Review of ECHR decisions for 18/12/2024

CASE OF TAGANOVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

This judgment concerns multiple applications against Georgia and Russia regarding property rights violations in Abkhazia. The key aspects are: 1. The case involves complaints by several applicants who were forced to leave their homes in Abkhazia during the 1992-1993 conflict and have been unable to return or access their properties since then. The applicants claimed violations of their property rights, right to home and family life, and discrimination based on ethnic grounds. 2. The Court found that Russia exercised effective control over Abkhazia during the relevant period (1998-2022) through its military, economic and political support. Georgia, while not having effective control over Abkhazia, retained positive obligations to protect rights of people from that territory. The Court determined both states had jurisdiction but in different capacities. 3. The Court found violations by Russia of Article 1 Protocol 1 (property rights) and Article 8 (right to home) for continuously denying the applicants access to their properties and homes in Abkhazia. However, it found no violations by Georgia as it had fulfilled its positive obligations by taking appropriate measures within its limited capabilities. The Court awarded compensation to be paid by Russia to the applicants. The judgment is particularly important for Ukraine as it deals with issues of state responsibility and jurisdiction in situations of territorial occupation and effective control by another state, as well as the obligations of the state that lost control over part of its territory. It also addresses questions of property rights protection in occupied territories.

CASE OF SIDE BY SIDE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The case concerns the European Court of Human Rights’ decision regarding repeated disruptions of film screenings during an annual international LGBT film festival in Russia between 2016 and 2020. The Court found that Russia violated Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) by failing to protect the safe and uninterrupted conduct of the festival.The Court’s decision focuses on three main aspects:

The State’s failure to effectively investigate and prevent repeated bomb threats that disrupted the festival from 2016 to 2019
The authorities’ unwillingness to recognize and address the systematic nature of these disruptions
The lack of comprehensive measures to protect the festival organizers and participants

Key provisions of the decision include:

The Court emphasized that freedom of expression requires not just non-interference from the State but also positive measures of protection
The authorities failed to conduct proper investigations of the bomb threats, treating them as separate incidents rather than a systematic campaign of harassment
The years-long failure to take comprehensive action created a sense of impunity among perpetrators
The Court awarded the applicant company 7,500 euros in non-pecuniary damages

The Court’s ruling establishes an important precedent regarding State obligations to protect cultural events from systematic disruption and harassment, particularly those representing minority groups. The decision emphasizes that authorities must take proactive measures to ensure the effective exercise of freedom of expression, beyond mere non-interference.

CASE OF HELLGREN v. FINLAND

CASE OF GABA v. ALBANIA

CASE OF SULTANA v. MALTA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Sultana v. Malta concerning excessive length of pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings. The case involved a Maltese national who was held in pre-trial detention for 31 months and faced prolonged criminal proceedings related to sexual abuse charges.The Court found violations of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention. While the Maltese Constitutional Court had previously acknowledged these violations and awarded €3,000 in compensation, the ECHR determined this compensation was insufficient.Key provisions of the decision include:

The Court confirmed that automatic deduction of pre-trial detention from the final sentence cannot be considered as explicit and quantifiable redress for Article 5 § 3 violation
The Court emphasized that calculating compensation based on a possible eventual criminal guilt may raise Convention issues and could leave acquitted persons without compensation
The Court awarded additional €2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and €1,500 for legal costs

The most significant aspects of this decision are the Court’s position on adequate compensation for detention violations and its rejection of the practice of considering potential conviction outcomes when determining compensation for pre-trial detention violations. The judgment also clarifies that automatic sentence reduction cannot substitute proper compensation for Convention violations.

CASE OF DENİZ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

The case concerns the arrest and pre-trial detention of 237 applicants in Turkey following the coup attempt of July 15, 2016. The applicants were detained on suspicion of membership in FETÖ/PDY (Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure), which Turkish authorities considered responsible for the coup attempt.The key aspects of the decision are:

The Court found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention regarding the lack of sufficient grounds for ordering and extending pre-trial detention
The detention periods ranged from one year to four years and eight months
The Court awarded €3,000 to each applicant who submitted claims for non-pecuniary damage and costs

The main provisions of the decision focus on three key issues:

The judicial authorities failed to demonstrate a clear link between evidence and reasonable suspicion of offense commission
The courts relied on formulaic and stereotyped reasoning without individual assessment when ordering and extending detention
The duration of pre-trial detention was excessive and not properly justified by the emergency situation following the coup attempt

The Court emphasized that while the coup attempt context should be considered, the failure to provide individualized assessment and proper justification for lengthy pre-trial detentions could not be justified by the derogation under Article 15 of the Convention, especially as the emergency situation declined in intensity over time.

CASE OF NECDET VURAL v. TÜRKİYE

The case concerns a Turkish prisoner’s right to receive publications in prison, either paid for by himself or sent by his relatives. The European Court of Human Rights found that Turkey violated Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) by refusing the prisoner’s request without proper justification.The decision is structured around three main elements: the factual background of the case, the legal framework applicable, and the Court’s assessment of the alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The Court examined three preliminary objections raised by the Turkish Government before proceeding to analyze the merits of the case.The key provisions of the decision are:

The Court found that the blanket refusal to allow the prisoner to receive publications without individual assessment of risks constituted a violation of Article 10
While prison authorities can restrict access to publications for security reasons, they must demonstrate that such restrictions are necessary and proportionate
National authorities must conduct a proper balancing exercise between the prisoner’s right to freedom of expression and security concerns
The Court emphasized that decisions restricting prisoners’ rights must consider their personal situations and specific circumstances rather than applying general prohibitions

The Court concluded that while the Turkish authorities’ security concerns might be legitimate, they failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the restriction and did not demonstrate that the measure was necessary in a democratic society. The finding of a violation was considered sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage.

CASE OF TAŞ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

The case concerns the arrest and pre-trial detention of 213 applicants in Turkey following the coup attempt of July 15, 2016. The applicants were detained on suspicion of membership in FETÖ/PDY (Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure), which Turkish authorities believed was behind the coup attempt.The key issue in this decision is that the European Court of Human Rights found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention regarding the absence of sufficient grounds for ordering and keeping the applicants in pre-trial detention. The Court determined that the Turkish judicial authorities failed to provide individualized and sufficient reasons to justify the detentions, which lasted between one and four years and eight months.The Court’s main findings include:

The national courts failed to demonstrate clear links between evidence and reasonable suspicion of offense commission
Detention decisions were made in a formulaic manner without proper individualized assessment
The courts relied on abstract and stereotyped reasoning rather than specific circumstances
The duration of detentions (1-4.8 years) was not adequately justified

As a result, the Court awarded €3,000 to each applicant who submitted a claim for compensation. The decision emphasizes that even during a state of emergency, prolonged detentions must be properly justified with individualized reasoning and cannot rely on formulaic or stereotyped grounds.

CASE OF PAVLOVIĆ v. CROATIA

The case concerns a dispute between Mr. Pavlović, a Croatian lawyer, and Croatian authorities regarding the refusal to examine his claim for payment of advocate’s fees in pre-bankruptcy settlement (PBS) proceedings. The essence of the case revolves around the Court’s finding that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning access to a court.The Court found that FINA’s (Croatian payments agency) decision to declare the applicant’s report inadmissible prevented him from pursuing his civil claim against company P. both in the PBS or any other proceedings. The key issue was that the requirement to provide proof of claim existence and its amount was unforeseeable, as authorities did not specify what documents were needed until it was too late for the applicant to supplement his report.The main provisions of the decision include:

The Court established that the right of advocates to obtain remuneration for their services is a ‘civil right’ under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
The Court found that the restriction of access to court was disproportionate due to unclear requirements for document submission
The Court awarded the applicant EUR 8,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 830 for costs and expenses
The Court rejected the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage of EUR 14,408 as it could not speculate on the outcome of the original proceedings

The most significant aspects for practical application are:

Administrative authorities must provide clear and timely guidance on documentary requirements in proceedings
Restrictions on access to court must be foreseeable and proportionate
The right of advocates to receive payment for their services is protected as a civil right under the Convention
When procedural requirements prevent access to court, they must be clearly communicated in advance

CASE OF ZOBEC v. CROATIA

The case concerns a Croatian citizen, Ivan Zobec, who was found guilty of causing a road traffic accident and leaving the scene without providing required information to the property owner. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention due to unfair trial proceedings.The decision focuses on three main aspects:

The applicant’s inability to cross-examine the key witness (Z.B.) whose testimony was decisive for his conviction
The trial court’s failure to invite the applicant or his lawyer to the witness examination despite his explicit request
The court’s refusal to examine another witness (D.B.) who could potentially refute Z.B.’s version of events

Key provisions of the decision include:

The Court found that Z.B.’s testimony constituted decisive evidence for the conviction, particularly regarding the applicant’s alleged intention to escape
The trial court failed to provide reasoning for not allowing the applicant to attend Z.B.’s examination
The Court awarded the applicant €1,500 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,708.60 for costs and expenses
The Court emphasized that even in summary minor-offence proceedings, the right to cross-examine witnesses must be respected when their testimony is decisive for conviction