CASE OF ISKRA DOO BEOGRAD v. SERBIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Iskra DOO Beograd v. Serbia, concerning the unlawful demolition of the applicant company’s fence and seizure of land in Belgrade. The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) due to the lack of sufficient procedural guarantees against arbitrariness in the implementation of the Belgrade Waterfront project. The applicant company, which had used the land for business purposes for at least fifty years, was denied an effective opportunity to challenge the interference. The Court emphasized that the existence of special legislation for the project did not negate the right to due process. The Court also held that there was no need to examine the admissibility or the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
The decision begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter, followed by a detailed account of the facts, including the historical context of the applicant company’s land use since 1964, the events of 2015 involving the demolition of the fence and occupation of the land, and related legal proceedings. It then presents the relevant legal framework and practice, citing various Serbian laws and decrees, including the Constitution, Property Act, and the Belgrade Waterfront Act. The judgment proceeds to analyze the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, addressing the scope of the complaint, admissibility, and the applicability of the article, including whether the applicant company had a “possession” within the meaning of the article and whether domestic remedies were exhausted. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, which concerns just satisfaction, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.
The most important provision of this decision is the emphasis on procedural guarantees against arbitrariness when implementing development projects that affect property rights. The Court underscored that even when special legislation exists for projects deemed to be in the public interest, it cannot override the fundamental right to due process and the opportunity to challenge interferences with one’s possessions effectively. This decision highlights the importance of balancing development goals with the protection of individual rights and ensuring that legal frameworks are followed to prevent arbitrary actions by the authorities.
CASE OF AD OSIGURITELNA POLISA SKOPJE AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA
This judgment concerns the non-enforcement of final judgments against a state-owned company in North Macedonia, responsible for road maintenance, ordering it to pay various amounts to several applicant companies. The core issue revolves around the state’s failure to ensure the enforcement of these judgments, raising concerns under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The judgments in favor of the applicant companies remained unenforced for extended periods, leading to complaints about the state’s responsibility and the effectiveness of domestic remedies. The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 due to the prolonged non-enforcement. Friendly settlements were reached with several applicant companies, leading to parts of the applications being struck out. The Court ordered North Macedonia to ensure the enforcement of the outstanding judgments and to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
The structure of the decision includes sections on the subject matter of the case, friendly settlements and withdrawal of part of the application, joinder of the applications, merger of two applicant companies, admissibility, merits, and the application of Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction). The decision addresses the Government’s objections regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies and compliance with the six-month time limit, dismissing them. It also clarifies that the fourth applicant company has standing to pursue the application in place of the merged tenth applicant company. The decision emphasizes the state’s obligation to enforce judgments, even against state-owned entities, and rejects the argument that protecting the public interest justifies non-enforcement.
The most important provisions for its use are the findings of violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 due to the non-enforcement of the final domestic judgments. The Court explicitly states that the state authorities failed to take necessary measures to enforce the judgments, highlighting the state’s responsibility in ensuring the enforcement of judicial decisions, even when the debtor is a state-owned entity. The decision also underscores that the complexity of the State budgetary system cannot relieve the State of its obligation under the Convention to guarantee to everyone the right to have a binding and enforceable judicial decision enforced within a reasonable time.
CASE OF BALİKÇİ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Balıkçı and Others v. Türkiye:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns the arrest and pre-trial detention of numerous applicants in Turkey following the attempted coup in 2016. They were primarily suspected of being members of FETÖ/PDY, an organization the Turkish authorities blamed for the coup attempt. The applicants complained that their detention lacked reasonable suspicion and sufficient justification, violating Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that the Turkish courts’ reasoning for the applicants’ initial and continued pre-trial detention was insufficient, relying on formulaic justifications without individual assessment. The Court concluded that there was a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention due to the absence of sufficient grounds for the pre-trial detention.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The judgment addresses the legality of the applicants’ arrest and pre-trial detention in the context of the post-coup crackdown in Turkey.
* **Complaints:** The applicants alleged violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, arguing a lack of reasonable suspicion and insufficient reasoning for their detention.
* **Admissibility:** The Court dismissed the Government’s objections regarding admissibility, referencing similar objections dismissed in previous cases.
* **Merits:** The Court focused on the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons provided by the national authorities for the detention, as required by Article 5 § 3. It criticized the formulaic and stereotyped justifications used by the Turkish courts.
* **Article 15 (Derogation):** The Court considered the Turkish government’s derogation under Article 15 but found that it did not justify the failure to comply with Article 5 requirements, especially given the length of the pre-trial detention.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded EUR 3,000 to each applicant who submitted a claim for just satisfaction, covering non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Article 5 § 3 Violation:** The core finding is the violation of Article 5 § 3 due to the insufficient justification for the applicants’ pre-trial detention. The Turkish courts’ reliance on the “nature of the offence” and “catalogue offences” without individual assessment was deemed inadequate.
* **Formulaic Reasoning:** The Court emphasized that decisions ordering and prolonging pre-trial detention must contain relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the necessity of the detention. The court found the formulaic enumeration of the grounds for detention under domestic law in a general and abstract manner, such as the state of the evidence, the period spent in detention and the risk of the applicants’ absconding and tampering with evidence, to be insufficient.
* **Individualized Examination:** The judgment underscores the need for national courts to conduct an individualized examination when ordering pre-trial detention, especially when relying on presumptions concerning the grounds for detention.
* **Derogation under Article 15:** The Court clarified that even in situations where Article 15 is invoked, the measures taken must be strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, and this criterion becomes more stringent as the emergency declines in intensity.
This decision highlights the importance of providing concrete and individualized justifications for pre-trial detention, even in the context of a state of emergency.
CASE OF LASKU AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Lasku and Others v. Albania decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
**Essence of the Decision**
The European Court of Human Rights found Albania in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the Convention. The case concerned the annulment of final decisions made by Albanian property restitution commissions in the 1990s, which had recognized the applicants’ property rights and ordered the restitution of land. The Court ruled that the annulment of these decisions, years after they had become final, breached the principle of legal certainty and the applicants’ property rights. The Court ordered Albania to restore the applicants’ title to the land or provide adequate compensation.
**Structure and Main Provisions**
* **Background:** The decision outlines the facts of the case, including the initial restitution of land to the applicants in the 1990s, subsequent legal disputes, and the annulment of the restitution decisions by the Agency for the Restitution and Compensation of Property.
* **Legal Framework:** It refers to relevant Albanian laws and previous Constitutional Court decisions regarding the power of the Agency to review and overturn final property restitution decisions. It also mentions provisions concerning remedies for the length of proceedings.
* **Court’s Assessment:**
* **Article 6 § 1 (Legal Certainty):** The Court found a violation, emphasizing that the annulment of final decisions without substantial and compelling reasons undermined legal certainty. It noted that the domestic courts failed to adequately justify the annulment.
* **Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Protection of Property):** The Court determined that the annulment of the restitution decisions constituted an interference with the applicants’ “possessions.” Since the annulment was found to be in breach of Article 6 § 1, it also violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Length of Proceedings:** The Court rejected the applicants’ complaint regarding the excessive length of proceedings because they had not exhausted domestic remedies by filing a compensation claim in Albanian courts.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court addressed the applicants’ claims for compensation, ordering Albania to ensure the restitution of the land or provide monetary compensation or comparable property. It also awarded the applicants EUR 3,600 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.
**Main Provisions for Practical Use**
* **Emphasis on Legal Certainty:** The decision reinforces the importance of respecting final judicial and administrative decisions to maintain legal certainty.
* **Limits on Review Powers:** It highlights the limitations on the power of administrative bodies to retroactively review and annul final decisions, especially concerning property rights. Such reviews must be justified by substantial and compelling circumstances.
* **Restitution as Primary Remedy:** The Court prioritizes the restitution of property rights as the primary remedy for violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. If restitution is not feasible, adequate monetary compensation or comparable property should be provided.
* **Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies:** The decision underscores the need for applicants to exhaust all available domestic remedies, including compensation claims for excessive length of proceedings, before applying to the European Court of Human Rights.
This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting property rights and upholding the principle of legal certainty in Albania and other countries under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
CASE OF YİLDİZ v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s a breakdown of the Yıldız v. Türkiye decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
**Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Türkiye in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the pre-trial detention of Mr. Mehmet Yıldız. The Court determined that the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify Mr. Yıldız’s prolonged pre-trial detention on suspicion of being a member of an armed terrorist organization. The ECtHR emphasized that relying on the nature of the offense and its inclusion in a list of “catalogue offences” was not sufficient justification without an individualized assessment of the need for detention. As a result, the Court awarded Mr. Yıldız compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicant’s arrest, the charges against him, and the domestic court decisions regarding his pre-trial detention.
* It then details the applicant’s complaint to the ECtHR, specifically focusing on the violation of Article 5 § 3 due to insufficient justification and excessive length of pre-trial detention.
* The Court addresses the Government’s preliminary objection regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, dismissing it by stating that a compensation claim under Article 141 of the CCP would have no prospects of success.
* The judgment then lays out the general principles regarding the justification and length of pre-trial detention, referencing previous case law.
* The Court assesses the reasons provided by the Turkish courts for the applicant’s detention, finding them to be insufficient and lacking an individualized assessment.
* Finally, the Court addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Individualized Assessment is Key:** The decision underscores the importance of domestic courts conducting an individualized assessment of the necessity of pre-trial detention. Simply citing the nature of the offense or its inclusion in a list of “catalogue offences” is not sufficient.
* **Sufficient Reasoning:** Courts must provide concrete reasons based on the specific circumstances of the individual case to justify pre-trial detention, such as a substantiated risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. Abstract, general, or stereotyped reasoning is not acceptable.
* **Article 5 § 3 Violation:** Prolonged pre-trial detention without sufficient justification can constitute a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
