CASE OF EZEOKE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Here’s a detailed analysis of the European Court of Human Rights decision in Ezeoke v. the United Kingdom:
1. Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns criminal proceedings against Mr. Ezeoke, who stood trial five times before being convicted of two murders. The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the “reasonable time” requirement due to unjustified delays between the third and fourth trials and in the appeal process. However, the Court found no violation regarding the overall fairness of proceedings, despite the unprecedented number of trials, as there was no evidence that successive trials prejudiced the outcome.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines two main aspects: length of proceedings and fairness of multiple trials
– The Court analyzed the period from September 2016 (arrest) to October 2021 (final appeal)
– Key focus was on justification of delays between trials and impact on defense capabilities
– The Court established that while multiple trials themselves don’t violate Convention rights, authorities must proceed with particular diligence
– New standard introduced: in cases of successive trials, delays must be kept to “absolute minimum”
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The Court confirmed that successive trials do not per se violate Article 6 § 1 when there is public interest in jury deciding serious criminal charges
– Established requirement for “exceptional arrangements” to minimize delays in cases with multiple trials
– Clarified that even when delays are caused by external factors (illness, COVID-19), authorities must take active measures to expedite proceedings
– Emphasized importance of assessing actual prejudice to defense capabilities rather than presuming prejudice from delay
– Set precedent that 12-month delay in appeal proceedings may be problematic even when initial delay in filing was defendant’s fault
The decision is significant as it balances the right to trial within reasonable time with public interest in prosecuting serious crimes, while setting clear standards for managing multiple trials.
CASE OF TOTH AND CRIȘAN v. ROMANIA
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Toth and Crișan v. Romania:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns two Romanian police officers who filed a defamation claim against a private individual who posted on Facebook their photograph and critical comments about their professional conduct, which generated offensive third-party comments. The Court found that while Article 8 (right to private life) was applicable due to the seriousness of the allegations, the domestic courts properly balanced the competing rights between privacy and freedom of expression. The Court concluded there was no violation of Article 8 since the domestic courts followed proper criteria in determining that the Facebook post concerned a matter of public interest, the officers had reduced privacy expectations as public servants, and the post’s author acted in good faith without intending to defame.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision first establishes the applicability of Article 8, finding the case met the required level of seriousness
– It then analyzes the balancing exercise conducted by domestic courts using established criteria:
* Contribution to public debate
* Degree of notoriety of affected persons
* Prior conduct
* Circumstances of photograph
* Content, form and consequences of publication
– The Court examines specific aspects of social media context:
* Status of post author
* Liability for third-party comments
* Reach and impact of online publication
– The conclusion focuses on whether domestic courts properly applied balancing criteria
3. Key provisions for practical use:
– The decision provides important guidance on balancing privacy rights vs freedom of expression in social media context:
* Police officers and public servants have wider limits of acceptable criticism but retain some privacy protections
* Photographs taken in public during official duties have reduced privacy expectations
* Private individuals posting on social media have different obligations than journalists/politicians
* Authors generally not liable for third-party comments if acting in good faith
* Courts must consider actual reach and impact of social media posts
* Vulgar abuse common on internet may have reduced impact
* Chilling effect on free speech must be considered even in civil defamation cases
The decision is significant as it adapts traditional defamation principles to social media context while protecting both legitimate criticism of public officials and their basic privacy rights.
CASE OF GËLLÇI v. ALBANIA
1. Essence of the decision:
The case concerns the pre-trial detention of Mr. Thoma Gëllçi, a dual Albanian-American citizen, who was charged with abuse of office while serving as director of Albanian Public Television. The European Court of Human Rights found that Albania violated Article 5 § 3 of the Convention due to insufficient grounds for keeping the applicant in pre-trial detention for nearly eight months. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 500 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses.
2. Structure and main provisions:
The decision follows a standard ECHR structure, examining:
– The facts and circumstances of the case
– The admissibility of the complaint
– The merits of the case under Article 5 § 3
– The application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction
The Court found that while there was reasonable suspicion for initial detention, the domestic courts failed to:
– Provide specific evidence about the risk of tampering with evidence
– Consider the applicant’s voluntary return to Albania when assessing flight risk
– Properly evaluate alternative security measures
– Adapt their reasoning as the case progressed
3. Most important provisions:
– The Court established that persistence of reasonable suspicion alone is insufficient for prolonged pre-trial detention
– Domestic courts must provide concrete, specific reasons for maintaining detention, not just general references to risks
– Courts must consider and respond to the defendant’s specific arguments against detention
– The authorities must evaluate alternative security measures when deciding on pre-trial detention
– The reasoning for continued detention must evolve to reflect the developing situation in the case
The decision reinforces the Court’s position that pre-trial detention must be based on specific, concrete evidence rather than abstract risks, and that domestic courts must properly consider alternatives to detention.
CASE OF KARIMOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
The essence of the decision:
The case concerns the unlawful demolition of Ms. Karimova’s property in Azerbaijan. The authorities demolished her three-room flat and offered her a larger two-room flat as compensation, without following proper legal procedures. The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property) because the demolition was not carried out in compliance with domestic law requirements.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court established that the demolition constituted a “deprivation of possessions” under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
2. The key legal issue was the failure to follow the procedure set out in Article 28 of the Housing Code, which required:
– A court decision confirming the building’s state of disrepair
– Confirmation of impossibility of renovation
– Specific steps for reconstruction or sale at public auction
3. The Court found it unnecessary to examine additional complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention after establishing the main violation.
4. Regarding compensation, the Court:
– Rejected claims for pecuniary damage
– Awarded EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage
– Dismissed claims for legal costs due to lack of documentation
Most important provisions for use:
1. The decision reinforces the principle that any interference with property rights must strictly follow domestic legal procedures.
2. The Court emphasized that even when authorities offer alternative accommodation, they must still comply with legal requirements for property demolition.
3. The judgment establishes that the existence of urgent circumstances does not exempt authorities from following proper legal procedures when interfering with property rights.
4. The decision provides clear guidance on the necessity of obtaining prior court approval for demolition of buildings deemed to be in disrepair.
CASE OF STEFANOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
Here’s the analysis of the European Court of Human Rights decision in Stefanova and Others v. Bulgaria:
Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns inadequate compensation for expropriated land in Sofia, Bulgaria. Three Bulgarian nationals complained that the compensation of EUR 24.5 per square meter for their 390 square meters plot was significantly below market value. The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, concluding that the compensation awarded was not reasonably related to the land’s actual value, making the deprivation of property disproportionate.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The case follows the precedent set in Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria regarding compensation for expropriated land
2. The Court examined the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
3. The decision establishes that:
– The compensation was based on tax valuation (EUR 24.5 per square meter)
– Multiple indicators suggested much higher market value:
* Similar plot sold for EUR 248 per square meter
* Neighboring plot received EUR 356 per square meter
* Expert valuation indicated EUR 607 per square meter
4. The Court awarded:
– EUR 5,000 jointly to applicants for non-pecuniary damage
– EUR 3,142 for costs and expenses
Most important provisions for use:
1. The Court reaffirms that expropriation compensation must be reasonably related to the property’s value at the time of ownership loss
2. Tax valuations cannot be automatically considered indicative of market value
3. The Court suggests that reopening proceedings at the domestic level would be the most appropriate remedy
4. Multiple indicators of higher market value (comparable sales, expert valuations) can be used to demonstrate inadequate compensation
5. The burden is on the state to prove that compensation was reasonably related to actual value
The decision strengthens the protection of property rights in cases of expropriation and sets clear standards for determining adequate compensation.
