CASE OF CANGI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (No. 2)
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Cangı and Others v. Türkiye (No. 2)*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns a complaint regarding the fairness of court proceedings related to an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for a nickel mine in Türkiye. The applicants argued that domestic courts, including the Constitutional Court, failed to adequately address their objections to the expert assessment used in approving the EIA report. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing in civil matters) was applicable only to those applicants who lived in close proximity to the mine. The Court concluded that the administrative courts’ reasoning was insufficient, particularly regarding the expert report’s assessment of water resource management and the risk of sulphuric acid mist, and that the Constitutional Court failed to properly examine the applicants’ Article 6 complaint, leading to a violation of the Convention.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction and Facts:** The judgment outlines the background of the case, including the applicants’ complaints, the domestic court proceedings, and the arguments presented.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** References the domestic legal framework and jurisprudence relevant to the case.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 of the Convention:** This section forms the core of the judgment.
* **Admissibility:** The Court examines whether the application is admissible, focusing on:
* *Ratione personae* (victim status): The Court distinguishes between applicants based on their proximity to the mine, finding that only those living nearby could claim to be directly affected.
* *Ratione materiae* (compatibility with the Convention): The Court determines whether Article 6 § 1 applies to the proceedings, considering whether a genuine “dispute” over “civil rights and obligations” existed.
* **Non-Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies:** The government argued that the applicants had not exhausted all available domestic remedies, but the Court dismissed this objection.
* **Merits:** The Court assesses the substance of the applicants’ complaints, focusing on whether the domestic courts provided sufficient reasoning for their decisions.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Deals with the issue of just satisfaction (compensation) for the violation found.
3. **Main Provisions and Important Aspects:**
* **Applicability of Article 6 § 1:** The decision clarifies the criteria for Article 6 § 1 to apply in environmental cases, particularly regarding victim status. It emphasizes that a direct and personal impact is necessary, especially for individuals claiming to be affected by environmental damage.
* **Sufficiency of Reasoning:** The Court stresses the importance of domestic courts providing adequate reasoning for their decisions, especially when relying on expert opinions in complex technical matters. The reasoning must address specific and pertinent points raised by the applicants.
* **Role of Constitutional Courts:** The decision highlights the obligation of constitutional courts to provide effective review of arguable complaints under the Convention, including those related to the fairness of proceedings in lower courts.
* **Distinction from Climate Change Cases:** The Court explicitly states that the high threshold for victim status established in *Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland* is confined to cases concerning climate change, and that the established case-law with respect to classic environmental disputes remains in place.
I hope this analysis is helpful.
CASE OF GOOGLE LLC AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Google LLC and Others v. Russia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights in its actions against Google LLC and its subsidiaries. The case involved substantial fines imposed on Google for failing to remove content from YouTube, including political speech and war reporting, and for not restoring a television channel’s account. The Court found that these measures were disproportionate, lacked proper legal justification, and interfered with the free exchange of information. Additionally, the Court determined that the Russian courts failed to provide adequate reasoning for their decisions, undermining the applicant companies’ right to a fair trial. The ECHR emphasized that the severity and scale of the penalties created a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Outlines the case’s background, including the applicant companies and the nature of their complaints.
* **Facts:** Details the administrative proceedings related to content removal requests and the civil proceedings concerning the restoration of the Tsargrad TV YouTube account. It also covers enforcement actions, such as the seizure of Google Russia’s assets and subsequent developments, including the bankruptcy of Google Russia.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Describes the domestic laws and international materials relevant to the case, including the Information Act, the Code of Administrative Offences, and the EU Digital Services Act.
* **The Law:**
* **Preliminary Issues:** Addresses the consequences of the Russian Government’s non-participation and the examination of complaints by Google Russia.
* **Article 10 Violation (Content Removal):** Analyzes whether the fines imposed on Google LLC for failing to remove content violated Article 10.
* **Article 10 Violation (Hosting Tsargrad TV):** Examines whether the requirement to host content from Tsargrad TV violated Google LLC’s freedom of expression.
* **Article 6 Violation:** Assesses whether the Russian courts provided sufficient reasoning for their decisions.
* **Remaining Complaints:** States that the main legal questions have been examined, and there is no need for separate rulings on other complaints.
* **Article 41 Application:** Notes that the applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.
* **Operative Part:** Summarizes the Court’s holdings, declaring the application admissible and finding violations of Articles 10 and 6.
* **Concurring Opinion of Judge Pavli:** Provides additional observations on the rights and responsibilities of major online platform operators.
3. **Main Important Provisions:**
* **Violation of Article 10 (Freedom of Expression):** The Court found that the substantial fines imposed on Google LLC for failing to comply with take-down requests concerning user-generated content hosted on YouTube, as well as the requirement to host content from Tsargrad TV, violated Article 10 of the Convention. The Court emphasized that the severity of the penalties, combined with the threat of further sanctions, exerted considerable pressure to censor content.
* **Violation of Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial):** The Court held that the Russian courts failed to provide adequate reasoning for their decisions, undermining the applicant companies’ right to a fair trial. This included imposing fines based on the revenue of multiple entities without justification and failing to address key arguments raised by the applicant companies.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention.
* **Rights and Responsibilities of Major Online Platform Operators:** The concurring opinion by Judge Pavli discusses the rights and responsibilities of major online platforms, noting that they can no longer be regarded as “mere” intermediaries and play a significant role in shaping the online information environment.
This decision highlights the importance of protecting freedom of expression online and ensuring that legal proceedings are fair and well-reasoned, particularly in cases involving internet intermediaries.
CASE OF RAFIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Rafiyev v. Azerbaijan:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Azerbaijan in violation of several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the arrest and conviction of Mr. Rafiyev, a follower of Nurism, for participating in an unauthorized religious meeting at a private residence. The Court ruled that his detention was arbitrary and lacked legal justification, violating Article 5 § 1. It also found that the domestic courts failed to provide adequate reasoning for his conviction, violating Article 6 § 1. Furthermore, the Court determined that Azerbaijan unjustifiably interfered with Mr. Rafiyev’s right to freedom of religion, contravening Article 9 of the Convention. The Court awarded Mr. Rafiyev compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter. It then details the facts, including Mr. Rafiyev’s religious affiliation, his arrest during a visit to a friend’s house, and his subsequent conviction for violating rules on religious meetings. The judgment references relevant Azerbaijani laws and an international document (Venice Commission opinion) concerning freedom of religious belief. The Court then addresses the Government’s request to strike out the application, which it refuses. The judgment proceeds to analyze the alleged violations of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), and Article 9 (freedom of religion). For each article, the Court considers admissibility and merits, ultimately finding violations. Finally, it addresses Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding damages and costs to the applicant. There are no explicit changes compared to previous versions mentioned in the text, as it is a single judgment.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Arbitrary Detention (Article 5 § 1):** The Court emphasizes that detaining an individual without proper legal justification and without recording the detention details constitutes a severe violation of Article 5. This highlights the importance of clear legal procedures and documentation when depriving someone of their liberty.
* **Fair Hearing (Article 6 § 1):** The decision underscores the necessity for domestic courts to provide adequate reasoning for their judgments, especially when conflicting evidence exists. Courts must address specific arguments made by the accused and not merely accept the authorities’ version of events.
* **Freedom of Religion (Article 9):** The Court clarifies that while states may require religious organizations to register, they cannot sanction individual members for practicing their faith, even if the organization is unregistered. The decision reinforces the principle that freedom of religion includes the right to manifest beliefs in private settings and that restrictions must be “prescribed by law” with sufficient precision.
* **”Prescribed by Law” Requirement:** The Court emphasizes that any interference with freedom of religion must have a clear and foreseeable basis in domestic law. The law must be accessible and predictable in its application.
This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding fundamental rights, including freedom of religion and the right to a fair trial, and of ensuring that any restrictions on these rights are clearly defined and justified under the law.
: This decision is related to Azerbaijan, but the principles discussed regarding arbitrary detention, fair trial, and freedom of religion are universally applicable and relevant to Ukraine and Ukrainians, especially in the context of ensuring human rights protections.
CASE OF ISMAILAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Ismailaj and Others v. Albania decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Albania in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) due to a lack of impartiality in the Supreme Court proceedings concerning the confiscation of the applicants’ assets. A Supreme Court judge, K.K., had previously examined the merits of closely related first-instance proceedings against two of the applicants. The Court determined that this created objectively justified doubts regarding the judge’s impartiality, as similar legal issues were considered in both proceedings, and the applicants were not given an opportunity to raise the issue of impartiality in a timely manner. The Court also suggested that Albania should consider a retrial or reopening of the proceedings to remedy the violation.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the case, focusing on the alleged partiality of a Supreme Court judge in asset confiscation proceedings.
* **Facts:** Details the background, including criminal investigations against the first applicant (Kastriot Ismailaj) for money laundering, and two sets of proceedings for the confiscation of assets under Albania’s “Anti-mafia Act.”
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Cites the relevant provisions of Albanian law, including the “Anti-mafia Act” and the Code of Criminal Procedure, which govern asset confiscation and judicial impartiality.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1:** Presents the applicants’ complaint that their right to an impartial tribunal was violated due to Judge K.K.’s participation in the cassation proceedings.
* **Admissibility:** Addresses the Government’s objections regarding the admissibility of the application, including arguments about “fourth-instance” complaints and victim status. The Court rejects these objections.
* **Merits:** Examines the substance of the complaint, focusing on whether the judge’s prior involvement in related proceedings created objectively justified doubts about impartiality.
* **The Court’s Assessment:** Applies the principles of impartiality, both subjective and objective, to the facts of the case. It finds that the judge’s prior involvement in similar proceedings raised legitimate doubts about impartiality, leading to a violation of Article 6 § 1.
* **Application of Articles 46 and 41:** Discusses the measures Albania must take to comply with the judgment, including the possibility of a retrial or reopening of the proceedings. It also addresses the issue of just satisfaction, awarding the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Objective Impartiality:** The decision emphasizes the importance of objective impartiality, meaning that even if a judge is not personally biased, the circumstances of their prior involvement in a case can create legitimate doubts about their impartiality.
* **Similar Legal Issues:** The Court highlights that when a judge has previously examined the merits of closely related proceedings involving similar legal issues, it can raise concerns about impartiality.
* **Opportunity to Raise Concerns:** The decision stresses the importance of providing parties with an opportunity to raise concerns about impartiality in a timely manner.
* **Remedies:** The Court suggests that a retrial or reopening of the proceedings is an appropriate way to redress a violation of Article 6, particularly in cases involving a lack of judicial impartiality.
* **Burden of Proof:** The court noted that under the Act the burden of proof rested with the applicants and they had not proved that the funds in the bank accounts, which totalled approximately one million United States dollars, had been earned lawfully.
I hope this helps!
CASE OF LEVON v. LITHUANIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Levon v. Lithuania decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined a case where a Lithuanian man, Mr. Levon, alleged that the domestic proceedings concerning his father’s death in a hospital due to alleged medical negligence were ineffective. Mr. Levon argued that the courts failed to conduct an objective and thorough examination of the medical treatment his father received. The ECtHR found that Lithuania had complied with its procedural obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life). The Court emphasized that the civil proceedings, combined with a parallel pre-trial investigation, provided a sufficiently thorough and impartial examination of the circumstances surrounding the death.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets the stage by outlining the case’s focus on the effectiveness of domestic proceedings related to a hospital death.
* **Facts:** Details the timeline of events, including the father’s illness, ambulance transport, hospital stay, and eventual death. It also covers the internal inquiries, civil proceedings (including the Commission for the Determination of Damage Caused to Patients’ Health and court actions), and criminal proceedings initiated by the applicant.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Provides the context of Lithuanian laws and regulations relevant to the case, including the Constitution, Criminal Code, Code of Civil Procedure, and Patients’ Act.
* **Law:** This section contains the applicant’s complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, preliminary remarks, admissibility conditions, the parties’ submissions, the Court’s assessment, and the general principles regarding the States’ procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention in the context of healthcare.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 2:** The Court analyzes whether Lithuania adequately investigated the death, considering both civil and criminal proceedings.
* **Decision:** The Court declares the application admissible but ultimately holds that there was no violation of Article 2.
3. **Key Provisions for Use:**
* **Procedural Obligations under Article 2:** The decision reinforces the State’s duty to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into potential violations of the right to life, even in cases of alleged medical negligence.
* **Combination of Remedies:** The Court considers the effectiveness of the legal system as a whole, assessing both civil and criminal proceedings in determining whether the State has met its procedural obligations.
* **Expert Assessment:** The decision clarifies that while expert assessments are important, the courts have discretion in deciding whether to order them. The lack of an expert assessment does not automatically render proceedings ineffective, especially if other evidence is available.
* **Burden of Proof:** The decision highlights that the burden of proof lies with the applicant to demonstrate inadequate medical treatment and a causal link to the death.
* **No Obligation of Result:** The Court reiterates that Article 2 is an obligation of means, not of result. A negative outcome for the applicant does not automatically indicate a violation of the Convention.
This decision emphasizes the importance of accessible and adversarial proceedings, ensuring that applicants have a reasonable opportunity to present their case when alleging medical negligence.
CASE OF GURBANOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Gurbanova v. Azerbaijan, concerning the demolition and expropriation of the applicant’s property in Baku. The applicant complained that the demolition was unlawful and the compensation inadequate, violating her property rights. The ECHR found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as the demolition was not carried out in compliance with domestic law, specifically the Housing Code. The Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint regarding the non-enforcement of the final judgment and found it unnecessary to examine the remaining complaints. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,023 for legal costs and postal expenses.
The decision begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicant’s ownership of two flats, the demolition of the building due to its state of disrepair, and the subsequent legal proceedings in Azerbaijan. The Court then assesses the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, focusing on whether the interference with the applicant’s possessions was lawful. It also examines the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 regarding the timely enforcement of the domestic courts’ final judgment. Finally, the Court addresses the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction under Article 41, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. Compared to previous versions, this decision provides a clear and concise analysis of the specific circumstances of the case, focusing on the procedural shortcomings in the demolition process.
The most important provision of this decision is the finding that the demolition of the applicant’s property was not carried out in compliance with the “conditions provided for by law,” as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court emphasized that no court decision regarding the condition of the building or the impossibility of renovating it was obtained prior to the demolition, violating the explicit procedure established in Article 28 of the Housing Code. This highlights the importance of following due process and ensuring that any interference with property rights is conducted in accordance with the law.
CASE OF HÖLSCHER v. GERMANY
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of Hölscher v. Germany:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns a German applicant, Mr. Thomas Hölscher, who was convicted of several financial crimes. His appeal against the conviction was dismissed by a German regional court because he failed to attend a hearing, even though his lawyer was present. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Germany violated Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance) because the applicant was not properly summoned to the hearing, making the dismissal of his appeal without examining its merits unfair.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicant’s criminal convictions and subsequent appeals within the German legal system.
* It details the contradictory summonses issued to the applicant, which led to confusion about whether his presence at the hearing was mandatory.
* The Court then assesses the alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention, referencing previous case law on the right to a fair trial and legal representation.
* The Court emphasizes that even if a defendant is properly summoned but doesn’t appear, they should not be deprived of their right to be defended by counsel. This principle applies even more strongly when the applicant was not properly summoned in the first place.
* The judgment concludes that the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal without examining its merits violated his rights under the Convention.
* Finally, it addresses Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), noting that the applicant did not submit a claim for compensation.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The core takeaway is that a court cannot dismiss an appeal without considering its merits if the defendant was not properly summoned to the hearing, even if their lawyer is present.
* The judgment reinforces the importance of clear and unambiguous communication from the court to the defendant regarding the necessity of their presence at hearings and the potential consequences of their absence.
* It reiterates the principle that the right to legal representation remains even when a defendant is absent, especially when that absence is due to improper notification.
* The decision highlights the need for national courts to ensure that procedural rules are applied in a way that respects the fundamental rights of the accused.
CASE OF ISKOLSKIY v. AZERBAIJAN
Here’s a breakdown of the Iskolskiy v. Azerbaijan judgment:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Azerbaijan in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the unlawful expropriation of property. The case revolved around the demolition of the applicant’s flat (no. 17) by the State Department of the Historical and Architectural Reserve of Icharishahar (SDHAR). The Court determined that the demolition was not carried out in accordance with the “conditions provided for by law,” as there was no prior court decision regarding the condition of the flat and the impossibility of its renovation. While the applicant also complained about the demolition of flats nos. 9 and 11 and the lack of compensation for the land, the Court rejected these claims. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Defines the core issue as the allegedly unlawful expropriation of the applicant’s property.
* **Factual Background:** Details the applicant’s property ownership, the establishment of a special protection zone, the demolition of the flat, and the domestic court proceedings.
* **Complaints:** Summarizes the applicant’s grievances under Article 6 (right to a reasoned judgment) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **The plot of land:** The Court found that the applicant did not have separate ownership rights to the land underlying the building, as it was in common ownership with other apartment owners.
* **Flats nos. 9 and 11:** The Court found that the applicant himself had demolished these flats, and therefore, this part of the complaint was rejected.
* **Flat no. 17:** The Court declared this part of the complaint admissible. It reiterated the principles of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, emphasizing the requirement of lawfulness in any interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The Court found that the demolition of flat no. 17 was not carried out in compliance with domestic law, as there was no prior court decision authorizing the demolition.
* **Other Complaints:** The Court decided that it was unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 6, as it had already addressed the main legal question.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Addresses the applicant’s claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Court rejected the claim for pecuniary damage, as the applicant had already received compensation. However, it awarded EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Lawfulness of Interference:** The judgment underscores the critical importance of adhering to domestic legal procedures when interfering with an individual’s property rights. Any deprivation of possessions must be carried out in accordance with the “conditions provided for by law.”
* **Prior Court Decision:** The absence of a prior court decision authorizing the demolition of the flat was a key factor in the Court’s finding of a violation. This highlights the need for due process and judicial oversight in such cases.
* **Compensation:** While the Court acknowledged that the applicant had already received compensation, it awarded additional compensation for non-pecuniary damage, recognizing the distress caused by the unlawful demolition.
CASE OF MARIANA POPA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Mariana Popa and Others v. Romania decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Romania in violation of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation into the deaths and injuries that occurred during the December 1989 demonstrations. The applicants, who were either injured or are relatives of those killed, complained about the lack of progress in identifying and punishing those responsible. The Court emphasized that the investigation, initiated in 1990, has been excessively long and has not met the required standards of diligence and effectiveness. Consequently, the applicants were deprived of an effective investigation into their cases. The Court awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and, in some cases, for legal costs.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** The decision addresses the complaints of individuals injured or families of those killed during the December 1989 Romanian Revolution.
* **Complaints:** The applicants primarily relied on Article 2 (right to life) regarding the ineffective investigation. Some also raised concerns under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
* **Court’s Assessment:**
* The Court joined the applications due to their similar subject matter.
* It dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection regarding the applicants’ victim status.
* The Court declared the complaints concerning Article 2 admissible.
* It found a violation of Article 2 due to the lack of an effective investigation.
* It deemed it unnecessary to examine the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, given the finding under Article 2.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded compensation to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 2 (procedural limb):** The core finding is that Romania failed to conduct an effective criminal investigation into the deaths and injuries from the 1989 Revolution. This highlights the State’s obligation to thoroughly investigate cases of death or serious injury, especially when State agents may be implicated.
* **Length of Investigation:** The Court stressed that the 34-year duration of the investigation, with little progress, is unacceptable. This underscores the requirement for investigations to be conducted with reasonable expedition.
* **Victim Status:** The Court reiterated that merely initiating an investigation does not deprive applicants of victim status if the investigation is ineffective and does not provide redress.
* **Compensation:** The decision sets a precedent for awarding compensation for the distress and frustration caused by ineffective investigations into serious human rights violations.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it highlights the importance of conducting thorough and timely investigations into alleged human rights violations, especially in the context of ongoing or past conflicts. The principles outlined in this judgment can be used to assess the effectiveness of investigations into conflict-related deaths and injuries and to advocate for the rights of victims and their families to receive justice and redress.
CASE OF RADU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
This judgment concerns five applications against Romania lodged with the European Court of Human Rights regarding injuries sustained during the December 1989 demonstrations that led to the fall of the communist regime. The applicants complained about the lack of an effective criminal investigation into their injuries and, in some cases, about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. The Court unanimously decided to join the applications and declared the complaints concerning Article 2 of the Convention admissible. It found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb, concluding that the applicants were deprived of an effective investigation into their cases. The Court held that it was not necessary to examine the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, concerning the length of proceedings, and awarded each applicant EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage, plus EUR 500 for lawyer’s fees where applicable.
The judgment is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural details, including the parties involved and the background of the case. It then outlines the subject matter, detailing the facts as submitted by the parties, including the injuries sustained by each applicant and the status of the domestic criminal investigations. The Court then assesses the case, addressing the joinder of the applications, the alleged violation of Article 2, and the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this is the initial judgment on these specific applications.
The most important provision of this decision is the finding of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention due to the lack of an effective criminal investigation into the applicants’ injuries sustained during the December 1989 events. This confirms the ongoing failure of the Romanian authorities to conduct a thorough and expeditious investigation into these events, despite the passage of over three decades. The decision also highlights the importance of investigating cases where State agents used firearms, even if the victims survived, emphasizing that such actions fall within the scope of the safeguard afforded by Article 2.
CASE OF THEODOROS VAVOULAS & SIA OE v. GREECE
Here’s an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of Theodoros Vavoulas & Sia OE v. Greece:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Greece in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to a fair trial). The case concerned a company whose application for annulment of an administrative decision was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court due to the late completion of court fees. The ECtHR concluded that the national court’s interpretation of procedural rules made it practically impossible for the company to comply with the deadline, thus infringing on its right of access to a court. The Court emphasized that the company could not have known when the file reached the Supreme Administrative Court, making it impossible to calculate the deadline.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Details the factual background, including the grant received by the applicant company, the subsequent revocation decision, and the legal proceedings that led to the Supreme Administrative Court’s rejection of the application for annulment.
* **Relevant Domestic Law and Practice:** Outlines the pertinent articles of Presidential Decree No. 18/1989 regarding court fees and the established case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court on the time limits for completing these fees.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention:** This section forms the core of the judgment. The Court reiterates the general principles concerning the right of access to a court and examines whether the procedural rules were foreseeable for the applicant company.
* The Court found that the time-limit for the completion of the court fee due started to run when the physical file had reached the court’s registry.
* The Court notes that there is no statutory procedure ensuring the notification of the applicant about the receipt of the physical file by the Supreme Administrative Court.
* The Court concludes that the requirement to complete the court fee within a specific timeframe was impossible to comply with, as the applicant company was not informed about the date when the Supreme Administrative Court received the physical file.
* The Court found that an obligation was imposed on the applicant company with which it could not practically comply.
* The Court considers that the impugned measure was disproportionate to the objective of guaranteeing legal certainty and the good administration of justice.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Addresses the applicant company’s claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Court rejects the claim for pecuniary damage due to the lack of a causal link with the violation found but awards EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
* **Operative Provisions:**
* Declares the application admissible.
* Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
* Orders the respondent State to pay the applicant company EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
* Dismisses the remainder of the applicant company’s claim for just satisfaction.
3. **Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Foreseeability of Procedural Rules:** The judgment underscores the importance of clear and foreseeable procedural rules in ensuring the right of access to a court. National courts must apply these rules consistently.
* **Notification Requirements:** The ECtHR highlights the necessity of informing litigants about critical events in the proceedings, such as the receipt of a case file by a court, which triggers a time limit.
* **Proportionality:** The decision reiterates that procedural requirements must be proportionate to the objective they seek to achieve. Rejecting an application for a minor delay in completing court fees can be disproportionate, especially when compliance is practically impossible.
CASE OF TÜZEMEN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s a breakdown of the Tüzemen and Others v. Türkiye decision:
1. **Essence:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined multiple applications concerning the arrest and pre-trial detention of individuals in Türkiye following the 2016 coup attempt. These individuals were suspected of being members of the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” (FETÖ/PDY). The Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, holding that there was a lack of reasonable suspicion to justify the initial pre-trial detention of the applicants. The Court emphasized that factors such as using the ByLock messaging system, possessing certain publications, or having accounts with Bank Asya, without further concrete evidence, were insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. The ECHR also noted that the national courts provided vague justifications for the detentions, failing to specify the evidence supporting the suspicion.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment addresses 117 applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* It focuses on complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, specifically the lack of reasonable suspicion for the initial pre-trial detention.
* The Court dismisses the Government’s objections regarding admissibility, referring to similar objections dismissed in previous cases.
* The judgment assesses the evidentiary grounds relied upon by the national courts, such as the use of ByLock, banking activities, possession of publications, and other contacts or affiliations.
* It references previous rulings, such as Akgün v. Turkey and Taner Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 2), to establish that certain acts, like using ByLock or subscribing to lawful publications, do not automatically constitute reasonable suspicion.
* The Court concludes that the general references to Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence in the file were insufficient to justify the “reasonableness” of the suspicion.
* The Court awards EUR 5,000 to each applicant (excluding those in applications nos. 69572/17, 82344/17, 24217/19, 44360/19, 22579/21 and 51815/21) for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The decision reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention must be based on specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence.
* It clarifies that certain circumstantial elements, such as using ByLock, subscribing to publications, or having accounts with specific banks, are not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion without further probative evidence.
* The judgment emphasizes the need for national courts to provide individualized assessments and specific justifications when ordering and extending pre-trial detention, rather than relying on general references to legal provisions or the “evidence in the file.”
* The decision highlights that even in the context of a state of emergency, measures must be strictly required by the exigencies of the situation to comply with Article 5 of the Convention.
**** This decision is related to the arrest and pre-trial detention of individuals in Türkiye following the 2016 coup attempt, which may have implications for Ukrainians who may find themselves in similar situations.
CASE OF ZEYNALOV AND SADIGOV v. AZERBAIJAN
Here’s a breakdown of the Zeynalov and Sadigov v. Azerbaijan decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Azerbaijan in violation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. The case involved a journalist (Zeynalov) in pre-trial detention and his lawyer (Sadigov). The violation stemmed from the routine searches of the journalist before and after meetings with his lawyer, the inspection of the lawyer’s documents after those meetings, and the seizure of a letter the journalist had entrusted to his lawyer to send to government ministers. The Court ruled that these actions were not “necessary in a democratic society” and thus unjustifiably interfered with their rights.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins by outlining the facts of the case, including the background of the applicants, the searches and inspections they were subjected to, and the seizure of the letter. It then details the applicants’ complaints and the domestic courts’ handling of the case. The Court’s assessment follows, focusing on the alleged violation of Article 8. The ECtHR examined whether the interference was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society. It concluded that while the interference might have pursued a legitimate aim (prevention of disorder or crime), it was not necessary in a democratic society because there was no suspicion or evidence of wrongdoing by the applicants. The judgment also addresses the remaining complaints regarding audio and video surveillance but finds it unnecessary to examine them further. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Lawyer-Client Confidentiality:** The decision reinforces the importance of lawyer-client confidentiality, emphasizing that Article 8 provides “strengthened protection” to exchanges between lawyers and their clients.
* **Necessity in a Democratic Society:** The Court highlights that any interference with the right to respect for private life and correspondence must be “necessary in a democratic society,” meaning it must be justified by a “pressing social need” and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
* **Lack of Suspicion:** The Court emphasizes that the authorities were not acting on any suspicion or concrete evidence of wrongdoing when they decided to conduct searches and inspections and to seize the letter.
* **Irrelevance of Letter’s Addressee:** The Court found irrelevant the government’s argument that the seized letter was not addressed to the lawyer, reiterating that Article 8 protects the confidentiality of private communications, whatever the content of the correspondence concerned, and whatever form it may take.
This decision underscores the need for authorities to respect lawyer-client confidentiality and to ensure that any interference with this right is justified by a pressing social need and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
