CASE OF SEMENYA v. SWITZERLAND
Okay, I understand. Here’s an analysis of the Semenya v. Switzerland decision, tailored for a journalist:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Switzerland failed to provide a fair hearing to Caster Semenya, a South African athlete with differences of sex development (DSD). Semenya challenged regulations by World Athletics requiring her to lower her natural testosterone levels to compete in female events. The ECHR found that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s review of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision, which upheld the regulations, was too limited to ensure a fair process. While the ECHR acknowledged Switzerland’s jurisdiction regarding the fairness of the hearing, it rejected Semenya’s claims regarding violations of her right to privacy and freedom from discrimination, stating that Switzerland did not have jurisdiction over these matters in this case. The court emphasized that the right to a fair hearing requires a particularly rigorous examination when mandatory arbitration is imposed by a governing body and when fundamental rights are at stake.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The decision begins with an introduction outlining the case’s background and Semenya’s complaints. It details the procedures before the CAS and the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, including the legal frameworks and practices involved. The core of the judgment addresses Switzerland’s jurisdiction, finding it applicable to Article 6 (fair hearing) but not to Articles 8, 13, and 14 (privacy, discrimination). The court then analyzes the alleged violation of Article 6, focusing on the fairness of the hearing Semenya received in Switzerland. The decision includes concurring and dissenting opinions, reflecting divisions among the judges. The judgment clarifies the scope of review that national courts must provide in cases of compulsory sports arbitration, particularly when fundamental rights are implicated.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
The most important aspect of this decision is its emphasis on the need for a robust judicial review in cases of mandatory arbitration, especially when the arbitration affects fundamental rights. The ECHR’s ruling suggests that national courts must conduct a thorough examination to ensure fairness, particularly when an individual is compelled to arbitrate by a governing body. This decision highlights the limitations of relying solely on a “public policy” review when fundamental rights are at stake in sports-related disputes.
I hope this is helpful!
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine and Ukrainians, as it concerns the protection of fundamental rights in the context of sports regulations and arbitration, which may be relevant to Ukrainian athletes and sports organizations.
CASE OF BEDNAREK AND OTHERS v. POLAND
Okay, I’m ready to provide you with a detailed description of the European Court of Human Rights decision in the case of Bednarek and Others v. Poland.
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Poland in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned a violent attack against three applicants, where the domestic courts acknowledged homophobic elements but did not treat the attack as a hate crime. The ECtHR concluded that Poland failed to adequately address the homophobic motives behind the attack, thus not fulfilling its duty to ensure that violence motivated by hostility towards victims’ sexual orientation is appropriately addressed. This failure, coupled with the lack of specific legal provisions against hate crimes based on sexual orientation in Polish law, led the Court to find a violation. The Court emphasized that attacks targeting universal expressions of love and companionship undermine victims’ physical safety but also their emotional and psychological well-being, conveying a message that their identities and expressions are inferior.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions of the Decision:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: criminal proceedings related to a battery with homophobic overtones. It then details the facts, including the assault on the applicants, the police investigation, and the domestic court proceedings. The judgment references the relevant domestic legal framework, including the Polish Constitution and Criminal Code, and notes attempts to reform the criminal law to include sexual orientation as a protected ground. It also includes statements by the Polish Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant international materials, such as EU law, recommendations from the Council of Europe, and observations from UN committees.
The core of the judgment lies in the Court’s assessment of whether there was a violation of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 14. The Court examines the severity of the treatment inflicted on the applicants, finding that it reached the threshold to fall under Article 3. It then assesses Poland’s compliance with its positive obligations, emphasizing the State’s duty to investigate possible discriminatory motives and ensure that hate-motivated violence does not go unpunished. The Court acknowledges that the Polish courts considered the homophobic context but criticizes the lack of hate crime charges and the failure to account for the attackers’ hostility in determining punishment.
Compared to previous versions, this decision emphasizes the importance of addressing homophobic motives in violent attacks, even in the absence of specific hate crime legislation. It builds upon existing case law by highlighting the State’s duty to use all available means to combat such violence and maintain the confidence of minority groups in the authorities’ protection.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Positive Obligations:** The decision underscores the State’s positive obligation to investigate and prosecute crimes with potential discriminatory motives, even if domestic law does not explicitly define the crime as a hate crime.
* **Threshold of Severity:** It clarifies that discriminatory treatment can amount to degrading treatment under Article 3 if it reaches a level of severity that constitutes an affront to human dignity.
* **Impact of Homophobic Motives:** The judgment highlights that the failure to adequately address homophobic motives in violent attacks can lead to a violation of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 14.
* **Need for Comprehensive Legal Framework:** The decision implies the need for a comprehensive legal framework that includes sexual orientation and gender identity as protected grounds in hate crime legislation.
* **Importance of Deterrence:** The Court emphasizes that national courts should not allow grave attacks on physical and mental integrity to go unpunished, or for serious offenses to be punished with excessive leniency.
* **Manifestations of affection:** Attacks on LGBTI individuals, triggered by expressions of affection, constitute an affront to human dignity by targeting universal expressions of love and companionship.
I hope this detailed description is helpful for your journalistic purposes.
CASE OF GULLOTTI v. ITALY
Here’s a breakdown of the Gullotti v. Italy decision:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Italy in violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for correspondence) due to an inadequately reasoned judicial order limiting Mr. Gullotti’s correspondence while he was detained under a special prison regime for mafia-related offenses. The court determined that while some control over prisoners’ correspondence is acceptable, the reasons for the interference must be clearly stated. The Italian court’s order lacked an explicit assessment of the need to limit correspondence specifically to family members, making it difficult to ascertain whether the decision was justified. The ECtHR dismissed the applicant’s claim regarding Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), finding that the appeal process was not systematically ineffective. The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets the stage, outlining the case’s focus on limitations to correspondence rights during detention and the relevant Convention articles (8 and 13).
* **Facts:** Details Mr. Gullotti’s conviction for mafia-related crimes, his imprisonment under a special regime (section 41 bis), and the specific limitations placed on his correspondence. It describes the judicial order limiting his correspondence to family members, the appeals process, and related court decisions.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Explains the Italian laws (Prison Administration Act, specifically sections 41 bis and 18 ter) that govern the special prison regime and the limitations on correspondence.
* **The Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the Court.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 8:**
* **Admissibility:** Declares the Article 8 complaint admissible.
* **Merits:**
* Summarizes the arguments of both the applicant (Mr. Gullotti) and the Italian Government.
* Presents the Court’s assessment, outlining general principles regarding limitations on prisoners’ rights and applying those principles to the specific facts of the case. The Court emphasizes the need for “relevant and sufficient” reasons for interfering with correspondence.
* Concludes that there was a violation of Article 8 because the Italian court’s order lacked adequate reasoning.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 13:**
* Summarizes the arguments of both parties.
* Presents the Court’s assessment, outlining general principles regarding the right to an effective remedy.
* Concludes that there was no violation of Article 13, as the appeal process was not systematically ineffective.
* **Application of Article 41:** Addresses the issue of just satisfaction (compensation) for the violation. The Court finds that the finding of a violation is sufficient compensation in this case and rejects the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses.
* **Operative part:** Declares the complaint concerning Article 8 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant; Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
**3. Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Emphasis on Reasoned Justification:** The core takeaway is the ECtHR’s insistence that any limitations on a prisoner’s right to correspondence must be justified with clear and specific reasons. A general reference to the prisoner’s dangerousness or involvement in organized crime is not enough. The domestic court must demonstrate an explicit assessment of the need for the specific limitation imposed.
* **Individualized Assessment:** The Court highlights the need for an individualized assessment when limiting correspondence, especially when a prisoner is already subject to a special prison regime. Authorities must explain why general monitoring of correspondence is insufficient and why further restrictions are necessary.
* **Impact on Special Prison Regimes:** While acknowledging the legitimacy of special prison regimes like section 41 bis in Italy, the decision underscores that even in such cases, fundamental rights like the right to correspondence are not suspended entirely. Any limitations must be carefully scrutinized and justified.
* **Article 13 and Timeliness:** The Court’s finding that Article 13 was not violated suggests that delays in the appeal process, while undesirable, do not automatically render the remedy ineffective, especially if the appeal court addresses the merits of the case while the restrictive order is still in force.
CASE OF RODINA AND BORISOVA v. LATVIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Rodina and Borisova v. Latvia decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The case concerns the Latvian authorities’ refusal to authorize demonstrations planned by an association (“Rodina”) and a private individual, citing security concerns amidst heightened tensions in 2014 related to events in Ukraine. The applicants argued that the bans violated their rights to freedom of expression and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found no violation, emphasizing that the restrictions were justified to protect national security, public safety, and the democratic order, given the specific context of potential incitement to hatred and support for separatist movements. The Court highlighted that while freedom of assembly is fundamental, it is not absolute and can be restricted when necessary to safeguard democratic values and prevent disorder.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets out the case’s subject matter: complaints regarding the refusal to authorize assemblies.
* **Facts:** Details the background, including the applicants’ identities, the context of Victory Day celebrations in Latvia, and the political situation in Ukraine in 2014. It describes previous events organized by the first applicant, the specific events that were banned, and the reasoning of the Latvian authorities and courts.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines the relevant domestic laws of Latvia, including constitutional provisions and the Law on Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets. It also includes reports by domestic authorities and experts regarding national security threats and freedom of assembly.
* **International Material:** Refers to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and a report analyzing Russia’s disinformation activities in the Nordic-Baltic region.
* **The Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** Decides to examine the applications jointly.
* **Alleged Violation of Articles 10 and 11:** States the applicants’ complaints and the relevant articles of the Convention.
* **Admissibility:** Addresses the Government’s request to apply Article 17 (abuse of rights) and the victim status of the second applicant, joining these issues to the merits.
* **Merits:** Examines whether there was an interference with the applicants’ rights and whether that interference was justified, focusing on whether it was “prescribed by law,” pursued a legitimate aim, and was “necessary in a democratic society.”
* **Conclusion:** Holds that there was no violation of Article 11 read in light of Article 10.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Balancing Freedom of Assembly with National Security:** The decision underscores the importance of balancing the right to freedom of assembly with the need to protect national security and public safety, particularly in situations where there is a risk of incitement to hatred or support for separatist movements.
* **Contextual Assessment:** The Court emphasizes the importance of assessing the context in which assemblies are planned, including the political climate, historical background, and potential for disorder.
* **Margin of Appreciation:** The decision acknowledges that states have a certain margin of appreciation in restricting freedom of assembly, but this margin is not unlimited and is subject to review by the Court. The margin may be wider for associations than for political parties.
* **Article 17 and Abuse of Rights:** While the Court ultimately did not apply Article 17, the discussion highlights the principle that the Convention cannot be invoked to undermine the values of a democratic society.
* **”Pressing Social Need”:** The Court reiterates that any interference with freedom of assembly must correspond to a “pressing social need” and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, as it references the conflict in Ukraine and the concerns about support for separatist entities. It indicates that expressions of support for such entities can be restricted to protect national security and territorial integrity.
CASE OF KORNIYETS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Okay, I will provide you with a detailed description of the decision in the case of Korniyets and Others v. Ukraine.
Here’s the breakdown:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Ukraine in violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention due to unlawful searches of the applicants’ homes. The Court highlighted that these searches were conducted without prior judicial authorization and lacked adequate safeguards against arbitrariness. The domestic law did not provide an effective way for the applicants to challenge the lawfulness of these searches. Additionally, the Court found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment) concerning the second applicant, Ms. Zhabo, due to ill-treatment by police during a search and the ineffective investigation into her allegations.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets out the core issues, focusing on the lack of judicial warrants for home searches and the absence of effective remedies, as well as allegations of ill-treatment and ineffective investigation.
* **Facts:** Details the specific circumstances of each applicant’s case, including the searches conducted, items seized, and subsequent legal proceedings.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines the pertinent Ukrainian constitutional and criminal procedure provisions regarding the inviolability of the home and conditions for searches.
* **The Law:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** Decides to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Article 8 Violation:** Focuses on whether the searches were “in accordance with the law,” pursuing a “legitimate aim,” and “necessary in a democratic society.” It emphasizes the need for clear and precise domestic law with adequate safeguards against arbitrary interference.
* **Article 13 Violation:** Addresses the lack of an effective domestic remedy for the applicants’ complaints under Article 8.
* **Article 3 Violation:** Examines the allegations of ill-treatment of the second applicant and the effectiveness of the investigation into those allegations.
* **Article 41:** Addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention.
* **Separate Opinion of Judge Serghides:** Judge Serghides expressed disagreement with the Court’s decision not to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Absence of Prior Judicial Warrant and Adequate Safeguards:** The decision underscores the importance of prior judicial authorization for searches and the necessity of effective procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrariness, especially when searches are conducted without a warrant.
* **Ineffective Remedy:** The lack of a possibility to appeal against a search warrant, whether issued before or after the search, is a critical point. The ex parte nature of the review proceedings, without the applicant’s participation, is deemed insufficient.
* **Ill-treatment and Investigation:** The decision highlights the state’s obligation to provide a convincing explanation for injuries sustained while a person is under police control and to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment.
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, particularly regarding the procedures for conducting searches and providing remedies for individuals whose rights have been violated. It emphasizes the need for legislative and practical reforms to ensure compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.
CASE OF SAKKOU v. CYPRUS
Here’s a breakdown of the Sakkou v. Cyprus judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined whether the criminal trial of Mr. Sakkou was fair, considering his conviction for drug offenses was primarily based on the testimony of an accomplice, R. The Court found no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, emphasizing that R. was not granted immunity, the domestic courts displayed caution in relying on the accomplice’s testimony, and there was independent evidence reinforcing the incriminating testimony. The Court highlighted that R.’s admission into a witness protection program was to protect him against potential threats, and not an improper reward for false testimony. The domestic courts thoroughly assessed R.’s credibility and the consistency of his testimony with other evidence. The Court concluded that the trial was fair, despite the significant reliance on accomplice testimony.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets out the core issue: the fairness of a trial where a conviction relies heavily on accomplice testimony.
* **Facts:** Details the events leading to the arrest of both the applicant and his accomplice, R., including drug transactions and R.’s subsequent confession and placement in a witness protection program. It covers R.’s conviction and sentencing, as well as the trial and judgment concerning the applicant.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Outlines the legal provisions in Cyprus regarding presidential powers to pardon or suspend penalties and the Witness Protection Law of 2001.
* **The Law:** This section presents the applicant’s complaint regarding the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial). It includes arguments from both the applicant and the Cypriot Government.
* **The Court’s Assessment:** This is the core of the judgment, where the ECtHR analyzes the arguments and presents its reasoning. It refers to established principles on fair trials and the use of accomplice testimony. The Court assesses whether the domestic courts acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in their evaluation of the evidence.
* **Conclusion:** The Court declares the application admissible but holds that there was no violation of Article 6 § 1.
* **Dissenting Opinion:** Judge Serghides provides a dissenting opinion, arguing that the applicant’s trial was unfair due to the benefits R. received (suspension of sentence, relocation abroad) and the lack of corroborating evidence.
3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Reliance on Accomplice Testimony:** The judgment clarifies that relying on accomplice testimony is not inherently a violation of Article 6, but it requires caution and scrutiny by domestic courts.
* **Absence of Immunity or Undue Reward:** The Court emphasizes that the accomplice, R., did not receive immunity from prosecution, and the witness protection program was aimed at ensuring his safety, not rewarding him for false testimony.
* **Assessment of Credibility:** The judgment underscores the importance of domestic courts thoroughly assessing the credibility of accomplice witnesses and ensuring their testimony is consistent and supported by other evidence.
* **Corroborating Evidence:** While the Court acknowledges the absence of corroborating evidence in terms of domestic law, it finds that the domestic courts did rely on evidence that corroborated R.’s testimony, as “corroborating evidence” is understood by the Court in its broad sense, meaning independent evidence reinforcing the incriminating accomplice testimony.
* **Overall Fairness:** The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 does not set out any rules on how evidence should be assessed. The Court may interfere in this field only if a domestic court assesses evidence arbitrarily or manifestly unreasonably.
Judge Serghides’ dissenting opinion highlights concerns about the fairness of the trial, given the benefits R. received and the lack of independent corroborating evidence.
CASE OF TOMENKO v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Tomenko v. Ukraine:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Ukraine violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to free elections). The case concerned the early termination of Mr. Tomenko’s mandate as a member of parliament (MP) after he withdrew from his political party’s faction. The Court found that the measure was not foreseeable, lacked a clear legal framework, and disproportionately interfered with the free expression of the people in choosing their legislature. The decision highlights the importance of protecting the passive electoral right of elected officials from abuse and ensuring a clear and predictable legal framework for any limitations on that right.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly introduces the case, focusing on the applicant’s complaint regarding the early termination of his mandate as an MP.
* **Facts:** Details the applicant’s political background, his election to parliament, his withdrawal from the party faction due to disagreements, and the subsequent decision by the party to terminate his mandate. It also highlights the lack of consistent application of this rule to other MPs who had withdrawn from the same faction.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines the relevant Ukrainian constitutional and legal provisions concerning the termination of an MP’s mandate, including amendments to the Constitution, the Status of MPs Act, and decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. It also references relevant documents from the Council of Europe, including resolutions from the Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) and opinions from the Venice Commission, which have consistently criticized the “imperative mandate” (the ability of political parties to terminate the mandate of MPs who leave their factions).
* **The Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the Court.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1:** States the applicant’s complaint that the early termination of his mandate breached Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, as well as Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, and Article 13 of the Convention.
* **Admissibility:** Addresses the admissibility of the application, including the applicant’s victim status, the State’s responsibility, and the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court rejects the Government’s objections regarding these issues.
* **Merits:** Examines the merits of the case, focusing on whether the interference with the applicant’s rights was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim, and was proportionate. The Court finds that the interference was unlawful because it was not foreseeable and lacked a clear legal framework. It also finds that the measure was disproportionate and thwarted the free expression of the people in the choice of the legislature.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Discusses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, which provides for just satisfaction to the injured party. The Court dismisses the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage but awards him EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. It also awards him EUR 500 in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
* **Separate Opinion of Judge Serghides:** Judge Serghides dissented in part, arguing that the Court should have separately examined the complaints under Articles 8, 10, and 13 of the Convention, rather than absorbing them into the complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Unlawfulness of the Interference:** The Court found that the early termination of the applicant’s mandate was unlawful because it was not foreseeable. This is a key point for assessing similar cases where an elected official’s mandate is terminated.
* **Disproportionality:** The Court emphasized that the measure was disproportionate and thwarted the free expression of the people in the choice of the legislature. This highlights the importance of balancing party discipline with the rights of elected officials to represent their constituents.
* **Importance of a Clear Legal Framework:** The Court stressed the need for a clear and predictable legal framework for any limitations on the passive electoral right of elected officials. This is a crucial consideration for states when enacting laws that may affect the tenure of elected officials.
* **Rejection of the Imperative Mandate:** The Court reiterated the position of the Venice Commission and other Council of Europe bodies that the imperative mandate or similar practices are contrary to the principle of a free and independent mandate. This reinforces the idea that elected officials should represent the people, not just their political parties.
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, as it highlights the need to reform its laws regarding the termination of mandates for members of parliament. The decision reinforces the importance of protecting the rights of elected officials to represent their constituents and to act in accordance with their conscience, even if it means disagreeing with their political parties.
CASE OF AKARSU v. TÜRKİYE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Akarsu v. Türkiye, concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings before the Turkish Constitutional Court. The applicant, a former judge, complained that the duration of proceedings related to the premature termination of his office was unreasonably long, violating Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court found that the proceedings, lasting over seven years before a single judicial instance, were indeed excessive. Despite the Turkish Government’s arguments regarding the state of emergency, increased workload, and the COVID-19 pandemic, the ECHR found no justification for such a lengthy delay. Consequently, the Court ruled that Türkiye had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 4,000 euros in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and notification to the Turkish Government. It then presents the facts, detailing the applicant’s complaint regarding the length of the civil proceedings. The core of the judgment lies in the “The Law” section, where the Court assesses the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, referencing its established case-law on the “reasonable time” requirement and similar cases against Türkiye. The Court dismisses the government’s justifications for the delay and concludes that a violation occurred. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41, awarding compensation to the applicant. The appendix provides a summary table with key details of the application, including dates, duration of proceedings, and the awarded amount. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this is the initial judgment on the case.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the ECHR’s stance on the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1, particularly in the context of proceedings before the Turkish Constitutional Court. The Court’s rejection of the Turkish Government’s justifications, including the state of emergency and increased workload, sends a strong signal that these factors cannot excuse excessive delays in judicial proceedings. This decision reinforces the importance of timely justice and serves as a reminder to Türkiye to ensure the efficiency of its judicial system.
CASE OF BYKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
This judgment concerns multiple applications against Russia regarding disproportionate measures taken against individuals who organized or participated in public assemblies. The applicants complained about their arrests and convictions for administrative offenses, arguing that these measures violated their right to freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention. The Court found that the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society,” thus constituting a breach of Article 11. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and restrictions on freedom of expression, referencing its well-established case-law. The Court decided that a finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for two applicants, while the remaining applicants were awarded specific sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and notification to the Russian Government. The facts section briefly describes the applicants’ complaints regarding disproportionate measures during public assemblies. The “Law” section includes the joinder of applications due to their similar subject matter and confirms the Court’s jurisdiction, as the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention. It addresses the standing of a widow to pursue her deceased husband’s application. The core legal analysis focuses on the alleged violation of Article 11, referencing established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality. It also addresses other alleged violations under the Convention and its Protocols, citing relevant precedents. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction and awards. Compared to previous versions, this judgment consolidates multiple similar cases and reaffirms existing principles on freedom of assembly and proportionality, while also addressing specific issues such as the lack of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings and restrictions on freedom of expression.
The most important provisions of this decision are those confirming the violation of Article 11 due to disproportionate measures against participants in public assemblies and the recognition of other violations related to unlawful detention and restrictions on freedom of expression. These findings reinforce the importance of protecting freedom of assembly and expression, even in the context of administrative offenses. The judgment also clarifies the criteria for determining the proportionality of interferences with these rights, emphasizing that such measures must be “necessary in a democratic society.”
CASE OF CASSONE v. ITALY
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Cassone v. Italy (application no. 7781/09) found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the lack of a public hearing in proceedings concerning preventive measures against the applicant. The applicant, convicted of mafia-related crimes, was subjected to special police supervision and a compulsory residence order, with his assets also facing confiscation. The Italian courts, relying on a law that mandated in-camera proceedings, did not hold a public hearing. The ECtHR emphasized that the nature of the assessments required in such proceedings necessitates a public hearing, aligning with its established case law.
The decision begins by outlining the facts of the case, including the applicant’s convictions and the preventive measures imposed on him. It then addresses the admissibility of the application, dismissing the Government’s objection regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court refers to Section 4 of Law no. 1423 of 1956, which at the time stipulated that proceedings for preventive measures be held in camera. The decision then proceeds to the merits, referencing previous case law on the right to a public hearing in preventive measure proceedings. The Court acknowledges that Italian law has since been amended to allow for public hearings in such cases, but this change occurred after the proceedings against the applicant. Finally, the decision addresses Article 41 of the Convention, noting that the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the right to a public hearing in proceedings concerning preventive measures, both in respect of property and the individual. The Court emphasizes that the assessments required of domestic courts in these proceedings necessitate transparency and public scrutiny. This decision reinforces the principles established in previous cases such as Bocellari and Rizza v. Italy and De Tommaso v. Italy, clarifying that even when domestic law provides for in-camera proceedings, the right to a fair and public hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention must be respected.
CASE OF DELOPOULOS v. GREECE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Delopoulos v. Greece, concerning the delayed enforcement of a domestic court decision in favor of the applicant. The Court found that Greece had violated Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, including the enforcement of judgments. The applicant had complained about the non-enforcement of decision no. 4287/15 of the Court of Auditors. The ECHR determined that the authorities had not made sufficient efforts to enforce the decision in a timely manner. As a result, the Court declared the complaint admissible and awarded the applicant 1,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 250 euros for costs and expenses. Another complaint by the applicant regarding a different decision was declared inadmissible.
The structure of the decision includes sections on Procedure, Facts, Law (Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Remaining Complaint, Application of Article 41 of the Convention), and the Court’s final decision. The decision references previous case law, such as Hornsby v. Greece, Kanellopoulos v. Greece, and Bousiou v. Greece, to support its findings. The decision declares one complaint admissible and finds a violation of Article 6 § 1, while another complaint is declared inadmissible. The decision orders Greece to pay the applicant specified amounts for damages and expenses, plus interest in case of delayed payment.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation that the enforcement of a court judgment is an integral part of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The decision highlights the obligation of the authorities to make all necessary efforts to enforce domestic decisions in a timely manner. This judgment serves as a reminder to Greece and other member states of their duty to ensure effective enforcement of court decisions to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of individuals.
CASE OF I.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of *I.M. and Others v. Russia*, concerning the risk of torture and ill-treatment upon removal of the applicants to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The Court found Russia in violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, due to the risk the applicants faced upon removal to their countries of origin. The ECtHR also found a violation of Article 34 in the cases of I.M. and M.Z., as Russia failed to comply with interim measures indicated by the Court, proceeding with their removal despite pending proceedings. The Court emphasized that the applicants were wanted on charges of religious and/or political extremism, making them a vulnerable group at heightened risk. The Court highlighted the failure of Russian authorities to adequately assess the risks, referencing previous case law on similar situations in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The decision underscores the importance of assessing individual risks and the general human rights situation in destination countries before removal.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural history, outlining the origin of the applications. It then presents the facts of the cases, including details about the applicants and their complaints. The legal analysis includes the joinder of the applications, the Court’s jurisdiction, and the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 34 of the Convention. The Court assesses the admissibility of the complaints, referencing relevant case law and principles. It then examines whether the applicants faced a real risk of ill-treatment upon removal, finding a violation of Article 3. Additionally, it addresses the breach of Article 34 due to Russia’s failure to comply with interim measures. Finally, it addresses other complaints and the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding compensation to the applicants.
The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the violation of Article 3 and Article 34. The finding of a violation of Article 3 highlights the Court’s concern over the risk of torture and ill-treatment faced by individuals removed to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, particularly those accused of religious or political extremism. The finding of a violation of Article 34 underscores the importance of complying with interim measures indicated by the Court, emphasizing that failure to do so undermines the right of individual petition. This decision reinforces the Court’s established case law on the protection against torture and ill-treatment and the obligation to respect interim measures, providing a clear precedent for similar cases involving the removal of individuals to countries where they face a real risk of human rights violations.
CASE OF IVANOV v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Ivanov v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
**Essence of the Decision**
The European Court of Human Rights found Russia in violation of Article 8 of the Convention due to secret surveillance measures against the applicant, Mr. Ivanov, in the context of criminal proceedings. The Court determined that the domestic courts failed to adequately verify the “reasonable suspicion” against Mr. Ivanov and did not properly apply the “necessity in a democratic society” and “proportionality” tests when authorizing the interception of his telephone communications. The Court also found violations related to unfair criminal proceedings, specifically the applicant’s lack of opportunity to effectively contest evidence. The Court asserted its jurisdiction despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, as the relevant events occurred before the withdrawal date. As a result, Mr. Ivanov was awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
**Structure and Main Provisions**
* **Procedure:** Details the application process, including the applicant’s representation and notification to the Russian Government.
* **Facts:** Briefly describes the applicant’s complaints regarding secret surveillance during criminal proceedings.
* **Law:**
* **Jurisdiction:** Affirms the Court’s jurisdiction over the case because the relevant events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 8:** Focuses on the complaint of secret surveillance, referencing previous similar cases where violations were found. It emphasizes the need for surveillance measures to be “in accordance with law,” pursue a legitimate aim, and be “necessary in a democratic society.”
* **Other Alleged Violations Under Well-Established Case-Law:** Addresses other complaints, particularly concerning the fairness of the criminal proceedings, referencing existing case law on the matter.
* **Remaining Complaints:** Dismisses some complaints under Articles 6, 10, and 11 of the Convention, finding either a lack of admissibility or no appearance of a violation.
* **Application of Article 41:** Determines the compensation to be awarded to the applicant, referencing similar past cases.
* **Appendix:** Provides specific details about the applicant, the nature of the surveillance, and the amounts awarded.
**Key Provisions for Use**
* **Emphasis on “Necessity” and “Proportionality”:** The judgment underscores the importance of domestic courts thoroughly assessing whether surveillance measures are truly necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the aim pursued.
* **Right to Contest Evidence:** The decision highlights the right of an accused individual to have an adequate opportunity to challenge evidence presented against them, particularly evidence obtained unilaterally by the prosecution.
* **Jurisdictional Point:** The Court explicitly states its jurisdiction over cases concerning events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Link to Previous Case Law:** The judgment relies heavily on established case law, particularly in cases involving similar complaints against Russia, providing a consistent interpretation of Article 8 and fair trial principles.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainians who were subjected to similar surveillance or faced unfair criminal proceedings in Russia or in territories under Russian control before September 16, 2022. They may be able to use this judgment as a precedent in potential applications to the ECtHR.
CASE OF KARIMLI v. AZERBAIJAN
Here’s a breakdown of the Karimli v. Azerbaijan judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Azerbaijan in violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention. The case concerned the arrest and administrative detention of the applicant, Mr. Karimli, for participating in a public assembly. The Court determined that the measures taken against him were disproportionate and unlawful, and that the administrative proceedings against him were unfair.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** Details the application process, including the applicant’s representation and notification to the Azerbaijani Government.
* **Facts:** Summarizes the applicant’s complaint regarding unlawful and disproportionate measures during a public assembly, referencing Articles 5 § 1 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.
* **Law – Article 11 Violation:** Focuses on the complaint under Article 11, citing previous similar cases where the Court found violations (Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan). It concludes that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of assembly was unlawful, thus violating Article 11.
* **Law – Other Alleged Violations:** Addresses the complaint under Article 6 § 1 regarding the fairness of the trial, referencing established case-law. The Court found this complaint admissible and indicative of a violation. It decided not to separately examine the remaining complaints under Article 5 § 1 and Article 6 §§ 1 and 3, considering the findings already made.
* **Article 41 Application:** Determines just satisfaction, awarding sums for damages and dismissing remaining claims.
* **Decision:** Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 11 admissible, finds breaches of both articles, orders the respondent State to pay the applicant specified amounts, and dismisses the remaining claims.
* **Appendix:** Provides a table with details of the application, including the applicant’s information, the public event, the administrative offence, the penalty, and the amounts awarded for damages and expenses.
3. **Key Provisions for Use:**
* The judgment reinforces the importance of the right to freedom of assembly (Article 11) and the right to a fair trial (Article 6 § 1).
* It highlights that measures taken against participants in public assemblies must be lawful and proportionate.
* The decision references previous cases (Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, and Hasanov and Others v. Azerbaijan), indicating a pattern of similar violations in Azerbaijan.
* The Court’s decision not to examine separately the complaints under Article 5 § 1 and Article 6 §§ 1 and 3, after finding violations of Article 11 and Article 6 § 1, suggests a prioritization of the core issues in the case.
CASE OF KIRILYUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Kirilyuk and Others v. Russia*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on Human Rights in the cases of several applicants due to unlawful detention. The Court found that the detentions were carried out in violation of domestic law requirements. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to the lack of impartiality in administrative offense proceedings, restrictions on freedom of expression, secret surveillance measures, and the lack of effective remedies. The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants specified amounts in damages. The violations occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on 16 September 2022, thus the Court retained jurisdiction.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses applications lodged against Russia concerning alleged violations of the Convention.
* **Facts:** The facts relate to the applicants’ complaints of unlawful detention and other violations.
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court affirmed its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Article 5 § 1 Violation:** The Court found that the applicants’ detentions were contrary to domestic law and thus violated Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court also found violations related to the lack of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings, secret surveillance, restrictions on freedom of expression, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention sentences.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for damages.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Unlawful Detention:** The decision reinforces the principle that detention must comply strictly with domestic law. Any deviation from national legal procedures can lead to a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
* **Fair Trial Issues:** The decision highlights the importance of impartiality in administrative offense proceedings, particularly the need for a prosecuting party to ensure fairness.
* **Freedom of Expression:** The decision underscores the protection of freedom of expression, particularly in the context of statements about the military and participation in public assemblies.
* **Secret Surveillance:** The decision emphasizes the need for judicial oversight and effective remedies in cases involving secret surveillance measures.
* **Effective Remedy:** The decision stresses the importance of providing effective remedies for complaints regarding Convention violations, including those related to secret surveillance.
**** This decision is important as it highlights Russia’s violations of human rights prior to its exit from the Council of Europe and sets a precedent for similar cases involving unlawful detention, fair trial issues, freedom of expression, and secret surveillance.
CASE OF KIROV LRO AND DMITRIYEVYKH v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Kirov LRO and Dmitriyevykh v. Russia decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 9 (freedom of religion) in conjunction with Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. This violation stemmed from the prosecution of Mr. Dmitriyevykh for distributing religious publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses that were labeled as “extremist” material under Russian law. The Court emphasized that Russian courts did not adequately assess the context, intentions, or potential harm of the distribution, focusing solely on the formal classification of the material. The ECtHR struck out the part of the application lodged by the Kirov local religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, finding that the main legal issue has already been determined in the case of Taganrog LRO and Others.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Partial Strike Out:** The application by Kirov LRO was struck out because a similar case (Taganrog LRO and Others) had already addressed the issue of forced dissolution of the organization.
* **Violation of Article 9:** The core of the decision focuses on Mr. Dmitriyevykh’s prosecution. The Court referenced the Taganrog LRO and Others case, reiterating that Russia’s application of its extremism laws to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ publications was overly formalistic and failed to consider the specific circumstances of dissemination.
* **Remaining Complaint:** The Court decided that the additional complaint under Article 14 did not require separate examination.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded Mr. Dmitriyevykh 7,500 euros for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Key Provisions for Use:**
* The decision reinforces the ECtHR’s stance against the overly broad application of Russian extremism laws, particularly concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses.
* It highlights the importance of assessing the context, intent, and potential harm when restricting freedom of religion and expression, rather than relying solely on the formal classification of materials.
* The reference to the Taganrog LRO and Others case is crucial, as it establishes a precedent for similar cases involving the persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia.
: This decision has implications for understanding the scope of religious freedom and the limitations on applying anti-extremism legislation, particularly in the context of Russia’s treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It may be relevant to cases involving similar restrictions on religious expression affecting Ukrainians, especially in territories under Russian control or influence.
CASE OF KOSTYLENKOV v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Kostylenkov v. Russia judgment 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 the ill-treatment of the applicant, Mr. Kostylenkov, by State officials during a search of his apartment and the subsequent lack of a proper investigation into his complaints. The Court also identified a violation of Article 5 § 4 concerning the excessive length of judicial review of his detention. The Court emphasized that the facts occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention, thus establishing its jurisdiction. The applicant had complained of being beaten by police officers after refusing to confess to involvement in an extremist organization, and medical evidence supported his claims of injuries. The Court awarded Mr. Kostylenkov 26,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** Details the application process, representation, and notification to the Russian Government.
* **Facts:** Summarizes the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment and lack of investigation.
* **Law:**
* **Jurisdiction:** Affirms the Court’s jurisdiction over the case, as the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Article 3 Violation:** Highlights the applicant’s complaint of inhuman treatment and the lack of proper investigation. It references previous case law (Bouyid v. Belgium, Sheydayev v. Russia, Lyapin v. Russia, Samesov v. Russia) to support the finding that the burden of proof lies on the government to show that the use of force was not excessive. The Court found a breach of both substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** Addresses the complaint under Article 5 regarding the length of judicial review of detention, citing Idalov v. Russia.
* **Remaining Complaints:** States that additional complaints under Article 13 do not need separate examination as the main legal issues have been determined.
* **Article 41 Application:** Awards the applicant compensation based on the Court’s case-law.
* **Decision:** Formally declares the violations and orders the respondent state to pay compensation.
* **Appendix:** Provides specific details about the applicant, the factual information, medical evidence, dates of complaints, and the amount awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Burden of Proof in Ill-Treatment Cases:** The judgment reinforces that when an individual alleges ill-treatment while under the control of State authorities, the burden shifts to the government to prove that the use of force was not excessive.
* **Procedural Obligation under Article 3:** The decision highlights the State’s obligation to conduct a thorough investigation into credible allegations of ill-treatment, including assessing the necessity and proportionality of any force used.
* **Jurisdictional Timeline:** The Court explicitly states its jurisdiction extends to facts occurring before September 16, 2022, when Russia ceased being a party to the Convention.
* **Compensation:** The judgment sets a precedent for compensation in cases involving ill-treatment and ineffective investigations, awarding 26,000 euros in this instance.
This decision underscores the importance of protecting individuals from ill-treatment by State officials and ensuring that allegations of such treatment are thoroughly investigated.
CASE OF LINEA PROPERTY, S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Linea Property, s.r.o. v. Slovakia, concerning the excessive length of three sets of civil proceedings initiated by the applicant company in Slovakia. The Court found that the length of these proceedings violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. The ECHR rejected the Slovak Government’s arguments regarding the applicant’s victim status and the exhaustion of domestic remedies. It emphasized that the just satisfaction awarded by the Constitutional Court was insufficient given the overall length of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicant company specific amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, for the breaches found.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history, outlining the case’s origin and the parties involved. It then presents the facts, detailing the specific civil proceedings at the heart of the complaint and the applicant’s grievances regarding their length. The “Law” section includes the joinder of the applications, followed by the Court’s assessment of the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, considering arguments from both sides. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41, concerning just satisfaction, and concludes with the Court’s operative provisions, including the finding of a violation and the order for compensation. There are no changes compared to previous versions, as the document provided is the final judgment.
The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the excessive length of the civil proceedings and the Court’s assessment of the applicant’s victim status despite the Constitutional Court’s prior judgments and awards. The ECHR’s rejection of the Government’s arguments on these points and its emphasis on the overall length of the proceedings, as well as the inadequacy of the domestic compensation, are crucial for understanding the scope and implications of this judgment. The specific amounts awarded for damages and costs are also significant for practical application.
CASE OF LYZOGUB AND KRAVCHENKO v. UKRAINE
This is an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in the case of *Lyzogub and Kravchenko v. Ukraine*.
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The ECtHR found Ukraine in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court concluded that the length of the civil proceedings in both applicants’ cases was excessive and that they did not have an effective remedy available to them in Ukraine to complain about the length of these proceedings. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicants sums of money for non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the two applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13:** The Court assessed the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings based on its established criteria, including the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants. Referencing a previous leading case against Ukraine (*Karnaushenko v. Ukraine*), the Court found that the length of the proceedings was excessive and no effective remedy was available.
* **Application of Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court ordered Ukraine to pay EUR 4,800 to Mr. Lyzogub and EUR 2,400 to Mr. Kravchenko for non-pecuniary damage, plus any applicable taxes. It also stipulated that interest would accrue on these amounts in case of late payment.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a table with details of each application, including the applicants’ names, dates of birth, dates and length of the proceedings, levels of jurisdiction involved, and the amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The judgment reinforces the principle that states must ensure civil proceedings are conducted within a “reasonable time” as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
* It highlights the importance of Article 13, requiring states to provide an effective remedy for violations of Convention rights, including the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
* The specific amounts awarded for non-pecuniary damage may serve as a reference point in similar cases concerning lengthy proceedings in Ukraine.
* **** The judgment may have implications for Ukraine, requiring it to improve the efficiency of its judicial system and provide effective remedies for individuals whose rights under Article 6 § 1 have been violated.
CASE OF MEDIAKOMPANIYA SLOVO, TOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Mediakompaniya Slovo, TOV and Others v. Ukraine*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined a complaint by Ukrainian journalists and a media company concerning a court order to retract statements published in a newspaper article alleging corruption at a municipal water-supply company. The applicants argued that the order violated their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECtHR found that while the order constituted an interference with freedom of expression and had a legal basis and legitimate aim, it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it were relevant and sufficient. Consequently, the Court found no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of one applicant, Mr Vasylenko, while striking out the application in respect of the other applicants due to the death of one and the other’s wish not to pursue the case.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The decision begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicants, their representation, and the Ukrainian Government’s representation.
* It summarizes the facts of the case, focusing on the publication of the article, the statements it contained, and the subsequent legal proceedings in Ukraine.
* The Court then addresses the striking out of the complaints lodged by Ms Vasylenko and Mediakompaniya Slovo, TOV, due to the death of one applicant and the other’s wish not to pursue the application.
* The decision proceeds to assess the alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention, examining whether the interference with freedom of expression was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society.
* The Court analyzes the nature of the statements made in the article, distinguishing between statements of fact and value judgments, and defers to the domestic courts’ assessment that the statements were factual.
* The decision concludes by stating that there was no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of Mr Vasylenko, as the interference was supported by relevant and sufficient reasons, and the courts struck a fair balance between the competing interests.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Distinction between facts and value judgments:** The Court reiterated the importance of distinguishing between statements of fact and value judgments in assessing freedom of expression cases.
* **Margin of appreciation:** The decision highlights the margin of appreciation afforded to national authorities, particularly domestic courts, in classifying statements as facts or value judgments.
* **Proportionality of interference:** The Court emphasized the need for any interference with freedom of expression to be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, considering the nature and severity of the penalties imposed.
* **Public interest:** The Court acknowledged the public interest in reporting on corruption in municipal enterprises but stressed the importance of providing evidence to support factual statements.
This decision underscores the balance that must be struck between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation, particularly in the context of reporting on matters of public interest.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine.
CASE OF MISHKINA v. RUSSIA
This is an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decision in the case of Mishkina v. Russia.
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR found Russia in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the applicant’s confinement in a metal cage during criminal proceedings, which the Court deemed degrading treatment. The Court also addressed other complaints related to inadequate conditions of transport and the lack of an effective remedy, finding additional violations based on well-established case-law. The decision underscores the Court’s stance against the use of metal cages in courtrooms and highlights the importance of humane treatment during detention and transport. The Court held that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and the parties involved. It then presents the facts of the case, focusing on the applicant’s complaints about her confinement in a metal cage. The legal analysis addresses the Court’s jurisdiction, followed by a detailed examination of the alleged violation of Article 3 concerning degrading treatment. The Court references previous case-law, particularly Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, to support its finding of a violation. The judgment also addresses other alleged violations related to transport conditions and the lack of effective remedies, referencing Tomov and Others v. Russia. Finally, the Court considers the application of Article 41, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
The most important provision is the reaffirmation that confining an individual in a metal cage in a courtroom constitutes degrading treatment and violates Article 3 of the Convention. This decision reinforces the ECtHR’s consistent position on this issue, providing a clear precedent for similar cases. Additionally, the judgment highlights the importance of providing adequate conditions during transport and ensuring effective remedies for grievances related to detention conditions. The decision also clarifies the Court’s jurisdiction over cases against Russia for events that occurred before September 16, 2022.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainians who have experienced similar treatment, as it reinforces the prohibition of degrading treatment and the right to effective remedies.
CASE OF NÉMET AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Német and Others v. Hungary, concerning four applications related to the excessive length of criminal proceedings in Hungary. The Court unanimously found that Hungary had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time in criminal matters. Additionally, the Court found violations regarding other complaints raised under its well-established case-law, particularly concerning the lack of effective remedies in domestic law for the excessive length of proceedings (Article 13). The Court decided to join the applications due to their similar subject matter. It also awarded the applicants sums ranging from EUR 2,400 to EUR 5,500 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs, to be paid within three months, with a provision for default interest.
The decision is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural history, outlining the lodging of the applications and notification to the Hungarian Government. It then presents the facts of the case, including a list of applicants and details of their applications. The legal analysis includes the joinder of applications, the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding the length of proceedings, and other alleged violations under well-established case-law. The Court refers to its previous judgment in Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary, which addressed similar issues. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41, concerning just satisfaction, and outlines the amounts awarded to each applicant. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this is the final judgment.
The most important provisions of this decision are the findings of violations of Article 6 § 1 due to the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the violations related to the lack of effective remedies (Article 13). The Court’s reliance on its previous case-law, particularly Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary, highlights a consistent pattern of similar violations in Hungary. The specific amounts awarded to each applicant provide a tangible measure of the Court’s assessment of the damages suffered. This decision reinforces the importance of timely judicial proceedings and the availability of effective remedies for Convention violations.
CASE OF PARASKUN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Paraskun and Others v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The violations stemmed from the excessive length of civil proceedings in Ukraine and the lack of effective remedies for addressing such delays. The Court joined eleven similar applications, finding a systemic issue. It also addressed the issue of standing for a deceased applicant, allowing his son to continue the application. The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses applications lodged against Ukraine concerning the length of civil proceedings.
* **Facts:** It references a list of applicants and details of their applications, which are outlined in an appended table.
* **Law:**
* The Court decided to join the applications due to their similar subject matter.
* It addressed the legal standing (locus standi) of Mr. Andriy Volodymyrovych Filippov to continue his deceased father’s application, establishing his legitimate interest in pursuing the case.
* The Court examined the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, reiterating the criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings.
* It referred to a previous leading case, Karnaushenko v. Ukraine, which dealt with similar issues.
* The Court found that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that the applicants lacked effective remedies, thus violating Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.
* Under Article 41, the Court awarded specific sums to the applicants as compensation, as detailed in the appended table.
* **Decision:** The Court formally declared the violations and outlined the compensation to be paid by Ukraine, including interest on delayed payments.
* **Appendix:** A table lists the applicants, details of their cases (dates, length of proceedings, etc.), and the amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 6 § 1:** The decision confirms that excessively long civil proceedings without justification constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
* **Violation of Article 13:** The decision underscores the importance of having effective remedies available at the national level to address complaints about the length of proceedings.
* **Locus Standi:** The judgment clarifies the conditions under which a next of kin can pursue an application on behalf of a deceased applicant.
* **Compensation:** The amounts awarded provide a benchmark for compensation in similar cases involving lengthy proceedings in Ukraine.
* **Systemic Issue:** The joinder of multiple applications indicates a systemic problem within the Ukrainian legal system regarding the length of civil proceedings and the lack of effective remedies.
**** This decision is directly related to Ukraine and highlights ongoing issues within its judicial system, particularly concerning the length of legal proceedings and the availability of effective remedies for those affected. This ruling may have implications for other similar cases involving Ukrainian applicants.
CASE OF SEVOSTYANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
This is an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of *Sevostyanova and Others v. Russia*.
**Essence of the Decision**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that Russia violated Article 5 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the cases of Ms. Sevostyanova, Mr. Nemtsev, and Mr. Dyuryagin due to unlawful detention. The Court found that their detentions were contrary to domestic law requirements. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to the lack of impartiality in administrative-offense proceedings, disproportionate measures against participants in public assemblies, and delayed review of administrative detention sentences, based on its well-established case-law. The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
**Structure and Main Provisions**
The judgment begins with procedural information, including the origin of the applications and notification to the Russian Government. It then outlines the facts of the cases, focusing on the applicants’ complaints of unlawful detention and other violations. The Court decided to join the applications due to their similar subject matter. The judgment addresses the Court’s jurisdiction, noting that the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The core of the judgment analyzes the alleged violation of Article 5 § 1, referencing previous similar cases where the Court found violations. It also addresses other alleged violations under the Convention, citing relevant case-law. The Court dismisses some complaints as inadmissible or unnecessary to examine separately. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41, awarding just satisfaction to the applicants. There are no changes compared to previous versions.
**Main Provisions for Use**
The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to liberty and security. The Court emphasized that detention must comply with domestic law and the Convention’s “lawfulness” guarantee. The decision also highlights the importance of impartiality in administrative-offense proceedings and the need for proportionate measures in handling public assemblies. The judgment confirms the inadmissibility of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
CASE OF SHUFRYCH v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in the case of *Shufrych v. Ukraine*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns a complaint by Mr. Shufrych against Ukraine regarding deficiencies in the proceedings for reviewing the lawfulness of his detention. The ECtHR found that Ukraine violated Article 5 § 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention. The Court determined that the review process in Mr. Shufrych’s case lacked the necessary speediness, referencing a similar prior case against Ukraine (*Kharchenko v. Ukraine*). While other complaints raised by the applicant were deemed inadmissible, the Court awarded him EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 250 for costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s origin, noting that the application was lodged with the Court on 3 January 2024, and the applicant was represented by a lawyer from Kyiv.
* **Facts:** This section briefly refers to an appended table containing the applicant’s details and relevant information.
* **Law:** This is the core of the judgment, focusing on the alleged violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
* The Court refers to its established case law, particularly the *Kharchenko v. Ukraine* case, highlighting the requirement for a review of detention to address both procedural and substantive conditions.
* The Court concludes that the facts of Mr. Shufrych’s case align with the issues previously identified in *Kharchenko*, leading to a finding of a violation.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court dismisses the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, deeming them inadmissible or not indicative of a violation.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court addresses the issue of just satisfaction, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs, based on its case law.
* **Operative Provisions:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision, declaring the complaints regarding the review of detention admissible, finding a violation of Article 5 § 4, and outlining the financial compensation to be paid by Ukraine.
* **Appendix:** A table provides specific details such as the applicant’s information, dates of relevant court decisions, and the amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Violation of Article 5 § 4:** The key takeaway is the finding that Ukraine violated Article 5 § 4 due to a lack of speediness in the review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention.
* **Reference to *Kharchenko v. Ukraine*:** The judgment explicitly relies on the *Kharchenko* case, indicating that the ECtHR is applying established principles regarding the requirements for a lawful and timely review of detention.
* **Compensation:** The decision sets a precedent for compensation in similar cases, awarding EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 250 for costs and expenses.
* **Admissibility:** The decision highlights the importance of the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine and has implications for Ukrainians, it highlights the importance of the right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
CASE OF ŞIMŞEK v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s a breakdown of the Şimşek v. Türkiye decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
In the case of Şimşek v. Türkiye, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the lack of adequate reasoning in Turkish court decisions. The applicant, Mustafa Şimşek, complained that domestic courts failed to properly explain their decisions regarding his dismissal following state of emergency legislation. The ECHR concluded that the Turkish courts did not address key arguments raised by Şimşek, specifically concerning the reasons for his dismissal and the alleged ties to FETÖ/PDY. As a result, the Court deemed that Şimşek’s right to a reasoned court decision was not secured. The Court awarded the applicant 2,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 250 euros for costs and expenses.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s origin, noting that the application was lodged against Türkiye in 2019 and that the applicant was represented by a lawyer from Diyarbakır.
* **Facts:** It summarizes the applicant’s complaint regarding the lack of reasoning in court decisions.
* **Law:** The decision references Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, including the right to a reasoned judgment. It cites established case-law, emphasizing that courts must provide adequate reasons for their decisions, tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. The Court refers to previous cases that have established principles regarding the right to a reasoned decision under Article 6 § 1, specifically in the context of Turkish cases.
* **Application of Article 41:** Addresses the issue of just satisfaction, referencing previous case-law and determining the amounts to be awarded to the applicant for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
* **Operative Provisions:** The Court declares the complaint concerning the lack of reasoning admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible. It holds that there was a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and orders Türkiye to pay the applicant specified amounts for damages and costs.
* **Appendix:** Provides a table with details of the application, including the applicant’s information, the subject matter of the domestic proceedings, the key argument the court failed to address, the dates of the court decisions, and the amounts awarded.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* The decision reinforces the principle that courts must provide adequate and specific reasons for their decisions, especially when dealing with interferences with rights secured under the Convention.
* It highlights that domestic courts must address pertinent and important arguments raised by applicants, rather than relying on automatic or stereotypical reasoning.
* The judgment can be used as a reference in cases where individuals claim that domestic courts have failed to provide sufficient reasoning for their decisions, particularly in the context of dismissals or other interferences with fundamental rights.
* The decision adds to the body of case law regarding Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, specifically in relation to Türkiye, and can be cited in similar cases before the ECHR.
CASE OF ŠKAVRONSKIS v. LATVIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Škavronskis v. Latvia decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Latvia in violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The case concerned Mr. Škavronskis’ pre-trial detention, during which he was denied access to key documents that formed the basis of the detention order. This denial prevented him from effectively challenging the lawfulness of his detention, violating the principle of equality of arms. The ECtHR emphasized that while investigations may require some secrecy, it cannot come at the expense of the defendant’s right to a fair trial, including access to essential information needed to challenge their detention. The Court ruled that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicant’s arrest, the charges against him (pimping and money laundering), and the initial denial of access to case materials.
* It details the domestic court proceedings, highlighting the Riga District Court’s decision to place the applicant in pre-trial detention and the Riga Regional Court’s dismissal of his appeal, both based on case materials not fully disclosed to the defense.
* The judgment then references the relevant domestic law, specifically Section 602(3)(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law, which allows access to case-file material unless it infringes on others’ rights, damages public interests, or hinders criminal proceedings.
* The Court’s assessment focuses on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, emphasizing the importance of procedural guarantees and equality of arms in detention proceedings.
* The ECtHR reiterates its established case law, stating that equality of arms is not ensured if counsel is denied access to essential documents needed to challenge the lawfulness of detention.
* The Court concludes that the domestic proceedings did not comply with Article 5 § 4 because the applicant was not given an adequate opportunity to challenge the evidence relied upon by the domestic courts.
* Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, finding that the violation itself is sufficient compensation in this case.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Equality of Arms:** The decision reinforces the principle that defendants must have access to the information used to justify their detention to effectively challenge its lawfulness.
* **Balancing Interests:** While acknowledging the need for investigative secrecy, the ECtHR stresses that this cannot override the fundamental rights of the defense. Essential information must be made available to the suspect’s lawyer.
* **Impact of Denied Access:** The Court highlights that denying access to case materials that play a key role in the detention decision undermines the fairness of the proceedings.
* **General Information vs. Evidence:** Providing a general outline of the alleged offenses is insufficient; the applicant must be informed of the evidence supporting the allegations to challenge its reliability.
This decision serves as a reminder to national courts of the importance of balancing the needs of criminal investigations with the rights of the accused, particularly the right to access information necessary to challenge the lawfulness of detention.
CASE OF SOKOLOV AND MEDVEDKOVA v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Sokolov and Medvedkova v. Russia, concerning inadequate conditions of detention during the applicants’ transport. The Court found that the conditions of transport, including overcrowding, lack of ventilation and light, inadequate access to toilet facilities, and other deficiencies, violated Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court also addressed other complaints raised by Ms. Medvedkova, finding a violation due to the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law regarding the inadequate transport conditions. The Court asserted its jurisdiction over the case, as the facts occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. As a result, the Court awarded each applicant 1,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs.
The decision is structured around the procedure, facts, and legal analysis. It begins by outlining the case’s origin and the complaints raised by the applicants. The Court then addresses the joinder of the applications and confirms its jurisdiction. The core of the decision focuses on the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention, assessing the conditions of detention during transport against established case-law. The Court also considers other alleged violations raised by Ms. Medvedkova. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, determining the compensation to be awarded to the applicants. There are no changes compared to previous versions, as this is the initial judgment.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the Court’s established case-law regarding the conditions of detention during transport, particularly the principle that transporting detainees in conveyances offering less than 0.5 square meters of space per person raises a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3. The decision also highlights the importance of providing effective remedies for complaints about inadequate conditions of transport.
CASE OF STOMAKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
This judgment concerns multiple applications against Russia related to restrictions on freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has decided to join these applications and address them in a single judgment. The Court found that Russia violated Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression, in each of the cases. The violations occurred due to various restrictions imposed by Russian authorities on the applicants’ right to express themselves freely. The Court also found a violation of Article 13 in one of the applications, concerning the lack of an effective remedy against the blocking of a website.
The structure of the decision includes sections on procedure, facts, joinder of applications, jurisdiction, alleged violation of Article 10, other alleged violations under well-established case-law, application of Article 41, and the court’s decision. The decision references previous case law of the ECtHR, particularly concerning hate speech, extremist activities, blocking of websites, and disrespect for authorities. The Court reiterated that freedom of expression is a cornerstone of a democratic society and applies even to ideas that may offend, shock, or disturb. The decision emphasizes that the Russian authorities failed to strike a fair balance between restricting expression and upholding the principles of Article 10.
The most important provision of this decision is the confirmation that Russia violated Article 10 of the Convention in all the applications considered, due to disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression. This reaffirms the importance of protecting freedom of expression, even when the expressed views are controversial or critical of the government. The decision also highlights the importance of having effective remedies against website blocking. The Court awarded monetary compensation to each of the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages suffered as a result of the violations.
CASE OF TINGAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of *Tingayev and Others v. Russia*, concerning multiple applications related to violations of human rights within Russian detention facilities. The Court found Russia in violation of Article 8 of the Convention due to the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial and post-conviction facilities, deeming such surveillance not “in accordance with law.” Additionally, the Court identified violations related to the use of metal cages in courtrooms, inadequate detention conditions, restrictions on family visits, and the lack of effective remedies for these issues, referencing its well-established case-law. The Court held that there was no need to separately address complaints regarding the lack of domestic remedies for placement in metal cages and discriminatory treatment concerning the right to vote. The Court decided that it had jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022.
The judgment is structured around the Court’s assessment of multiple applications, which were joined due to their similar subject matter. It addresses the facts of the cases, the relevant legal provisions, and the Court’s reasoning in finding violations of the Convention. The decision references previous case-law, particularly *Gorlov and Others v. Russia*, to establish the principles concerning detainees’ rights to privacy and the inadequacy of Russian law regarding video surveillance. The judgment also addresses other alleged violations, such as the use of metal cages in courtrooms and inadequate detention conditions, based on well-established case-law. Finally, the Court addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, determining just satisfaction for the applicants.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation that permanent video surveillance of detainees in Russian detention facilities, without adequate legal safeguards, violates Article 8 of the Convention. The Court also highlights the lack of effective domestic remedies for these violations. The judgment also awards monetary compensation to some of the applicants for the violations suffered, while for others, the finding of a violation was considered sufficient just satisfaction.
CASE OF YILDIRIM v. TÜRKİYE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of Yıldırım v. Türkiye found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the lack of reasoning in court decisions regarding the applicant’s dismissal. The applicant, Ramazan Yıldırım, complained that domestic courts failed to adequately explain the reasons for terminating his secondment contract based on suspicion of affiliation with FETÖ/PDY. The ECHR concluded that the Turkish courts did not address the applicant’s key argument that he was not subject to any investigation or complaint during his employment and failed to explain the grounds for suspicion of his affiliation. The Court emphasized that domestic courts dismissed the case based on information from Governorships without conducting an individualized assessment or explaining the specific grounds for the applicant’s alleged affiliation. As a result, the ECHR deemed the complaint admissible and found a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant was awarded 2,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and the parties involved. It then presents the facts, summarizing the applicant’s complaint about the lack of reasoning in court decisions. The “Law” section details the relevant legal principles under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, referencing established case-law on the duty of courts to provide reasoned judgments. It also cites several Turkish cases where these principles have been applied. The Court then applies these principles to the facts of the case, finding that the domestic courts failed to provide adequate reasons for their decisions. Finally, the decision addresses the applicant’s remaining complaint under Article 8, which was deemed inadmissible, and outlines the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding the applicant compensation.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the principle that courts must provide adequate reasoning for their decisions, especially when those decisions impact fundamental rights. The ECHR emphasized that this duty requires courts to address pertinent and important arguments raised by the applicant and to avoid relying on automatic or stereotypical reasoning. This decision serves as a reminder to national courts of their obligation to provide clear and specific explanations for their judgments, ensuring that parties to judicial proceedings receive a meaningful response to their arguments.
CASE OF ZLOBIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of *Zlobin and Others v. Russia*, concerning multiple applications related to restrictions on freedom of expression. The Court found that Russia had violated Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in each case. The applicants complained about various restrictions imposed by Russian courts on their right to freedom of expression, often in the context of defamation or libel proceedings. The ECHR held that the Russian authorities failed to conduct a Convention-compliant balancing exercise between the right to freedom of expression and other rights, as required by the Court’s established case-law. Additionally, in one application (no. 9096/13), the Court found a violation due to a lack of impartiality of judges in civil proceedings. The Court awarded the applicants sums ranging from EUR 7,500 to EUR 9,750 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs.
The judgment is structured as follows: it begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s initiation and notification to the Russian Government. It then presents the facts, summarizing the applicants’ complaints regarding restrictions on freedom of expression. The “Law” section addresses the joinder of the applications and the Court’s jurisdiction, noting that the relevant events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The core of the judgment lies in the analysis of the alleged violation of Article 10 §1, where the Court reiterates established principles on freedom of expression and references previous similar cases. It concludes that the Russian authorities failed to apply Convention-compliant standards. The judgment also addresses another alleged violation in application no. 9096/13, finding a lack of impartiality of judges. Finally, it outlines the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding sums to the applicants.
The main provisions of the decision that are most important for its use are those concerning the violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The Court emphasizes that freedom of expression is a cornerstone of a democratic society and applies even to ideas that may offend, shock, or disturb. The Court reiterates that domestic authorities must conduct a proper balancing exercise between the right to freedom of expression and other rights, in line with the criteria established in the Court’s case-law. The decision also highlights the importance of judicial impartiality, particularly in cases where there may be conflicts of interest. This judgment reinforces the ECHR’s commitment to protecting freedom of expression and ensuring fair judicial proceedings, even in cases involving defamation or libel.
