Review of ECHR decisions for 15/01/2025

CASE OF VASILE PRUTEANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

The case concerns criminal proceedings against three Romanian nationals convicted of human trafficking and pimping in relation to their massage parlour business. The key aspects of the decision are:1. The Court examined whether the applicants’ right to a fair trial was violated due to their inability to directly cross-examine several witnesses (victims) whose statements were used in their conviction. The Court found no violation, considering that:

There were good reasons for the witnesses’ absence (protection of trafficking victims from re-traumatization)
The witness statements were neither sole nor decisive evidence for conviction
There were sufficient counterbalancing measures to ensure fair proceedings

2. The Court analyzed in detail the procedural safeguards that were in place:

The courts approached the untested evidence with caution
There was strong corroborating evidence from other sources
The applicants could challenge the evidence and present their defense
Some witnesses were examined through letters rogatory
The courts provided detailed reasoning for their decisions

3. The Court emphasized the need to balance defendants’ rights with protection of trafficking victims, referring to various international instruments that establish special protection measures for victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation.The decision provides important guidance on how courts should handle cases involving absent witnesses, particularly in human trafficking cases where victim protection is crucial. It demonstrates that using untested witness statements can be compatible with fair trial rights if proper procedural safeguards are in place.

CASE OF N.Ö. v. TÜRKİYE

CASE OF PETROVIĆ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

This judgment concerns three cases of women who suspect their newborn babies were abducted from Croatian state hospitals between 1986-1994 and given up for unlawful adoption. The Court found Croatia violated Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life) by failing to provide the mothers with credible information about their children’s fate.The key aspects of the decision are:

The Court established that cases of allegedly abducted newborns constitute a continuing violation that persists as long as authorities fail to account for the children’s fate
Croatia had positive obligations to investigate what happened to the babies while they were still in Croatian hospitals, even for cases where children were transferred to Serbia
The Croatian authorities’ response was inadequate as they mainly cited statute of limitations and failed to properly investigate inconsistencies in medical records or conduct DNA tests
The Court ordered Croatia to establish within one year a special mechanism supervised by an independent body to investigate all similar cases and provide redress to affected parents

The Court’s main findings were that:

Croatia failed its continuing positive obligation to provide credible information about the fate of allegedly abducted babies
The State’s response of only providing available documentation was insufficient given the inconsistencies in records
Authorities improperly dismissed complaints based on statute of limitations without considering the continuing nature of the violations
A systemic solution is needed given evidence of other similar cases in Croatia from the 1980s-90s

The Court ordered Croatia to establish within one year a mechanism to:

Provide individual redress to all parents in similar situations
Be supervised by an independent body with adequate investigative powers
Be capable of providing credible answers about each child’s fate
Award compensation as appropriate

CASE OF KUNSHUGAROV v. TÜRKİYE

This judgment concerns the case of a Kazakhstani national who faced extradition from Turkey to Kazakhstan, where he was wanted for alleged terrorism-related offenses.The key aspects of the decision are:

The Court found that Turkey violated Article 3 of the Convention by extraditing the applicant to Kazakhstan without adequately examining the risk of ill-treatment he would face there, particularly given his profile as a terrorism suspect
The Court found no violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 regarding the risk of death penalty, as Kazakhstan had provided sufficient assurances
The Court found violations of Article 3 regarding poor detention conditions and Article 5§4 due to lack of speedy review of detention

The main provisions of the decision include:

Diplomatic assurances from Kazakhstan were deemed insufficient to eliminate the risk of ill-treatment, being too general and lacking practical verification mechanisms
The Turkish authorities failed to conduct a rigorous assessment of the specific risks faced by terrorism suspects in Kazakhstan
The Constitutional Court’s 3-year delay in reviewing detention was found to violate the requirement for speedy judicial review
Poor conditions at the Kumkapi Removal Centre constituted degrading treatment

The most important aspects for implementation are:

States must conduct thorough individual assessments of risks before extradition, especially for terrorism suspects
Diplomatic assurances must be specific, verifiable and practically effective
Constitutional Court review of detention must be conducted speedily
Detention conditions must meet basic standards regardless of immigration pressures

CASE OF BAGVANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

The case concerns the European Court of Human Rights’ decision on just satisfaction (compensation) in the case of Bagvanov and Others v. Azerbaijan, involving 14 applications regarding unlawful expropriation of properties by Azerbaijan state authorities.The Court had previously found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in all cases and Article 6 (right to fair trial) in four cases due to non-enforcement of final domestic decisions. This judgment determines the compensation amounts.The key provisions of the decision include:

The Court awarded pecuniary damages based on expert property valuations submitted by the Government, with some adjustments for specific cases
Non-pecuniary damages of €4,700 were awarded to applicants who suffered violations of both Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
€3,000 in non-pecuniary damages was awarded to applicants who only had Article 1 Protocol No. 1 violations
The Court rejected most claims for additional compensation (20% extra compensation and hardship compensation) as these issues hadn’t been properly raised in domestic courts
Limited costs and expenses were awarded only where supported by documentation

The Court’s approach focused on requiring proper documentation and evidence for claims, following established principles for property valuation from previous cases like Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan. The judgment provides detailed calculations for each applicant’s compensation in an appended table.

CASE OF DEMİRYÜREK AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

This judgment concerns multiple applications against Turkey regarding the lack of access to a court for judges and prosecutors who were removed from their positions at the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) following the entry into force of Law No. 6524 in 2014.The key aspects of the decision are:

The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) due to the applicants’ lack of access to court to challenge their dismissals
The Court rejected Turkey’s arguments that the restriction on access to courts was justified by judicial reform aimed at preventing FETÖ/PDY influence
Each applicant was awarded €7,800 in non-pecuniary damages plus varying amounts for costs and expenses

The main provisions of the judgment establish that:

The right of access to court applies in cases involving dismissal of judicial officials, even when done through legislation
Restrictions on access to court cannot be justified solely by claims of necessary judicial reform
The complete denial of judicial review impairs the very essence of the right of access to court

The Court emphasized that excluding judicial officials from access to court to challenge their dismissals undermines judicial independence and the rule of law, rather than serving state interests. This represents an important precedent regarding judicial independence and access to justice for members of the judiciary.

CASE OF LAKATOŠ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

The case concerns allegations of police ill-treatment, unfair criminal proceedings, and excessive length of constitutional proceedings in Serbia. The European Court of Human Rights examined complaints from four Serbian nationals who were arrested and convicted of multiple robberies.The Court found multiple violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically:

Article 3 violation (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) regarding the fourth applicant’s ill-treatment by police and lack of effective investigation
Article 6 § 1 violation (right to a fair trial) concerning the use of confession statements obtained under duress
Article 6 § 1 violation regarding the excessive length of constitutional proceedings (4 years and 9 months)

The key provisions of the decision include:

The Court rejected the government’s explanation for the discrepancy between police-reported injuries and medical documentation
The Court found that confessions obtained through ill-treatment cannot be used as evidence, even if they are not the sole basis for conviction
The Court awarded compensation ranging from EUR 3,500 to EUR 8,500 for non-pecuniary damage to different applicants
The Court awarded costs and expenses ranging from EUR 4,665 to EUR 10,505 to different applicants
The decision acknowledges the possibility of retrial under Serbian law following the Court’s finding of Convention violations

CASE OF IBRAHIMI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgment in Ibrahimi and Others v. Albania addresses five joined cases concerning the right of access to the Constitutional Court of Albania. The core issue was the calculation of the time limit for filing constitutional complaints, where the Constitutional Court counted the four-month deadline from the date of Supreme Court decisions rather than from when applicants actually received notification of these decisions.The Court examined cases involving various proceedings, including criminal, property disputes, employment termination, and contractual obligations. In all cases, the Constitutional Court declared the complaints inadmissible as being filed outside the four-month time limit, counting from the Supreme Court decision date rather than the actual notification date to the parties.The key provisions of the judgment include:

The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the applicants’ right of access to the Constitutional Court
The Court criticized the Constitutional Court’s approach to burden of proof, stating that it should be primarily the Supreme Court’s responsibility to ensure evidence of decision notification dates
The Court awarded compensation of EUR 3,600 to each applicant in specific cases for non-pecuniary damage
The Court awarded EUR 2,000 to the applicant company for costs and expenses

The most significant aspects of this decision are the Court’s emphasis on effective access to constitutional justice and the principle that time limits should be counted from the actual notification date rather than the decision date. The Court also established that the burden of proving notification dates should not rest solely with the applicants but primarily with the courts issuing the decisions.

CASE OF VASILEV v. SERBIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on a case concerning the revocation of a Serbian citizen’s hunting rifle license based on undisclosed confidential information. The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) due to the lack of proper procedural safeguards and transparency in the administrative proceedings.The decision focuses on three main aspects:

The violation of the principles of adversarial trial and equality of arms in administrative proceedings
The inadequacy of the Administrative Court’s review of confidential information
The lack of proper justification for withholding information from the applicant

The Court’s key findings include:

The police’s reasoning for revoking the license was too vague and didn’t allow the applicant to effectively challenge the decision
The Administrative Court failed to conduct an independent assessment of the confidential information or provide justification for withholding it
No effort was made to mitigate the restrictions on the applicant’s rights through alternative procedural safeguards
The authorities didn’t justify the withholding of information by reference to national security or other legitimate concerns

As compensation, the Court awarded the applicant €3,600 for non-pecuniary damage and €2,000 for costs and expenses, while also noting the possibility of reopening the proceedings at the national level based on this judgment.

CASE OF SIMIĆ v. SERBIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on a case concerning the inadequate reasoning in Serbian courts’ decisions authorizing surveillance measures against Zoran Simić. The Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private life and correspondence) due to insufficient justification of phone tapping orders.The case revolves around three extension orders for secret surveillance issued between July 2010 and March 2011 by the Zrenjanin High Court. These orders were part of a criminal investigation that eventually led to the applicant’s conviction for abuse of office, forgery, and bribery. The applicant challenged the legality of these surveillance measures through domestic courts up to the Constitutional Court.The Court’s key findings focused on the proportionality of the surveillance measures. The extension orders were found to be inadequate as they:

Merely referenced the prosecutor’s request without substantial analysis
Failed to provide meaningful assessment of why less intrusive investigative methods couldn’t be used
Contained only formulaic phrases about the necessity of surveillance without specific justification

While finding a violation of Article 8, the Court determined that this finding itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant was awarded €800 for costs and expenses, significantly less than the claimed €21,110.