CASE OF D.M. v. SWEDEN
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of D.M. v. Sweden:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR ruled that deporting D.M., an Afghan national of Hazara ethnicity, from Sweden to Afghanistan would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. While the court acknowledged the serious security and human rights situation in Afghanistan, it emphasized that not every removal would automatically breach Article 3. However, considering D.M.’s ethnicity, the area he would be returned to, his extended stay in Sweden, “westernization,” and perceived transgressions of religious norms, the court found a real risk of ill-treatment due to the cumulative effect of these factors. The Swedish authorities’ failure to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of these combined circumstances was a key factor in the court’s decision.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the applicant’s potential deportation to Afghanistan and the risk of violating Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. It then details the facts, including D.M.’s asylum application process in Sweden, the reasons for its rejection by Swedish migration authorities and courts, and the appeals he lodged. The judgment references relevant domestic laws and practices, as well as EU law and case-law, and reports from international organizations like the UNHCR and EUAA regarding the situation in Afghanistan. The “Law” section presents the applicant’s and the government’s arguments, followed by the Court’s assessment, which includes general principles on deportation cases and their application to D.M.’s specific circumstances. The judgment concludes by holding that deporting D.M. would violate Article 3, maintaining an interim measure preventing his expulsion, and dismissing his claim for just satisfaction.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Cumulative Risk Assessment:** The decision highlights the importance of assessing the cumulative impact of various risk factors in deportation cases, especially when an individual belongs to a vulnerable group and has personal circumstances that could increase their risk.
* **”Westernization” as a Risk Factor:** The court acknowledges that an individual’s adaptation to Western values and lifestyles can be a relevant factor in assessing the risk of ill-treatment upon return to a country with strict social and religious norms.
* **Hazara Ethnicity:** While the court doesn’t consider all Hazaras to be systematically at risk, it recognizes Hazara ethnicity as a risk-enhancing factor, especially when combined with other vulnerabilities and considering the security situation in their area of origin.
* **Country of Origin Information:** The decision underscores the need for national authorities to adequately consider and analyze country-of-origin information when assessing the risk of deportation, and the ECtHR’s power to consider information that has come to light since the final decision taken by the domestic authorities.
* **Standard of Proof:** The decision confirms that the national authorities must show that substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the applicant would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 if returned to Afghanistan.
**** This decision is particularly relevant to cases involving the potential deportation of Ukrainians or individuals from Ukraine to countries with unstable security situations or human rights concerns. It emphasizes the need for a thorough and individualized risk assessment, taking into account all relevant factors and the cumulative impact of those factors.
CASE OF BORZENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Borzenkov and Others v. Russia decision:
1. **Essence:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the cases of Borzenkov, Krisko, and Viktorova. The applicants complained of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment by Russian authorities and the lack of effective investigations into these incidents. The Court found that the use of force was excessive and that the authorities failed to conduct proper investigations. The Court also addressed other complaints related to freedom of peaceful assembly, finding additional violations. The Court awarded the applicants compensation for damages.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications filed against Russia.
* **Facts:** The facts outline the specific incidents of alleged ill-treatment for each applicant, including details of their apprehension, injuries, and attempts to seek legal redress.
* **Law:**
* The Court joined the applications due to their similar subject matter.
* It affirmed its jurisdiction over the cases because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention (September 16, 2022).
* The Court reiterated the absolute prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3. It emphasized that any use of force by law enforcement must be strictly necessary and not excessive.
* The Court referenced previous cases establishing that a failure to conduct a thorough criminal investigation into credible allegations of ill-treatment constitutes a violation of the State’s procedural obligations under Article 3.
* The Court found violations of both the substantive (ill-treatment) and procedural (lack of investigation) aspects of Article 3 for all applicants.
* The Court found violations regarding other complaints under the Convention, referencing its established case-law.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a detailed list of the applications, including applicant information, factual background, medical evidence, complaint history, and awarded amounts.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The decision reinforces the principle that any use of force by law enforcement must be strictly necessary and proportionate.
* It highlights the State’s obligation to conduct thorough and effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment by State agents.
* The judgment can be used as a precedent in cases involving similar allegations of ill-treatment and lack of effective investigation, particularly against Russia for events occurring before September 16, 2022.
* The specific factual details and medical evidence presented in the appendix can be useful for comparative analysis in similar cases.
Let me know if you need further clarification on any aspect of this decision.
CASE OF CHAYKOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Chaykovskiy and Others v. Russia decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 9 of the Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, in the case of Mr. Chaykovskiy, Mr. Chernyshev, and Mr. Komarov. The violation stemmed from their criminal prosecution for “extremism” due to their involvement with a liquidated local religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Court also identified violations related to unlawful searches and pre-trial detentions, referencing its established case-law on similar issues. The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** Details the application process, including the applicant’s representation and notification to the Russian Government.
* **Facts:** Briefly describes the applicants’ complaints regarding the prohibition of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the criminal prosecution of its followers.
* **Law:**
* **Jurisdiction:** Affirms the Court’s jurisdiction over the case.
* **Article 9 Violation:** Focuses on the violation of Article 9 concerning the criminal prosecution of the applicants. It references the Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia case, which established a similar violation.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** Addresses other complaints under the Convention, referencing established case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** States that additional complaints under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 do not need separate examination.
* **Article 41 Application:** Addresses just satisfaction, awarding sums to the applicants and dismissing the remaining claims.
3. **Key Provisions for Use:**
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court explicitly states its jurisdiction over cases related to events that occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Article 9 Violation:** The decision reinforces the stance that prosecuting individuals for peacefully practicing their religion as Jehovah’s Witnesses, based on broadly applied extremism legislation, violates Article 9 of the Convention.
* **Unlawful Searches and Detentions:** The decision refers to established case-law, highlighting the unlawfulness of pre-trial detentions within criminal procedures tainted with arbitrariness and searches conducted without proper safeguards.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court awards specific amounts for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to the applicants, as detailed in the appended table.
: This decision may have implications for Ukrainians who were or are members of Jehovah’s Witnesses and who were persecuted in the occupied territories of Ukraine before September 16, 2022.
CASE OF GAREYEV v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Gareyev v. Russia decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the right to a fair trial. The case involved an applicant, Mr. Gareyev, who was convicted of drug offenses following what he claimed was entrapment by State agents. The ECtHR concluded that Russia’s legal system lacked a clear and foreseeable procedure for authorizing test purchases of drugs, leading to arbitrary actions by State agents and preventing domestic courts from properly reviewing entrapment claims. The Court determined that the criminal proceedings against Mr. Gareyev were incompatible with the concept of a fair trial. The Court held that its finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment starts by outlining the procedural history, including the date the application was lodged, the representation of the applicant, and the notification to the Russian Government.
* **Facts:** This section briefly refers to the appended table for the applicant’s details and information relevant to the application.
* **The Law:**
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court affirmed its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on 16 September 2022.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1:** The Court addressed the applicant’s complaint that he was unfairly convicted due to entrapment by State agents. It referenced previous case law, highlighting the structural problem in Russia regarding the lack of a clear procedure for authorizing test purchases of drugs.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction.
* **Operative Provisions:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision, which:
* Affirms its jurisdiction.
* Declares the complaint concerning unfair conviction due to entrapment admissible.
* Holds that there was a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
* Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court explicitly states that it has jurisdiction over cases against Russia for events that occurred before September 16, 2022, even though Russia is no longer a party to the Convention.
* **Entrapment:** The judgment reinforces the ECtHR’s established case law regarding the issue of entrapment in drug-related cases in Russia. It emphasizes that the absence of a clear and foreseeable procedure for authorizing test purchases of drugs leads to violations of Article 6 § 1.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court’s decision not to award any additional compensation beyond the finding of a violation may be relevant in similar cases.
**** This decision highlights the continued scrutiny of Russia’s legal practices by the ECtHR, even after Russia’s departure from the Convention system. It also underscores the importance of fair trial guarantees and the prohibition of entrapment, which are crucial for protecting individual rights.
CASE OF ILUPIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Ilupin and Others v. Russia decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Russia in violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to an ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals against the applicants during a rally. The applicants, who were protesting against a bill introducing administrative liability for propaganda of homosexuality, were attacked by a group of Orthodox Christian activists. The Court emphasized that States have a duty to conduct effective investigations into such allegations, even when the ill-treatment is inflicted by private individuals. The Court also found violations regarding the authorities’ failure to provide adequate protection during the rally and discriminatory restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The case originated from an application lodged in 2013.
* **Facts:** The applicants complained about the ineffective investigation into the ill-treatment they suffered during a rally in 2013.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Article 3 Violation:** The Court found a breach of Article 3 due to the ineffective investigation, referencing previous similar cases. It reiterated that investigations must be capable of establishing facts, identifying, and punishing those responsible.
* **Other Violations:** The Court also found violations under other articles of the Convention based on its well-established case-law, related to the right to freedom of assembly and discrimination.
* **Remaining Complaints:** Some complaints were dismissed as inadmissible or not disclosing a violation.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **State’s Duty to Investigate:** The decision reinforces the State’s obligation to conduct effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment, even when perpetrated by private individuals.
* **Effectiveness Criteria:** The investigation must be capable of leading to the establishment of facts, identification, and punishment of those responsible.
* **Freedom of Assembly:** The decision highlights the importance of protecting participants in public events and ensuring they can take place peacefully, including protecting them from counter-demonstrators.
* **Discrimination:** The decision underscores the prohibition of discrimination in conjunction with other rights, such as freedom of assembly.
Let me know if you need further clarification on any aspect of this decision.
CASE OF INTERACTIV S.A. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Here’s a breakdown of the Interactiv S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Moldova 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 Moldovan company, Interactiv S.A., which claimed that the Supreme Court of Justice’s decision to overturn lower courts’ judgments was unfair. The ECtHR agreed, noting that the Supreme Court re-examined the facts without an oral hearing, relied on new evidence without giving the company a chance to respond, and provided insufficient reasoning for its decision.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the initial agreement between Interactiv S.A. and the Chișinău Municipal Council (CMC) for the construction of a gas pipeline.
* It details the lower court decisions, which initially favored Interactiv S.A., and the subsequent reversal by the Supreme Court of Justice.
* The ECtHR then assesses the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, referencing established principles on fair trial rights in appellate proceedings.
* The Court emphasizes that while an oral hearing isn’t always required in supreme court cases, it was necessary here because the Supreme Court acted as a court of first instance by re-examining factual issues and considering new evidence.
* The judgment also addresses the lack of opportunity for Interactiv S.A. to comment on the new evidence, violating the principle of equality of arms.
* Finally, the ECtHR finds the Supreme Court’s reasoning to be insufficient, as it didn’t adequately explain its departure from the lower courts’ findings.
* The Court also considered the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) but found it unnecessary to examine it separately, given the findings under Article 6 § 1.
* Regarding Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court rejected the claim for pecuniary damage but awarded Interactiv S.A. compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs/expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* This decision reinforces the importance of oral hearings when supreme courts re-examine factual issues or consider new evidence.
* It highlights the need for parties to have an opportunity to comment on new material presented in court, ensuring equality of arms.
* The judgment emphasizes that supreme court decisions must provide sufficient reasoning, especially when overturning lower court judgments.
**** This decision could be relevant for Ukrainian companies or individuals who have experienced similar issues with the fairness of court proceedings, particularly in cases where higher courts introduce new evidence or re-evaluate facts without providing an adequate opportunity for the parties to respond.
CASE OF JEHOVAS ZEUGEN IN DEUTSCHLAND AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of *Jehovas Zeugen In Deutschland and Others v. Russia*, concerning the restriction of freedom of expression through the banning of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ religious publications as extremist material. The Court found that Russia had violated Article 10 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 9, due to the overly broad definition of “extremist activities” in Russian law, which allowed authorities to ban non-violent religious publications. This restriction was deemed not “prescribed by law” or “necessary in a democratic society.” The Court referenced a similar previous case, *Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia*, where a violation was also found. The ECHR decided that other complaints raised by the applicants did not require separate examination. The Court awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses to the applicants.
The decision is structured as follows: it outlines the procedure, the facts of the case, and then addresses the legal aspects, focusing on jurisdiction and the alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention. It refers to a previous leading case to support its findings. The decision also briefly mentions the remaining complaints and the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction. The operative part of the decision includes declarations on jurisdiction, admissibility, finding of a violation, order for payment of compensation, and dismissal of remaining claims. There are no changes compared to previous versions, as this is the initial judgment.
The most important provision of this decision is the confirmation that banning Jehovah’s Witnesses’ religious publications as extremist material violates Article 10 (freedom of expression) read in the light of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the Convention. This is because the Russian law on extremism is overly broad and allows for arbitrary restrictions on religious publications. This decision reinforces the principle that states must narrowly define “extremism” to avoid infringing on freedom of expression and religion.
CASE OF KERIMOV v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Kerimov v. Russia, concerning the fairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant. The Court found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) of the Convention due to the applicant not having the opportunity to examine a key witness whose testimony was crucial for his conviction. The Court also found a violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding the domestic courts’ failure to address the applicant’s arguments about the quality of evidence obtained during a body search. The ECHR held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and the parties involved. Then, it presents the facts of the case as submitted by the applicant. The decision then moves to the legal analysis, addressing the Court’s jurisdiction and the alleged violations of Article 6 of the Convention. The Court examines the lack of opportunity to examine the witness and the failure to address arguments regarding the evidence obtained during the body search. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction.
The main provisions of the decision are the findings of violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) due to the lack of opportunity to examine a key witness and the violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the failure to address arguments regarding the evidence obtained during the body search. The Court emphasized that the absence of an opportunity to cross-examine the witness weighed heavily against the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings. The decision also highlights the lack of counterbalancing measures by the national judicial authorities to compensate for the difficulties faced by the applicant due to the admission of the untested statements.
CASE OF KURUOVÁ AND HORVÁTHOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Kuruová and Horváthová v. Slovakia decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
This judgment concerns the ill-treatment of two Roma sisters by Slovak police officers during their arrest and detention in 2019. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Slovakia in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, both in its substantive aspect (inhuman and degrading treatment) due to the unwarranted use of force, and in its procedural aspect (failure to conduct an effective investigation). Additionally, the Court found a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3, due to the lack of a proper investigation into potential racist motives behind the ill-treatment. The Court awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Details the events of July 23, 2019, involving the applicants’ arrest and alleged ill-treatment by police. It outlines the conflicting accounts of the applicants and the government, as well as the medical evidence of injuries sustained by the applicants.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Article 3 Violation:** The Court establishes that the applicants’ injuries resulted from actions by state agents. It concludes that the treatment amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, violating Article 3. The Court also finds that the investigation into the ill-treatment was ineffective due to a lack of thoroughness and prolonged inactivity.
* **Article 14 Violation:** The Court highlights the use of a pejorative term (“tlupa miestnych Rómiek”) in the arrest reports, raising concerns about racial bias. It concludes that the authorities failed to adequately investigate potential racist motives behind the ill-treatment, violating Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awards EUR 13,500 to the first applicant and EUR 8,500 to the second applicant for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 6,560 jointly for costs and expenses.
3. **Key Provisions for Use:**
* **Presumption of Fact:** The decision reinforces the principle that individuals claiming ill-treatment while in police custody benefit from a presumption of fact if they display injuries after being under state control.
* **Duty to Investigate:** The judgment emphasizes the state’s obligation to conduct thorough and prompt investigations into allegations of ill-treatment by law enforcement, including exploring potential racist motives.
* **Racist Motives:** The Court highlights that even the use of pejorative language in official documents can raise doubts about an officer’s attitude and necessitate further investigation into potential racial bias.
* **Effectiveness of Investigation:** The decision outlines the essential parameters for assessing the effectiveness of an investigation, including victim participation, promptness, thoroughness, independence, and adequacy of investigative measures.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it underscores the importance of thoroughly investigating allegations of police misconduct, especially when there are indications of ethnic or racial bias. It serves as a reminder of the state’s duty to protect vulnerable groups from ill-treatment and to ensure accountability for human rights violations.
CASE OF KUTSENKO v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Kutsenko v. Russia*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to the ill-treatment of Mr. Kutsenko by police officers and the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations of torture. The Court also found a violation related to Mr. Kutsenko’s prosecution for extremism based on his religious activities as a Jehovah’s Witness. The Court determined that Russia had jurisdiction in this case because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention. Mr. Kutsenko was awarded EUR 26,000 in damages.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** Details the case’s origin, the applicant’s representation, and notification to the Russian Government.
* **Facts:** Summarizes the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment by the police.
* **Law:**
* **Jurisdiction:** Affirms the Court’s jurisdiction over the case, as the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3:** Examines the complaint of ill-treatment by police and the lack of effective investigation. It references previous case law, emphasizing the state’s duty to protect detainees and the burden on the government to justify the use of force.
* **Other Alleged Violation under Well-Established Case-Law:** Addresses the complaint related to the prosecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses for extremism, referencing the *Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia* case.
* **Remaining Complaints:** States that other complaints either do not meet admissibility criteria or do not require separate examination.
* **Application of Article 41:** Awards the applicant EUR 26,000 in damages.
* **Appendix:** Provides specific details about the application, including the applicant’s information, factual details of the alleged ill-treatment, medical evidence, and decisions related to the complaints.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Article 3 Violation:** The decision reinforces the principle that states have a high duty of care towards individuals in custody and must conduct thorough investigations into allegations of ill-treatment. The burden of proof lies with the government to demonstrate that any use of force was justified and proportionate.
* **Religious Persecution:** The decision highlights the Court’s stance against the persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, citing the *Taganrog LRO* case. It confirms that prosecuting individuals for peacefully practicing their religion constitutes a violation of their rights under the Convention.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court explicitly states its jurisdiction over cases concerning events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention on September 16, 2022.
**** This decision may be relevant to cases involving similar allegations of ill-treatment by Russian authorities or persecution of religious minorities, particularly Jehovah’s Witnesses, in the context of events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights.
CASE OF LUBIN AND ISAKOV v. RUSSIA
This is a judgment concerning the revision of a previous decision in the case of Lubin and Isakov v. Russia. The initial judgment, delivered on March 6, 2025, found a violation of Article 9 of the Convention due to the prosecution of the applicants for their religious activities as Jehovah’s Witnesses and awarded each applicant EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage. The revision was requested after the Court was informed of the death of Mr. Lubin before the initial judgment was adopted. His wife and heir, Ms. Tatyana Dmitriyevna Yazovskikh, expressed a wish to pursue the application. The Court decided to revise the judgment to award Ms. Yazovskikh the amount previously allocated to Mr. Lubin.
The structure of the decision includes a procedural overview, outlining the initial application, the original judgment, and the request for revision. It addresses the Court’s jurisdiction and correspondence with the Russian government, emphasizing that the government’s non-participation does not prevent the Court from proceeding. The core of the decision focuses on the request for revision, referencing Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, which allows for revision upon the discovery of a decisive fact unknown at the time of the original judgment. The revised judgment then orders the payment of EUR 7,500 to Ms. Yazovskikh, along with default interest based on the European Central Bank’s marginal lending rate plus three percentage points.
The most important provision is the decision to revise the original judgment and transfer the awarded compensation to the heir of the deceased applicant. This highlights the Court’s commitment to ensuring that victims of human rights violations, or their rightful successors, receive appropriate redress, even in cases where circumstances change after the initial judgment. The decision also reaffirms the Court’s jurisdiction over cases related to Russia before its exclusion from the Council of Europe and emphasizes that Russia’s non-cooperation does not impede the Court’s ability to proceed with cases.
CASE OF MOKHOV v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of Mokhov v. Russia, concerning an ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals. The applicant complained that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into an assault where he was allegedly injected with an unknown substance. The Court found that Russia had violated Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, due to the ineffective investigation. The Court emphasized that States must take measures to ensure individuals are not subjected to ill-treatment, even by private individuals, and must conduct effective investigations into such allegations. The Court highlighted deficiencies in the investigation, noting repeated refusals to open a criminal investigation and failures to follow prosecutor’s orders. The Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s initiation and the parties involved. It then presents the facts, summarizing the applicant’s allegations and the domestic proceedings. The “Law” section addresses the Court’s jurisdiction, confirming its competence to examine the case despite Russia’s cessation as a party to the Convention, as the events occurred before the cutoff date. It then delves into the alleged violation of Article 3, reiterating the State’s obligation to investigate allegations of ill-treatment, even when perpetrated by private individuals. The Court references previous similar cases where violations were found. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41, concerning just satisfaction, and determines the compensation to be awarded to the applicant. The decision concludes with the Court’s unanimous ruling, declaring the application admissible, finding a violation of Article 3, and ordering the respondent State to pay the specified amount.
The main provision of the decision is the reaffirmation of the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment, even when the alleged perpetrators are private individuals. The Court emphasized that investigations must be prompt, thorough, and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. This decision reinforces the procedural limb of Article 3, highlighting the importance of States taking reasonable steps to secure evidence and address complaints of ill-treatment effectively.
CASE OF MUSINA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Musina and Others v. Ukraine:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned the death of A.M. while under the control of the Ukrainian State, specifically during his military service. The applicants, relatives of A.M., alleged violations of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life. The Court found that Ukraine failed to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of A.M.’s death and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his death while he was under State control. As a result, the Court ruled that Ukraine violated Article 2 under both its procedural (investigation) and substantive (protection of life) aspects.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** Clearly defines the core issue as the death of A.M. and the alleged ineffective investigation.
* **Factual Background:** Details the events leading up to A.M.’s death, including his military service, the circumstances of his death within the military unit, and the initial investigations.
* **Domestic Investigation:** Describes the various stages of the investigation, including forensic examinations, questioning of witnesses, and the repeated discontinuation of the investigation.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Preliminary Matter:** Addresses the deaths of the first two applicants and confirms the standing of the remaining applicants to pursue the case.
* **Admissibility:** Examines and rejects the Government’s argument that domestic remedies were not exhausted.
* **Merits:**
* **Procedural Limb:** Analyzes the effectiveness of the investigation, highlighting its shortcomings and concluding that it was inadequate.
* **Substantive Limb:** Assesses whether the State fulfilled its duty to protect A.M.’s life, finding that it did not provide a satisfactory explanation for his death.
* **Article 41 of the Convention:** Deals with the issue of just satisfaction, awarding the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **State’s Duty to Investigate:** The decision reinforces the State’s obligation to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into deaths occurring under its control, especially in circumstances that raise suspicion of violence or foul play.
* **Standard of Investigation:** The judgment highlights the importance of securing forensic evidence promptly, questioning relevant witnesses, and pursuing all reasonable lines of inquiry. The investigation must be independent and not hampered by the actions of the authorities potentially implicated.
* **State’s Duty to Protect:** The decision reaffirms the State’s responsibility to protect the lives of individuals under its control, including military servicemen. When a death occurs in such circumstances, the State must provide a convincing explanation.
* **Ineffective Investigation:** The repetition of remittal orders during an investigation can be considered a serious deficiency.
* **Burden of Proof:** The events surrounding the death lay within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it underscores the State’s responsibility to protect the lives of its military personnel and to conduct thorough investigations into deaths occurring within the armed forces, especially given the ongoing conflict and the large number of individuals serving in the military.
CASE OF NOVOSEL AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Novosel and Others v. Croatia, concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings initiated by the applicants following the drowning of their family member in 1996. The applicants argued that the Croatian civil courts failed to adequately examine all relevant facts and that the proceedings were excessively lengthy, violating Articles 2 and 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECtHR focused solely on the procedural aspect of Article 2, finding that the 24-year duration of the proceedings, involving multiple levels of jurisdiction and repeated quashing of initial judgments, constituted a failure to provide a timely response to the applicants’ civil claim. Consequently, the Court held that Croatia had violated Article 2 in its procedural aspect and awarded the applicants 20,000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 8,000 EUR for costs and expenses.
The judgment begins by outlining the facts of the case, detailing the drowning incident and the subsequent civil proceedings initiated by the applicants in 1997. It then presents the applicants’ complaints before the ECtHR, focusing on the alleged inadequacy of the civil courts’ examination of the facts and the excessive length of the proceedings. The Court’s assessment section addresses the admissibility of the application and reiterates its authority to characterize the facts of the case in law. It emphasizes that the proceedings lasted 24 years and involved four levels of jurisdiction, which it deemed unjustifiable, leading to the conclusion that there had been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, and outlines the amounts awarded to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
The most important provision of this decision is the finding that the length of the civil proceedings (24 years) violated the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention. This highlights the importance of timely and diligent handling of cases involving unintentional deaths. The Court emphasized that the repeated quashing of initial judgments due to errors by the first-instance court prolonged the applicants’ ordeal and contributed to the violation. This aspect of the decision serves as a reminder to national courts to ensure efficiency and thoroughness in their proceedings, particularly in cases concerning loss of life.
CASE OF PALYVODA v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the *Palyvoda v. Ukraine* decision:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The case concerned a disabled man, Mr. Palyvoda, who alleged he was ill-treated by police officers, resulting in injuries. While the Court couldn’t definitively conclude that the injuries were a direct result of police brutality, it found that the degree of force used against Mr. Palyvoda, given his disability, was excessive and degrading. Furthermore, the Court determined that the investigation into Mr. Palyvoda’s allegations was inadequate and lacked thoroughness, violating the procedural aspect of Article 3.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The case addresses allegations of police ill-treatment and the ineffectiveness of the subsequent domestic investigation.
* **Factual Background:** The decision outlines the events of March 19, 2018, when police responded to a public nuisance report and an altercation ensued involving Mr. Palyvoda. It presents conflicting accounts from the applicant and the police officers regarding the events leading to Mr. Palyvoda’s injuries.
* **Domestic Investigation:** The decision details the criminal investigation launched following Mr. Palyvoda’s complaint, including interviews with witnesses and forensic medical examinations. It highlights the shortcomings of the investigation, such as the failure to question all officers involved and to review all available video footage.
* **Preliminary Issue:** The Court acknowledges the applicant’s death and accepts his mother’s standing to continue the proceedings.
* **Admissibility:** The Court dismisses the Government’s objection regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the criminal proceedings were terminated shortly after the application was lodged.
* **Merits:** The Court assesses the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, examining both the substantive and procedural aspects. It finds that the investigation was ineffective and that the degree of force used against the applicant was excessive and degrading.
* **Article 41:** The Court awards the applicant’s mother EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 3:** The Court found a violation of Article 3 under both its substantive and procedural limbs.
* **Substantive Limb:** The Court considered that the degree of force used against the applicant, a person with a disability and visual signs of impaired mobility, which was not strictly necessary with respect to his conduct, violated his human dignity and was therefore contrary to Article 3.
* **Procedural Limb:** The Court found that the investigation into the applicant’s claim of ill‑treatment was ineffective.
* **Standing to Continue Proceedings:** The Court declared that the applicant’s mother has standing to continue the present proceedings in the applicant’s stead.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court held that the respondent State is to pay the applicant’s mother EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
**** This decision highlights the importance of conducting thorough and impartial investigations into allegations of police misconduct, particularly when vulnerable individuals are involved. It also underscores the need for law enforcement officers to exercise restraint and avoid the use of excessive force, especially against individuals with disabilities. This case has implications for Ukraine, requiring it to improve its mechanisms for investigating police misconduct and to ensure that law enforcement officers are held accountable for their actions.
CASE OF SHABRATSKYY AND SHABRATSKA v. UKRAINE
Okay, here is the analysis of the decision in the case of *Shabratskyy and Shabratska v. Ukraine*.
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, both under its procedural and substantive limbs, concerning the death of the applicants’ son in the army. The son, D.Sh., died in 2015 from a combination of gunshot and grenade blast injuries while serving in the Aidar military unit. The domestic investigation into his death was excessively lengthy (over ten years), plagued by significant delays, and failed to adequately address key inconsistencies in the evidence, including whether D.Sh. was physically capable of inflicting the fatal injuries on himself. The Court concluded that the investigation was ineffective and that the authorities failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for D.Sh.’s death while he was under the State’s care.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins by outlining the facts of the case, including the circumstances surrounding D.Sh.’s death and the subsequent domestic investigation. It details the conflicting witness statements, expert opinions, and investigative measures taken over the years. The Court then addresses preliminary matters, such as the standing of the second applicant (the mother) to continue the application after the death of the first applicant (the father). The Court then assesses the admissibility of the application, rejecting the Government’s arguments regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and incompatibility with the Convention. The core of the judgment lies in the Court’s assessment of the merits of the case under Article 2, where it examines both the procedural and substantive aspects of the complaint. The Court finds that the investigation was ineffective due to its excessive length, delays, and failure to address critical inconsistencies in the evidence. Consequently, the Court also finds a violation of the substantive limb of Article 2, as the authorities failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for D.Sh.’s death. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41, awarding the second applicant EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 2 (Procedural Limb):** The Court emphasized that the investigation into D.Sh.’s death was excessively lengthy and undermined by delays caused by the authorities, the investigator’s reluctance to comply with the higher prosecutor’s instructions, and the failure to elucidate important matters.
* **Violation of Article 2 (Substantive Limb):** The Court found that the authorities failed to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the death of the applicants’ son, which occurred while he was in their care.
* **Effectiveness of Investigation:** The Court reiterated that the effectiveness of an investigation cannot be gauged simply on the basis of the number of reports made, witnesses questioned, or other investigative measures taken. The investigation’s conclusions must be based on a thorough, objective, and impartial analysis of all the relevant elements.
* **Victim Status:** The Court confirmed that the second applicant, as the widow of the deceased first applicant, has standing to pursue the application on behalf of the latter.
CASE OF SUVOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in the case of *Suvorov and Others v. Russia*.
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR found Russia in violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) of the Convention due to the criminal prosecution of several applicants who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. These individuals were charged with “extremism” for practicing their faith after the religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses was liquidated in Russia. The Court also identified violations related to unlawful detention and searches, referencing its established case-law on similar issues. The Court reiterated that Russia’s broad application of extremism legislation against Jehovah’s Witnesses was unjustified and served no legitimate aim. The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment follows a standard structure, beginning with the procedure, outlining the facts of the case, and then addressing the legal issues.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court affirmed its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Article 9 Violation:** The Court focused on the complaints of criminal prosecution for “extremism,” finding a violation of Article 9 for applicants who were directly subjected to criminal proceedings. It referenced a previous leading case, *Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia*, which dealt with similar issues.
* **Other Violations:** The Court also addressed complaints related to unlawful detention and searches, referencing established case-law such as *Misan v. Russia* and *Kruglov and Others v. Russia*.
* **Admissibility:** The Court distinguished between applicants who were direct victims of prosecution, detention, or searches, and those who were not, declaring the complaints of the latter inadmissible.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded specific sums to the applicants as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, dismissing the remainder of their claims.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 9:** The core finding is that Russia violated Article 9 by prosecuting Jehovah’s Witnesses for practicing their religion peacefully. This reinforces the principle that states cannot use broadly defined “extremism” laws to suppress religious freedom.
* **Unlawful Detention and Searches:** The judgment highlights that detentions and searches related to the persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses were unlawful, referencing previous case-law that establishes standards for such actions.
* **Jurisdictional Point:** The Court explicitly states its jurisdiction over cases that occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention, which is crucial for future cases involving similar violations during Russia’s membership.
* **Compensation:** The specific amounts awarded for non-pecuniary damage can serve as a reference point in similar cases.
**** This decision is related to Russia’s actions against Jehovah’s Witnesses, which has implications for religious freedom and human rights.
CASE OF VELLER v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of Veller v. Russia, concerning disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and other violations related to public assemblies. The Court found that Russia violated Article 10 of the Convention regarding freedom of expression due to disproportionate measures against the applicant, who was demonstrating in support of the LGBT community. The ECtHR also found violations related to unlawful detention and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, referencing its well-established case-law on similar issues. The Court determined that it had jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant 4,000 euros in damages.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history, outlining the application’s submission and the parties involved. It then presents the facts of the case, followed by the Court’s legal analysis, which includes sections on jurisdiction, alleged violation of Article 10, and other alleged violations under well-established case-law. The decision concludes with the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction and the Court’s operative provisions, which declare the application admissible, hold that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention and a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court, and orders Russia to pay the applicant compensation. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this is the initial judgment.
The most important provisions of this decision are the findings of violations of Article 10 regarding freedom of expression and the confirmation of violations related to unlawful detention and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, based on the Court’s established case-law. This decision reinforces the ECtHR’s stance against disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression, particularly in the context of solo demonstrations, and highlights the importance of due process and impartiality in administrative proceedings related to public assemblies.
CASE OF YENOKYAN v. ARMENIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Yenokyan v. Armenia decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Armenia in violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the degrading detention conditions of the applicant, Mr. Mher Yenokyan, in Nubarashen Prison between December 19, 2009, and June 1, 2018. The Court highlighted issues such as limited access to natural light, lack of proper ventilation, humidity, mould, exposure to second-hand smoke as a non-smoker, dilapidated sanitary facilities, insect infestation, inadequate showering facilities, and limited outdoor exercise. The cumulative effect of these conditions, particularly the length of detention in cell no. 77, was deemed to amount to degrading treatment. The Court dismissed other complaints and awarded the applicant EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicant’s initial conviction, subsequent imprisonment, and complaints regarding detention conditions.
* It then addresses the admissibility of the complaints, setting aside those related to periods outside the Court’s jurisdiction or exceeding the statute of limitations.
* The Court assesses the merits of the Article 3 complaint, focusing on the material conditions of detention. It relies on the applicant’s detailed submissions, photographic evidence, and the Government’s failure to provide adequate counter-evidence.
* The judgment references reports from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) and considers the cumulative effect of the various deficiencies in the detention conditions.
* Finally, the Court addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage but rejecting claims for pecuniary damage and legal costs.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Article 3 Violation:** The core finding is the violation of Article 3 due to degrading detention conditions. This sets a precedent for evaluating similar cases based on the cumulative impact of various factors.
* **Admissibility Criteria:** The judgment clarifies the application of the six-month time limit (now four months) for lodging complaints, particularly in cases involving interrupted detention periods due to escapes.
* **Evidence Assessment:** The Court emphasizes the importance of detailed submissions and photographic evidence from applicants, as well as the Government’s responsibility to provide credible counter-evidence.
* **CPT Reports:** The judgment demonstrates the Court’s consideration of reports from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) in assessing detention conditions.
* **Non-Pecuniary Damage:** The Court awards compensation for non-pecuniary damage, acknowledging the emotional and psychological harm caused by the degrading treatment.
I hope this analysis is helpful.
