CASE OF MORAWIEC v. POLAND
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in the case of Morawiec v. Poland:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns a Polish judge, Beata Morawiec, who complained that the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court (DCSC) in Poland violated her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Specifically, she argued that the DCSC’s decision to lift her immunity from prosecution and suspend her from judicial duties infringed her right to a fair trial (Article 6), her right to respect for private life (Article 8), and her freedom of expression (Article 10). The ECtHR found violations of all three articles, emphasizing that the DCSC was not an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” and that the actions against Morawiec were not “in accordance with the law” and disproportionate.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction and Facts:** The judgment outlines the background of the case, including Morawiec’s profile as a judge and her public activity, particularly her criticism of judicial reforms in Poland. It details the events leading to the lifting of her immunity and suspension, as well as the public reaction and media coverage.
* **Legal Context:** The ECtHR references its previous case law on the overhaul of the judiciary in Poland, particularly the cases of Reczkowicz, Juszczyszyn, and Tuleya.
* **Admissibility:** The Court addresses and dismisses the Polish Government’s preliminary objections, including arguments about the lack of significant disadvantage to the applicant, the inapplicability of Article 6 due to a ruling by the Polish Constitutional Court, the premature nature of the application, and the applicant’s alleged loss of victim status.
* **Article 6 Violation:** The ECtHR finds that Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) applies to both the suspension (civil limb) and the lifting of immunity (criminal limb). It concludes that the DCSC was not an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law,” thus violating Morawiec’s rights.
* **Article 8 Violation:** The Court determines that the DCSC’s decision significantly affected Morawiec’s private life, triggering Article 8. It finds that the interference was not “in accordance with the law” due to the DCSC’s lack of legitimacy as a court.
* **Article 10 Violation:** The ECtHR concludes that the actions against Morawiec were prompted by her views and criticisms of the judicial reforms, thus interfering with her freedom of expression. It finds that this interference was not “in accordance with the law” and did not pursue any legitimate aim.
* **Article 13:** The Court does not find it necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13, considering that the requirements of Article 13 are absorbed by the more stringent requirements of Article 6.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awards Morawiec EUR 21,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Applicability of Article 6:** The judgment confirms that Article 6 applies to proceedings concerning the lifting of judicial immunity and suspension from judicial duties, both under its civil and criminal limbs.
* **”Tribunal Established by Law”:** The ECtHR reiterates its stance that the DCSC in Poland did not meet the requirements of an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law,” citing the flawed appointment process of its judges.
* **Interference with Private Life and Freedom of Expression:** The decision underscores that actions against judges, particularly those who are critical of government policies affecting the judiciary, can constitute an interference with their rights under Articles 8 and 10.
* **Victim Status:** The ECtHR clarifies that a favorable second-instance decision by the same problematic body (DCSC) does not automatically deprive an applicant of victim status, especially when the underlying issues of independence and impartiality remain unaddressed.
**** This decision adds to the growing body of ECtHR case law criticizing the judicial reforms in Poland and their impact on the independence of the judiciary. It reinforces the importance of safeguarding judges’ rights to a fair trial, respect for private life, and freedom of expression, especially in the face of reforms that may undermine the rule of law.
CASE OF A.V. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of A.V. v. the Republic of Moldova:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns the ineffective investigation into the death of the applicant’s 15-year-old daughter, A., who was found dead after falling from a building. The applicant alleged violations of Articles 2, 3, 8, and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, arguing that the investigation failed to adequately address the suspicious circumstances surrounding her daughter’s death, including a possible sexual assault. The Court found that the Moldovan authorities failed to conduct a thorough and prompt investigation into the circumstances of A.’s death and the potential sexual assault, leading to violations of the procedural limbs of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 15,600 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. The Court did not find it necessary to examine the complaints under Articles 8 and 13 separately.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Describes the applicant’s complaint regarding the ineffective investigation into her daughter’s death.
* **Investigation into A.’s Death:** Details the initial investigation, including forensic reports, witness testimonies, and the initial refusal to initiate a criminal investigation.
* **Investigation into the Sexual Assault:** Describes the separate investigation into the possibility of sexual assault, which was later suspended.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Preliminary Objections:** Addresses and dismisses the Government’s objections regarding abuse of the right of application, the applicant’s lawyer’s authority, and the failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 2:** Analyzes the effectiveness of the investigation into A.’s death, concluding that it was inadequate and violated the procedural limb of Article 2.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3:** Assesses the investigation into the sexual assault, finding it ineffective and in violation of the procedural limb of Article 3.
* **Other Complaints:** States that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints under Articles 8 and 13 separately.
* **Application of Article 41:** Awards the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
* **Operative Provisions:**
* Joins to the merits the Government’s preliminary objection as to the non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies and dismisses it;
* Declares the application admissible;
* Holds that there has been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention;
* Holds that there has been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention;
* Holds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints;
* Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant certain amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage and in respect of costs and expenses;
* Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Duty to Investigate Suspicious Deaths:** The decision reinforces the obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into suspicious deaths, particularly when there are indications of foul play.
* **Investigation of Sexual Assault Allegations:** The decision underscores the importance of a prompt and thorough investigation into allegations of sexual assault, especially when the victim is a minor.
* **Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies:** The Court clarified that applicants are not required to appeal decisions when the investigation is demonstrably ineffective.
* **Victim Participation:** The decision highlights the importance of involving the victim (or, in this case, the victim’s family) in the investigation process and addressing their concerns.
* **Burden of Proof:** The decision emphasizes that the authorities must take all reasonable measures to shed light on the facts and undertake a full and careful analysis of the evidence.
This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of thorough and impartial investigations into suspicious deaths and sexual assault allegations, and it reinforces the State’s obligation to protect the rights of victims and their families.
CASE OF DAMIAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Damian v. the Republic of Moldova:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned the annulment of a property purchase contract involving the applicant, Ms. Livia Damian, who bought a building in Chișinău. The domestic courts annulled the contract due to a series of events stemming from an initial dispute between private companies and the local authorities, ultimately affecting Ms. Damian’s ownership. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Moldova violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (protection of property) because the applicant, as a good-faith buyer, bore an excessive burden due to the authorities’ error in the initial property allocation. The Court held that the State failed to strike a fair balance between the public interest and the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. As a result, the Court ordered Moldova to restitute the building to the applicant or, failing that, to pay her EUR 18,800 in pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 in non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** The judgment begins by outlining the core issue: the proportionality of domestic courts’ decisions to annul the applicant’s property contract.
* **Factual Background:** It details the sequence of events, starting from the initial dispute between companies and the local authorities, the transfer of property, and the subsequent annulment of contracts affecting the applicant’s ownership.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** This section addresses the Government’s argument that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies, which the Court dismisses. It then assesses whether the applicant had a “possession” and whether there was an interference with her property rights. The Court concludes that the interference was disproportionate, leading to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1:** The applicant complained about the fairness of the domestic court proceedings. The Court found that it was not necessary to examine those remaining complaints.
* **Application of Article 41:** This section deals with the applicant’s claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Court awards her EUR 18,800 for pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage, considering her failure to fully carry out due diligence before buying the building.
* **Operative Part:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision, declaring the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 admissible, holding that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Good-Faith Buyer Protection:** The decision emphasizes the protection of good-faith buyers in property transactions, even when initial titles have issues.
* **Proportionality of Interference:** It reiterates the importance of striking a fair balance between the public interest and individual rights when interfering with property rights.
* **State Responsibility:** The judgment highlights that the State should bear the responsibility for correcting its errors without imposing an excessive burden on individuals.
* **Due Diligence:** The decision also touches on the importance of conducting due diligence in property transactions, although it acknowledges that the absence of any inscription or restriction in the real estate register can be a mitigating factor.
I hope this analysis is helpful.
CASE OF ZINAIĆ v. CROATIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of Zinaić v. Croatia found a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, which prohibits trying or punishing someone twice for the same offense (ne bis in idem). The applicant, Mr. Zinaić, was initially fined in minor-offense proceedings for disturbing public peace by hitting M.P. Later, he was convicted in criminal proceedings for inflicting bodily injury on M.P. stemming from the same incident. The ECHR concluded that both convictions arose from the same actions and event, and the Croatian government failed to demonstrate that the two sets of proceedings pursued complementary purposes. The Court also noted that legislative amendments and jurisprudential changes were supposed to prevent similar violations, making the second trial unforeseeable for the applicant. As a result, the Court determined that the duplication of proceedings and penalties caused disproportionate prejudice to the applicant.
The decision begins by outlining the facts of the case, including the initial minor-offense proceedings and the subsequent criminal proceedings against Mr. Zinaić. It then details the applicant’s complaint to the ECHR, asserting a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. The Court assesses the admissibility of the application and refers to established principles on ne bis in idem from previous case law, particularly A and B v. Norway. The judgment distinguishes the case from Bajčić v. Croatia, where the proceedings were considered complementary. The Court emphasizes the similarity to the Maresti v. Croatia case, where a similar violation was found. The decision concludes by addressing the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, awarding the applicant costs and expenses but rejecting the claim for pecuniary damage.
The main provision of the decision is the finding that Croatia violated Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 by convicting Mr. Zinaić twice for the same offense. The Court emphasized that the physical attack on M.P. was central to both the minor offense and the criminal charges, establishing the “idem” element. The Court also found that the “bis” element was present because the applicant was sanctioned twice for substantially the same facts, and the proceedings were not sufficiently connected to form an integral scheme of sanctions. The Court’s reference to the Maresti judgment and the government’s failure to provide convincing reasons for a different conclusion are also important, highlighting the consistency in the Court’s approach to similar cases.
