CASE OF BRUN v. SWITZERLAND
### 1. Essence of the Decision
In the case of *Brun v. Switzerland*, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) unanimously ruled that there was no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 4 (prohibition of forced labour) of the Convention. The applicant, a Swiss man declared medically unfit for military service, challenged the requirement to pay a military-service exemption tax, arguing it discriminated against him compared to Swiss women and foreign residents who are exempt from both the service and the tax. The Court established that the exemption tax is not a purely fiscal measure but a solidarity obligation linked to national defence, thereby bringing the matter within the ambit of Article 4 § 3 (b) (“service of a military character”). It found that since women and foreign nationals are not legally obligated to perform military service, they are not in a comparable situation to the applicant regarding the compensatory tax. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the underlying differences in the obligation to perform military service itself were objectively and reasonably justified. Ultimately, the ECHR emphasized that Switzerland did not exceed its wide margin of appreciation in organizing its national defence and maintaining an effective militia-based army.
—
### 2. Structure of the Decision, Main Provisions, and Comparison with Previous Jurisprudence
The decision is systematically structured into the following key sections:
* **Introduction and Facts:** Outlining the applicant’s conscription, his subsequent medical discharge, and the domestic tax assessment proceedings for the years 2005 and 2010.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Citing the Swiss Federal Constitution (Articles 8, 58, and 59), the Federal Military-Service Exemption Tax Act, and the Federal Army and Military Administration Act.
* **The Law:** Addressing the admissibility (specifically the applicability of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 4) and the merits of the discrimination complaints based on sex and nationality.
#### Main Provisions:
* **Applicability of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 4:** The Court ruled that the military-service exemption tax is a “substitute levy” aimed at balancing the burden between those who serve and those who are exempt. It is a solidarity obligation in national defence, falling under the “service of a military character” exception in Article 4 § 3 (b).
* **Comparability of Situations:** The Court determined that Swiss women and foreign nationals are not in an analogous situation to the applicant. Because they have no primary duty to perform military service, they cannot be compared to a Swiss male citizen who is subject to the draft but exempted on medical grounds.
* **Justification of Differential Treatment:** The Court held that the exclusion of foreign nationals from military service is justified by the lack of citizenship rights and the avoidance of bilateral conflicts. The exclusion of women is justified by national defence traditions and the state’s security needs.
#### Changes and Distinctions Compared to Previous Case-Law:
* **Distinction from *Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany* (1994):** In *Schmidt*, a fire service levy imposed only on men was found discriminatory because the obligation to serve was purely theoretical (there were enough volunteers, so no men actually served in practice). In *Brun*, the ECHR distinguished Switzerland’s military service, noting it is a practical reality (80% of the army consists of active militia servicemen), meaning the tax retains its genuine compensatory nature.
* **Distinction from *Glor v. Switzerland* (2009) and *Ryser v. Switzerland* (2021):** These previous cases found violations of Article 14 because they involved discrimination based on *disability* among Swiss men who were all subject to the military draft. In contrast, *Brun* addresses *sex and nationality* where the comparator groups (women and foreigners) are entirely outside the scope of the primary military obligation.
—
### 3. Main Provisions of the Decision Important for Practical Use
For legal practitioners, academics, and policymakers, the most critical provisions and principles established in this judgment include:
* **Classification of Military Taxes under Article 4:** The judgment solidifies the principle that financial levies imposed in lieu of military service are not classified as standard fiscal taxes. Instead, they are “solidarity obligations” directly linked to national defence, meaning they fall within the scope of Article 4 § 3 (b) of the Convention.
* **Strict Test for “Comparable Situations” under Article 14:** The ECHR clarified that to claim discrimination regarding a substitute or compensatory obligation (like a tax), the comparator group must first be subject to the same primary obligation (military service). If the comparator group is legally exempt from the primary duty, no comparable situation exists regarding the substitute duty.
* **Broad Margin of Appreciation in National Security:** The decision strongly reaffirms that member states enjoy an exceptionally wide margin of appreciation when organizing their national defence, structuring their armed forces, and determining who is required to perform military service.
* **Justification of Sex-Based Conscription:** The Court acknowledged that limiting compulsory military service to men remains objectively and reasonably justified, provided it is rooted in the state’s specific national defence model (such as a militia system) and security requirements.
#### **** (Implications for Ukraine and Ukrainian Citizens)
This judgment is highly **** for Ukraine and its citizens, particularly in the context of the ongoing martial law and mobilization. Ukraine currently restricts compulsory military service and mobilization primarily to men. This ECHR ruling provides a powerful and up-to-date legal precedent validating sex-based differences in military obligations. It confirms that restricting compulsory military service to male citizens does not violate the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention, as it is objectively justified by national defence needs and falls squarely within the state’s wide margin of appreciation. This decision effectively shields Ukraine’s gender-specific mobilization and conscription framework from potential human rights challenges before the Strasbourg Court.
CASE OF SEKSIMP GROUP SRL v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
### Essence of the Decision
This judgment determines the just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant company, Seksimp Group SRL, following a principal judgment that found violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by the Republic of Moldova. The case originated from domestic court orders requiring the applicant to pay a private company, which led to the rapid, unnotified auction of its valuable assets at a severely undervalued price. While the applicant claimed nearly EUR 1 billion in pecuniary damages, including massive lost profits from projected business developments like an ostrich farm and a waterpark, the Court found these claims highly speculative. The Court emphasized that the State’s failure to provide a proper forum to protect the applicant’s property rights resulted in a real loss of opportunity, which the pending reopened domestic proceedings could not fully remedy. Ultimately, deciding on an equitable basis, the Court ordered Moldova to pay the applicant EUR 560,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, dismissing the remainder of the claims.
—
### Structure of the Decision, Main Provisions, and Changes
The judgment is structured systematically to address the unresolved issue of just satisfaction reserved in the principal judgment:
1. **Procedure and Background**: Recalls the principal judgment of 15 May 2025, which established the violations of the right to a fair trial (Article 6 § 1) and the protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1), and notes the failure of the parties to reach a friendly settlement.
2. **The Parties’ Submissions**: Contrasts the applicant’s extensive claims for pecuniary damage (totaling EUR 997,677,050 for lost property and speculative business profits) with the Government’s arguments that the claims are speculative, excessive, and should be left to the reopened domestic proceedings.
3. **The Court’s Assessment**: Outlines the general principles of Article 41, analyzes the causal link between the violations and the claimed damage, evaluates the impact of the 2011 auction, and explains why the applicant’s lost profit calculations are unacceptable.
4. **Operative Provisions**: Formally holds that the respondent State must pay the applicant EUR 560,000 plus default interest, dismissing all other claims.
#### Changes compared to previous versions:
This judgment is the final resolution of the Article 41 (just satisfaction) question, which was reserved in the principal judgment of 15 May 2025. While the principal judgment established the State’s liability for failing to provide an adequate forum to protect the applicant’s rights, this judgment quantifies the financial redress. It clarifies that the reopened domestic proceedings—initiated after the principal judgment—cannot fully substitute for the Court’s power to award just satisfaction, particularly because those domestic proceedings are incapable of compensating for the losses arising from the undervalued 2011 auction.
—
### Main Provisions of the Decision Important for Practical Use
* **Exhaustion of Remedies vs. Article 41**: The Court reaffirms that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, including the option of reopening domestic proceedings, does not apply to just satisfaction claims submitted directly to the Court under Article 41.
* **Positive Obligations vs. Deprivation of Property**: The Court clarifies that when a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 stems from a failure of the State’s positive obligations (rather than direct state deprivation), the compensation does not need to reflect a total elimination of all consequences. Instead, it must compensate for a “real loss of opportunity.”
* **Speculative Lost Profits**: The judgment establishes that highly speculative business plans (such as unexecuted development projects on agricultural land) cannot form the basis for precise pecuniary damage calculations due to the inherent risks and uncertainties of business activities.
* **Equitable Assessment**: Where precise calculation of pecuniary loss is prevented by the inherently uncertain nature of the damage, the Court will exercise its discretion to decide the award on the basis of equity.
#### **** (Implications for Ukraine and Ukrainians)
This decision is highly relevant to Ukraine and Ukrainian litigants, as the Court explicitly relies on key Ukrainian precedents—such as *Kryvenkyy v. Ukraine*, *Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine*, and *East West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine*—to define the boundaries of state liability, the calculation of lost profits, and the limits of domestic reopening as a remedy.
For Ukrainian legal practitioners and corporate entities, this decision reinforces how the Court assesses “loss of opportunity” and speculative damages in commercial disputes where domestic enforcement proceedings have unlawfully liquidated assets. It underscores that even if domestic civil proceedings are reopened in Ukraine, the ECHR remains competent to award direct just satisfaction if the domestic mechanism cannot fully remedy the enforcement-related losses, particularly regarding undervalued asset auctions.
CASE OF ADDONIZIO AND OTHERS v. ITALY
### 1. Essence of the Decision
This judgment concerns a long-standing environmental dispute in Italy regarding the hazardous operation of a landfill site in Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte, Campania, which was established during a regional waste emergency. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the Italian authorities violated the substantive aspect of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life) due to their failure to protect local residents from severe pollution and landslide risks. Although the landfill was shut down and seized by judicial authorities in 2011, toxic leachate leakages and groundwater contamination continued to threaten the community for years due to delayed and inadequate remediation efforts. However, the Court rejected the procedural complaint under Article 8, finding that the state had sufficiently informed the public about these environmental risks through official reports and judicial orders. Ultimately, the Court held that the finding of a violation itself served as sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damages, while awarding the applicants a joint sum for legal costs.
—
### 2. Structure of the Decision, Main Provisions, and Legal Evolution
#### Structure of the Decision
The judgment is structured into several clearly defined legal sections:
* **Introduction and Joinder:** The Court formally joins two separate applications (nos. 67766/11 and 482/13) due to their identical subject matter.
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** A detailed factual background outlining the Campania waste crisis (1994–2009), the legislative decrees authorizing the landfill, the geological instability of the site, subsequent criminal proceedings, judicial seizures, and environmental reports up to 2025.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* *Preliminary Objections:* Addressing the government’s arguments regarding the applicants’ “victim status” and the exhaustion of domestic remedies.
* *Article 8 (Substantive and Procedural):* The core legal analysis of the right to private life in the context of environmental pollution.
* *Article 13:* The assessment of the right to an effective remedy.
* *Article 41:* The application of just satisfaction (damages and costs).
* **An Appendix:** Listing the 138 individual applicants, their birth years, and places of residence.
#### Main Provisions
* **Substantive Article 8 Violation:** The Court found that the state failed to strike a fair balance between the community’s interest in waste management and the applicants’ right to be free from severe environmental hazards.
* **Procedural Article 8 Compliance:** The Court ruled that the state met its obligation to disseminate information because the environmental risks were documented in publicly accessible parliamentary reports and judicial orders.
* **Victim Status Demarcation:** The Court drew a strict line regarding who qualifies as a victim, upholding the status only for those residing in the immediate municipality of the landfill.
#### Changes and Evolution Compared to Previous Jurisprudence
This decision builds directly upon the established Campania waste crisis case-law, notably *Di Sarno and Others v. Italy* (2012) and *Locascia and Others v. Italy* (2023). However, it refines the Court’s approach in two distinct ways:
1. **Strict Geographic Limitation on Victim Status:** In previous environmental cases, the Court occasionally took a broader view of affected areas. Here, the Court strictly scrutinized the geographic location of the applicants. It rejected the claims of applicants living in neighboring municipalities (such as Paduli or Benevento) *ratione personae* (by reason of person) because they failed to provide concrete evidence of how the landfill directly affected their personal well-being.
2. **Clarification on the “Duty to Inform”:** The judgment solidifies the standard that the state does not need to create a bespoke public information campaign to satisfy the procedural requirements of Article 8. The mere existence of public parliamentary inquiry reports and judicial seizure orders is deemed sufficient to consider the public “informed” of the risks.
—
### 3. Key Provisions for Practical and Journalistic Use
For journalists, legal analysts, and environmental advocates, the most critical aspects of this decision for future use and reporting are:
* **The “Geographic Proximity” Rule for Legal Standing:** This is a crucial precedent for environmental litigation. Living near an environmental hazard is not enough to sue in Strasbourg; applicants must reside within the specific administrative boundary of the affected area (in this case, Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte) or provide explicit, individualized proof of how the pollution crossed municipal lines to impact their daily lives.
* **State Liability for “Emergency” Derogations:** The judgment establishes that states cannot use a “state of emergency” to permanently bypass environmental and safety standards. Authorizing a landfill on a known, active landslide-prone ridge—and ignoring early warnings of geological instability—constitutes a direct failure of the state’s positive obligation to protect its citizens.
* **The Persistence of Post-Closure Liability:** A key takeaway is that the closure of a polluting site does not absolve the state of liability. The ECHR explicitly noted that even though the landfill was seized and closed in 2011, the ongoing groundwater contamination (mercury, manganese, and sulphates detected as late as 2024) and the decade-long delays in implementing safety and cleanup measures (MISO) directly contributed to the ongoing violation of the applicants’ rights.
* **No Financial Windfall for Environmental Violations:** From a practical remedy perspective, the Court reiterated its conservative approach to damages in environmental cases. Despite the applicants requesting EUR 10,000 each in non-pecuniary damages, the Court ruled that the mere finding of a violation of Article 8 constituted sufficient just satisfaction, awarding only joint legal costs (EUR 10,000 total). This highlights that ECHR environmental litigation is primarily tool for establishing human rights violations and forcing policy/remediation changes, rather than securing individual financial compensation.
CASE OF RASPOVIĆ v. CROATIA
### The Essence of the Decision
The case of *Raspović v. Croatia* (Application no. 51775/21) centers on a Croatian lawyer, Ms. Ivana Raspović, who was fined for contempt of court after making highly critical remarks about a judge in her appellate briefs. While representing a client, the applicant criticized the judge’s perceived inactivity and work ethic, resulting in an initial fine of approximately EUR 400, which was followed by a second fine of approximately EUR 530 after she appealed the first sanction using similarly sharp language. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined whether these penalties unjustifiably interfered with her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR concluded that the domestic courts failed to properly evaluate the context of her remarks, which were confined to internal, non-public judicial communications aimed at defending her client’s interests. Consequently, the Court unanimously found a violation of Article 10, ruling that the financial sanctions went beyond what was necessary in a democratic society to maintain the authority of the judiciary.
—
### Structure of the Decision, Main Provisions, and Comparison with Existing Case-Law
The judgment is structured into several distinct sections:
1. **Introduction and Subject Matter of the Case (Paragraphs 1–14):** This section outlines the factual background, detailing the specific statements made by the applicant in her appeals, the subsequent contempt-of-court fines imposed under Section 110 of the Croatian Civil Procedure Act, the domestic appeals up to the Constitutional Court, and the pending disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Croatian Bar Association.
2. **The Court’s Assessment (Paragraphs 15–23):** This part addresses the admissibility of the application, the government’s preliminary objections, and the substantive analysis of Article 10 of the Convention.
3. **Application of Article 41 (Paragraphs 24–27):** This section deals with just satisfaction, where the Court determines the appropriate remedy for the violation.
4. **The Operative Clauses:** The formal, unanimous rulings of the Court declaring the application admissible, finding a violation of Article 10, and deciding on just satisfaction.
#### Main Provisions and Legal Standards Applied:
* **Article 10 of the Convention (Freedom of Expression):** The core provision analyzed. The Court assessed whether the interference was “prescribed by law,” pursued a “legitimate aim” (maintaining the authority of the judiciary), and was “necessary in a democratic society.”
* **Section 110 of the Croatian Civil Procedure Act:** The domestic legal basis used by the Croatian courts to fine the applicant.
#### Comparison and Evolution of Case-Law:
This decision does not alter the fundamental structure of Article 10 jurisprudence but rather reinforces and refines the protective boundaries established in previous landmark cases, such as *Radobuljac v. Croatia* (2016) and *Pisanski v. Croatia* (2024).
* **Contextual Assessment:** The decision solidifies the rule that domestic courts cannot view a lawyer’s remarks in isolation. They must actively assess the “context and forum” of the speech.
* **Victim Status and Unpaid Fines:** The judgment addresses a key procedural argument by clarifying that even if a fine has not yet been paid by the applicant, the mere fact that it is legally enforceable is sufficient to maintain “victim” status and constitute an active interference with freedom of expression. This rejects a more restrictive interpretation of victim status proposed by the Government.
—
### Main Provisions of the Decision Key for Practical Use and Reporting
For legal professionals and journalists monitoring freedom of expression and the rights of legal advocates, the following provisions and findings in the judgment are the most critical:
1. **Protection of Internal Judicial Communications (Paragraph 19):**
The Court places heavy emphasis on the forum where the speech occurred. Because the applicant’s remarks were made within appellate briefs—representing internal communication between a lawyer and the court of which the general public was unaware—they did not threaten public confidence in the judiciary in the same manner as public statements. Such speech enjoys heightened protection because it is directly linked to the defense of a client’s rights.
2. **The Distinction Between “Caustic” Criticism and Pure Insult (Paragraph 20):**
The ECHR reiterates that courts and judges are not immune to criticism. It establishes that even when a lawyer uses a “caustic tone” or strongly worded language to complain about judicial administration (such as the excessive length of proceedings or a judge’s perceived failure to review case files), this is protected under Article 10. To justify a restriction, the domestic courts must prove the remarks were intended *solely* to insult, which was not the case here.
3. **Proportionality of Financial Sanctions (Paragraph 21):**
The Court notes that the fines (approx. EUR 400 and EUR 530) were significant relative to the statutory range (approx. EUR 66 to EUR 1,330). The judgment establishes that substantial financial penalties imposed on lawyers for their pleadings can have a “chilling effect” on their professional duties, rendering the interference disproportionate.
4. **Just Satisfaction Standard (Paragraph 26):**
Under Article 41, the Court ruled that the finding of a violation of Article 10 in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained, choosing not to award a monetary sum for moral distress, while dismissing the claim for costs due to a procedural failure to submit supporting documents.
