CASE OF ĐORĐEVIĆ v. SERBIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Đorđević v. Serbia decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Serbia in violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the Convention. The case concerned the construction of a building near the applicant’s flat, which significantly reduced natural light and ventilation, essentially turning it into a basement. The Court held that the Serbian authorities failed to adequately consider the impact of the construction on the applicant’s living conditions and property value. The domestic courts did not assess the effect of the new building’s proximity on the quality of her daily life. This resulted in a failure to strike a fair balance between the interests of the community and the applicant’s rights, imposing an excessive burden on her.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets out the core issue: the impact of a new building on the applicant’s flat regarding light, ventilation, and property value.
* **Facts:** Details the timeline, including the applicant’s initial complaints about the construction, expert reports confirming the negative impact, and the domestic court proceedings.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines Serbian laws and Supreme Court precedents related to property rights, construction, and compensation for damages.
* **The Law:**
* **Preliminary Remarks:** Addresses and dismisses the government’s claim that the applicant abused her right of application by not initially disclosing she had sold the flat.
* **Article 8 Violation:**
* **Admissibility:** Establishes that Article 8 is applicable and dismisses the government’s objection regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies.
* **Merits:** Argues that Serbia failed to protect the applicant’s right to respect for her home by not addressing the impact of the construction on her living conditions.
* **Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation:**
* **Admissibility:** Dismisses the government’s objection regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies.
* **Merits:** Argues that Serbia failed to protect the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions by not providing compensation for the decrease in her property value.
* **Article 41 Application:** Awards the applicant compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.
3. **Key Provisions and Importance:**
* **Applicability of Article 8:** The Court emphasizes that Article 8 can be engaged even without direct physical intrusion, extending to environmental nuisances that severely impact living conditions.
* **Positive Obligations:** The decision highlights the State’s positive obligation to ensure respect for private life and home, requiring due diligence in considering competing interests during urban development.
* **Fair Balance:** The Court stresses the need to strike a fair balance between individual rights and the general interest of the community, particularly in urban planning decisions.
* **Good Governance:** The decision underscores the importance of good governance and consistent application of legal principles, especially when fundamental rights are at stake.
* **Disproportionate Burden:** The Court found that the applicant was forced to bear an excessive individual burden due to the authorities’ failure to address the negative impact of the construction on her property and living conditions.
CASE OF HELME v. ESTONIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Helme v. Estonia decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined whether Estonia violated Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention on Human Rights in the case of Mr. Peeter Helme. Helme was convicted based on evidence obtained from an undercover police operation where an officer, posing as a 12-year-old girl in an online chatroom, engaged in sexually explicit conversations with him. Helme argued he was entrapped, but the Court found no violation, emphasizing that the police had good reasons to initiate the operation due to information about potential sexual enticement of minors on the website, and the police action did not constitute incitement.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the case’s subject matter: alleged online entrapment and its impact on the fairness of the trial.
* **Facts:** Details the timeline, authorization, and execution of the undercover police operation, including the sexually explicit conversations between Helme and the undercover officer. It also covers the domestic court proceedings, including the applicant’s arguments and the courts’ reasoning for convicting him.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Cites Estonian criminal law regarding sexual enticement of minors, the use of undercover agents, and relevant domestic case law on permissible and impermissible incitement. It also references the Lanzarote Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse.
* **Law – Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1:** This section presents the applicant’s complaint regarding online entrapment and the Government’s counter-arguments.
* **Admissibility:** The Court declares the complaint admissible, finding it neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on other grounds.
* **Merits:** This is the core of the decision. It includes:
* **The parties’ observations:** Detailed arguments from both the applicant and the Estonian Government.
* **The Court’s assessment:**
* **General principles:** The Court outlines its established case-law on the use of undercover agents, the distinction between permissible investigation and unlawful incitement, and the substantive and procedural tests for incitement.
* **Application of the general principles to the present case:** The Court analyzes the specific facts of the case, considering the reasons for mounting the operation, the conduct of the authorities, and whether the applicant was incited to commit the offense.
* **Conclusion:** The Court concludes that there was no violation of Article 6 § 1.
* **Separate Opinions:** Includes a concurring opinion from Judge Pavli and a dissenting opinion from Judge Mingorance Cairat, offering alternative perspectives on the decision.
3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Online Context:** The decision acknowledges that this is the first case where the ECtHR has ruled on entrapment in a purely online context. This is significant as it sets a precedent for how undercover operations in online environments are assessed.
* **Reasons for Mounting the Operation:** The Court emphasizes that authorities must have “good reasons” for covert operations. While prior suspicion against a specific individual is usually required, the Court accepts that in online cases involving crimes against minors, a broader suspicion targeting a “defined and limited virtual space” may suffice.
* **Conduct of Authorities:** The Court reiterates that undercover officers must maintain a passive role and not incite the commission of an offense. The actions of the police in this case (creating a profile, chatting) were not considered unlawful incitement.
* **Dissenting Opinion:** The dissenting opinion raises concerns about the relaxation of requirements for undercover operations in the digital sphere and the risk of general surveillance of online communications.
This decision clarifies the boundaries of permissible undercover police operations in online contexts, particularly concerning crimes against minors. It balances the need to investigate and prosecute such crimes with the protection of individual rights to a fair trial.
CASE OF IMANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
Here’s a breakdown of the Imanov v. Azerbaijan decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found that Azerbaijan violated Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention on Human Rights in the case of Yalchin Imanov, a lawyer who was disbarred for making statements to the press about the alleged ill-treatment of his client in prison. The Court ruled that Imanov’s disbarment was a disproportionate sanction that infringed on his freedom of expression and right to private life. The Court emphasized that the statements concerned a matter of public interest and were not entirely baseless. The decision highlights the importance of protecting lawyers’ freedom of expression and their ability to advocate for their clients, even when it involves sensitive allegations against state institutions. The Court also underscored that disbarment is a severe penalty that should only be used in the most serious cases of misconduct.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the case, focusing on the disbarment of the applicant due to statements made to the press.
* **Facts:** Details the background, including the applicant’s role as a lawyer, the allegations of ill-treatment of his client (A.H.) in Gobustan Prison, and the applicant’s subsequent statements to the media. It also covers the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant, culminating in his disbarment by the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court, a decision upheld by higher courts.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** References domestic laws and international documents related to the legal profession and human rights.
* **Article 10 Violation:** Focuses on the alleged violation of freedom of expression.
* **Admissibility:** Declares the complaint admissible.
* **Merits:** Examines whether the interference with Imanov’s freedom of expression was justified. The Court finds that while the interference was “prescribed by law” and pursued a “legitimate aim” (protecting the reputation of others), it was not “necessary in a democratic society.”
* **Article 8 Violation:** Addresses the alleged violation of the right to respect for private life due to the disbarment.
* **Admissibility:** Determines that Article 8 is applicable and dismisses the government’s objection regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies.
* **Merits:** Concludes that the disbarment was indeed an interference with the applicant’s right to private life and that the reasons given by domestic courts were not sufficient to justify such a sanction.
* **Article 18 Violation:** The applicant also argued that his rights were restricted for purposes not prescribed in the Convention, but the Court decided that there was no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of this complaint.
* **Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation:** The applicant complained about an unjustified interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as a result of his disbarment, but the Court decided that there was no need to examine the admissibility and merits of this complaint.
* **Article 46 Application:** Discusses the implementation of the judgment and potential redress.
* **Article 41 Application:** Deals with just satisfaction, including damages and costs. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 for damages and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Freedom of Expression for Lawyers:** The decision reinforces the importance of protecting lawyers’ freedom of expression, especially when speaking about matters of public interest such as allegations of ill-treatment in prisons.
* **Proportionality of Sanctions:** It emphasizes that sanctions against lawyers must be proportionate and that disbarment should be reserved for the most serious cases of misconduct.
* **Chilling Effect:** The Court acknowledges that harsh sanctions against lawyers can have a chilling effect on their ability to effectively represent their clients and advocate for human rights.
* **Article 8 & Private Life:** The ruling confirms that disbarment significantly impacts a lawyer’s private life, engaging Article 8 of the Convention.
This decision serves as a reminder to states of their obligation to protect the rights of lawyers to speak freely and to ensure that disciplinary measures are not used to stifle dissent or discourage lawyers from taking on sensitive cases.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukraine, particularly in the context of ensuring the protection of lawyers who represent clients in politically sensitive cases or who speak out about human rights abuses. It reinforces the importance of upholding the principles of freedom of expression and proportionality in any disciplinary actions against lawyers.
CASE OF MISIŪNAS v. LITHUANIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Misiūnas v. Lithuania:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Lithuania violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to a fair trial) in the case of Mr. Misiūnas, a former judge. The core issue was his inability to effectively challenge the President’s decision not to reappoint him to his judicial post after he had served as a government minister. The ECtHR ruled that Mr. Misiūnas was denied access to a court to review the fairness and objectivity of the (re)appointment procedure. The Court emphasized that excluding a candidate who met the statutory requirements from a reappointment procedure without judicial review was not in line with the rule of law.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the case.
* **Facts:** Details the background, including Mr. Misiūnas’s initial appointment as a judge, his subsequent role as a government minister, his attempts to be reappointed, and the domestic court proceedings.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Cites Lithuanian constitutional and legal provisions related to the appointment and dismissal of judges, as well as relevant case law from the Constitutional Court.
* **The Law:**
* **Preliminary Remarks:** Summarizes the arguments of both the Lithuanian government and Mr. Misiūnas regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the merits of the case.
* **The Court’s Assessment:** This is the core of the decision.
* **Applicability of Article 6 § 1:** The Court establishes that Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial in civil matters) is applicable in this case. It analyzes whether Mr. Misiūnas had a “right” under domestic law, whether there was a genuine dispute, and whether the right was “civil” in nature, applying the Eskelinen test.
* **Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies:** The Court addresses the government’s argument that Mr. Misiūnas failed to exhaust domestic remedies, ultimately dismissing this objection.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1:** The Court analyzes whether Lithuania violated Mr. Misiūnas’s right to access a court. It concludes that the domestic courts failed to provide an effective legal remedy to address the substance of his complaint.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 13:** The Court finds it unnecessary to separately examine the complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court addresses the issue of just satisfaction, awarding Mr. Misiūnas compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
**3. Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Applicability of Article 6 to Judicial (Re)Appointments:** The decision confirms that Article 6 § 1 can apply to disputes concerning the fairness of procedures for (re)appointment to judicial posts, especially when a candidate meets the statutory requirements.
* **The Eskelinen Test:** The Court uses the Eskelinen test to determine the applicability of Article 6 § 1, emphasizing that excluding access to a court must be justified on objective grounds in the State’s interest.
* **Judicial Independence:** The decision underscores the importance of judicial independence and the need for judicial review in decisions affecting the careers of judges.
* **Right to a Fair Procedure:** The Court clarifies that the core issue was not the right to be appointed, but the right to a fair and objective procedure in the examination of an application for a judicial post.
* **Effective Legal Remedy:** The decision highlights the obligation of domestic courts to provide an effective legal remedy capable of addressing the substance of a complaint regarding the fairness of a (re)appointment procedure.
* **Distinction from Initial Appointments:** The Court distinguishes the case from situations involving initial appointments to the judiciary, emphasizing that Mr. Misiūnas had previously served as a judge.
This decision clarifies the scope of Article 6 § 1 in the context of judicial appointments and reappointments, reinforcing the importance of fair procedures and judicial review to safeguard judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary.
CASE OF PRENČA v. SERBIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Prenča v. Serbia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Serbia in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions). The case concerned a Serbian national who was fined and had a large sum of undeclared cash confiscated when he attempted to cross the border into Hungary. The ECtHR concluded that the confiscation was disproportionate, considering the circumstances, and that the domestic courts did not provide sufficient procedural guarantees to ensure a fair balance between the public interest and the applicant’s property rights. The Court emphasized the lack of clarity in the legal framework regarding the criteria for full versus partial confiscation and the inadequate assessment of proportionality by the Serbian authorities.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter. It then details the facts, including the applicant’s attempt to cross the border with undeclared cash, the subsequent misdemeanor proceedings, and the decisions of the Serbian courts. The judgment then outlines the relevant domestic legal framework and practice, including laws and regulations governing cross-border transfers of cash. It also references relevant international and European Union laws. The Court then addresses the Government’s preliminary objection regarding the alleged abuse of the right of petition, dismissing it. The core of the judgment is the assessment of whether there was a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court examines whether there was an interference with the applicant’s right of property, whether the interference was justified (provided by law, pursuing a legitimate aim, and proportionate), and concludes that a violation occurred due to disproportionality and lack of procedural guarantees. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, awarding the applicant compensation for pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
3. **Main Important Provisions:**
* **Disproportionate Confiscation:** The Court highlighted that confiscating the entire amount of undeclared cash was disproportionate to the offense, especially given the lack of evidence linking the money to serious criminal activity like money laundering.
* **Lack of Procedural Guarantees:** The Court criticized the domestic authorities for failing to provide the applicant with a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence against him, particularly regarding the origin of the money.
* **Imprecise Legal Framework:** The Court noted that the domestic law lacked clear criteria for determining when full versus partial confiscation should be applied, leading to arbitrary decisions.
* **Insufficient Review by Domestic Courts:** The Court found that the domestic courts did not adequately assess the proportionality of the confiscation measure, failing to strike a fair balance between the public interest and the applicant’s property rights.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court awarded the applicant EUR 39,500 for pecuniary damage, reflecting the full confiscated amount, and EUR 1,930 for costs and expenses.
This decision underscores the importance of clear legal frameworks and fair procedures when states impose measures that interfere with an individual’s property rights.
CASE OF ŠABANOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
This judgment concerns five applications against Serbia regarding inconsistent domestic case-law on salary supplements for police officers working overtime, at night, and on public holidays. The applicants, police officers employed by the Ministry of the Interior, claimed they were not adequately compensated for their work during unsociable hours between 2007 and 2011. The core issue was whether their existing salary coefficients already accounted for this work, as per Article 147 of the Police Act. The domestic courts initially dismissed their claims, citing that their salary coefficients were already increased by more than 30% for work during unsociable hours, thus excluding the application of general labor regulations.
The structure of the decision involves an examination of the facts, relevant domestic legal framework, and practice, followed by the Court’s assessment of the alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court addressed the government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, ultimately rejecting it. It then assessed the merits of the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The Court found that while there were inconsistencies in domestic case-law, the Serbian judicial system successfully addressed them within a reasonable timeframe through legal opinions issued by the Supreme Court.
The most important provision of this decision is the Court’s finding that there was no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court acknowledged the existence of conflicting court decisions but emphasized that such conflicts are inherent in any judicial system with multiple levels of courts. The Court highlighted that the domestic judicial system was ultimately successful in dealing with the inconsistencies in the case-law within a reasonably short period of time. Additionally, the Court found that the applicants did not have a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as their claims lacked a sufficient basis in domestic law due to the conflicting interpretations of the relevant legal provisions at the time their claims were adjudicated.
CASE OF STORIMANS-VERHULST AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Storimans-Verhulst and Others v. Russia decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns the death of a Dutch photojournalist, Mr. Stanislaus Storimans, and injuries to his colleagues during the 2008 armed conflict between Georgia and Russia in Gori, Georgia. The Court examined whether Russia had jurisdiction over the incident and whether it conducted an effective investigation into the death and injuries. The Court found that during the active phase of hostilities (August 8-12, 2008), Russia did not exercise “effective control” over the area and thus lacked jurisdiction regarding the substantive complaints. However, the Court established jurisdiction regarding the procedural aspect of Article 2 (right to life) concerning the lack of an effective investigation by Russian authorities into the incident. The Court concluded that Russia failed to conduct an adequate investigation, thereby violating the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets the context of the case, referring to the 2008 armed conflict between Georgia and Russia and the specific incident involving the applicants.
* **Facts:** Details the background of the conflict, the circumstances of Mr. Storimans’ death and his colleagues’ injuries, and the subsequent investigations (or lack thereof) by both Dutch and Russian authorities.
* **Relevant International Material:** Includes reports from the European Union and Human Rights Watch regarding the conflict and the use of cluster munitions.
* **The Law:**
* **Preliminary Remarks:** Addresses the Court’s temporal jurisdiction (given Russia’s cessation as a party to the Convention) and the six-month rule for lodging applications.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 2:** Examines the complaints under the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 2 (right to life).
* **Admissibility:** Discusses the parties’ submissions and the Court’s assessment regarding Russia’s jurisdiction in the context of the armed conflict. It references previous judgments, including *Georgia v. Russia (II)* and *Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia*.
* **Merits:** Assesses the applicants’ complaint under the procedural aspect of Article 2, finding that Russia failed to conduct an effective investigation.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** Briefly addresses complaints under Articles 13 and 14 but finds no need for separate examination.
* **Application of Article 41:** Deals with just satisfaction, awarding non-pecuniary damage to the applicants but rejecting the claim for pecuniary damage.
* **Costs and Expenses:** Makes no award as the applicants did not claim costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Jurisdiction during Armed Conflict:** The decision reaffirms the principle that during active phases of armed conflict, establishing “effective control” for the purpose of Article 1 jurisdiction is difficult. However, it clarifies that this does not create a blanket exclusion of jurisdiction and requires a fact-specific assessment.
* **Procedural Obligation to Investigate:** Even during or after an armed conflict, States have a procedural obligation to conduct an effective investigation into potential violations of the right to life. Failure to do so can result in a violation of Article 2, regardless of whether the State had “effective control” over the territory where the incident occurred.
* **Impact of *Georgia v. Russia (II)*:** The Court explicitly addresses how its findings in *Georgia v. Russia (II)* apply to this case, emphasizing that those findings were specific to the circumstances of that conflict.
* **Burden of Proof:** The decision highlights that when serious allegations and evidence are presented (such as the Dutch investigation’s findings), the State has a responsibility to take meaningful steps to clarify the circumstances of the incident.
This decision is a reminder that even in situations of armed conflict, states have obligations to protect human rights and investigate potential violations.
CASE OF DEÁK AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Deák and Others v. Romania*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled against Romania in a case involving multiple applicants who were unable to recover properties nationalized under the communist regime, which were subsequently sold to third parties. The Court found that Romania’s failure to either return the properties or provide adequate compensation violated the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court ordered Romania to return the properties or, failing that, to pay the applicants compensation based on a specific methodology. The Court also awarded sums for non-pecuniary damage and, in some cases, costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Locus Standi:** The Court allowed the heirs of one applicant to continue the application on his behalf after his death.
* **Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation:** The core of the decision focuses on the violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
* **Admissibility:** The Court rejected the government’s arguments regarding the failure to exhaust domestic remedies and the inapplicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. One application was struck out regarding complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 after the applicant received compensation reasonably related to the property’s value.
* **Merits:** The Court found that the applicants’ inability to recover their properties, despite court decisions acknowledging their rights, constituted a deprivation of possessions without adequate compensation.
* **Remaining Complaints:** Other complaints raised by one applicant under Article 6 of the Convention were found to not disclose any violation.
* **Article 41 of the Convention (Just Satisfaction):**
* The Court emphasized that a judgment finding a breach requires the State to end the violation and make reparation to restore the situation before the breach.
* The Court prioritized the return of the properties. If restitution is not possible, the Court ordered Romania to pay pecuniary damages calculated according to the methodology established in a previous case (*Văleanu and Others*).
* The Court awarded amounts for non-pecuniary damage to compensate for the interference with the applicants’ property rights.
* Some applicants received awards for costs and expenses.
* Default interest was set at the European Central Bank’s marginal lending rate plus three percentage points.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Restitution or Compensation:** The decision reinforces the principle that States must either return unlawfully nationalized property or provide compensation that is reasonably related to the property’s value.
* **Methodology for Compensation:** The Court refers to the *Văleanu and Others* case for the methodology to calculate pecuniary damage, providing a clear framework for assessing compensation in similar cases.
* **Prevention of Unjust Enrichment:** The decision includes a provision to prevent unjust enrichment, ensuring that any compensation already received by the applicants through domestic proceedings is deducted from the amounts awarded by the ECtHR.
* **Non-Pecuniary Damage:** The Court acknowledges that the violation of property rights causes non-pecuniary damage and awards sums to compensate for the distress and frustration experienced by the applicants.
CASE OF H.G.D. v. SERBIA
This decision concerns the case of H.G.D., an Iranian national, who was denied entry to Serbia at Belgrade airport in 2016 after attempting to use a falsified Israeli passport. The applicant was held in the airport’s transit zone for 26 days pending deportation to Turkey, in conditions the court found inadequate. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined the applicant’s complaints regarding the legality and conditions of his detention under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that Serbia had violated Article 5 §§ 1, 4, and 5 of the Convention, as there was no legal basis for the applicant’s detention, he had no means to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, and he was not entitled to compensation for the unlawful deprivation of liberty. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,800 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 for costs and expenses.
The judgment is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history and the facts of the case, followed by the applicant’s complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. The Court then assesses the admissibility of the complaints, declaring those under Article 5 §§ 1, 4, and 5 admissible, and the complaint under Article 5 § 2 inadmissible. The Court then provides its reasoning for finding violations of Article 5 §§ 1, 4, and 5, and concludes with the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs. There are no previous versions mentioned in the text.
The most important provisions of this decision are the findings of violations of Article 5 §§ 1, 4, and 5 of the Convention. The Court emphasized that the applicant’s detention in the airport transit zone lacked a clear legal basis under Serbian law, violating the principle of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness. Furthermore, the applicant was denied the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before a court, and he had no enforceable right to compensation for the period of unlawful detention.
CASE OF MAMMADZADE AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of Mammadzade and Others v. Azerbaijan, concerning complaints about the unlawful expropriation of properties by State authorities in Baku. The applicants alleged that their properties were demolished based on orders from the Baku City Executive Authority (BCEA) to expand the National Flag Square Complex. They were offered compensation of 1,500 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) per square meter, formalized through contracts of sale after the demolitions. The applicants argued that the compensation was too low and the expropriation unlawful, leading them to file lawsuits claiming pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The ECtHR found that the expropriation was not carried out in compliance with the conditions provided by law, violating Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.
The structure of the decision includes an overview of the subject matter, detailing the applicants’ complaints and the domestic proceedings. It assesses the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, referencing established case-law on property rights and the requirement for lawful interference by public authorities. The Court also addresses other alleged violations, including the non-enforcement of a domestic court judgment, and determines just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention, awarding compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.
The most important provision of this decision is the finding that the expropriation of the applicants’ properties was not carried out in compliance with the law, specifically because the BCEA lacked the authority to expropriate private property and no lawful expropriation order was issued by a competent State authority. This confirms the importance of adherence to legal procedures in expropriation cases and highlights the State’s obligation to ensure that any interference with property rights is lawful and justified. The Court also addressed the non-enforcement of a domestic court judgment, which is a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
CASE OF SADIGOV v. AZERBAIJAN
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined the case of Sadigov v. Azerbaijan, concerning the alleged unlawful demolition of a shop built by the applicant in Baku. The applicant, editor-in-chief of a newspaper, claimed the demolition violated his property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, and that he did not receive a reasoned judgment, violating Article 6. The Court focused on whether the demolition of the shop and expropriation of the land were unlawful and whether the applicant was entitled to compensation. The Court found the applicant’s complaints regarding the plot of land and the non-residential property inadmissible, as he failed to prove registered ownership or legal construction. However, the Court found that Azerbaijan failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention, concerning the right of individual application, due to the search of the applicant’s lawyer’s office.
The judgment begins by outlining the case’s background, including the applicant’s claims and the domestic courts’ decisions. It then assesses the alleged violations of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, ultimately focusing its analysis on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court examines whether the applicant had “possessions” in the form of the plot of land and the non-residential property. It details the government’s arguments and the applicant’s counterarguments, referencing relevant domestic laws and previous ECtHR case law. The judgment concludes by addressing the alleged violation of Article 34 of the Convention and the application of Article 41, concerning just satisfaction.
The main provisions of the decision are the findings regarding the admissibility of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and the finding of a violation of Article 34 of the Convention. The Court deemed the complaints regarding the plot of land and the non-residential property inadmissible because the applicant failed to establish legal ownership or compliance with construction regulations. However, the Court found a violation of Article 34, referencing a similar case (Annagi Hajibeyli) and concluding that the search of the lawyer’s office infringed upon the applicant’s right to individual application. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 500 for costs and expenses but held that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.
