CASE OF BÜLENT BEKDEMİR v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s a breakdown of the Bülent Bekdemir v. Türkiye decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Türkiye in violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to a fair trial). The case concerned the unfairness of criminal proceedings against Mr. Bülent Bekdemir, who was convicted of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and sentenced to life imprisonment. This unfairness stemmed from a statutory restriction that limited his access to a lawyer while in police custody, and the domestic courts’ subsequent use of statements he made without legal representation. The ECtHR emphasized that the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings was irretrievably prejudiced by these factors.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets out the core issue: the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings due to restricted access to a lawyer and the use of statements obtained without legal assistance.
* **Facts:** Details the applicant’s arrest in 1998, the evidence against him (including a pistol and political materials), his statements to the police (without a lawyer) and later to the prosecutor (withdrawing his initial statement), and the subsequent legal proceedings. It also notes the applicant’s diagnosis with Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Outlines the relevant Turkish laws at the time, including restrictions on access to a lawyer for those accused of offenses falling under the jurisdiction of State Security Courts. It also references the requirement for confessions to be repeated before a judge to be admissible.
* **The Law:**
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c):** This section forms the core of the judgment.
* **Admissibility:** Addresses the government’s arguments regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies and whether the application was manifestly ill-founded. The Court dismissed part of the application for non-exhaustion but declared the core complaints admissible.
* **Merits:** Examines the parties’ submissions and the Court’s assessment. It reiterates general principles regarding the right of access to a lawyer and assesses whether there was a restriction, compelling reasons for it, and the overall fairness of the proceedings.
* **Application of Article 41:** Deals with the issue of just satisfaction, including damages and costs. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and suggested that the most appropriate form of redress would be the retrial of the applicant, in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should he so request.
3. **Key Provisions for Use:**
* **Restriction on Access to a Lawyer:** The Court found that the applicant was denied access to a lawyer due to a statutory ban, which is a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c).
* **No Compelling Reasons:** The government did not provide compelling reasons to justify the restriction on the applicant’s right to a lawyer.
* **Fairness of Proceedings:** The Court emphasized that neither the trial court nor the Court of Cassation assessed the impact of the absence of a lawyer on the defense rights or the overall fairness of the proceedings.
* **Failure to Exclude Impugned Statements:** The domestic courts failed to apply Article 148 § 4 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 247 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure), which states that a statement taken in the absence of a lawyer cannot form the basis of a conviction unless confirmed before a judge or court.
* **Constitutional Court’s Failure:** The Constitutional Court failed to apply the principles set forth in the ECtHR’s case-law, specifically in *Salduz*, *Ibrahim and Others*, and *Beuze*.
* **Significant Probative Value:** The statement obtained from the applicant in the absence of a lawyer carried significant probative value, as it provided the authorities with the narrative of what had happened and appears to have framed the process of evidence-gathering in the criminal proceedings against him.
* **Overall Fairness Prejudiced:** The Court concluded that the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant was irretrievably prejudiced by the statutory restriction placed on his right of access to a lawyer and the subsequent use of his statements in the absence of a lawyer.
This decision underscores the importance of access to legal counsel, particularly during police custody, and the need for domestic courts to rigorously assess the impact of any restrictions on this right on the fairness of the proceedings.
CASE OF RADOBULJAC v. CROATIA (No. 2)
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined the case of Mr. Radobuljac v. Croatia (No. 2), concerning the Croatian authorities’ refusal to offset the applicant’s tax debt with his claims against the State. The applicant, a lawyer, argued that this refusal and the subsequent enforcement proceedings violated his property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. The Court found no violation, emphasizing the State’s right to secure the payment of taxes and its broad margin of appreciation in this area. The ECHR concluded that the refusal to offset the debts was lawful under domestic law and did not impose a disproportionate burden on the applicant.
The decision is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the applicant’s complaint. It then details the facts of the case, including a tax audit that revealed the applicant’s unpaid taxes, his request to offset the debt with his claims against the State, and the subsequent enforcement proceedings. The judgment also presents the relevant domestic legal framework and practice, focusing on the General Tax Act and related ordinances. The Court then assesses the admissibility of the application, addressing the Government’s arguments regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies and significant disadvantage. Finally, the Court examines the merits of the case, considering arguments from both parties and concluding that there was no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. There are no changes compared to previous versions mentioned in the text.
The most important provisions of this decision highlight the balance between an individual’s property rights and the State’s authority to enforce tax laws. The ECHR affirmed that States have a wide margin of appreciation in the field of taxation. It also underscored that while States should generally comply with their obligations without forcing claimants to resort to enforcement proceedings, this principle does not automatically require offsetting tax debts against other State debts absent a clear legal basis. The Court’s emphasis on the lawfulness of the domestic authorities’ actions and the absence of a disproportionate burden on the applicant are key takeaways from this judgment.
CASE OF ZĂICESCU AND FĂLTICINEANU v. ROMANIA
This is a judgment concerning the revision of a previous decision in the case of Zăicescu and Fălticineanu v. Romania. The Court decided to revise its earlier judgment after the Romanian government informed them that one of the applicants, Ms. Ana Fălticineanu, had passed away before the initial judgment was delivered. The Court acknowledges that the applicant’s death constitutes a new fact of decisive influence that was unknown at the time of the original judgment. Consequently, the Court decided to strike out the application concerning the deceased applicant and awarded the remaining applicant the full amount for costs and expenses that was initially allocated to both.
The structure of the decision includes a procedure section outlining the background of the case and the request for revision, followed by the Court’s legal reasoning. The main provision is the decision to revise the judgment of April 23, 2024, due to the death of the second applicant. The Court also decided to strike out the part of the application related to the second applicant, as no heirs expressed interest in pursuing the case. Furthermore, the decision stipulates that the first applicant will receive the full amount of EUR 8,500 for costs and expenses, along with default interest based on the European Central Bank’s marginal lending rate plus three percentage points.
The most important provision is the Court’s decision to revise the initial judgment based on the newly discovered fact of the second applicant’s death. This highlights the Court’s adherence to procedural fairness and its willingness to correct errors when significant new information comes to light. The decision also clarifies the Court’s practice of striking out applications when an applicant dies and no heirs wish to continue the proceedings, unless there are special circumstances related to respect for human rights.
CASE OF GAŠPARINI v. CROATIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Gašparini v. Croatia decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Croatia violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) because the applicant, Ivan Gašparini, was denied access to a court to challenge a disciplinary measure imposed by his hunting association. This measure, a two-year hunting prohibition, was deemed a significant restriction on his membership rights. The ECtHR emphasized that while associations have autonomy, complete denial of judicial review for such a substantial disciplinary action was disproportionate. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and suggested reopening domestic proceedings as a form of redress.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The case concerns the applicant’s inability to challenge a disciplinary measure (hunting prohibition) imposed by his hunting association in Croatian courts.
* **Disciplinary Proceedings:** The hunting association imposed a two-year hunting prohibition on the applicant for damaging its reputation.
* **Civil Proceedings:** The applicant’s civil action against the association was declared inadmissible by domestic courts, which held they lacked jurisdiction.
* **Constitutional Complaint:** The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, distinguishing the case from a previous one (Lovrić v. Croatia).
* **The Complaint to ECtHR:** The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the inability to challenge the disciplinary measure in court.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Admissibility:** The Court found Article 6 § 1 applicable, considering the right to hunt a “civil right.” It rejected the Government’s objection that the application was premature.
* **Merits:** The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1, holding that the complete denial of access to court was disproportionate, impairing the essence of the right of access to court.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and suggested reopening domestic proceedings.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Right to Access to Court:** The decision reinforces the principle that while associations have autonomy, members must have access to a court to challenge significant disciplinary measures that affect their rights.
* **Proportionality:** Restrictions on the right of access to court must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Complete denial of access is generally not acceptable for substantial breaches of association rules.
* **Civil Right:** The ECtHR confirms that the right to hunt can be considered a “civil right” under Article 6 of the Convention, making the article applicable in disputes related to hunting rights within associations.
* **Reopening of Proceedings:** The Court suggests that reopening domestic proceedings is an appropriate form of redress in cases where a violation of the Convention is found.
CASE OF GOSPOČIĆ v. CROATIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Gospočić v. Croatia, concerning a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The applicant was criminally convicted for defamation after she made offensive statements about her neighbors, accusing them of being criminals in mafia with the town chairman. The ECtHR found that the Croatian courts failed to adequately balance the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with her neighbors’ right to reputation. The Court concluded that the criminal sanction imposed on the applicant was disproportionate and that the domestic courts did not apply standards in conformity with Article 10 of the Convention.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the facts of the case, outlining the applicant’s complaints and the domestic proceedings. It then addresses the admissibility of the application, considering the Government’s objections regarding the scope of the application and the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court then proceeds to the merits of the case, assessing whether the applicant’s conviction constituted a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, where the Court awards the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions of the decision.
The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the balancing exercise between freedom of expression and the right to reputation, the importance of procedural safeguards for defendants in defamation proceedings, and the assessment of the proportionality of criminal sanctions in defamation cases. The Court emphasized that domestic courts must conduct an adequate proportionality assessment, considering the specific circumstances of the case and whether civil remedies would suffice. This decision reinforces the principle that criminal sanctions for defamation should be reserved for serious cases and should not unduly restrict freedom of expression.
CASE OF KHURAL AND ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN
Here’s a breakdown of the Khural and Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan case:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined a complaint by an Azerbaijani newspaper, Khural, and its editor-in-chief, Avaz Zeynalov, regarding a defamation lawsuit. The lawsuit stemmed from articles Khural published alleging unlawful activities and mismanagement at a brewing company. The Azerbaijani courts ruled against the newspaper, ordering it to issue a retraction and pay compensation. The ECHR found the editor-in-chief not to be a victim in the case, as the domestic courts’ decisions did not impose any obligations on him. The ECHR concluded that there was no violation of Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) with respect to the newspaper, as it had failed to substantiate serious factual allegations made in its articles.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the parties involved and the nature of the complaint.
* It details the facts of the case, specifically the content of the articles published by Khural and the subsequent civil proceedings in Azerbaijan.
* The Court then addresses the admissibility of the application, distinguishing between the newspaper and its editor-in-chief.
* The judgment references established principles on freedom of expression and defamation, drawing from previous ECHR case law.
* The core of the decision involves an assessment of whether the interference with the newspaper’s freedom of expression was justified under Article 10 of the Convention, including an analysis of the public interest, the factual basis of the allegations, and the proportionality of the penalty.
* The Court emphasizes that the newspaper did not take sufficient steps to verify serious factual allegations and did not present evidence to support its claims during the domestic court proceedings.
* The judgment concludes with the Court’s ruling, declaring the newspaper’s complaint admissible but finding no violation of Article 10.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The decision reinforces the importance of responsible journalism, particularly when publishing serious allegations of fact.
* It highlights the need for journalists to take steps to verify information and to be prepared to demonstrate a sufficient factual basis for their claims, even when protecting journalistic sources.
* The ECHR’s analysis provides guidance on how to balance freedom of expression with the protection of reputation, emphasizing the importance of the public interest and the nature of the allegations.
* The decision confirms that a mere reference to protection of sources cannot exempt a newspaper from the obligation to prove the veracity of or demonstrate a sufficient factual basis for serious accusations of a factual nature.
CASE OF MALKIEWICZ AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Malkiewicz and Others v. the United Kingdom:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the United Kingdom violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the recoverability of “success fees” in defamation cases. The case involved a Polish magazine publisher in the UK who faced significant legal costs due to a conditional fee arrangement (CFA) where the claimant’s lawyers were entitled to a success fee if they won. The Court determined that the potential for high costs, including these success fees, created a chilling effect on freedom of expression, even though the applicants settled the case before actually paying the fees. This decision builds upon previous rulings, particularly the *MGN Limited* judgment, reinforcing the principle that the recoverability of success fees can disproportionately burden media defendants and hinder their ability to publish freely. The Court dismissed a broader complaint about the UK’s defamation costs regime but awarded the applicants 5,000 EUR for non-pecuniary damages.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The core issue is the compatibility of success fees in CFAs with Article 10 of the Convention, specifically in the context of media defendants.
* **Background:** The applicants, who published a Polish-language magazine, were sued for defamation. They faced high potential legal costs due to the claimant’s CFA, which included a 100% success fee.
* **Domestic Proceedings:** The case went through several levels of UK courts, including the Supreme Court, which ordered a retrial. The applicants eventually settled due to financial constraints.
* **Admissibility:** The UK government argued that the applicants were not “victims” because they settled and didn’t pay the success fees. The Court rejected this, stating that the risk of excessive costs influenced the decision to settle.
* **Merits:** The Court found that the recoverability of success fees interfered with the applicants’ Article 10 rights. It referenced the *MGN Limited* judgment, which established that such fees can be disproportionate.
* **Costs Regime:** The Court declined to examine a broader complaint about the UK’s defamation costs regime, focusing solely on the CFA issue.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded the applicants 5,000 EUR for non-pecuniary damage but denied their claim for pecuniary damage and costs due to insufficient documentation.
3. **Key Provisions for Use:**
* **Victim Status:** The decision clarifies that settling a case does not automatically disqualify an applicant from claiming to be a victim of a violation of Article 10 if the risk of excessive costs (including success fees) played a role in the settlement decision.
* **Reliance on *MGN Limited*:** The Court reaffirms the principle established in the *MGN Limited* judgment that the recoverability of success fees can be a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression for media defendants. It emphasizes that only “extreme” cases will fall outside this general rule.
* **Chilling Effect:** The decision highlights the chilling effect that high potential legal costs, including success fees, can have on freedom of expression, even if those fees are not ultimately paid.
This decision reinforces the ECtHR’s stance on the potential for success fees to unduly restrict freedom of expression, particularly for media outlets facing defamation claims.
CASE OF SAKA v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s a breakdown of the Saka v. Türkiye judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns the fairness of criminal proceedings against Mr. Rifat Saka, who was convicted of aiding and abetting the PKK. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) because Turkish courts failed to provide an adequately reasoned judgment. Specifically, the domestic courts relied on initial statements made by a witness (M.G.) during the investigation, while disregarding later statements made by the same witness during the trial, which could have indicated that the applicant acted out of fear. The ECtHR emphasized that the trial court did not adequately explain why it chose to rely on the initial statements and failed to address the crucial issue of whether the applicant’s actions were influenced by coercion.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The judgment clearly defines the core issue as the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings due to the lack of a reasoned judgment by domestic courts.
* **Background:** It outlines the sequence of events, starting from the initial indictment against the applicant, his acquittal by the Diyarbakır Assize Court, the subsequent quashing of the acquittal by the Court of Cassation, and the eventual conviction of the applicant.
* **Domestic Court Reasoning:** The judgment highlights the reasoning provided by the domestic courts, particularly the trial court’s reliance on M.G.’s initial statements to the police and the Court of Cassation’s upholding of the conviction.
* **Applicant’s Arguments:** The judgment summarizes the applicant’s arguments, including the contradictions in M.G.’s statements and the failure to consider the possibility that the applicant acted under duress.
* **Government’s Submissions:** It presents the Turkish Government’s counter-arguments, asserting that the domestic courts properly evaluated the evidence and that the applicant never claimed to have been intimidated.
* **Court’s Assessment:** The ECtHR’s assessment begins by reiterating the general principles regarding the right to a reasoned judgment. It then applies these principles to the specific facts of the case, finding that the domestic courts failed to adequately address crucial points raised by the applicant and did not sufficiently justify their reliance on specific evidence.
* **Article 41:** Addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, regarding just satisfaction. The Court awarded 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 courts providing clear and adequate reasoning for their judgments, especially in criminal cases.
* **Assessment of Conflicting Statements:** It highlights the need for domestic courts to explain their preference for pre-trial statements over statements made during the trial, particularly when there are contradictions.
* **Consideration of Crucial Points:** The judgment emphasizes that courts must address all essential issues raised by the defendant, including potential defenses such as coercion or duress.
* **Subsidiarity Principle:** The ECtHR reiterates that it is not its role to substitute its assessment of the evidence for that of the domestic courts, but rather to ensure that the proceedings were fair.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court awarded EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
CASE OF SAMADOV AND NAJAFOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of *Samadov and Najafova v. Azerbaijan* concerning the demolition of the applicants’ properties and their eviction by State authorities. The applicants complained that the expropriation was unlawful and that the compensation was inadequate. The Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, concerning the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence, due to the lack of a legal basis for the applicants’ eviction. The Court dismissed the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, finding that the applicants did not have recognized property rights over the homes in question. It also decided that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention, regarding the right to a fair trial.
The decision is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural background, outlining the facts of the case, including the applicants’ living situations, the expropriation process, and the domestic court proceedings. The Court then addresses the joinder of the applications, followed by an assessment of the alleged violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 8 of the Convention. Finally, it addresses other alleged violations and the application of Article 41 of the Convention regarding just satisfaction. The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision, ordering Azerbaijan to pay each applicant EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.
The main provision of the decision is the finding of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court emphasized that the applicants’ eviction was not based on a court decision or any other legal precept, making it incompatible with the rule of law. This highlights the importance of due process and legal basis when State authorities interfere with an individual’s right to respect for their home. The Court also clarified its stance on what constitutes a “possession” under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, particularly in cases involving unauthorized constructions or temporary use of property.
CASE OF YALDIZ v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s a breakdown of the Yaldız v. Türkiye judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights 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 applicant’s conviction for being a member of an armed terrorist organization (PKK). The Court determined that the domestic court (İzmir Tenth Assize Court) failed to provide an individualized assessment of the evidence against Mr. Yaldız, instead offering a generalized summary that did not sufficiently link the evidence to his specific actions. The Court emphasized that while using similar reasoning for individuals in identical situations is acceptable, a tailored explanation is necessary when defendants have carried out different acts. The ECHR awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** Clearly states the case concerns the alleged breach of Article 6 § 1 due to the lack of a reasoned judgment.
* **Background:** Details the applicant’s charges, the evidence presented against him (demonstrations, witness testimony, phone conversations), and the initial trial court’s guilty verdict.
* **Domestic Proceedings:** Outlines the appeals process, including the applicant’s arguments that the trial court failed to establish a link between the evidence and his individual circumstances.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Admissibility:** Addresses and dismisses the government’s argument that the complaint should be inadmissible.
* **Merits:**
* Summarizes the applicant’s and the government’s submissions.
* Reiterates the general principles of Article 6 § 1 regarding the right to a reasoned judgment, referencing previous case law.
* Analyzes the trial court’s judgment, highlighting the lack of an individualized assessment and the failure to establish a clear link between the evidence and the applicant’s actions.
* Clarifies that the Court’s role is not to assess the sufficiency of evidence but to examine whether the domestic courts adequately stated their reasons for the conviction.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** Addresses the applicant’s claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, awarding EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and suggesting a retrial as the most appropriate form of redress.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Individualized Assessment:** The judgment underscores the importance of domestic courts providing an individualized assessment of evidence in criminal cases, particularly when multiple defendants are involved. This means courts must clearly explain how the evidence specifically relates to each defendant’s actions and culpability.
* **Duty to Give Reasons:** The decision reinforces the principle that judgments must adequately state the reasons on which they are based. This is especially critical in cases involving serious charges like membership in a terrorist organization.
* **ECHR’s Role:** The Court clarifies that it will not act as a fourth-instance body to re-evaluate evidence but will focus on whether domestic courts provided sufficient reasoning for their decisions.
* **Redress:** The Court suggests that in cases where a violation of Article 6 § 1 is found, a retrial is often the most appropriate form of redress.
CASE OF ZAKIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
Here’s a breakdown of the Zakiyev v. Azerbaijan judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned the allegedly unlawful expropriation of the applicant’s apartment in Baku by State authorities for the construction of the Heydar Aliyev Centre. The applicant complained that the demolition of his apartment and the associated compensation were not lawful, violating his property rights. The Court found that the expropriation was not carried out in compliance with the “conditions provided for by law,” leading to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. While the applicant received a new, larger apartment, the Court focused on the lack of legal compliance in the expropriation process. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage but dismissed claims for pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** This section outlines the factual background, including the applicant’s ownership of the apartment, its demolition by State authorities, and the compensation provided.
* **The Court’s Assessment:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court analyzes the applicant’s complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It references established principles from previous cases regarding the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and the requirement for any interference by a public authority to be lawful. The Court concludes that the expropriation was not carried out in compliance with the law.
* **Other Complaints:** The Court addresses the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 (right to a reasoned judgment) and Article 8 (right to respect for home) but decides that, having found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, there is no need to examine these further.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** This section deals with just satisfaction. The Court dismisses the applicant’s claims for pecuniary damage and costs and expenses but awards EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Lawful Expropriation:** The judgment underscores that any expropriation of property by State authorities must be carried out in strict compliance with the law. This includes proper authorization, adherence to legal procedures, and fair compensation.
* **Burden of Proof:** The State has the burden of demonstrating that the expropriation was lawful.
* **Just Satisfaction:** While the Court acknowledged the violation of the applicant’s rights, it only awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage, highlighting the importance of providing sufficient evidence for pecuniary losses and costs/expenses.
I hope this detailed description is helpful.
