CASE OF JURIĆ v. CROATIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Jurić v. Croatia:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Croatia violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) in the case of Vanessa Jurić. The core issue was that Croatian courts dismissed Jurić’s claim for compensation for land taken for a road as time-barred. The ECtHR determined that the way Croatian courts calculated the statutory limitation period was not foreseeable for Jurić, disproportionately restricting her access to court. This stemmed from the unclear legal status of unclassified roads in Croatia before 2011 and the lack of clear signals that Jurić’s land had been effectively expropriated. As a result, the ECtHR concluded that the very essence of Jurić’s right to access a court had been impaired.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Provides a brief overview of the case, outlining that it concerns the taking of the applicant’s land for an unclassified access road.
* **Facts:** Details the factual background, including the enactment of the 2011 Roads Act, the applicant’s inheritance of the land, the construction and asphalting of the road, and the subsequent legal proceedings in Croatia.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Sets out the relevant Croatian laws, including the Constitution, various Roads Acts, legislation on property rights, and the Obligations Act. It also includes summaries of relevant decisions by the Croatian Constitutional Court and Supreme Court, as well as references to legal doctrine.
* **The Law:** This section contains:
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention:** Details the applicant’s complaint that the manner in which the domestic courts had calculated the statutory limitation period in her case had been unforeseeable and had resulted in a breach of her right of access to a court.
* **Admissibility:** Declares the complaint admissible.
* **Merits:** Assesses the arguments of both parties (the applicant and the Government) and the Court’s assessment.
* **Other Alleged Violations of the Convention:** Addresses the applicant’s complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and finds no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Discusses just satisfaction, including damage and costs and expenses.
* **Operative Part:** Formally declares the violation, outlines the compensation to be paid to the applicant, and dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.
* **Joint Concurring Opinion:** Includes the joint concurring opinion of Judges Krenc, Kučs and Adamska-Gallant.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Foreseeability of Legal Decisions:** The decision underscores the importance of foreseeability in the application of statutory limitation periods. National courts must ensure that their interpretation and application of laws are sufficiently clear and predictable for individuals.
* **Effective Access to Court:** The ruling reinforces the principle that access to court must be practical and effective, not theoretical or illusory. Dismissing a claim based on an unforeseeable application of limitation periods can violate this right.
* **Unclear Legal Situations:** The ECtHR considered the unclear legal status of unclassified roads in Croatia before 2011 as a critical factor. This highlights the need for clear and accessible laws, especially when property rights are affected.
* **Expropriation and Compensation:** The decision touches upon the issue of de facto expropriation without compensation. The Court emphasized that authorities cannot benefit from unlawful situations where property is taken without due process and fair compensation.
* **Reopening of Proceedings:** The decision mentions the possibility of reopening domestic proceedings following an ECtHR judgment finding a violation. This is a relevant consideration for applicants seeking redress in similar cases.
* **Costs and expenses:** The Court has awarded the sum claimed by the applicant for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court and the Court, but it has rejected her claim for the other costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings. The majority have justified their decision by the fact that “the applicant will be able to have (the relevant part of) those costs reimbursed in the proceedings following her petition for reopening”.
This decision serves as a reminder to states to ensure their legal frameworks are clear, predictable, and applied in a way that respects individuals’ fundamental rights, particularly the right to a fair trial and access to justice.
CASE OF KONSTANTINOU v. CYPRUS
Here’s a breakdown of the Konstantinou v. Cyprus decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
**Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found that Cyprus violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) because Mr. Konstantinou, a judge, was denied access to a court to challenge the decision of the transitional Supreme Council of Judicature (SCJ) not to promote him to district court president. This denial occurred during an interim period of judicial reform. The Court determined that Article 6 was applicable because there was a genuine dispute over Mr. Konstantinou’s right to a fair procedure in the promotion process. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial independence and the need for procedural safeguards in decisions affecting a judge’s career. It concluded that the lack of judicial review impaired the very essence of Mr. Konstantinou’s right of access to a court.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the case’s subject matter: the lack of judicial review for a judge’s promotion denial.
* **Facts:** Details the background of judicial reforms in Cyprus, the establishment of a transitional SCJ, Mr. Konstantinou’s application for promotion, the denial of his request, and subsequent unsuccessful legal challenges in Cypriot courts (Administrative Court and Supreme Constitutional Court).
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Explains Cypriot laws related to the judiciary, including the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law, the Courts of Justice Law, and procedures for judicial appointments and promotions. It also references relevant Council of Europe materials, such as opinions from the Venice Commission and reports from GRECO.
* **The Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the Court.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1:** Examines whether Article 6 was violated regarding access to a court.
* **Admissibility:** Addresses the government’s arguments that the application was out of time and that Article 6 was not applicable. The Court rejects these arguments.
* **Merits:** Assesses the core issue of whether the lack of judicial review violated Article 6. The Court finds a violation.
* **Remaining Complaints:** Addresses the applicant’s complaint regarding the impartiality of the Supreme Constitutional Court but finds it unnecessary to rule on it separately.
* **Application of Article 41:** Deals with the applicant’s claims for damages and costs. The Court dismisses the claim for pecuniary damage, finds that the violation itself is sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage, and awards a sum for costs and expenses.
* **Operative Provisions:** Formally declares the complaint admissible, holds that there has been a violation of Article 6, and specifies the compensation to be paid to the applicant.
**Key Provisions and Importance:**
* **Applicability of Article 6 to Judicial Promotion Disputes:** The Court reaffirms that Article 6 can apply to disputes concerning a judge’s career, including promotion decisions.
* **Eskelinen Test:** The Court applies the Eskelinen test to determine whether the exclusion of judicial review was justified. It finds that the second condition of the test (justification on objective grounds in the State’s interest) was not met.
* **Importance of Judicial Independence:** The decision underscores the importance of judicial independence and the need for procedural safeguards in decisions affecting a judge’s career.
* **Right to a Fair Procedure:** The Court recognizes that judges have a right to a fair procedure in judicial promotion competitions, safeguarding against arbitrariness or the improper use of discretion.
* **Access to Court:** The Court emphasizes that exclusions from access to court must remain exceptional and be supported by weighty reasons.
This decision highlights the importance of judicial independence and the right to a fair process, even during periods of judicial reform. It reinforces the principle that judges should have access to judicial review when decisions affecting their careers are made.
CASE OF ŞENER v. POLAND
Here’s a breakdown of the Şener v. Poland decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Poland violated the rights of a Turkish national, Adin Şener, by entering his details into the Register of Undesirable Foreigners and the Schengen Information System (SIS) based on national security concerns. This registration effectively resulted in his expulsion from Poland, where he had been a lawful resident. The Court found that the domestic proceedings lacked sufficient procedural safeguards, as Şener was not informed of the reasons for his expulsion or given access to the information used against him. The ECtHR concluded that these restrictions on his rights to submit reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed were not adequately counterbalanced, violating Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 and Article 8 of the Convention.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Outlines the case, the applicant’s complaint, and the relevant articles of the Convention.
* **Facts:** Details Şener’s life in Poland, his residence permits, criminal convictions, the entry of his details into the Registers, and subsequent legal proceedings.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Cites relevant articles from the Polish Constitution and the Aliens Act of 2013.
* **The Law:**
* **Locus Standi:** Addresses the standing of Şener’s daughter to continue the case after his death.
* **Scope of the Case:** Defines the specific issues under consideration, excluding aspects related to spent convictions and a later criminal conviction.
* **Preliminary Objection of Non-Exhaustion:** Rejects the Polish government’s argument that Şener failed to exhaust domestic remedies.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7:** Analyzes whether Poland provided sufficient procedural safeguards in the expulsion process.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 8:** Examines whether the expulsion interfered with Şener’s right to private and family life.
* **Application of Article 41:** Addresses the issue of just satisfaction, including damages and costs.
* **Operative part:** States the Court’s decision.
**3. Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7:** The Court affirms that Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 applies to the entry of an alien’s details in the Register of Undesirable Foreigners and to SIS, which produces the effect of an expulsion.
* **Procedural Safeguards:** The decision emphasizes the importance of informing individuals of the reasons for their expulsion and providing access to relevant information, even in cases involving national security.
* **Counterbalancing Factors:** The Court highlights that restrictions on procedural rights must be justified and counterbalanced by measures such as independent review and legal representation.
* **Impact on Family Life:** The decision recognizes that expulsion can interfere with the right to private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention.
* **The essence of the rights:** The Court found that the restrictions imposed on the applicant’s enjoyment of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 were not counterbalanced in the domestic proceedings so as to preserve the essence of those rights.
This decision underscores the need for states to balance national security concerns with the procedural rights of individuals, ensuring fairness and transparency in expulsion proceedings.
CASE OF ROMANI AND CANCELLI v. ITALY
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined two applications, Romani and Cancelli v. Italy, concerning the excessive length and ineffectiveness of civil proceedings related to alleged medical negligence that resulted in the deaths of the applicants’ relatives. The applicants argued that the length of the proceedings violated their rights under Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention. The Court decided to examine the complaints solely under the procedural limb of Article 2, focusing on whether the state adequately investigated the deaths. The ECHR found that the length of the proceedings, 14 years and 16 years and 7 months respectively, along with significant delays, indicated a failure by the domestic courts to act with the necessary diligence and promptness. Consequently, the Court held that Italy had violated Article 2 of the Convention and awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the introduction, outlining the case’s background and the applicants’ complaints. It then addresses the joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter. Preliminary considerations clarify which complaints are admissible. The Court then assesses the admissibility of the applications, dismissing the Government’s objections regarding the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The merits of the case are examined under Article 2, focusing on the procedural obligations of the state in cases of medical negligence. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41, awarding just satisfaction to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and costs. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions in the text.
The most important provision of this decision is the finding that the excessive length and delays in the civil proceedings violated Article 2 of the Convention, which protects the right to life. This highlights the state’s obligation to conduct thorough and timely investigations into cases of alleged medical negligence resulting in death. The decision reinforces the importance of efficient judicial processes in ensuring accountability and justice in such sensitive cases.
