CASE OF GORŠE v. SLOVENIA
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Gorše v. Slovenia:
1. Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns criminal proceedings where the applicant was convicted of abuse of office and money laundering by a judge who had previously accepted guilty pleas from two co-defendants for aiding and conspiring with the applicant to commit those offenses. The Court found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention because the judge’s earlier judgments against co-defendants contained detailed descriptions of the applicant’s alleged criminal conduct and referred to him as the “perpetrator” before his trial began. The Court held that this undermined both the judge’s impartiality and the presumption of innocence.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines whether accepting guilty pleas from co-defendants compromised the judge’s ability to fairly try the main defendant
– The Court analyzed both the impartiality requirement (Article 6 §1) and presumption of innocence (Article 6 §2) together due to their interconnected nature
– Key focus was on how the judge’s earlier judgments characterized the applicant’s role before his trial
– The Court awarded €2,400 in non-pecuniary damages and €2,196 for costs and expenses
– The decision includes a comparative law analysis covering 36 Council of Europe member states
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The Court established that when accepting guilty pleas from co-defendants, judges must avoid making detailed findings about untried defendants’ roles or legal characterizations of their conduct
– References to untried defendants should be limited to what is strictly necessary and should be worded to avoid prejudging guilt
– Professional judges’ experience and training does not eliminate concerns about impartiality when they have made detailed findings about an untried defendant’s guilt
– The decision provides guidance on how courts should handle cases involving multiple defendants when some plead guilty while others go to trial
– The judgment emphasizes that even if references to untried defendants are unavoidable, courts must explicitly state that their guilt has not been established
The decision is significant for criminal procedure as it sets clear standards for how courts should handle guilty pleas by co-defendants while preserving the rights of those yet to be tried. It balances the practical needs of criminal justice systems with fundamental fair trial rights.
CASE OF HASANI v. SWEDEN
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Hasani v. Sweden:
1. Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns Sweden’s alleged failure to prevent the suicide of an Afghan asylum seeker (A.H.) who suffered from mental health problems and visual impairment. The Court found no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, ruling that Swedish authorities could not have known there was a real and immediate risk to A.H.’s life in the days before his suicide. The majority decision (4-3) emphasized that while authorities knew of A.H.’s mental health issues, there were no immediate signs of distress prior to his suicide after receiving a negative asylum decision.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines whether Swedish authorities knew or should have known about a real and immediate suicide risk
– The Court analyzed five key factors: history of mental health problems, gravity of mental condition, previous suicide attempts, suicidal thoughts/threats, and signs of physical/mental distress
– The judgment includes a strong dissenting opinion from three judges who believed A.H.’s multiple vulnerabilities required greater protective measures
– The Court distinguished this case from situations involving detained persons or those under psychiatric care, while acknowledging asylum seekers’ vulnerability
– The decision maintains that negative asylum decisions alone don’t trigger Article 2 obligations, provided appropriate preventive measures are taken
3. Most important provisions:
– The Court established that authorities’ positive obligations to prevent suicide extend beyond detention/psychiatric care situations, but the degree of state control is relevant
– The judgment confirms that asylum seekers’ suicide threats don’t prevent deportation if concrete preventive measures are taken
– The Court emphasized the balance between protecting vulnerable individuals and respecting their personal autonomy
– The decision sets a high threshold for “real and immediate risk,” requiring clear signs of imminent danger rather than general vulnerability
– The dissenting opinion provides important considerations regarding multiple vulnerabilities and the need for preventive psychological support during negative asylum decisions
The decision is particularly significant for its analysis of state obligations regarding suicide prevention among vulnerable asylum seekers and the balance between protection and personal autonomy.
CASE OF T.A. v. SWITZERLAND
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in T.A. v. Switzerland:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns a Swiss woman who found a newborn baby in Ethiopia, brought him to Switzerland despite authorities’ refusal to authorize adoption, and later challenged the Swiss courts’ rejection of her adoption request. The Court found that while there was family life between the applicant and the child, the refusal to grant adoption did not violate Article 8 of the Convention as it did not result in separation of the applicant and child, who maintained legal guardianship. The Court emphasized that the applicant’s unlawful removal of the child to Switzerland could not be justified under the pretext of serving the child’s best interests.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines whether the Swiss authorities’ refusal to authorize adoption violated Article 8 (right to family life)
– The Court analyzes several key aspects:
* Existence of “family life” between applicant and child
* Whether refusal constituted interference with family life
* Whether interference was justified and proportionate
* Balance between individual and public interests
– Main changes from previous positions:
* Distinguished from Wagner case where no adoption prohibition existed
* Emphasized importance of following legal procedures even when claiming child’s best interests
3. Most important provisions for use:
– Confirmation that unlawful removal of child cannot be justified by claiming child’s best interests
– Emphasis on state’s margin of appreciation in adoption matters
– Recognition that legal guardianship can provide adequate protection of family life even without adoption
– Importance of following proper legal procedures in international adoptions
– Balance between individual rights and public interest in preventing circumvention of adoption procedures
The decision provides important guidance on the limits of claiming “child’s best interests” to justify circumventing legal adoption procedures and confirms states’ wide discretion in regulating international adoptions while protecting both individual rights and public interests.
CASE OF LAKATOS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Here’s the analysis of the European Court of Human Rights decision in Lakatos and Others v. Hungary:
Essence of the Decision:
The case concerns three applications against Hungary regarding excessive length of pre-trial detention. The Court found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in all cases, where the applicants were held in pre-trial detention for periods ranging from 3 months to nearly 3 years. The Court also found additional violations regarding the judicial review of detention in one case.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The Court joined three separate applications due to their similar subject matter
2. The main violation concerned Article 5 § 3 (right to trial within reasonable time or release pending trial)
3. The Court relied on established case-law, particularly Gál v. Hungary and Lakatos v. Hungary
4. Additional violations were found under Article 5 § 4 regarding excessive length of judicial review of detention
5. The Court awarded monetary compensation ranging from 1,300 to 5,200 euros to the applicants
Key Important Provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed that excessive length of pre-trial detention violates Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
2. In the case of applicant Lakatos (no. 36138/23), the Court found additional violations due to lack of detention review for two extended periods
3. The decision establishes specific compensation amounts based on the duration of pre-trial detention
4. The Court ordered that compensation be paid within three months, with interest applicable after that period
5. The judgment includes provisions for hereditary succession of claims, as evidenced by the case of deceased applicant Zsolt Lakatos
CASE OF BUNYAKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s the analysis of the ECtHR decision in Bunyakin and Others v. Russia:
1. Essence of the Decision:
The case concerns multiple applications against Russia regarding unfair trials where the applicants’ rights to examine witnesses were restricted. The Court found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) of the Convention in all cases, as the domestic courts relied heavily on statements from witnesses who were either absent, anonymized, or both, without providing sufficient counterbalancing measures to ensure fair trials.
2. Structure and Main Provisions:
– The decision combines five separate applications due to similar subject matter
– The Court affirmed its jurisdiction over cases predating Russia’s exit from the Convention (before September 16, 2022)
– The Court rejected the Government’s request to strike out application no. 4476/18
– The decision applies established case-law principles regarding witness examination rights from Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. UK, Schatschaschwili v. Germany, and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia
– The Court found that the finding of violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction
3. Key Provisions for Application:
– The Court emphasized that reliance on absent or anonymous witnesses’ statements significantly impacts the overall fairness of criminal proceedings
– Specific violations included:
* Lack of assessment regarding the necessity to anonymize witnesses
* Insufficient reasoning for witnesses’ absence
* Failure to implement counterbalancing measures
* Unjustified refusal to call defense witnesses
* No proper evaluation of witnesses’ personal fear claims
– The decision reinforces the requirement for domestic courts to provide adequate justification and compensatory measures when restricting defendants’ rights to examine witnesses
The decision establishes clear standards for handling cases involving anonymous or absent witnesses in criminal proceedings, emphasizing the need for proper procedural safeguards and counterbalancing measures.
CASE OF CHATINYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
Here’s the analysis of the Chatinyan and Others v. Armenia decision:
Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns the violation of legal certainty and property rights when Armenian authorities quashed a final court judgment that was in favor of five applicants from Vanadzor. The applicants, who lost their flat in the 1988 earthquake, had reached a settlement agreement with local authorities to receive a new flat or monetary compensation, which was affirmed by a final court judgment in 2011. However, in 2014, the Council of Elders successfully appealed to overturn this judgment, claiming they hadn’t approved the settlement, which the European Court found to violate both Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court established that the application was filed within the six-month time limit, rejecting the Government’s objection
2. The Court found that quashing the final judgment violated the principle of legal certainty as there were no substantial and compelling circumstances justifying the re-examination
3. The Court determined that the judgment debt constituted a “possession” under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
4. The Court awarded the applicants EUR 35,000 in pecuniary damages, EUR 3,000 in non-pecuniary damages, and EUR 2,000 for legal costs
Key provisions for practical use:
1. The Court reaffirmed that final court decisions should not be questioned unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances
2. The risk of mistakes by public authorities must be borne by the State and not remedied at the expense of individuals
3. A judgment debt is considered a “possession” under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
4. The Court emphasized that public authorities cannot use their internal administrative issues (like lack of approval) to justify violating individuals’ rights established by final court decisions
5. The Court maintained that proper reasoning must be provided when dismissing arguments about awareness of previous court decisions by public authorities
CASE OF CHEMURZIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s the analysis of the ECtHR decision in Chemurziyeva and Others v. Russia:
Essence of the Decision:
The Court examined five applications against Russia concerning allegations of torture or inhuman/degrading treatment by law enforcement officials. The cases involved various incidents including police violence during identity checks, political rallies, and detention. The Court found violations of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) in all cases, both in its substantive and procedural aspects, except for one case where only procedural violation was established.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The Court confirmed its jurisdiction over cases that occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention (before September 16, 2022)
2. The Court reiterated its established principles regarding burden of proof in cases of alleged ill-treatment by authorities
3. The Court emphasized the state’s obligation to protect individuals in detention and conduct effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment
4. The Court awarded 16,000 euros to each applicant as compensation
Key Important Provisions:
1. The Court reinforced the presumption in favor of applicants claiming to be victims of Article 3 violations when under police control
2. The burden of proof lies with the Government to demonstrate that use of force was not excessive
3. The Court emphasized that refusal to conduct proper criminal investigations into credible allegations of ill-treatment constitutes a violation of procedural obligations under Article 3
4. The Court maintained that persons in detention are in a vulnerable position, and authorities have a duty to protect their physical well-being
5. Any use of physical force not strictly necessary due to the person’s conduct diminishes human dignity and violates Article 3
The decision reinforces the Court’s strong stance against ill-treatment by law enforcement and emphasizes the importance of proper investigation of such allegations.
CASE OF DUBININ v. RUSSIA
Here’s the analysis of the Dubinin v. Russia decision:
Essence of the Decision:
The case concerns police ill-treatment of a participant in a pro-Navalny demonstration in Moscow in 2019. The European Court of Human Rights found Russia violated Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment) both in its substantive and procedural aspects. The Court also found violations regarding unlawful detention and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The Court established its jurisdiction over the case despite Russia’s exit from the Convention, as events occurred before September 16, 2022
2. The Court found violations of:
– Article 3 (substantive) regarding police ill-treatment during the demonstration
– Article 3 (procedural) due to lack of effective investigation
– Article 5(1) concerning unlawful detention
– Article 6(1) regarding lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings
3. The Court awarded 16,000 euros in damages to the applicant
Key Important Provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed the principle that authorities have a duty to protect detainees’ physical well-being, and any unnecessary force diminishes human dignity
2. The burden of proof lies with the Government to demonstrate that use of force was not excessive
3. The Court emphasized that refusing to conduct a proper criminal investigation into credible ill-treatment allegations violates the Convention
4. The decision reinforces previous case law regarding the necessity of having a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings (Karelin v. Russia) and standards for lawful detention (Fortalnov and Others v. Russia)
The decision strengthens the Court’s position on police violence during demonstrations and the necessity of effective investigation of ill-treatment complaints.
CASE OF FLJYAN v. ARMENIA
Here’s the analysis of the ECHR decision in Fljyan v. Armenia:
Essence of the Decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns the right of access to court, specifically regarding the Court of Cassation’s decision to declare the applicant’s appeal inadmissible as it was lodged out of time. The Court found that Armenia violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by placing a disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s effective access to the Court of Cassation. The violation occurred due to unclear domestic rules about document service to represented parties and inconsistent court practice in delivering decisions to lawyers and their clients.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The case centered on a civil proceeding where the applicant missed the one-month appeal deadline to the Court of Cassation
2. The Court examined whether the restriction on access to court was proportionate and legitimate
3. The decision focuses on two key aspects:
– The rules governing time limits for appeals and their practical implementation
– The system of serving court decisions to parties and their legal representatives
4. The Court found that while time limits themselves are legitimate, their application should not prevent litigants from using available remedies
Key Important Provisions:
1. The Court established that rules starting appeal time-limits from the date of pronouncement rather than service are not in violation of Article 6 § 1, provided there are sufficient guarantees for effective access to appeals
2. The absence of clear domestic rules about serving documents to represented parties creates legal uncertainty
3. Courts must give due consideration to requests for restoration of missed time limits
4. The automatic service of court decisions is a crucial guarantee of effective access to justice
5. There is no obligation for lawyers to monitor online databases or attend pronouncements when the law provides for automatic service of decisions
CASE OF GNEZDOV v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in the case of Gnezdov v. Ukraine concerning unlawful detention of the applicant. The Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention due to arbitrary detention without proper justification and delayed release. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,600 in non-pecuniary damages.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The case concerns two periods of unlawful detention:
– From 26/02/2011 to 24/04/2011: arbitrary detention without proper time limits and justification
– From 24/04/2011 to 26/04/2011: delayed release from detention
2. The Court based its decision on two key precedents:
– Ladent v. Poland regarding the requirement for proper justification of detention
– Ruslan Yakovenkov v. Ukraine concerning the issue of delayed release
3. The Court found the complaints regarding unlawful detention admissible while declaring the remainder of the application (under Article 3) inadmissible.
Most important provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed that Article 5 is among the fundamental rights protecting physical security, emphasizing its paramount importance in preventing arbitrary deprivations of liberty.
2. The decision establishes that compliance with national law alone is insufficient – any detention must protect individuals from arbitrariness.
3. The Court specified that detention must have:
– Clear time limits
– Proper justification
– Timely release when detention period expires
4. The ruling reinforces that Ukrainian authorities must provide specific grounds for detention and ensure immediate release when detention periods end.
CASE OF GORDIYENOK AND TURPULKHANOV v. RUSSIA
The essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights examined two joined cases against Russia concerning inadequate medical care in detention facilities. The applicants, Gordiyenok and Turpulkhanov, complained about the lack of proper medical treatment and the absence of effective remedies to address their healthcare concerns while in detention. The Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention and awarded monetary compensation to both applicants.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court established its jurisdiction over the cases despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, as the events occurred before September 16, 2022.
2. The Court examined two main aspects:
– The adequacy of medical care provided to detainees
– The availability of effective remedies for complaints about medical care quality
3. The Court identified specific shortcomings in medical treatment:
– For Gordiyenok: delays in medical examinations, specialist consultations, and drug therapy for HIV/AIDS
– For Turpulkhanov: lack of urgent dental care
Key important provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed its position on the “adequacy” of medical assistance, emphasizing the need for:
– Prompt and accurate diagnosis and care
– Regular and systematic supervision
– Comprehensive therapeutic strategy
2. The Court awarded compensation:
– €12,800 to Gordiyenok
– €10,000 to Turpulkhanov
3. The decision established that detention facilities must ensure comprehensive medical care, including specialized treatment and timely response to medical needs.
CASE OF IBRAHIM v. AZERBAIJAN
Here’s the analysis of the European Court of Human Rights decision in Ibrahim v. Azerbaijan:
Essence of the decision:
The Court found Azerbaijan in violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning unlawful detention. The case involved Mr. Ibrahim who was detained without a judicial order for more than 48 hours (from September 30, 2015, to October 3, 2015), which exceeded the maximum period permitted by domestic law. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 250 for costs and expenses.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court based its decision on previous case law (Salayev v. Azerbaijan and Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan), where similar violations were found.
2. The Court focused on the specific period of unlawful detention: from 11:30 p.m. on September 30, 2015, to 3:00 p.m. on October 3, 2015.
3. The Court dismissed the need to examine separately other complaints raised by the applicant under Article 5, considering that the main legal question had been addressed.
4. The judgment includes specific provisions for payment timing (within three months) and interest calculation in case of delayed payment.
Key provisions for practical use:
1. The decision reinforces the strict 48-hour limit for detention without judicial order in Azerbaijan.
2. The Court maintains its position that exceeding the legally permitted detention period automatically constitutes a violation of Article 5 § 1.
3. The judgment establishes a clear connection between the duration of unlawful detention and the amount of compensation, which can serve as a reference for similar cases.
4. The Court’s approach to focusing on the main violation while dismissing the need to examine additional related complaints demonstrates procedural efficiency.
CASE OF KOLYASNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights examined 16 applications against Russia concerning violations of religious freedom under Article 9 of the Convention. The cases involved various restrictions on religious activities, including disruption of religious services, banning of religious organizations, prosecution for missionary work, and limitations on religious practices in prisons. The Court found violations of Article 9 in all applications and awarded compensation to the applicants.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court established its jurisdiction over the cases as the events occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention (September 16, 2022).
2. The cases were joined due to similar subject matter and examined collectively.
3. The decision addresses different types of religious freedom violations:
– Disruption of religious services by police
– Declaring religious organizations as extremist
– Restrictions on missionary activities
– Limitations on religious practices in detention facilities
– Refusal of alternative civilian service
4. The Court awarded compensation ranging from 2,500 to 7,500 euros per application.
Most important provisions:
1. The Court confirmed violations of religious freedom in various forms, from direct interference with religious services to indirect restrictions through administrative measures.
2. The decision establishes that restrictions on missionary work, including sharing religious views on social media or in informal settings, constitute violations of religious freedom.
3. The Court emphasized that banning religious organizations without proper evidence of extremism or violence is unacceptable.
4. The ruling confirms that religious practitioners in detention facilities maintain their right to religious practices, including dietary requirements and worship.
5. The decision reinforces previous case law protecting religious freedom, particularly regarding missionary activities and religious gatherings.
CASE OF KONDRATYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on 13 combined cases against Ukraine regarding inadequate detention conditions and lack of effective remedies. The Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning poor detention conditions in various Ukrainian facilities. The applicants were awarded compensation ranging from 4,000 to 7,500 euros for damages.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court examined complaints about poor detention conditions including:
– Overcrowding (as little as 1-3 m² per person)
– Lack of basic hygiene facilities
– Poor quality of food and water
– Insufficient access to showers and fresh air
– Mold and insect infestations
– Lack of proper bedding and toiletries
2. The Court based its decision on established case law, particularly:
– Melnik v. Ukraine (2006)
– Sukachov v. Ukraine (2020)
– Standards for assessing detention conditions from Muršić v. Croatia
3. Additional violations found in some cases:
– Excessive length of pre-trial detention
– Excessive length of criminal proceedings
– Lack of effective remedies for lengthy proceedings
Key important provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed that serious lack of space in prison cells is a major factor in determining whether detention conditions are “degrading” under Article 3.
2. The Government must provide primary evidence (cell floor plans, actual number of inmates) to counter claims of poor conditions.
3. The Court established specific compensation amounts based on the duration and severity of inadequate conditions, following the precedent set in the Sukachov case.
4. The decision reinforces the requirement for Ukraine to provide effective remedies for complaints about detention conditions.
CASE OF KOROSTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s the analysis of the ECtHR decision in Korostelev and Others v. Russia:
Essence of the Decision:
The case concerns complaints from multiple applicants about inadequate detention conditions in Russian prisons, particularly focusing on extended periods of solitary confinement. The Court found that Russia violated Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) due to the prolonged isolation of prisoners combined with poor material conditions and various restrictions on their basic rights. The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants ranging from 2,000 to 5,300 euros.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The Court established jurisdiction over the cases despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, as the violations occurred before September 16, 2022
2. The cases were joined due to similar subject matter
3. The Court based its decision on established case law regarding solitary confinement (Razvyazkin v. Russia, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia)
4. The judgment confirms that prolonged solitary confinement without appropriate mental and physical stimulation is damaging and requires substantive justification
Key Important Provisions:
1. The Court emphasized that extended solitary confinement combined with additional restrictions (limited outdoor exercise, family visits, receiving parcels) constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment
2. The decision reinforces that isolation must be accompanied by appropriate mental and physical stimulation to avoid deterioration of mental faculties and social abilities
3. The Court established that poor material conditions of detention (inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, insufficient natural light, etc.) combined with solitary confinement aggravates the violation of Article 3
4. The judgment confirms the Court’s jurisdiction over cases involving Russia for violations that occurred before its withdrawal from the Convention
This decision strengthens the Court’s position against extended solitary confinement and sets clear standards for detention conditions in isolation cases.
CASE OF LOGINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s the analysis of the European Court of Human Rights decision in Loginov and Others v. Russia:
Essence of the Decision:
The case concerns the criminal prosecution of nine Jehovah’s Witnesses members in Russia for practicing their religion. The Court found violations of Article 9 of the Convention (freedom of religion) as the authorities failed to demonstrate that the applicants were involved in any socially dangerous extremist activities. The prosecution and conviction were based on overly broad extremism legislation and lacked legitimate aim or pressing social need.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The Court established its jurisdiction over the case despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, as the events occurred before September 16, 2022
2. The Court found violations of:
– Article 9 (freedom of religion) regarding criminal prosecution
– Article 5(1) regarding unlawful detention of six applicants
– Article 5(3) concerning excessive pre-trial detention of two applicants
3. The Court awarded each applicant 7,500 euros in damages
Key Important Provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed its position from the Taganrog LRO case that peaceful practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses religion cannot be considered extremist activity
2. The decision emphasizes that criminal prosecution for peaceful religious practice violates the Convention
3. The Court found that detention of the applicants was unlawful as there was no reasonable suspicion of crime
4. The authorities failed to provide valid reasons for extended pre-trial detention, using only assumptions without evidentiary basis
5. The Court maintained jurisdiction over cases involving Russia for events before its withdrawal from the Convention
The decision represents a significant protection of religious freedom and establishes clear limitations on the use of anti-extremism legislation against religious groups.
CASE OF LUBIN AND ISAKOV v. RUSSIA
The essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in favor of two Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses who were criminally prosecuted for extremism due to their religious activities. The Court found that their prosecution for organizing worship services and practicing their religion peacefully violated Article 9 of the Convention (freedom of religion). The Court also found their pre-trial detention unlawful.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court established its jurisdiction over the case despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, as the events occurred before September 16, 2022.
2. The Court based its decision on the precedent case of Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, where it was established that:
– The extremism legislation was applied too broadly
– The authorities failed to prove any socially dangerous activities
– The prosecution did not pursue any legitimate aim or “pressing social need”
3. The Court found violations of:
– Article 9 (freedom of religion)
– Article 5(1)(c) regarding unlawful pre-trial detention
Most important provisions:
1. The Court confirmed that peaceful religious practice, including organizing worship services and studying religious literature, cannot be considered extremist activity.
2. The decision establishes that criminal prosecution for peaceful religious activities violates the Convention, even if the religious organization has been officially liquidated.
3. The Court awarded 7,500 euros to each applicant as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
: This decision is significant for religious minorities in Russia and potentially in other countries where religious organizations face similar restrictions under anti-extremism legislation.
CASE OF MKRTCHYAN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights examined three joined cases against Ukraine concerning excessive length of pre-trial detention. The Court found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in all cases, where the applicants were held in detention for periods ranging from 3 years and 3 months to nearly 4 years. The Court awarded compensation to all applicants for damages and, in one case, for legal costs.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court joined three separate applications due to similar subject matter.
2. The main violation concerned Article 5 § 3 (right to trial within reasonable time or release pending trial).
3. In application no. 34801/23, additional violations were found regarding:
– Excessive length of criminal proceedings (Article 6)
– Lack of effective remedy for lengthy proceedings (Article 13)
4. The Court ordered Ukraine to pay compensation ranging from 2,000 to 2,700 euros for damages.
Key important provisions:
1. The Court found systematic problems with pre-trial detention in Ukraine, including:
– Fragility and repetitiveness of court reasoning
– Failure to examine alternative measures to detention
– Use of assumptions without evidence regarding risks of absconding
– Issue of collective detention orders
2. The Court referenced its previous decisions (Kharchenko v. Ukraine and Ignatov v. Ukraine) where similar violations were found, indicating a persistent problem.
3. The Court emphasized that the length of pre-trial detention in all cases was excessive, with the longest period being more than 3 years and 10 months.
CASE OF MONTEIRO AND TRINTA SANTOS v. PORTUGAL
Here’s the analysis of the ECHR decision in Monteiro and Trinta Santos v. Portugal:
Essence of the Decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns complaints about inadequate detention conditions in Coimbra Prison, Portugal. Two applicants, António Monteiro and Hugo Trinta Santos, claimed violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention due to poor prison conditions. The Court found violations of Article 3 regarding inadequate detention conditions and, in the case of Trinta Santos, also found a violation of Article 13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy to complain about these conditions.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The Court joined both applications due to similar subject matter
2. The Court rejected the Government’s request to strike out the applications based on unilateral declarations
3. The Court found violations regarding:
– Overcrowding (2.25-3.10 m² per inmate)
– Lack of privacy for toilets
– Poor ventilation and temperature control
– Unsanitary conditions (mold, insects/rodents)
– Poor food quality and quantity
4. The Court awarded each applicant €12,500 in non-pecuniary damages and €250 for costs and expenses
Most Important Provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed its position that serious lack of space in prison cells is a crucial factor in determining whether detention conditions are “degrading” under Article 3
2. The decision references the Muršić v. Croatia case law regarding space requirements and the Petrescu v. Portugal case concerning similar violations
3. The Court established that Portugal lacks an effective remedy for complaints about poor detention conditions
4. The judgment confirms that multiple deficiencies in prison conditions, even when combined with moderate space limitations, can constitute a violation of Article 3
CASE OF NAVALNYY AND OOO ZP v. RUSSIA
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on multiple applications from Alexei Navalny and OOO ZP against Russia concerning violations of freedom of expression. The Court found violations of Article 10 of the Convention in all cases, which involved restrictions on Navalny’s publications about corruption and criticism of Russian officials. The Court awarded compensation to Navalny’s widow and OOO ZP for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court joined nine separate applications due to similar subject matter
2. The Court confirmed its jurisdiction over cases predating Russia’s exit from the Convention (before September 16, 2022)
3. The Court recognized Yulia Navalnaya’s standing to pursue applications after Navalny’s death
4. The Court found violations of Article 10 in all cases related to:
– Defamation claims against Navalny’s anti-corruption publications
– Restrictions on social media content and hyperlinks
– Disproportionate penalties including criminal charges
– Failure to apply proper standards in defamation proceedings
Key important provisions:
1. The Court recognized Navalny’s role as a “social watchdog” deserving similar protection as press
2. The Court found systematic failures by Russian courts to:
– Apply proper standards in defamation cases
– Allow adequate evidence and witness testimony
– Balance freedom of expression with other rights
– Provide relevant and sufficient reasoning
3. The Court awarded €10,000 to Navalny (to be paid to his widow) and €7,500 to OOO ZP in non-pecuniary damages, plus additional pecuniary damages
The decision establishes important precedents for protecting freedom of expression for anti-corruption activists and online publications, particularly regarding hyperlinks and social media content.
CASE OF PETRUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined three joined cases against Ukraine concerning excessive length of criminal proceedings. The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention due to unreasonably long criminal proceedings and lack of effective domestic remedies. The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants ranging from 500 to 3,600 euros.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court joined three separate applications due to similar subject matter
2. The Court assessed the reasonableness of proceedings length based on:
– Case complexity
– Applicants’ conduct
– Authorities’ conduct
– What was at stake for applicants
3. The Court referenced its previous decision in Nechay v. Ukraine (2021) as a leading case on similar issues
4. The proceedings duration ranged from 5.4 to 11.9 years, which was found excessive
5. The Court established that Ukraine failed to provide effective remedies for such complaints
Key important provisions:
1. The Court confirmed that criminal proceedings lasting more than 5 years without proper justification violate the “reasonable time” requirement
2. The compensation amount was determined based on the length of proceedings and number of jurisdiction levels involved
3. The Court established a direct correlation between the duration of proceedings and compensation amount (longer proceedings resulted in higher compensation)
4. The decision reinforces the obligation of states to provide effective domestic remedies for complaints about lengthy proceedings
5. The monetary awards must be paid within three months and converted to local currency at the rate applicable at settlement date
CASE OF SANNIKOV v. RUSSIA
Here’s the analysis of the Sannikov v. Russia decision:
Essence of the Decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled on a case concerning inadequate conditions of detention during prisoner transport in Russia. The Court found violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The case concerned events that occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention on September 16, 2022.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The Court established its jurisdiction to examine cases against Russia for events before September 16, 2022
2. The Court applied previously established principles regarding cramped and defective conditions during prisoner transit (Tomov and Others v. Russia case)
3. The Court confirmed that a strong presumption of violation exists when:
– Detainees are transported in spaces offering less than 0.5 square meters per person
– Long journeys lack individual sleeping places, adequate drinking water, food, or toilet access
Key Important Provisions:
1. The specific violations in this case included:
– Restricted access to toilet facilities
– Limited access to drinking water
– Insufficient natural and electric light
– Lack of heating or ventilation
2. The Court awarded 1,000 euros in damages to the applicant
3. The decision reinforces the Court’s previous position that Russia lacks effective domestic remedies for complaints about detention transport conditions
4. The judgment establishes that claims related to events before Russia’s exit from the Convention remain within the Court’s jurisdiction
The decision serves as a continuation of the Court’s established case law regarding prisoner transport conditions and maintains the standards set in previous landmark cases like Idalov v. Russia and Tomov and Others v. Russia.
CASE OF SHALINA v. RUSSIA
Here’s the analysis of the Shalina v. Russia decision:
Essence of the Decision:
The case concerns unlawful detention and violation of several human rights of Olga Shalina by Russian authorities. The Court found violations of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 (right to fair trial), Protocol 7 Article 2 (right of appeal in criminal matters), and Article 10 (freedom of expression). The applicant was detained and sentenced to administrative arrest for displaying symbols that Russian authorities considered extremist.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. Jurisdiction: The Court confirmed its jurisdiction as the events occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention (September 16, 2022)
2. Violations found:
– Unlawful detention without proper procedural grounds
– Lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings due to absence of prosecuting party
– No suspensive effect of appeal against administrative detention
– Disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression regarding display of political symbols
3. Compensation: The Court awarded EUR 6,000 in damages
Key Important Provisions:
1. The Court emphasized that detention must comply with both domestic law and Convention requirements
2. The decision highlights the problem of overly broad interpretation of extremism legislation
3. The Court found that the sanctions imposed for displaying political symbols were excessively serious
4. The ruling establishes that immediate execution of administrative detention without possibility of suspension pending appeal violates the right to effective appeal
5. The Court confirmed its competence to review cases against Russia that occurred before its exit from the Convention system
The decision represents a significant interpretation of various procedural and substantive rights under the Convention, particularly regarding administrative detention and freedom of expression in the context of political symbols.
CASE OF TOKAR v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of Mr. Tokar, a Ukrainian citizen who was denied an international passport due to allegedly inaccurate data in the police database about criminal proceedings against him from 1997. The Court found violations of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) and Article 13 (right to effective remedy) of the Convention, as the Ukrainian authorities failed to provide proper judicial review and procedural guarantees against arbitrary restrictions of movement.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The case concerned the refusal to issue a travel document based on outdated and unverified information about criminal proceedings from 1997, where authorities could not provide evidence of ongoing proceedings or valid restrictions.
2. The Court emphasized that it is the State’s responsibility to maintain accurate registers and ensure proper information flow between authorities, rather than making citizens bear consequences of system malfunctions.
3. The Court found that the automatic nature of the passport refusal and lack of proper judicial review violated the applicant’s rights.
4. The decision awarded EUR 2,000 in non-pecuniary damages to the applicant.
Key important provisions:
1. The Court established that automatic travel bans without proper verification of grounds are contrary to Convention obligations.
2. States must ensure proper functioning of their legal systems, including maintenance of accurate registers and smooth transfer of information between authorities.
3. Judicial review must examine both legality and proportionality of movement restrictions, not just formal compliance with law.
4. The burden of proof regarding ongoing criminal proceedings and travel restrictions lies with the state authorities, not the individual.
CASE OF VOYTENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on 11 consolidated cases against Ukraine concerning inadequate detention conditions in various Ukrainian detention facilities. The Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention regarding poor detention conditions and lack of effective remedies. The cases involved multiple applicants who were held in different detention facilities across Ukraine between 2014 and 2024.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court examined complaints about inadequate detention conditions, including:
– Overcrowding (2.0-3.8 square meters per person)
– Poor sanitary conditions
– Lack of fresh air and proper ventilation
– Insufficient access to hygiene facilities
– Poor quality of food and water
– Inadequate temperature conditions
– Lack of privacy in toilets
2. The Court referenced its established case-law, particularly:
– Melnik v. Ukraine (2006)
– Sukachov v. Ukraine (2020)
– Muršić v. Croatia standards for assessing detention conditions
Most important provisions:
1. The Court confirmed violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.
2. The Court ordered monetary compensation ranging from 1,300 to 9,800 euros per applicant for non-pecuniary damage.
3. The Court established that Ukraine failed to provide:
– Adequate living space per detainee
– Basic sanitary conditions
– Effective domestic remedies for complaints about detention conditions
4. The Court emphasized that serious lack of space in prison cells is a key factor in determining whether detention conditions are “degrading” under Article 3 of the Convention.
CASE OF YALAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s the analysis of the European Court of Human Rights decision in Yalakov and Others v. Russia:
Essence of the Decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns multiple applications against Russia regarding deficiencies in proceedings for reviewing the lawfulness of detention. The Court found violations of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention due to the lack of speedy review of detention cases. The decision also addressed additional violations related to restrictions on family visits in detention facilities and lack of effective remedies in one of the cases.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. Jurisdiction: The Court confirmed its jurisdiction over cases involving Russia for events before September 16, 2022 (when Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention)
2. Main violations found:
– Breach of Article 5 § 4 regarding deficient detention review proceedings
– Violation of Article 8 concerning restrictions on prison visits
– Violation of Article 13 regarding lack of effective remedies
3. Monetary compensation: Awards ranging from 500 to 4,000 euros for different applicants
Key Important Provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed strict standards concerning speedy review of detention cases where personal liberty is at stake
2. The decision establishes that detention review proceedings must be conducted promptly and effectively
3. The Court emphasized that restrictions on family visits in detention facilities must be properly justified
4. The ruling confirms that states must provide effective remedies against refusals of short-term family visits
5. The Court maintained its jurisdiction over Russian cases predating its exit from the Convention, setting an important precedent for similar cases
The decision reinforces the Court’s established case-law regarding detention review proceedings and prisoners’ rights to family visits, while also addressing the jurisdictional issues related to Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
CASE OF YEGOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s the analysis of the ECtHR decision in Yegorov and Others v. Russia:
Essence of the decision:
The case concerns multiple applications against Russia regarding violations of freedom of expression, particularly related to calls for participation in public events and protests. The Court found violations of Article 10 of the Convention in all cases, where applicants were penalized for organizing or calling for participation in public assemblies. The Court determined that these restrictions were not necessary in a democratic society and lacked “pressing social need.”
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court joined 12 different applications due to similar subject matter
2. The Court confirmed its jurisdiction over cases that occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention (16 September 2022)
3. The decision addresses various types of restrictions:
– Administrative fines and detention for organizing public events
– Criminal charges for repeated violations of assembly rules
– Restrictions on internet access and participation in public assemblies
– Penalties for social media posts calling for participation in rallies
Key important provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed that minor breaches of public event procedures that don’t create real risks of public disorder cannot justify restrictions on freedom of expression
2. The Court established that heirs have standing to pursue applications in cases where the original applicant has died, provided they have legitimate interest
3. The Court awarded monetary compensation to all applicants, ranging from 3,500 to 5,000 euros
4. The decision confirms that posting calls for participation in public events on social media falls under protected speech under Article 10
5. The Court found that immediate execution of administrative detention without possibility of appeal violates Protocol 7 Article 2 of the Convention
: This decision has implications for Ukraine as it establishes important precedents regarding freedom of assembly and expression in post-Soviet space, particularly in the context of political protests and social media activism.
CASE OF ZAKHAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights examined multiple applications against Russia concerning the “foreign agent” legislation. The Court found that Russia’s practice of designating individuals and organizations as “foreign agents” violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 8 (right to private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court determined that the designation was stigmatizing, imposed burdensome requirements, and wasn’t necessary in a democratic society.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court joined 32 applications due to similar subject matter
2. The Court confirmed its jurisdiction over cases where violations occurred before Russia’s exit from the Council of Europe (September 16, 2022)
3. The Court found that the “foreign agent” designation:
– Was stigmatizing and misleading
– Imposed onerous requirements (mandatory labeling, restrictions on activities)
– Carried severe sanctions for non-compliance
– Lacked justification by “pressing social need”
4. The Court awarded each applicant €10,000 in damages and €250 for costs
Key important provisions:
1. The Court emphasized that the “foreign agent” designation implied foreign control without evidence
2. The legislation violated both freedom of expression and right to private life
3. Russia’s exit from the Council of Europe doesn’t absolve it from implementing the Court’s judgments
4. The Court established uniform compensation for all applicants regardless of their status or circumstances
5. The decision applies to various categories of “foreign agents” – journalists, public figures, organizations, and media professionals
CASE OF ZATYNAYKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
This is a revision judgment concerning the case of Zatynayko and Others v. Russia, specifically regarding application no. 25090/19 (Zubtsov v. Russia). The original judgment of 14 December 2023 found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention regarding inadequate detention conditions and awarded EUR 12,500 to Mr. Zubtsov for non-pecuniary damage. The revision was necessary because Mr. Zubtsov died before the judgment was adopted, and his mother, Ms. Yakhontova, as his heir, requested to pursue the application and receive the awarded compensation.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court confirmed its jurisdiction to examine the applications despite Russia’s non-participation in the proceedings
2. The revision was granted under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court due to the discovery of a new fact (applicant’s death)
3. The Court maintained the original award amount of EUR 12,500 but redirected it to Ms. Yakhontova as the heir
4. The judgment includes provisions for default interest based on the European Central Bank’s marginal lending rate plus three percentage points
5. The decision applies to one specific application within a larger group of 43 applications against Russia
Most important provisions for use:
1. The Court’s confirmation that death of an applicant before judgment adoption allows their heirs to receive the awarded compensation
2. The procedural requirements for revision: discovery of a decisive fact unknown to the Court at the time of the original judgment
3. The necessity to provide proper documentation (death certificate, certificate of succession, authority form) when requesting revision
4. The Court’s continued jurisdiction over Russian cases despite the state’s non-participation
5. The maintenance of the original compensation amount when transferring it to the heir
