CASE OF JÓHANNES BALDURSSON AND BIRKIR KRISTINSSON v. ICELAND
The decision concerns the case of two Icelandic nationals, Jóhannes Baldursson and Birkir Kristinsson, who were convicted of financial crimes related to transactions between Glitnir bank and BK-44 company following Iceland’s financial crisis in 2008. The applicants challenged their convictions on several grounds, including the impartiality of Supreme Court judges, fairness of proceedings, and length of the criminal process.The Court examined multiple aspects of the case, including:- The impartiality of three Supreme Court justices who had suffered financial losses during Iceland’s banking crisis- The Supreme Court’s failure to re-hear oral evidence when confirming the convictions- The adequacy of the Supreme Court’s reasoning regarding witness credibility- The impact of changing the second applicant’s status between suspect and witness during investigation- The overall length of the criminal proceedingsThe Court found only one violation – regarding the Supreme Court’s failure to address the first applicant’s arguments about a key witness’s credibility. It awarded the first applicant €4,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €8,000 for costs and expenses. All other complaints were rejected as the Court found no violations of the applicants’ rights.Key provisions of the decision include:1. Financial losses suffered by judges must be directly related to the subject matter of the dispute to raise impartiality concerns2. When confirming convictions, appellate courts need not always re-hear oral evidence if proceedings remain fair overall3. Courts must explicitly address specific, pertinent and important points raised by defendants about witness credibility4. Changing a suspect’s status to witness and back during investigation does not automatically violate fair trial rights5. The complexity of financial crime cases can justify longer proceedings if there are no unexplained delays
CASE OF CHURCH OF GREECE v. GREECE
CASE OF DİLEK GENÇ v. TÜRKİYE
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns the alleged unfairness of administrative proceedings in Turkey where the applicant challenged fines imposed on her music hall for violating closing time regulations. The key issue was that Turkish administrative courts did not allow for examination of witnesses, which prevented the applicant from effectively challenging police reports used as evidence against her. The Court found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) of the Convention due to this structural procedural defect in the Turkish legal system that deprived the applicant of the possibility to effectively challenge the sole evidence against her.2. Structure and main provisions:
The decision examines several key aspects:- Applicability of Article 6 criminal limb to administrative proceedings- Right to examine witnesses in administrative cases- Structural deficiencies in Turkish administrative court procedures- Requirements for fair trial guarantees in cases involving witness testimony- Analysis of whether alternative means of evidence could remedy the lack of witness examination3. Most important provisions:
– The Court found that administrative fines qualify as ‘criminal’ matters under Article 6, requiring full fair trial guarantees- Turkish administrative court procedures had a structural defect by not allowing witness examination- In cases before courts of first and only instance, credibility of witness evidence cannot be properly determined without direct assessment- Written statements or alternative forms of evidence cannot adequately substitute for direct witness examination when witness credibility is at issue- The domestic courts’ failure to address the applicant’s arguments for witness examination violated fair trial rights
CASE OF ÇAĞIL v. TÜRKİYE
CASE OF PANAYOTOPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE
This is a significant ECHR judgment concerning allegations of police ill-treatment of three Roma individuals in Greece during their arrest and detention in 2016. The key aspects are: Main findings:
- The Court found violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) in its procedural aspect regarding all three applicants due to ineffective investigation of their complaints
- Violations of Article 3 in its substantive aspect were found for two applicants (first and third) due to excessive force used during arrest
- A violation of Article 14 (discrimination) in conjunction with Article 3 was found in its procedural aspect due to failure to investigate possible racial motivation
- No violation of Article 14 with Article 3 was found in the substantive aspect as racist motivation could not be definitively established
Key provisions:
- The Court emphasized authorities’ duty to conduct effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment, including possible racial motives
- The judgment clarified standards for assessing evidence of discriminatory treatment and investigating racist motives
- It reinforced principles regarding the burden of proof in cases alleging racially-motivated violence
- The Court awarded compensation ranging from €12,000-20,000 to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage
Significance:
- The case highlights ongoing issues with police treatment of Roma in Greece and requirements for effective investigation of such incidents
- It reinforces standards for investigating possible discriminatory motives in cases of alleged police violence
- The judgment provides guidance on assessing evidence and burden of proof in cases alleging racially-motivated ill-treatment
CASE OF HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
The case concerns the unlawful expropriation of property owned by Mr. Nizami Hasanov in Baku, Azerbaijan. The property consisted of two combined flats with a total area of 209.7 sq. m, which were demolished by local authorities to construct a new Jewish synagogue. The owner was offered compensation of 1,500 Azerbaijani manats per square meter, which he initially rejected but later accepted under duress after the demolition.The Court’s decision is structured around three main elements: the admissibility of the complaint, the assessment of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 violation, and the application of Article 41. The Court found that while the complaint regarding the flats was admissible, the claim concerning the underlying land plot was incompatible with Convention provisions.The key provisions of the decision are:
- The Court determined that the expropriation was not carried out in compliance with ‘conditions provided for by law’
- The Baku City Executive Authority did not have the authority to expropriate private property
- No lawful expropriation order had been issued by a competent State authority
- The interference constituted a de facto deprivation of possessions
- The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
- The question of compensation under Article 41 was reserved for future determination
CASE OF DIAMANTIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE
CASE OF SYLAKOS v. GREECE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on a case concerning double jeopardy (ne bis in idem principle) and the presumption of innocence in Greece. The case involved a Greek citizen who was acquitted of smuggling charges in criminal proceedings but was later fined in administrative proceedings for the same offense.The Court found two violations of the Convention:
- A violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice for the same offense), as the administrative courts imposed fines based on the same facts for which the applicant had been previously acquitted in criminal proceedings
- A violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), as the administrative courts failed to respect the presumption of innocence stemming from the criminal acquittal
The key provisions of the decision include:
- Both administrative and criminal proceedings were considered of criminal nature due to the severity of the customs fine and its deterrent effect
- Administrative courts were obligated to consider, of their own motion, the effect of the acquittal judgment in light of the ne bis in idem principle
- The Court followed its previous case law established in Kapetanios and Others v. Greece, finding that administrative courts should have taken into account the final criminal acquittal
- The Court dismissed the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction due to procedural non-compliance but noted that the applicant could seek reopening of proceedings in the Supreme Administrative Court
CASE OF PANAYOTOV v. BULGARIA
The case concerns a dispute over access to court in administrative proceedings in Bulgaria, specifically regarding time-limits for bringing claims for judicial review against administrative acts.The European Court of Human Rights found that Bulgaria violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) by denying the applicant access to court through an overly formalistic interpretation of procedural rules. The case centered around the applicant’s attempt to challenge auction results where he submitted his claim after learning about the decision from the website but before receiving formal notice by post.The Court’s main findings were:
- The Supreme Administrative Court’s decision to reject the applicant’s claim as premature lacked clear and consistent precedential support and was unforeseeable
- The interpretation of time-limits was excessively formalistic and unreasonable, especially given that the applicant acted diligently after accessing the orders on the administration’s website
- The formal notice explicitly stated that orders were subject to judicial review within fourteen days of publication, making the rejection of the claim particularly problematic
The Court awarded the applicant €2,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,000 for costs and expenses, while noting that reopening of domestic proceedings would be the most appropriate way to compensate any pecuniary damage.
