning the assessment of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1, the effectiveness of domestic remedies under Article 13, and the guidance provided to Albania under Article 46 regarding general measures to improve the efficiency of its justice system. The court’s findings highlight the ongoing challenges faced by the Albanian judiciary, including significant backlogs, lengthy case-processing times, and delays in filling judicial vacancies. The court’s emphasis on the need for effective compensatory remedies and its call for Albania to address the practical effectiveness of its existing remedies are particularly important for ensuring compliance with the Convention in the future.
CASE OF AYVAZ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment revising its earlier decision in the case of Ayvaz and Others v. Türkiye. The revision was prompted by the death of one of the applicants, Mr. Mehmet Sait Demiröz, before the initial judgment was delivered. The Court considered the request from Mr. Demiröz’s heirs to receive the compensation initially awarded to him. The Court decided to revise its judgment of 11 July 2023 and award the sum of 5,000 euros initially allocated to Mr. Demiröz jointly to his heirs: his wife, Melek Demiröz, and his sons, Mehmet Alperen Demiröz and Ahmet Yusuf Demiröz.
The structure of the decision includes a procedural overview, outlining the initial applications and the judgment of 11 July 2023, followed by the request for revision due to the applicant’s death. The decision then presents the legal arguments, referencing Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, which allows for revision in light of new facts that could have a decisive influence. The Court’s assessment addresses the standing of the heirs to pursue the application and rejects the Government’s arguments regarding the failure to inform the Court about the applicant’s death in a timely manner. The decision concludes with the Court’s ruling to revise the judgment and award the compensation to the heirs.
The most important provision of this decision is the Court’s application of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, allowing for the revision of a judgment after the discovery of a fact (the applicant’s death) that was unknown at the time of the original judgment and could decisively influence the outcome, particularly concerning the allocation of compensation. This reaffirms the Court’s practice of granting revision requests by heirs of applicants who died during the proceedings, ensuring that the intended beneficiaries receive the awarded compensation.
CASE OF GIRDAUSKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA
This is a judgment concerning the revision of a previous decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of Girdauskienė v. Lithuania. The applicant requested a revision because the Court’s initial judgment did not include an award for costs and expenses, which she had claimed in her initial submission. The Court acknowledges that due to a clerical error, the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses was not included in the case file during the initial judgment. Considering this oversight, the Court decided to revise its previous judgment. As a result of the revision, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,300 for legal expenses but rejected the claim for translation costs.
The structure of the decision includes:
* **Procedure:** Outlines the background of the case, including the initial application, the original judgment, and the request for revision.
* **The Law:** Details the applicant’s request for revision, the government’s observations, and the Court’s assessment based on Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
* **The Court’s Assessment:** Justifies the decision to revise the judgment due to the clerical error and assesses the applicant’s claims for legal expenses and translation costs.
* **Operative part:** Decides to revise the judgment and specifies the revised award for costs and expenses, along with the applicable default interest rate.
The main change is the addition of an award of EUR 3,300 for legal expenses, which was not included in the original judgment.
The most important provision is the decision to revise the original judgment based on Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, acknowledging a clerical error that led to the omission of the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses. This highlights the Court’s commitment to rectifying errors and ensuring fair compensation to applicants. The decision also clarifies the criteria for awarding costs and expenses, particularly regarding the justification for translation costs.
CASE OF MECİT AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a revised judgment in the case of Mecit and Others v. Türkiye, concerning an application for revision of the initial judgment delivered on 12 December 2023. The original case involved 82 Turkish nationals who were arrested and detained following the coup attempt in 2016, suspected of being members of the “FETÖ/PDY” terrorist organization. The initial judgment found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention due to a lack of reasonable suspicion for their initial pre-trial detention and awarded EUR 5,000 to each applicant who requested compensation. The revision was requested by the heirs of one of the applicants, Mr. Sadettin Uzay, who had passed away before the initial judgment was delivered. The Court decided to revise its judgment to award the compensation initially allocated to Mr. Uzay to his heirs, Şeyda Uzay and Alperen Uzay.
The structure of the decision includes a procedural overview, outlining the background of the case and the request for revision, followed by the legal considerations and the Court’s assessment. The decision references Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, which allows for the revision of a judgment if a decisive fact was discovered that was unknown to the Court at the time of the original judgment. The Court considered the death of Mr. Uzay as such a fact, warranting the revision. The revised judgment specifically addresses the allocation of the EUR 5,000 compensation to Mr. Uzay’s heirs, which was not considered in the initial judgment. The decision also specifies the default interest rate to be applied in case of delayed payment, based on the European Central Bank’s marginal lending rate plus three percentage points.
The most important provision of this decision is the Court’s application of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, allowing for the revision of the initial judgment to ensure that the compensation awarded to the deceased applicant is transferred to his rightful heirs. This clarifies the procedure for handling cases where an applicant dies during the proceedings and ensures that their heirs can benefit from the judgment. This decision underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring just satisfaction is provided to the appropriate parties, even in the event of unforeseen circumstances such as the death of an applicant.
CASE OF N.P. AND V.P. v. BULGARIA
The European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of N.P. and V.P. v. Bulgaria, concerning a father and daughter who experienced a prolonged period of separation between February 2020 and June 2023. The father, N.P., alleged that Bulgarian authorities failed to fulfill their positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to ensure his contact with his daughter, V.P., despite him having joint custody. The core issue was the lack of adequate measures taken by the authorities to facilitate contact between the father and daughter during this period, while the mother was effectively hiding the child. The Court found a violation of Article 8, emphasizing that domestic courts did not act with the necessary diligence to ensure their contact, especially considering the child’s young age and the potential harm from prolonged separation. The Court also addressed and dismissed the Government’s inadmissibility objections, finding them ungrounded.
The decision is structured around the examination of whether the Bulgarian authorities adequately protected the applicants’ right to family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The Court first considered the admissibility of the application, addressing the Government’s claims that the applicants had lost victim status and had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. It then assessed the merits of the case, focusing on the actions and inactions of the Bulgarian courts in facilitating contact between the father and daughter. The Court analyzed the various proceedings initiated by the father, including divorce proceedings, requests for interim measures, and actions under the Hague Convention. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, awarding the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this appears to be the initial and final judgment on the matter.
The most important provision of this decision is the emphasis on the “exceptional diligence” required of domestic courts in cases involving a parent’s relationship with a minor child, particularly when there has been a prolonged separation. The Court stressed that authorities must act swiftly and adequately to address the specific dynamics of such situations, prioritizing the child’s best interests. This ruling underscores the positive obligations of states to take proactive measures to ensure that family ties are maintained, especially when one parent is actively obstructing contact.
CASE OF SELAHATTİN DEMİRTAŞ v. TÜRKİYE
This judgment concerns the case of Selahattin Demirtaş against Türkiye, regarding the rejection of his compensation claim for harm allegedly suffered due to social media posts. The applicant, a member of the National Assembly and co-president of a political party, sought damages for libelous expressions in tweets made by an advisor to the President of the Republic. While a lower court initially awarded him compensation, the Regional Appeal Court dismissed his claims, arguing the posts were either not clearly addressed to him or fell within the bounds of freedom of expression, considering his status as a political figure. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the domestic courts failed to properly balance the applicant’s right to protection of his reputation with the opposing party’s freedom of expression. The ECtHR concluded that the national authorities did not adequately consider the form, content, and factual basis of the social media posts, which included offensive language and a picture with German politicians. Consequently, the Court held that Türkiye violated Article 8 of the Convention, which concerns the right to respect for private and family life.
The judgment is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history and the facts of the case, including the social media posts in question and the domestic court proceedings. It then addresses the admissibility of the application, rejecting the Government’s arguments. The core of the judgment assesses the merits of the case, focusing on whether the domestic courts struck a fair balance between the applicant’s right to respect for his reputation and the opposing party’s freedom of expression. The Court refers to its established case-law on balancing these rights. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, awarding the applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this is the final judgment.
The most important provision of this decision is the ECtHR’s finding that Türkiye failed to comply with its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention by not adequately balancing the applicant’s right to protection of reputation with the freedom of expression of the social media post’s author. This highlights the importance of domestic courts providing sufficient reasoning and conducting a thorough assessment of all relevant criteria when adjudicating cases involving competing rights, particularly in the context of political figures and potentially offensive or insulting speech. The decision emphasizes the need for national authorities to consider the factual basis, content, form, and consequences of the impugned expressions to ensure a fair balance is struck.
CASE OF ŠTENGL v. CROATIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Štengl v. Croatia, concerning the excessive length of medical negligence proceedings and the conduct of those proceedings. The applicant, Suzana Štengl, alleged violations of 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 6 § 1 due to the unreasonable length of the proceedings, which lasted over seven years after a specific cut-off date. However, the Court declared the complaint regarding Article 8 inadmissible, finding that the domestic courts had provided sufficient procedural opportunities for the applicant to present her case and that the proceedings were not conducted in an arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable manner. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,950 for non-pecuniary damage due to the excessive length of proceedings and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history and the subject matter of the case, outlining the applicant’s grievances regarding the medical negligence proceedings. It then assesses the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, addressing the length of the proceedings and the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court then examines the alleged violation of Article 8, focusing on the conduct and outcome of the medical negligence proceedings. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41, concerning just satisfaction, where the Court determines the amounts to be awarded to the applicant for damages and costs. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions of the decision.
The main provisions of the decision that are most important for its use are the findings regarding the length of proceedings and the assessment of the medical negligence proceedings under Article 8. The Court’s finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the excessive length of the proceedings highlights the importance of timely resolution of legal cases, particularly in sensitive areas such as medical negligence. The decision also clarifies the Court’s role in reviewing domestic courts’ interpretation of national law, emphasizing that it will only intervene if the findings are arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.
