CASE OF RADELIĆ v. CROATIA
Okay, I will provide you with a detailed description of the decision in the case of Radelić v. Croatia.
### Essence of the Decision
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Croatia violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) in the case of Mr. Dražen Radelić. The case concerned the confiscation of proceeds of crime from Mr. Radelić, who was the director and sole shareholder of a company that had acquired the proceeds through business fraud but later went bankrupt and ceased to exist. The ECHR held that the imposition of the confiscation measure was not foreseeable under Croatian law because the Penal Code did not provide for the confiscation of proceeds of crime from a perpetrator when those proceeds were acquired for the benefit of another entity, such as a company. The Court emphasized that the interference with Mr. Radelić’s property rights was therefore not “provided for by law,” as required by the Convention. The decision highlights the importance of clarity and foreseeability in domestic laws concerning the confiscation of assets.
### Structure and Main Provisions of the Decision
The decision begins with an introduction outlining the essence of the application. It then details the facts of the case, including Mr. Radelić’s role as the director and sole shareholder of the company, the criminal proceedings against him for business fraud and forgery of documents, and the subsequent confiscation order. The judgment refers to the relevant legal framework and practice in Croatia, including articles of the Constitution, the Penal Code, and the Commercial Companies Act. The decision then assesses the admissibility of the application, addressing the government’s objections regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the applicant’s victim status. The Court found the application admissible. On the merits, the Court analyzes whether the interference with Mr. Radelić’s property rights was lawful, in the general interest, and proportionate. It concludes that the confiscation was not foreseeable and therefore not lawful, resulting in a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, and determines that the finding of a violation is sufficient just satisfaction.
### Main Provisions of the Decision for Its Use
1. **Foreseeability of the Law:** The decision underscores the principle that any interference with an individual’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions must be “provided for by law,” which includes the requirement that the law be foreseeable. This means that individuals should be able to anticipate the consequences of their actions with a reasonable degree of certainty.
2. **Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime:** The ECHR clarifies that the confiscation of proceeds of crime must be based on clear and specific legal provisions. It is not permissible to confiscate assets from an individual based on an expansive interpretation of the law or by analogy, especially when the proceeds were initially acquired by a separate legal entity.
3. **Application of Commercial Law in Criminal Proceedings:** The decision indicates caution in applying provisions of commercial law, such as those concerning the liability of company directors, in criminal proceedings related to the confiscation of assets. The Court suggests that such applications should be consistent with the nature of the criminal offense and the specific provisions of the Penal Code.
4. **Victim Status:** The decision reaffirms that an applicant can claim to be a victim of a violation even if the confiscation order has not been fully enforced, particularly when enforcement proceedings have been initiated and there is no statute of limitations on the confiscation.
CASE OF SPITERI v. MALTA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Spiteri v. Malta, concerning complaints about the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention following his extradition and subsequent restrictions on his freedom of movement. The Court found no violation of Article 5 § 1 regarding the lawfulness of detention, concluding that the applicant’s detention was based on a valid national arrest warrant. It also found no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 concerning freedom of movement, considering the restrictions imposed on the applicant were lawful and proportionate. Lastly, the Court found no violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding the fairness of the hearing, as the reasons for refusing the applicant’s request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union were sufficiently implicit in the Constitutional Court’s judgment.
The decision begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter, followed by a detailed account of the facts, including the criminal proceedings against the applicant, challenges to his detention, and constitutional redress proceedings. It then presents the relevant legal framework and practice, encompassing domestic law and practice, European Union law, and relevant case law. The Court proceeds to analyze the alleged violations of Article 5 § 1, Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, and Article 6 § 1, assessing admissibility and merits based on the parties’ submissions and established general principles. The structure is standard for ECHR judgments, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the Court’s reasoning. There are no changes compared to previous versions.
The most important provisions of this decision are the Court’s findings regarding the interpretation and application of Article 5 § 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. The Court clarified that a Part III warrant issued under Maltese law could serve as a valid national arrest warrant, even if it is not an ordinary arrest warrant under the Criminal Code. It also emphasized that restrictions on freedom of movement must be lawful, pursue a legitimate aim, and strike a fair balance between the public interest and the individual’s rights. These findings provide guidance on the permissible limits of detention and restrictions on freedom of movement in the context of criminal proceedings and extradition.
CASE OF ATÇA AND ÇELEBİ v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Atça and Çelebi v. Türkiye*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns two Turkish judges arrested and detained after the 2016 coup attempt, suspected of being members of the “FETÖ/PDY” organization. The applicants complained about the lawfulness of the search of their homes, restrictions on access to the investigation file, and the legality of their arrest and subsequent judicial control measures. The Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention due to the unlawful search of their homes, as it was not “in accordance with the law.” The Court dismissed the other complaints.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The judgment addresses the arrest, detention, and house searches of the applicants following the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey.
* **Applicants:** The applicants were serving members of the judiciary (a prosecutor and a judge).
* **Key Complaints:** The applicants raised concerns under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (unlawfulness of arrest and restriction on access to the investigation file) and Article 8 (unlawfulness of the home search).
* **Domestic Remedies:** The applicants had previously lodged applications with the Turkish Constitutional Court, which were declared inadmissible.
* **Court’s Assessment:**
* The Court joined the two applications due to their similar subject matter.
* Regarding Article 5 § 4, the Court found the complaint inadmissible, stating that the applicants were sufficiently informed of the evidence against them to challenge their detention effectively.
* Regarding Article 8, the Court declared the complaint admissible. It found that the home searches violated Article 8 because they were not “in accordance with the law,” specifically Section 88 of Law no. 2802, which protects judges and prosecutors from such searches except in cases of *flagrante delicto*. The Court determined that the interpretation of *flagrante delicto* by Turkish authorities was too broad in this context.
* Other complaints under Article 5 § 1 were rejected for not meeting admissibility criteria.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded each applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 to the first applicant for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Interpretation of *Flagrante Delicto*:** The Court’s finding that the Turkish authorities’ interpretation of *flagrante delicto* was overly broad is crucial. This highlights the importance of narrowly construing exceptions to protections against home searches, especially for members of the judiciary.
* **Article 8 Violation:** The decision reinforces the importance of adhering to specific legal provisions designed to protect the privacy of judges and prosecutors, ensuring that searches are only conducted under strictly defined circumstances.
* **Admissibility Considerations:** The decision provides insights into the Court’s approach to admissibility, particularly regarding the need for applicants to be sufficiently informed of the reasons for their detention to challenge it effectively.
This decision underscores the need for domestic authorities to respect the specific legal protections afforded to members of the judiciary and to interpret exceptions to those protections narrowly.
CASE OF RUMINAS v. LITHUANIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Ruminas v. Lithuania decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Lithuania in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) due to the domestic courts’ refusal to reimburse Mr. Ruminas for legal costs and expenses incurred in administrative proceedings. These proceedings arose after he successfully challenged an administrative violation for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol. The ECtHR ruled that the obligation to bear these costs, despite winning the case, excessively restricted his right of access to a court. The Court awarded him compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the initial administrative proceedings against Mr. Ruminas for drunk driving, his successful challenge of those proceedings, and the subsequent denial of reimbursement for his legal costs.
* It details the domestic court decisions, including the Constitutional Court’s finding that the lack of reimbursement for legal costs in such cases was inconsistent with the Constitution.
* The ECtHR then assesses the admissibility of the application, rejecting the Government’s arguments that Mr. Ruminas failed to exhaust domestic remedies.
* The Court analyzes the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, finding that the refusal to reimburse costs constituted a restriction on the right of access to a court.
* It distinguishes the case from previous ones, emphasizing that Mr. Ruminas did not contribute to the initial suspicion against him.
* Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), awarding Mr. Ruminas compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Right of Access to Court:** The decision reinforces the principle that individuals should not be unduly burdened with costs when defending themselves in legal proceedings, especially when they are ultimately successful.
* **Proportionality:** The ECtHR emphasizes the need for a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed (denying reimbursement of costs) and the aim sought to be achieved (limiting state expenses).
* **Distinction of Circumstances:** The Court highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case, particularly whether the applicant contributed to the initial suspicion or charge against them.
* **Impact of Lengthy Proceedings:** The decision acknowledges the potential stress and reputational damage caused by lengthy legal processes, especially when serious violations of the law are alleged.
This decision serves as a reminder that while states have a legitimate interest in limiting expenses, this cannot come at the cost of impairing an individual’s fundamental right to a fair trial and effective legal defense.
