CASE OF F.S.M. v. SPAIN
Here’s a detailed analysis of the European Court of Human Rights decision in F.S.M. v. Spain:
1. Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns the criminal conviction of an elderly person with cognitive impairment for tax-related offenses. The Court examined whether the applicant’s mental health condition required special procedural adjustments during the trial and whether the absence of such adjustments violated his right to a fair trial. The Court found no violation of Article 6, concluding that sufficient steps were taken by judicial authorities to ensure fair proceedings, particularly noting that the applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing and that his conviction was based on documentary evidence rather than his personal statements.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines whether the applicant’s mental health condition warranted discontinuation of proceedings or required procedural adjustments
– The Court analyzed whether domestic courts took sufficient steps to ensure fair proceedings
– Key focus on the balance between mental health condition and ability to participate in proceedings
– The decision establishes that mere presence of mental health issues doesn’t automatically require procedural adjustments if not specifically requested
– Significant attention to the role of legal representation in ensuring fair trial rights
3. Most important provisions for use:
– Mental health condition alone doesn’t render a person unfit to stand trial if they can understand the scope and purpose of proceedings
– Courts are not obliged to provide procedural adjustments of their own motion in the absence of specific requests
– The presence of documentary evidence can compensate for limited personal participation in tax-related cases
– Legal representation by a chosen lawyer is a significant factor in ensuring fair trial rights
– The burden is on the defendant to substantiate how lack of procedural adjustments specifically impacted trial fairness
– Courts must ensure sufficient steps are taken to verify a defendant’s capacity to understand and participate in proceedings, but this doesn’t necessarily require special accommodations
The decision is particularly significant as it balances protection of vulnerable defendants with the need for effective prosecution of complex financial crimes, while establishing clear guidelines for when procedural adjustments are required.
CASE OF VYACHESLAVOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns the mass disorder and fire in Odesa on May 2, 2014, which resulted in 48 deaths and numerous injuries. The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 2 of the Convention by failing to prevent and stop the violence, ensure timely rescue measures, and conduct an effective investigation into the events. The Court also found a violation of Article 8 in respect of one applicant due to unjustified delay in releasing her father’s body for burial.
2. Structure and main provisions:
The decision examines:
– The role of the Court in assessing Ukraine’s international responsibility
– Violations of Article 2 (right to life) in its substantive and procedural aspects
– Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)
– Just satisfaction awards to the applicants
Key changes compared to previous decisions:
– Detailed analysis of state responsibility in complex situations involving both state and non-state actors
– Consideration of broader geopolitical context while focusing on specific state obligations
– Emphasis on importance of effective investigations in politically sensitive cases
3. Most important provisions for use:
– State’s positive obligations to prevent violence and protect life extend beyond specific threats to general protection of society
– Requirements for effective investigation: adequacy, promptness, independence, victim involvement and public scrutiny
– State responsibility exists even when wrongdoings are attributable to former officials who later fled the country
– Importance of considering general context while focusing on specific state obligations
– Need for enhanced public scrutiny in cases involving serious human rights violations and politically sensitive issues
The decision provides important guidance on state obligations in complex situations involving mass disorder, politically motivated violence, and the need for effective investigations regardless of political sensitivities.
CASE OF BUTKEVYCH AND ZAKREVSKA v. UKRAINE
1. Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on a case involving two Ukrainian activists who were prevented from holding demonstrations near the Prosecutor General’s Office in Kyiv in 2013. The Court found violations of Article 11 (freedom of assembly) and Article 13 (right to effective remedy) of the Convention for both applicants, and additionally found a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) for the second applicant who was detained by police.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The Court examined three main aspects: restrictions on freedom of assembly, lack of effective remedies, and unlawful detention
– The Court found that the Ukrainian legislation (Article 39 of the Constitution and Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Justice) did not constitute sufficient legal grounds for restricting freedom of assembly
– The decision follows the Court’s previous position in the Cheremskyy v. Ukraine case regarding the quality of law requirements
– The Court awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage: EUR 5,800 to the first applicant and EUR 9,800 to the second applicant, plus EUR 2,400 for legal costs
3. Key provisions for practical use:
– The Court confirmed that post-event appeals cannot be considered effective remedies for violations of freedom of assembly
– The mere existence of a criminal case cannot justify detention without proper legal basis and documentation
– The Court emphasized that restrictions on freedom of assembly must have clear and sufficient legal grounds in domestic legislation
– The decision establishes that blanket bans on demonstrations in specific locations for extended periods are problematic under the Convention
– The Court reaffirmed that Article 11 should be interpreted in light of Article 10, with Article 11 being lex specialis in assembly cases
CASE OF DERDIN v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns a Ukrainian editor-in-chief who was ordered to retract statements published about Ukrexpert, an association providing industrial safety services. The European Court of Human Rights found that Ukraine violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) when domestic courts ordered the applicant to retract his statements without proper justification. The Court determined that the domestic courts failed to properly distinguish between facts and value judgments and did not perform an adequate balancing exercise between protecting Ukrexpert’s reputation and the applicant’s freedom of expression.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court first addressed the admissibility of the complaint, rejecting the Government’s argument about the six-month time limit violation.
2. On merits, the Court analyzed whether the interference with the applicant’s rights was:
– Based on law (confirmed)
– Pursued a legitimate aim (confirmed)
– Was necessary in a democratic society (not confirmed)
3. The Court found that domestic courts:
– Failed to clearly distinguish between facts and value judgments
– Did not consider the context of the statements
– Ignored the applicant’s position as editor-in-chief
– Failed to analyze the plaintiff’s public role
– Did not perform proper balancing of competing interests
Most important provisions for use:
1. The Court emphasized the difference between the reputation of a legal entity and an individual, noting that corporate reputation lacks the moral dimension of personal reputation.
2. The Court established that an indiscriminate approach to assessing speech without distinguishing between value judgments and statements of fact is incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention.
3. The decision reinforces the principle that courts must provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify interference with freedom of expression, including proper consideration of context and the balancing of competing interests.
4. The Court awarded EUR 2,000 in non-pecuniary damages to the applicant.
CASE OF KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA
1. Essence of the decision:
The case concerns Mr. Dominik Krátky’s complaint against Slovakia regarding his pre-trial detention and review procedures. The Court found no violation regarding the justification of his pre-trial detention but determined that there was a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention due to the excessive length of constitutional proceedings reviewing his detention (lasting one year, eleven months and seven days). The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,600 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines two main aspects: the justification of pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 3) and the speediness of detention review (Article 5 § 4).
– The Court found the complaint about pre-trial detention inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, confirming that the domestic courts provided “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons.
– The Court found a violation regarding the speediness of review, as the constitutional proceedings’ duration was not justified by any convincing arguments from the Government.
– The decision maintains consistency with previous case law, particularly referencing cases like Mooren v. Germany and several Slovak cases.
3. Most important provisions:
– The Court confirms that detention review guarantees continue to apply during appeal proceedings until the conviction becomes final.
– The decision establishes that a period of nearly two years for constitutional review of detention is excessive and violates the speediness requirement.
– The Court emphasizes that repetitive wording in detention decisions is acceptable if the reasons for detention persist and regular reviews are conducted.
– The ruling reinforces the principle that constitutional courts must handle detention-related complaints with particular expedition, regardless of internal procedural challenges.
