CASE OF ARVANITIS AND PHILELEFTHEROS PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED v. CYPRUS
This decision concerns a Cypriot journalist and a newspaper publisher who were civilly sanctioned for publishing a defamatory article about a well-known lawyer. The article criticized the lawyer’s actions in recovering looted art from occupied areas of Cyprus. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the domestic courts in Cyprus had disproportionately interfered with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, violating Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECtHR emphasized that the article addressed a matter of public interest and that the journalist’s expressions, while exaggerated, did not overstep the boundaries permissible for a free press.
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter, followed by a detailed account of the facts, including the background of the case, the published article, and the civil defamation proceedings at both the first instance and appeal levels. It then presents the relevant legal framework, including constitutional and legislative provisions concerning freedom of expression and defamation in Cyprus. The judgment then analyzes the alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention, examining the admissibility of the complaint and the merits of the case, including the arguments of both the applicants and the government. The Court assesses whether the interference with freedom of expression was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society, applying general principles derived from its previous case law. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, and awards the applicants damages and costs.
The most important provision of this decision is the ECtHR’s emphasis on the importance of freedom of expression in the context of matters of public interest. The Court reiterated that journalistic freedom covers a degree of exaggeration and provocation. It also stressed that domestic courts should not substitute their views for those of the press regarding reporting techniques. The decision highlights the need for a fair balance between protecting freedom of expression and the reputation of others, particularly when the person concerned has opened themselves up to public scrutiny by participating in a public debate.
CASE OF M.K. v. LATVIA
Okay, I will provide you with a detailed description of the decision in the case of M.K. v. Latvia.
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Latvia in violation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the domestic courts’ failure to diligently examine the applicant’s request for interim contact with her former partner’s child, with whom she shared a close, de facto parent-child relationship. The Latvian courts did not promptly address the issue of interim contact during the child contact proceedings, which negatively impacted the applicant’s relationship with the child. The ECtHR emphasized that the domestic authorities should have exercised particular diligence, considering the potential consequences of the delay on the applicant’s relationship with the child. The denial of contact throughout the proceedings had severe consequences for the applicant’s relationship with the child and shaped the outcome of proceedings. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the domestic authorities’ failure to determine the issue of the applicant’s interim contact with the child of her former partner. It then details the facts, including the applicant’s relationship with her former partner and the child, the separation, and the subsequent legal proceedings initiated by the applicant to seek contact with the child. The judgment describes the interim protection orders and the child contact proceedings, including the various applications for interim contact and the domestic courts’ responses. It then outlines the relevant domestic law and practice, including the Latvian Constitution, Civil Law, and Civil Procedure Law. The Court then assesses the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention, examining the admissibility of the complaint and the merits of the case. The Court divides the examination of the applicant’s interim contact with the child into three distinct periods. The judgment concludes with the application of Article 41 of the Convention, addressing the issue of damages and costs. Separate opinions of judges are annexed to the judgment.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
The most important provision of this decision is the emphasis on the positive obligations of states under Article 8 of the Convention to ensure that domestic courts act with particular diligence in cases involving child contact, especially when a de facto family relationship exists. The ECtHR highlighted that delays in determining interim contact can have severe consequences for the relationship between the applicant and the child. The decision underscores the importance of considering the child’s best interests and the need for prompt action by domestic authorities to prevent the de facto determination of the matter due to the passage of time.
CASE OF N.T. v. CYPRUS
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of N.T. v. Cyprus:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Cyprus in violation of Articles 3, 8, and 14 of the Convention on Human Rights in the case of N.T. v. Cyprus. The case concerned the ineffective investigation into the applicant’s rape allegations and the discriminatory treatment she experienced at the hands of the authorities. The Court held that the authorities failed to conduct a thorough investigation, relying on stereotypical assumptions about rape victims and inadequately assessing the issue of consent. This failure resulted in secondary victimization of the applicant and undermined her confidence in the justice system. The Court emphasized the importance of a context-sensitive assessment in such cases and the need to avoid perpetuating sexist stereotypes.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s subject matter: the failure to effectively investigate and prosecute the applicant’s rape allegations, as well as gender-based discrimination.
* **Facts:** This section details the applicant’s rape allegation, the police investigation, and the Attorney General’s decision to discontinue the prosecution. It includes statements from the applicant, witnesses, and involved parties.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** This part summarizes the relevant domestic laws of Cyprus, including the Criminal Code and the Law on the Establishment of Minimum Standards on the Rights, Support, and Protection of Victims of Crime. It also references domestic case-law and practices related to investigating sexual offenses.
* **Relevant International Law and Practice:** The judgment refers to European Union laws and Council of Europe materials on the rights of victims of crime and the protection of women against violence, including the Istanbul Convention. It also cites a report by the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO) on Cyprus.
* **The Law:** This section presents the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3, 8, and 14 of the Convention, the parties’ submissions, and the Court’s assessment.
* **Admissibility:** The Court declares the application admissible.
* **Merits:** The Court outlines the general principles concerning the State’s obligation to investigate cases of ill-treatment and sexual abuse. It assesses the authorities’ approach to the available evidence, the reasoning behind the decision to discontinue the prosecution, and the respect for the applicant’s rights as a victim.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** The Court addresses the applicant’s claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
* **Separate Opinion of Judge Krenc:** Judge Krenc adds a concurring opinion emphasizing the importance of consent in sexual relations and the need to avoid interpretations that presume consent based on a woman’s feelings.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Positive Obligations:** The decision reinforces the State’s positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 to enact criminal laws that effectively punish rape and to apply them through effective investigation and prosecution.
* **Context-Sensitive Assessment:** The Court emphasizes the importance of a context-sensitive assessment of the statements and surrounding circumstances in rape cases, particularly when faced with conflicting versions of events.
* **Victim’s Rights:** The decision highlights the need to protect the rights of victims of sexual violence, including their dignity, privacy, and the right to effective participation in the process.
* **Discrimination:** The Court finds that the language and arguments used by the prosecutors and the Deputy Attorney General conveyed prejudices and sexist stereotypes, leading to secondary victimization and discrimination against the applicant.
* **Effective Investigation:** The decision underscores the requirement that an investigation must be sufficiently thorough and accessible to the victim, with reasonable measures taken to obtain evidence and avoid hasty or ill-founded conclusions.
I hope this breakdown is helpful for your journalistic purposes.
CASE OF Î.M. BECOR S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in the case of Î.M. Becor S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned a Moldovan company that was charged additional import duties and penalties after the Customs Service reclassified its imported goods retroactively. The ECtHR found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) because, although the Moldovan Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) reopened the case and ordered the reimbursement of the incorrectly charged duties and penalties, it failed to compensate the company for the financial losses incurred due to the lengthy delay in receiving that reimbursement. The ECtHR emphasized that a full restoration of the situation requires compensation for both the initial loss and the loss of use of the money over time. Consequently, the Court ruled that the company could still claim to be a victim of a violation and awarded additional compensation.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** This section outlines the factual background, including the reclassification of goods, the imposition of penalties, and the domestic court proceedings.
* **The Court’s Assessment:** This section contains the legal reasoning and findings of the ECtHR.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** The Court examines the applicant’s complaint regarding the deprivation of possessions and the Government’s argument that the applicant lost its victim status due to the reopened domestic proceedings.
* The Court emphasizes that for an applicant to lose victim status, the State must both acknowledge the violation and provide adequate reparation, restoring the situation as far as possible.
* The Court highlights the importance of late-payment interest in cases of delayed refunds to offset the depreciation of the amount due.
* The Court concludes that the failure to compensate for the delay in reimbursing the duties and penalties constitutes a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** This section deals with just satisfaction (compensation).
* The Court considers the applicant’s claims for pecuniary damage (late-payment interest), non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses.
* The Court awards a lump sum for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, taking into account the partial redress already obtained at the domestic level.
* The Court dismisses the claim for additional costs and expenses, considering the amount already awarded by the SCJ sufficient.
3. **Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Victim Status and Adequate Reparation:** The judgment reinforces the principle that acknowledging a violation at the domestic level is not sufficient to deprive an applicant of victim status before the ECtHR; adequate reparation, including compensation for financial losses resulting from delays, is also required.
* **Late-Payment Interest:** The judgment underscores the importance of awarding late-payment interest to compensate for the loss of use of money when refunds or payments are delayed by the authorities. This is particularly relevant in cases involving tax disputes or other financial claims against the State.
* **Assessment of Compensation:** The ECtHR will compare the compensation awarded at the domestic level with what it would award in similar cases to determine whether the applicant can still claim to be a victim of a violation.
CASE OF ZHUKOV AND ZHUKOVA v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the Zhukov and Zhukova v. Ukraine decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Ukraine in violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention on Human Rights due to an ineffective investigation into the death of the applicants’ daughter. The daughter died shortly after giving birth, and the domestic investigation into potential medical negligence was marred by delays, repeated examinations, and the eventual termination of criminal proceedings due to the statute of limitations. While the applicants received compensation in civil proceedings, the Court emphasized that this did not remedy the shortcomings of the criminal investigation or acknowledge a violation of their rights under Article 2.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The case addresses the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the death of the applicants’ daughter in a public hospital.
* **Background Facts:** Details the medical treatment received by the applicants’ daughter, her death, and the subsequent investigations and legal proceedings.
* **Investigation:** Describes the initial inquiries, the conflicting conclusions of different commissions, and the repeated refusals to initiate criminal proceedings.
* **Criminal Proceedings:** Outlines the progression of the criminal case, including forensic medical examinations and the eventual termination of proceedings due to the statute of limitations.
* **Civil Proceedings:** Details the civil claims lodged by the applicants and the compensation awarded by the domestic courts.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* The Court joined the applications due to their similar subject matter.
* The Court found the applications admissible.
* The Court analyzed the case under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, focusing on the effectiveness of the investigation.
* The Court highlighted the delays, repeated examinations, and the termination of criminal proceedings as key shortcomings.
* The Court emphasized that the civil compensation did not remedy the violation of Article 2.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
* **Operative Provisions:** The Court formally declared the violation of Article 2 and outlined the compensation to be paid by Ukraine.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Emphasis on Prompt and Effective Investigation:** The decision underscores the importance of a prompt and effective investigation in cases of alleged medical negligence, particularly those involving the right to life.
* **Shortcomings in Investigation:** The Court highlights specific shortcomings that can render an investigation ineffective, such as undue delays, repeated examinations without clear justification, and the termination of proceedings on technical grounds without addressing the core issues.
* **Victim Status:** The decision clarifies that compensation awarded in civil proceedings does not automatically deprive applicants of their victim status if the underlying violations of the Convention have not been acknowledged and remedied.
* **Cumulative Assessment:** The Court emphasizes the need to assess the cumulative effect of domestic legal proceedings to determine whether they meet the standards of Article 2.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine.
