CASE OF A.I. AND OTHERS v. GREECE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of A.I. and Others v. Greece:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Greece violated Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights due to the degrading living conditions faced by unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. The court found that these minors were left homeless for extended periods, without adequate care or legal guardians, and were subjected to conditions that fell below the threshold of human dignity. Additionally, in one of the cases, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 because of the applicant’s placement in protective custody at a police station. The Court emphasized the vulnerability of children, which should take precedence over immigration status considerations.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Article 3 Violation (Living Conditions):** The Court assessed the living conditions of the applicants, noting that they lived either in protective custody under appalling conditions, on the streets, or in substandard housing for several months. The Court dismissed the government’s argument that the applicants lost their victim status or failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as there was no evidence that the authorities had acknowledged or provided redress for the breaches.
* **Article 5 § 1 Violation (Protective Custody):** The Court found that the placement of one applicant in protective custody at a police station was a violation of Article 5 § 1, referencing its established case-law on the matter.
* **Article 8 Complaint:** The Court decided that there was no need to examine the complaints under Article 8, as the main legal questions had already been addressed.
* **Rule 39 Measures:** The interim measures previously indicated to the government were terminated.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the applicants, ranging from EUR 3,000 to EUR 3,900, depending on the case.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Living Conditions and Article 3:** The judgment reinforces the principle that member states must ensure that asylum seekers, especially unaccompanied minors, are not subjected to treatment that falls below the threshold of human dignity.
* **Protective Custody and Article 5:** The decision highlights the importance of adhering to legal procedures and safeguards when placing unaccompanied minors in protective custody, ensuring that such custody does not amount to unlawful detention.
* **Vulnerability of Children:** The Court’s emphasis on the extreme vulnerability of children and the need to prioritize their well-being over immigration status is a key aspect of the judgment.
**** This decision has implications for how Greece and other member states handle unaccompanied minors seeking asylum, particularly in ensuring adequate living conditions and adherence to legal safeguards regarding detention.
CASE OF CIOCOI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Ciocoi v. the Republic of Moldova, concerning a violation of the applicants’ property rights due to interim measures ordered by a Moldovan court in proceedings where the applicants had no standing. The applicants, Mr. and Ms. Ciocoi, had acquired property that was later subjected to interim measures in a case involving a company in liquidation, F. Despite the domestic courts acknowledging the violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the ECHR found that the applicants remained victims as they had not received adequate redress for the damages suffered. The Court dismissed the Government’s objection regarding the applicants losing their victim status. Ultimately, the ECHR ruled that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants EUR 4,700 jointly for non-pecuniary damage.
The decision is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the parties involved and the background of the case. The “Subject Matter of the Case” section details the factual circumstances, including the acquisition of the property, the interim measures imposed, and the applicants’ attempts to challenge these measures in domestic courts. The decision then presents the applicants’ complaints to the ECHR, followed by the Government’s arguments. The core of the judgment lies in the “The Court’s Assessment” section, where the ECHR analyzes the alleged violations of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. This section includes a discussion of the applicants’ victim status and the admissibility of their complaints. The decision concludes with the “Application of Article 41 of the Convention,” where the Court addresses the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction and determines the amount of compensation to be awarded. The decision does not refer to previous versions.
The most important provision of this decision is the ECHR’s finding that the applicants remained victims of the violations despite the domestic courts’ acknowledgment of the breaches. This highlights the principle that acknowledging a violation is not sufficient; adequate redress, including compensation for damages, is necessary to remedy the breach and for an applicant to lose their victim status. This aspect of the decision is particularly relevant for future cases where domestic courts acknowledge violations but fail to provide sufficient compensation or other forms of redress.
CASE OF F.S. AND A.S. v. HUNGARY
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of F.S. and A.S. v. Hungary:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned two Afghan brothers who sought asylum in Hungary after losing their parents. The Court found that Hungary violated Article 3 of the Convention regarding inhuman and degrading treatment for the younger brother due to the conditions in the Röszke transit zone, where they were held for six months. Additionally, the Court ruled that Hungary violated Article 5 §§ 1 and 4, concerning the right to liberty and security, for both applicants due to their detention in the transit zone. The Court rejected complaints regarding the age assessment procedure and found no need to examine further complaints about the conditions of detention.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Details the applicants’ journey to Hungary, their asylum application, the age assessment process, and the conditions of their stay in the Röszke transit zone.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Article 3 Violation:** The Court examined whether the conditions in the transit zone amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. It distinguished between the two applicants, finding a violation for the younger brother due to his age and the length of stay, but not for the older brother, considering the psychiatric support he received.
* **Article 5 Violation:** The Court assessed whether the applicants’ confinement in the transit zone constituted a deprivation of liberty. It concluded that it did, thus violating their rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4.
* **Other Complaints:** The Court addressed complaints about the age assessment procedure, deeming them inadmissible due to the application being lodged out of time. It found no need to examine further complaints regarding detention conditions, as the main legal questions had already been addressed.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded EUR 3,000 to the first applicant and EUR 4,000 to the second applicant for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,500 jointly for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 3 for the younger applicant:** The Court emphasized the vulnerability of the younger applicant and the impact of the extended stay in the transit zone on his well-being.
* **Violation of Article 5 for both applicants:** The Court reiterated that confinement in the transit zone amounted to a deprivation of liberty, infringing on their rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4.
* **Inadmissibility of age assessment complaints:** The Court highlighted the importance of lodging applications within six months of the events in question, especially concerning the lack of effective remedy.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainian asylum seekers or refugees who have experienced similar conditions or procedures in Hungary or other countries. It reinforces the importance of providing adequate living conditions and respecting the right to liberty and security, especially for vulnerable individuals such as minors.
CASE OF H.A. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Here’s a breakdown of the H.A. and Others v. Hungary decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Hungary in violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on Human Rights regarding an Iraqi family of six who sought asylum. The Court determined that the living conditions in the Tompa transit zone, where the family was confined for over six months, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment for the four minor children, violating Article 3. Additionally, the Court held that the family’s confinement in the transit zone constituted a de facto deprivation of liberty without proper justification or judicial review, violating Article 5. The Court awarded the family 17,500 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 1,500 EUR in respect of costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the case’s background, including the applicants’ arrival in Hungary, their asylum application, and the Court’s initial Rule 39 measure.
* It details the applicants’ complaints regarding living conditions, lack of medical care for a disabled child, and the absence of effective remedies.
* The Court assesses the alleged violation of Article 3, distinguishing between the adult applicants and the children. It references previous case law, particularly R.R. and Others v. Hungary, to establish the general principles regarding the confinement and living conditions of asylum-seekers.
* The Court finds a violation of Article 3 concerning the children due to the length and conditions of their stay in the transit zone, emphasizing the vulnerability of the children, especially one with a disability.
* Regarding the adult applicants, the Court finds no violation of Article 3, stating that the conditions, while prolonged, did not reach the threshold of severity required for adults, and the authorities had paid sufficient attention to the disabled child’s medical condition.
* The Court then addresses the violation of Article 5, determining that the confinement in the transit zone amounted to a deprivation of liberty, referencing R.R. and Others.
* Finally, the Court addresses Article 41, concerning just satisfaction, and awards the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Article 3 Violation for Children:** The decision reinforces that prolonged confinement of minor asylum seekers in conditions like those in the Hungarian transit zones constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment, especially when considering the children’s age, health, and vulnerability.
* **Article 5 Violation for Deprivation of Liberty:** The judgment confirms that confinement in transit zones can amount to de facto deprivation of liberty, requiring justification under Article 5 and access to judicial review.
* **Threshold of Severity:** The decision highlights the differing thresholds of severity under Article 3 for adults and children, with children being considered more vulnerable and requiring greater protection.
* **Burden of Proof:** The decision emphasizes the importance of providing evidence of specific needs or requests for assistance that were not met by the authorities, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals.
I hope this analysis is helpful.
CASE OF KYYKO v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the Kyyko v. Ukraine decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Articles 3, 8, and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the case of Mr. Sergiy Oleksandrovych Kyyko. The Court ruled that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment by the police, which was not properly investigated, and that his telephone conversations were recorded without proper judicial authorization, leading to a lack of effective remedy. While the applicant also complained about the use of these recordings as evidence against him, the Court found no violation of Article 6, stating that the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings was not compromised.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The case concerned the applicant’s complaints about ill-treatment by law enforcement, the lack of an effective investigation into it, and the unlawful interception of his telephone conversations, which were then used as evidence against him.
* **Criminal Proceedings:** The applicant was convicted of theft of transformer oil based partly on recordings of his telephone conversations. He argued that the interception was unlawful due to the lack of access to the judicial authorization.
* **Alleged Ill-Treatment:** The applicant claimed he was subjected to force and ill-treatment by police officers during a transfer to a detention center, resulting in injuries.
* **Court’s Assessment – Article 3:** The Court found that the injuries documented by the SIZO doctor constituted an arguable claim of ill-treatment, triggering an obligation for the authorities to conduct an effective investigation. The Court noted deficiencies in the investigation, including the delayed forensic medical examination and the failure to examine video recordings. The Court concluded that the State failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the applicant’s injuries, leading to a violation of Article 3 under both its procedural and substantive limbs.
* **Court’s Assessment – Article 8:** The Court acknowledged that the recording of the applicant’s telephone conversations constituted an interference with his rights under Article 8. The Court found that the national courts failed to carry out an effective judicial review of the lawfulness and necessity of the surveillance measures, leading to a violation of Article 8.
* **Court’s Assessment – Article 13:** The Court found that the applicant did not have effective remedies to challenge the lawfulness of the interception of his mobile phone conversations, leading to a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 8.
* **Court’s Assessment – Article 6:** The Court found that the evidence collected as a result of the surveillance measure had a limited impact on the applicant’s conviction. The Court concluded that the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant was not compromised.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Ill-treatment Investigation:** The decision reinforces the obligation of national authorities to conduct prompt, thorough, and effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment by law enforcement, especially when injuries are documented.
* **Secret Surveillance:** The decision highlights the need for domestic courts to ensure a proper balance between the interests of the surveillance subject and the public interest when dealing with requests for the disclosure of decisions authorizing covert operations.
* **Judicial Review:** The decision emphasizes that domestic courts must conduct an effective judicial review of the lawfulness and necessity of surveillance measures, providing sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness.
* **Burden of Proof:** When events lie within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, such as in cases of detention, the burden of proof rests on the authorities to provide a satisfactory explanation of events and refute allegations of ill-treatment.
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, particularly regarding the conduct of investigations into allegations of ill-treatment by law enforcement and the safeguards surrounding secret surveillance measures. It underscores the importance of transparency, accountability, and effective remedies in such cases.
CASE OF M.Y. AND OTHERS v. GREECE
Okay, I’m ready to provide a detailed description of the European Court of Human Rights decision in the case of M.Y. and Others v. Greece.
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled against Greece in a case involving multiple unaccompanied immigrant minors, finding violations of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that Greece failed to provide adequate reception conditions for these minors upon their arrival, including delays in registration, incorrect recording of birth dates, and lack of access to asylum procedures. The ECtHR also condemned the inhumane and degrading conditions of detention in police stations and pre-removal detention centers (PDCs), citing overcrowding, lack of hygiene, and inadequate medical care. Additionally, the Court found violations related to the lack of information about the reasons for detention and the absence of effective judicial review. The decision highlights the vulnerability of unaccompanied minors and the state’s obligation to prioritize their well-being. The Court awarded each applicant 3,900 euros in non-pecuniary damage.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins by outlining the subject matter of the case, which concerns the reception and detention conditions of unaccompanied immigrant minors in Greece. It then presents the accounts of both the applicants and the Greek Government. The Court decided to join the applications due to their similar subject matter. The core of the decision lies in the Court’s assessment of whether there were violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention. The Court addresses the admissibility of the complaints, dismissing the Government’s objections regarding victim status and exhaustion of domestic remedies. It then examines the merits of the complaints, finding violations of Article 3 concerning reception conditions, detention conditions in police stations and PDCs, and living conditions in the Malakasa camp. The Court also finds violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 regarding the lack of information about the reasons for detention and the absence of effective judicial review. Finally, the Court addresses the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) and awards damages to the applicants. The appendix provides detailed information about each applicant’s case, including their nationality, date of entry to Greece, and specific experiences.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Reception Conditions:** The decision emphasizes the importance of providing adequate reception conditions for unaccompanied minors, including timely registration, accurate age assessment, and access to information and asylum procedures.
* **Detention Conditions:** The ECtHR clearly condemns the detention of unaccompanied minors in inhumane and degrading conditions, highlighting the need for appropriate facilities, hygiene, medical care, and psychological support.
* **Right to Information and Judicial Review:** The decision underscores the right of detained minors to be informed of the reasons for their detention in a language they understand and to have access to effective judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention.
* **Vulnerability of Minors:** The Court reiterates that a child’s extreme vulnerability is the decisive factor and takes precedence over considerations relating to the status of illegal immigrant.
* **Burden of Proof:** The government claiming non-exhaustion must demonstrate that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible and capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints, and offered reasonable prospects of success.
CASE OF TĂBĂCARU AND BURDEINÎI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Tăbăcaru and Burdeinîi v. the Republic of Moldova:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Moldova violated Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence) in the case of Mr. Simion Tăbăcaru and Ms. Marcelina Burdeinîi. The case concerned the applicants’ eviction from an apartment where they had lived for 27 years without being provided with alternative accommodation. The Court found that the Moldovan Supreme Court of Justice failed to adequately consider the proportionality of the eviction, the applicants’ long-term occupancy, and the lack of clarity regarding the termination of their housing rights. The ECtHR emphasized that domestic courts must provide detailed reasoning when dealing with evictions, especially when the state is the administrator of the property.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** The application focused on the applicants’ eviction from their apartment without alternative housing, alleging violations of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
* **Background:** The applicants, father and daughter, had lived in the apartment since 1986 after being evicted from a communal apartment for maintenance work. Despite paying rent and utilities, they were never formally registered as residents.
* **Domestic Proceedings:** The municipality initiated court proceedings to evict the applicants, arguing they had been provided with alternative housing. The Supreme Court of Justice ultimately upheld the eviction, citing the closure of the applicants’ housing account and their registered address at another apartment.
* **Court’s Assessment:** The ECtHR found that the eviction constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home under Article 8. While acknowledging the lack of a formal occupancy voucher, the Court emphasized the long-term occupancy and the unclear circumstances surrounding the termination of their housing rights.
* **Proportionality:** The Court criticized the Supreme Court of Justice for failing to adequately weigh the competing interests, such as the applicants’ lack of alternative housing and the circumstances of the family who received the apartment.
* **Remaining Complaint:** Other complaints raised by the applicants were deemed inadmissible.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court rejected the claim for pecuniary damage but awarded the applicants 4,500 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 1,000 EUR for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Emphasis on Proportionality:** The decision underscores the importance of domestic courts thoroughly assessing the proportionality of eviction measures, especially when the state is involved.
* **Consideration of Long-Term Occupancy:** The Court highlighted the significance of considering the length of occupancy and the establishment of a “home” when evaluating the lawfulness and proportionality of an eviction.
* **Clarity in Termination of Housing Rights:** The decision stresses the need for clarity and transparency in the process of terminating housing rights, particularly when long-term residents are involved.
* **Weighing Competing Interests:** Domestic courts must weigh the competing interests of all parties involved, including the availability of alternative housing and the circumstances of those seeking to occupy the property.
This judgment reinforces the protection of the right to housing under Article 8 of the Convention and sets a precedent for similar cases involving evictions and the responsibilities of state authorities.
**** This decision may be relevant to cases in Ukraine involving the displacement of individuals and the protection of their housing rights, particularly in the context of conflict-related displacement and housing disputes.
