CASE OF Á.F.L. v. ICELAND
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Á.F.L. v. Iceland:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Iceland did not discriminate against a disabled father when it deprived him of the custody of his daughter. The court found that the Icelandic authorities made extensive efforts to support the father’s parenting, taking into account his disabilities (autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, and mild intellectual disability). The decision to remove custody was based on the child’s best interests, as her well-being and development were negatively impacted despite the support measures provided to the father. The court emphasized that the father’s parental capacity was assessed in light of the support measures available to him, and the decision was not solely based on his disability.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the case, focusing on the applicant’s claim of discrimination due to a lack of reasonable accommodation related to his disability, which led to the loss of custody.
* **Facts:** Details the applicant’s background, including his diagnoses, education, and employment history. It describes the events leading to the custody dispute, the support measures provided by the Icelandic authorities (including placement at Mánaberg, YLFA counseling, and a support family), and the assessments of his parenting capacity.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Summarizes the relevant Icelandic laws concerning child protection, support for persons with disabilities, and the Constitution, as well as international law, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
* **Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the Court.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 14 of the Convention Taken in Conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention:** Addresses the applicant’s complaint that the authorities failed to provide adequate support and reasonable accommodation, resulting in discrimination and the loss of custody.
* **Preliminary Considerations:** Clarifies the scope of the case, focusing on the alleged denial of reasonable accommodation. It also addresses the applicant’s status as a person with a disability, noting that formal recognition of disability is not always necessary for the state’s obligation to provide support.
* **Admissibility:** Declares the complaint admissible, finding that it is not manifestly ill-founded.
* **Merits:** Assesses the parties’ submissions and the Court’s assessment.
* **General Principles Regarding Prohibition of Discrimination:** Outlines the principles of non-discrimination under Article 14, including the obligation to treat differently those in significantly different situations and the concept of “reasonable accommodation.”
* **General Principles Regarding Family Life of Children and Parents:** Reviews the principles under Article 8 regarding family life, the best interests of the child, and the state’s margin of appreciation in care decisions.
* **The Court’s Approach in the Present Case:** Emphasizes that parents with disabilities should not be deprived of custody solely based on their disability and that their parenting skills should be assessed with reference to available support measures.
* **Application of these Principles to the Present Case:** Applies the principles to the specific facts of the case, finding that the Icelandic authorities did not discriminate against the applicant and that the decision to deprive him of custody was justified by the child’s best interests.
* **Remaining Complaints:** Addresses the applicant’s other complaints, finding it unnecessary to examine them separately.
* **For These Reasons, the Court:** Formally declares the complaints admissible and holds that there was no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Reasonable Accommodation:** The decision reinforces the importance of providing reasonable accommodation to parents with disabilities to ensure their right to family life. It clarifies that the assessment of parenting skills should be made in light of the support measures available.
* **Best Interests of the Child:** The decision emphasizes that the best interests of the child are paramount in custody decisions, and these interests may override those of the parents.
* **Individualized Assessment:** The decision highlights the need for individualized assessments and support measures tailored to the specific needs of parents with disabilities.
* **No Discrimination Based Solely on Disability:** The decision reiterates that parents should not be deprived of custody solely based on their disability, but rather on a comprehensive assessment of their ability to provide adequate care, even with support.
* **State’s Margin of Appreciation:** The decision acknowledges that national authorities have a margin of appreciation in evaluating individual and local needs and conditions, and their reasoned decisions should be given due deference.
CASE OF B.T. AND B.K.CS. v. HUNGARY
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of B.T. and B.K.Cs. v. Hungary:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns a Roma child, B.K.Cs., who was placed in temporary state care immediately after birth due to concerns about the mother, B.T.’s parenting abilities based on her past conduct and living conditions. The Court found that Hungarian authorities failed to conduct a proper assessment of the family’s situation, including positive changes, and did not adequately balance the interests of the child and parents. The decision-making process was flawed, depriving the mother of sufficient involvement. As a result, the Court ruled that Hungary disproportionately interfered with the family’s right to family life, violating Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court rejected the applicant’s claim of discrimination.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets out the case’s subject matter: the placement of a Roma child in temporary state care.
* **Facts:** Details the background, including the mother’s history with child protection services, the concerns raised by health visitors during her pregnancy, and the decisions made by guardianship authorities and courts.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Outlines the Hungarian laws and international conventions related to child protection and family rights.
* **The Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning and findings of the Court.
* It addresses preliminary objections raised by the Hungarian government, including alleged abuse of the right to application and questions of victim status.
* It analyzes the complaint under Article 8 (right to family life), establishing the principles for state intervention in family matters and applying them to the specific facts.
* It examines the complaint under Article 14 (discrimination) in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8, ultimately finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent.
* It briefly addresses the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), finding no need for a separate ruling.
* **Application of Article 41:** Addresses just satisfaction, awarding the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
* **Separate Opinions:** Includes dissenting opinions from Judges Derenčinović and Seibert-Fohr, who disagree with certain aspects of the majority’s reasoning and the amount of compensation awarded.
3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Emphasis on Thorough Assessment:** The decision underscores the importance of domestic authorities conducting in-depth and careful assessments of family situations before taking children into care, considering both short-term and long-term factors.
* **Balancing of Interests:** It highlights the need for a genuine balancing exercise between the interests of the child and the rights of the biological parents.
* **Flawed Decision-Making Process:** The Court emphasizes the importance of involving parents adequately in the decision-making process concerning the care of their children and providing them with access to relevant information.
* **Disproportionate Interference:** The decision serves as a reminder that taking a newborn baby into state care is an extremely harsh measure requiring extraordinarily compelling reasons.
* **Article 8 Violation:** The finding of a violation of Article 8 highlights the importance of respecting family life and ensuring that any interference is justified, proportionate, and in accordance with the law.
CASE OF K.V. MEDITERRANEAN TOURS LIMITED v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s a breakdown of the K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited v. Türkiye decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Türkiye in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) due to the excessive length and lack of diligence in proceedings before the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) concerning the applicant company’s property in Northern Cyprus. The Court acknowledged the IPC as a generally effective remedy for property claims but criticized its handling of this specific case, particularly the delays caused by the “TRNC” authorities. The Court dismissed the applicant’s complaints regarding the participation of a religious foundation in the proceedings and allegations of judicial bias. It emphasized Türkiye’s obligation to expedite IPC proceedings and provide effective redress for delays.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction and Facts:** Sets the context of the case, focusing on the applicant company’s property claim in the Famagusta area of Northern Cyprus, abandoned after the 1974 Turkish military intervention.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines the legal framework governing the IPC, including Law No. 67/2005, which establishes the IPC and its procedures. It also references previous ECtHR cases that have addressed the IPC’s effectiveness.
* **Relevant International Material:** Refers to resolutions and discussions by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe regarding the implementation of previous ECtHR judgments related to property issues in Cyprus.
* **The Law:**
* **Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** Examines the applicant’s complaint under this article, focusing on the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
* **Articles 6 and 13:** Addresses the applicant’s complaints regarding the fairness of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy.
* **Article 14:** Addresses the complaint of discriminatory treatment.
* **Article 46:** Considers the case under this article, emphasizing Türkiye’s obligation to abide by the Court’s judgment and implement measures to address the violation found.
* **Article 41:** Addresses the application of this article regarding just satisfaction.
* **Admissibility:** Assesses whether the application meets the criteria for admissibility, including the exhaustion of domestic remedies.
* **Merits:** Examines the substance of the applicant’s complaints, focusing on the effectiveness of the IPC proceedings and the alleged violations of the Convention.
* **Application of Articles 46 and 41:** Discusses the measures Türkiye must take to comply with the judgment and addresses the issue of just satisfaction for the applicant company.
* **Dissenting Opinion:** Includes the dissenting opinion of two judges regarding the award of just satisfaction and the application of Article 46.
3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** The central finding that Türkiye failed to ensure diligent and expeditious proceedings before the IPC, leading to a violation of the applicant’s property rights.
* **Reaffirmation of IPC as a Remedy (with Caveats):** While acknowledging the IPC as an accessible and effective framework, the Court emphasizes that its effectiveness can be undermined by undue delays and a lack of coherence in its proceedings.
* **Obligation to Expedite Proceedings:** The decision underscores Türkiye’s obligation to take concrete steps to accelerate IPC proceedings, particularly in providing timely responses to property claims.
* **Article 46 Considerations:** The Court’s invocation of Article 46 highlights the need for Türkiye to implement measures to prevent similar violations in the future, ensuring that the IPC functions effectively and provides genuine redress for property claims.
* **Dismissal of complaints regarding the participation of a religious foundation in the proceedings and allegations of judicial bias:** The Court found that the participation of the Evkaf Administration in the IPC proceedings as an interested party was necessary to comply with the principle of a fair trial and that the applicant company failed to convincingly demonstrate how the Evkaf Administration’s involvement had rendered the proceedings unfair. The Court also found that there was no evidence to suggest that any of the judges on the appeal panel had a personal bias or hostility towards the applicant company.
This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of efficient and fair procedures in addressing property claims and highlights the ongoing challenges in resolving property issues in Northern Cyprus.
: This decision is related to the situation in Northern Cyprus and has implications for individuals and companies seeking redress for property lost as a result of the Turkish military intervention in 1974.
CASE OF ALTUN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s a breakdown of the Altun and Others v. Türkiye decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Türkiye violated Article 5 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the cases of twenty-three applicants who were judges or prosecutors arrested and detained following the 2016 coup attempt. The Court found that there was no reasonable suspicion to justify the initial pre-trial detention of these individuals, primarily based on their suspension from duties, alleged use of the ByLock messaging system, or generalized witness statements. The ECtHR emphasized that the measures taken against the applicants were not strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, even considering the state of emergency in Türkiye at the time. Consequently, the Court awarded each applicant (except one) 5,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The judgment addresses the arrest and pre-trial detention of judges and prosecutors in Türkiye after the 2016 coup attempt, focusing on the lack of reasonable suspicion for their detention.
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine all applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Admissibility:** The Court dismissed the Government’s objections regarding the admissibility of the complaints, referring to similar objections dismissed in previous cases against Türkiye.
* **Article 5 § 1 Violation:** The core of the decision lies in the finding that Türkiye violated Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The Court scrutinized the grounds for the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, including references to Article 100 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), suspension from duties, and alleged use of the ByLock messaging system.
* **Other Complaints:** The Court decided not to examine remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3, and 4, and Article 8 of the Convention, considering its findings under Article 5 § 1.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court addressed the applicants’ claims for compensation, rejecting claims for pecuniary damage but awarding 5,000 euros to each applicant (except one) for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Reasonable Suspicion Standard:** The decision reinforces the importance of having concrete and specific evidence to establish “reasonable suspicion” before detaining individuals, particularly in the context of mass arrests following states of emergency.
* **ByLock Evidence:** The Court reiterates its stance that the mere use of the ByLock messaging system, without additional evidence, is insufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
* **Suspension from Duty:** The decision highlights that suspension from a professional position (in this case, judges and prosecutors) cannot, in itself, justify pre-trial detention.
* **Individual Assessment:** The ECtHR stresses the need for a specific assessment of individual evidence rather than general references to legal provisions or “evidence in the file.”
* **Compensation:** The Court’s decision to award compensation underscores the tangible consequences for states that violate Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
This decision is significant as it adds to the body of ECtHR case law scrutinizing the measures taken in Türkiye following the 2016 coup attempt, particularly concerning the detention of members of the judiciary.
CASE OF CÖMERT v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s a breakdown of the Cömert v. Türkiye decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Türkiye in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) due to the lack of a reasoned judgment in the criminal proceedings against Mr. Cömert. Mr. Cömert was convicted of membership in an armed terrorist organization based on statements made by witnesses during the investigation phase, which they later retracted at trial. The ECtHR concluded that the domestic courts failed to adequately explain why they relied on the initial statements and did not properly establish the elements of the crime. The Court emphasized that while domestic courts have discretion in assessing evidence, they must provide sufficient reasoning for their decisions.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** The case concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant due to the domestic courts’ failure to deliver a reasoned judgment, violating Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
* **Background:** Mr. Cömert was accused of being a member of the DHKP/C, an armed terrorist organization, based on statements from two individuals, E.K. and Y.E., who later recanted their statements in court.
* **Domestic Proceedings:** The Istanbul Thirteenth Assize Court initially acquitted Mr. Cömert due to lack of evidence, but the Court of Cassation overturned this decision, leading to Mr. Cömert’s conviction. The Constitutional Court later declared Mr. Cömert’s individual application inadmissible.
* **Admissibility:** The Court dismissed the Government’s objection that the application was inadmissible, stating that the applicant’s complaint related to a distinct procedural safeguard under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
* **Merits:** The Court assessed whether the domestic courts fulfilled their duty to provide a reasoned judgment, particularly regarding their reliance on the initial statements of E.K. and Y.E. The Court found that the trial court’s decision to convict Mr. Cömert consisted of reproducing the precise wording used by the Court of Cassation, without addressing the objective and subjective elements required to establish membership of an armed terrorist organization.
* **Article 41 Application:** The applicant claimed EUR 20,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 30,000 for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses. The Court rejected the pecuniary damage claim due to lack of substantiation but awarded EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
* **Decision:** The Court unanimously declared the application admissible and held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Right to a Reasoned Judgment:** The decision reinforces the importance of domestic courts providing clear and adequate reasoning for their judgments, especially in criminal cases.
* **Assessment of Evidence:** While domestic courts have discretion in assessing evidence, they must justify their decisions by giving reasons, particularly when relying on specific pieces of evidence.
* **Elements of the Offense:** Courts must address all objective and subjective elements required to establish the material and mental elements of the offense.
* **Retracted Statements:** When witnesses retract their initial statements, courts must provide a clear justification for relying on the initial statements rather than the retracted ones.
* **Fair Trial Standards:** The decision underscores the ECtHR’s role in ensuring that domestic courts adhere to fair trial standards, including the right to a reasoned judgment, as enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
This decision highlights the necessity for courts to provide thorough and logical explanations for their decisions, ensuring that the essential issues of a case are addressed and that the reasoning is transparent and justifiable.
CASE OF CSATÁRI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Csatári and Others v. Hungary, concerning the excessive length of liquidation proceedings in which the applicants were creditors. The applicants complained that the duration of the civil proceedings violated their right to a hearing within a reasonable time, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that the proceedings, lasting over 24 years, were indeed excessively long and did not meet the “reasonable time” requirement. Consequently, the ECHR ruled that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Each applicant was awarded EUR 200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The decision is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural details, including the parties involved and the background of the application. It then addresses the subject matter of the case, which is the protracted liquidation proceedings. The Court assesses the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, declaring the application admissible and examining the reasonableness of the length of proceedings based on established criteria. The decision refers to previous case-law, particularly Gazsó v. Hungary, which dealt with similar issues. Finally, the Court addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding a lump sum for non-pecuniary damage and rejecting claims for pecuniary damage. This structure is consistent with standard ECHR judgments, focusing on admissibility, merits, and remedies.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation that excessively long liquidation proceedings can constitute a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court’s decision to award a lump sum of EUR 200 to each applicant, despite their varying claims for pecuniary damage, highlights its focus on setting human rights standards applicable across Europe and addressing systemic issues. This approach is particularly relevant in cases with numerous victims in similar situations, aiming for a uniform resolution.
CASE OF KAÇIR AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s a breakdown of the Kacır and Others v. Türkiye decision:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined 37 applications concerning detention conditions in Turkish prisons following the attempted coup in 2016. The core issue was the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to inadequate detention conditions, particularly overcrowding. Some applicants also raised concerns under Article 8 regarding the right to family life, including issues like distance from family, restrictions on weekend visits with children, and the recording of private correspondence. The Court found violations of Article 3 for applicants with less than 3 sq. m of personal space and violations of Article 8 in specific cases related to restrictions on family visits and recording of correspondence.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** Defines the context of the applications, focusing on detention conditions and related issues under Articles 3 and 8.
* **Facts Common to All Applicants:** Details the domestic remedies pursued by the applicants, including applications to enforcement judges and the Constitutional Court.
* **Additional Facts Specific to Five Applicants:** Outlines the individual circumstances of the applicants who raised complaints under Article 8, such as Adnan Şimşek (distance from family), Davut Şen, Abdulvaris Altun, and Turgut Ergitürk (restrictions on weekend visits), and Fatih Ensaroğlu (recording of correspondence).
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** Decides to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Government’s Request to Strike Out Certain Applications:** Rejects the government’s request to strike out applications based on lack of representation.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3:**
* Summarizes the parties’ submissions regarding overcrowding, sanitary conditions, and other issues.
* Addresses the government’s admissibility objections, particularly concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies.
* Presents the Court’s merits assessment, categorizing applicants based on personal space (less than 3 sq. m, between 3-4 sq. m, and more than 4 sq. m).
* **Alleged Violation of Article 8:** Examines the complaints related to family life, weekend visits, and recording of correspondence, assessing admissibility and merits separately for each applicant.
* **Application of Article 41:** Addresses the applicants’ claims for compensation, awarding non-pecuniary damages and costs/expenses where appropriate.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Minimum Personal Space:** The decision reinforces the standard that less than 3 sq. m of personal space in detention creates a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3.
* **Restrictions on Family Life:** The decision highlights that restrictions on family visits, especially when not justified by individualized assessments or alternative measures, can violate Article 8.
* **Recording of Correspondence:** The ruling confirms that systematic recording and storage of private correspondence on the UYAP system, without a sufficient legal basis, violates Article 8.
* **Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies:** The Court clarifies its position on exhaustion, particularly regarding the need to raise complaints before enforcement judges and the Constitutional Court.
* **Derogation under Article 15:** The Court considers the Turkish government’s derogation under Article 15 but finds that the measures in question were not strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.
**** This decision is related to the conditions of detention of Turkish citizens, but it can be used as a precedent in cases related to Ukraine and Ukrainians, especially in the context of the armed conflict and occupation, where similar issues of detention conditions and restrictions on family life may arise.
CASE OF ÖZDEMİR v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s a breakdown of the Özdemir v. Türkiye decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Türkiye in violation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees the right to respect for correspondence. The case concerned the interception by prison authorities of a letter sent by the applicant’s wife while he was detained on charges related to membership in an armed terrorist organization. The Court concluded that the reasons provided by the domestic authorities for intercepting the letter were insufficient and did not demonstrate that the measure was necessary in a democratic society. Consequently, the ECtHR declared the application admissible and ruled in favor of the applicant.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The decision begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicant’s detention, the interception of letters sent by his wife, and the domestic proceedings.
* It addresses the Turkish Government’s preliminary objections regarding admissibility, such as the applicant’s alleged lack of significant disadvantage, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, abuse of the right to individual application, and victim status. The Court dismisses all these objections.
* The decision then assesses the merits of the case, focusing on whether the interception of the letter constituted a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
* The Court acknowledges that the interception was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim (prevention of disorder or crime). However, it scrutinizes whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society.”
* Referencing a similar case, Halit Kara v. Türkiye, the Court emphasizes the importance of providing relevant and sufficient reasons for interfering with prisoners’ correspondence.
* The ECtHR concludes that the domestic authorities failed to provide adequate justification for intercepting the letter, leading to a violation of Article 8.
* Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction) but notes that the applicant did not submit a claim within the prescribed time-limit.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Importance of Justification:** The decision underscores the need for national authorities to provide clear, relevant, and sufficient reasons when interfering with a prisoner’s right to correspondence. Vague or unsubstantiated concerns about security or order are unlikely to justify such interference.
* **Balancing Competing Interests:** The ECtHR reiterates the importance of striking a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the legitimate aims pursued by the authorities. This requires a careful assessment of the specific circumstances of each case.
* **Reference to Halit Kara v. Türkiye:** The decision relies heavily on the principles established in the Halit Kara case, indicating that this line of reasoning is consistently applied in similar cases involving Türkiye.
* **Article 8 Violation:** The core finding is that intercepting a prisoner’s letter without adequate justification constitutes a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, which protects the right to respect for private and family life, including correspondence.
This decision serves as a reminder to states of their obligation to respect prisoners’ rights, particularly the right to correspondence, and to ensure that any interference with these rights is justified by compelling reasons and is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
