CASE OF BRADSHAW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Okay, I will provide you with a detailed description of the decision in the case of Bradshaw and Others v. the United Kingdom.
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined whether the UK violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention by failing to investigate alleged Russian interference in UK democratic elections and by not having an effective legal framework to prevent such interference. The applicants, British nationals and former Members of Parliament, argued that Russia’s disinformation campaigns and cyber-attacks threatened the integrity of elections. The Court acknowledged that hostile state interference could impair the essence of electors’ rights, potentially requiring states to adopt protective measures. However, the Court found that the UK had taken sufficient steps, including legislative and other measures, to counter the threat of Russian election interference, and therefore, the applicants’ rights were not violated. The Court emphasized that states have a wide margin of appreciation in this area, and there was no freestanding obligation to investigate arguable claims of a breach of individual rights under Article 3 P1.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the applicants’ claims regarding Russian interference in democratic elections and the UK’s alleged failure to investigate and implement protective measures. It then details the facts of the case, including the applicants’ judicial review application in the UK courts and relevant domestic reports on disinformation. The judgment outlines the relevant domestic law, including the Human Rights Act 1998, the Inquiries Act 2005, the Elections Act 2022, the National Security Act 2023, and the Online Safety Act 2023, as well as regulatory and oversight bodies like the Electoral Commission and the Counter Disinformation Unit. It also references international law and practice, including UN and Council of Europe resolutions and reports on disinformation and electoral integrity. The Court then assesses the admissibility of the application, focusing on the applicability of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and the applicants’ victim status. The Court outlines general principles regarding democracy, electoral rights, and the procedural obligation to investigate. Applying these principles, the Court finds Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 applicable but ultimately concludes there was no violation. The judgment includes a concurring opinion by Judge Jakab, who advocates for a more detailed analysis of the issues and clearer standards for states to address foreign electoral interference.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
Several provisions of this decision are particularly important:
* **Positive Obligation:** The ECtHR confirms that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 might require states to adopt positive measures to protect the integrity of their electoral processes in the event of a real risk that interference from a hostile state would impair the very essence of electors’ rights and deprive them of their effectiveness.
* **No Freestanding Obligation to Investigate:** The Court clarifies that there is no freestanding obligation to investigate arguable claims of a breach of individual rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. However, a failure to investigate credible allegations of interference could be relevant if it impedes the state’s ability to take positive measures to protect electoral integrity.
* **Margin of Appreciation:** The decision emphasizes that member states have a wide margin of appreciation in choosing how to respond to the threat of foreign election interference, given the lack of international consensus on specific actions.
* **Balancing Act:** The Court underscores the need to balance measures against disinformation with the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention, ensuring that any restrictions are proportionate and do not unduly interfere with the circulation of opinions and information.
* **Ongoing Review:** The decision highlights the importance of states keeping measures to counter hostile state actors under review, suggesting a dynamic and adaptive approach is necessary.
CASE OF DEMİRHAN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
Okay, I will provide you with a detailed description of the decision in the case of Demirhan and Others v. Türkiye.
Here is the analysis:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Türkiye in violation of Article 7 (no punishment without law) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the convictions of 239 Turkish nationals for membership of an armed terrorist organization. These convictions were primarily based on the use of the encrypted messaging application ByLock. The Court found that the domestic courts did not sufficiently establish the constituent elements of the offense in an individualized manner, particularly the mental element, and that the interpretation of domestic law was unforeseeable and expansive. The ECtHR applied the principles established in the Grand Chamber judgment of *Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye*, finding no reason to depart from those conclusions. The Court held that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage and that reopening of criminal proceedings, if requested, would be the most appropriate form of redress.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the applicants’ convictions for membership of an armed terrorist organization (FETÖ/PDY) based on their use of ByLock. It then details the facts, including the background of the attempted coup in Türkiye in 2016 and the subsequent investigations and convictions. The judgment references the Court’s ruling in *Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye*, which addressed similar issues. It outlines the relevant domestic law and practice, as well as Türkiye’s notice of derogation under Article 15 of the Convention. The Court then addresses the joinder of the applications and the preliminary question concerning the derogation. The core of the judgment assesses the alleged violation of Articles 7 and 6 § 1, finding the complaints admissible and ultimately holding that violations occurred. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, determining that the finding of a violation is sufficient and declining to award costs and expenses. Separate opinions from Judges Arnardóttir and Yüksel are annexed, providing concurring and dissenting viewpoints, respectively.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
The most important provisions of this decision are the reaffirmation of the principles established in *Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye* regarding the use of ByLock as primary evidence for convictions of terrorism-related offenses. The Court emphasizes that convictions must be based on individualized assessments that duly establish all constituent elements of the offense, including the mental element, and that a uniform and global approach to ByLock evidence is not sufficient. The decision highlights that the mere use of ByLock should not be equated with knowingly and willingly being a member of an armed terrorist organization. The judgment also clarifies that the reopening of domestic proceedings is the most appropriate form of redress for applicants, and it underscores the need for Türkiye to take general measures to address the systemic problem related to the domestic courts’ approach to ByLock evidence.
I hope this analysis is helpful for you.
CASE OF BANK SADERAT IRAN v. GREECE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Bank Saderat Iran v. Greece, concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in Greece. The applicant bank complained about the duration of proceedings initiated in 1980 regarding a compensation claim by another bank, Agrotiki Trapeza Ellados (ATE). The ECtHR found that the length of the proceedings, lasting over 33 years for two instances, violated Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concerning the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, finding it incompatible with the Convention. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant bank EUR 9,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,075 for costs and expenses.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural history and the facts of the case, outlining the initial claims, the various stages of the domestic proceedings, and the applicant’s complaints to the ECtHR. The Court then assesses the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, ultimately declaring it inadmissible. Following this, the Court examines the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, declaring them admissible and finding violations of both articles due to the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, and determines the amounts to be awarded to the applicant bank. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions in the provided text.
The most important provisions of this decision are the findings of violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. The ECtHR emphasized that the length of the proceedings was excessive, and the Greek legal system did not provide an effective remedy for complaints about the length of proceedings at the time. This highlights the importance of states ensuring that their judicial systems operate efficiently and provide remedies for violations of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
