CASE OF A.P. v. AUSTRIA
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights found no violation of Article 2 (right to life) in both its procedural and substantive aspects in a case concerning the death of a conscript during a military ‘heat march’ in Austria. The Court concluded that while there were some questionable acts by military personnel, there was insufficient evidence to establish that their actions or omissions were responsible for the death, or that reasonable measures they failed to take would have prevented it.
Structure and main provisions:
The decision examines two main aspects:1. The procedural obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the death2. The substantive obligation to protect life during military service
The Court found that the criminal investigation was independent, prompt and involved the next-of-kin sufficiently. While there were conflicting expert opinions on the cause of death, the Court accepted that the authorities had taken reasonable investigative steps.
Regarding the substantive aspect, while noting some problematic decisions by military personnel, the Court found insufficient evidence that their acts or omissions caused the death or that different actions would have prevented it.
Key points for application:
CASE OF I.B.A. v. SWITZERLAND
1. Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland’s decision to expel a Tunisian national for five years following his conviction for social benefit fraud was not a violation of his right to family life under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court found that the domestic courts had carefully balanced the applicant’s personal interests against public interests and had given sufficient consideration to the best interests of his children.2. Structure and main provisions:
– The case concerned a Tunisian national who lived in Switzerland for 20 years and was convicted of social benefit fraud spanning over 12 years
– The Swiss courts ordered his expulsion for 5 years based on legislation that came into force in October 2016
– The domestic courts considered the impact on his three children and arranged for them to remain in Switzerland
– The Court examined whether the expulsion order was ‘necessary in a democratic society’ and proportionate3. Key provisions for practical use:
– The Court reaffirmed that States have the right to control entry of aliens and expel those convicted of criminal offenses
– When balancing interests in expulsion cases involving parents, the best interests of minor children must be considered
– Where national authorities have carefully examined facts and applied human rights standards consistently with the Convention, the Court will only substitute its own assessment if there are strong reasons to do so
– The duration and nature of criminal offenses, level of integration, and maintenance of ties with country of origin are relevant factors in assessing proportionality of expulsion
CASE OF NDI SOPOT S. A v. NORTH MACEDONIA
The case concerns the refusal by North Macedonian courts to recognize an arbitration award issued by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in favor of a Polish company NDI SOPOT S.A. against a North Macedonian company. The award granted NDI SOPOT S.A. approximately EUR 3.2 million plus interest for breach of a joint venture agreement.The key aspects of the decision are:
- The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to fair trial) due to lack of impartiality of the appellate court judge whose husband was employed by the defendant company, and due to domestic courts’ failure to adequately address key arguments in refusing recognition of the arbitral award.
- The Court held that Article 6 applies to proceedings for recognition of foreign arbitral awards as they determine civil rights.
- The Court found that domestic courts failed to properly explain why they applied domestic law requirements instead of the New York Convention provisions regarding proof of award finality.
- The Court awarded EUR 3,600 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 15,000 for costs and expenses.
The most important provisions of the decision are:
- The Court’s confirmation that Article 6 fair trial guarantees apply to proceedings for recognition of foreign arbitral awards
- The requirement for judges to disclose circumstances that could raise doubts about their impartiality, such as family connections to parties
- The obligation of domestic courts to adequately address key arguments when refusing recognition of foreign arbitral awards
- The need for domestic courts to properly justify applying domestic law requirements over international treaty provisions
CASE OF KOTOV v. RUSSIA
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The European Court of Human Rights examined the case concerning multiple administrative and criminal convictions of a Russian citizen for participating in unauthorized peaceful demonstrations and calling for participation in such events. The Court found violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention regarding both administrative and criminal convictions, as the domestic courts failed to provide sufficient reasons for the convictions and to properly analyze whether the demonstrations were peaceful. The Court also found that the criminal conviction and imprisonment sentence were disproportionate, as there was no evidence of violent behavior or significant harm caused by the applicant.2. Structure and main provisions:
The decision addresses two main aspects of the case: administrative convictions for participation in unauthorized demonstrations and a criminal conviction for repeated violations of public assembly rules. The Court analyzed whether the interference with the applicant’s rights was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society. The decision emphasizes that peaceful demonstrations, even if unauthorized, require tolerance from authorities, and criminal sanctions, especially imprisonment, require particular justification.3. Key provisions for practical use:
– Unauthorized nature of a demonstration alone does not justify interference with freedom of assembly
– Courts must provide concrete evidence of harm or threat of harm when restricting assembly rights
– Criminal sanctions for peaceful demonstrations require exceptional justification
– Chanting slogans and ignoring police orders to disperse, without violence, cannot alone justify criminal prosecution
– When applying criminal liability for repeated violations of assembly rules, courts must analyze each instance individually and demonstrate non-peaceful character or significant harm
CASE OF SOUROULLAS KAY AND ZANNETTOS v. CYPRUS
1. Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on a case concerning two Cypriot nationals convicted of money laundering and extortion based primarily on testimony from an accomplice who received immunity from prosecution. The Court found no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to examine witnesses), determining that the overall fairness of the trial was not compromised despite reliance on accomplice testimony.2. Structure and main provisions:
The decision addresses two main complaints:- Whether a criminal trial can be considered fair when conviction is based decisively on testimony from an immunized accomplice- Whether defendants’ rights were violated when denied access to prosecution’s forensic disk imageThe Court examined procedural safeguards available to defendants, including their ability to cross-examine the witness and knowledge of his immunity deal. The Court found sufficient procedural guarantees were in place to ensure trial fairness.3. Key provisions for practical use:
– The Court confirms that using accomplice testimony, even from an immunized witness, does not automatically render a trial unfair- When evaluating fairness of trials involving accomplice testimony, courts must consider: * Whether defense knew witness’s identity and immunity arrangement * Whether domestic courts reviewed the arrangement * Whether defense had opportunity to test witness evidence * Whether courts approached testimony cautiously * Whether corroborating evidence existed * Whether appeals courts reviewed findings- The Court emphasizes that overall fairness of proceedings must be evaluated, rather than focusing on isolated aspects- Access to evidence may be restricted if defendants fail to give specific reasons for their requests
