{"id":11433,"date":"2025-08-27T10:30:14","date_gmt":"2025-08-27T07:30:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/08\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-27-08-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-08-27T10:30:14","modified_gmt":"2025-08-27T07:30:14","slug":"review-of-echr-decisions-for-27-08-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/08\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-27-08-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of ECHR decisions for 27\/08\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

CASE OF B.A. v. ICELAND<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rendered a judgment in the case of B.A. v. Iceland, concerning the alleged inadequate investigation into the applicant’s claims of domestic violence and sexual assault, as well as gender-based discrimination in handling such cases. The applicant argued that Icelandic authorities failed to protect her and effectively investigate her complaints, violating Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, both alone and in conjunction with Article 14. The Court found no violation of Articles 3 and 8, emphasizing that the investigation met the required threshold of effectiveness. Additionally, the Court found no violation of Article 14, stating that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of structural bias or disproportionate effect to shift the burden of proof to the State, considering various legislative and policy measures adopted to combat sexual and domestic violence in Iceland. The Court acknowledged the challenges in prosecuting domestic violence cases but found no systemic inadequacies in the legal framework or investigative methods.<\/p>\n

The decision is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter, followed by a detailed account of the facts, including the applicant’s allegations of violence, the police investigation, and decisions by domestic authorities. The judgment then presents the relevant domestic legal framework, including the Constitution of Iceland, provisions of the General Penal Code (GPC) related to sexual and physical violence, domestic violence provisions, and general provisions, as well as the Criminal Procedure Act and the Act on Restraining Orders and Removal from the Home. It also references relevant Council of Europe and United Nations documents. The Court then proceeds to the law, addressing the alleged violation of Articles 3 and 8, and Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8, assessing admissibility and merits based on submissions by both the applicant and the government. The decision concludes with the Court’s findings, holding no violation of the mentioned articles. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions in the provided text.<\/p>\n

The main provisions of this decision that may be important for its use are the Court’s reiteration of the State’s positive obligations in cases of domestic violence, which include establishing a legislative and regulatory framework of protection, responding promptly to reports of domestic violence, and conducting an effective investigation into such claims. The Court also clarified that while the Istanbul Convention requires the criminalization of domestic violence, it does not prescribe specific standalone offenses, allowing for flexibility in legislative approaches. Furthermore, the decision emphasizes that statistical disparities alone are insufficient to establish discrimination and that a prima facie case requires evidence of structural bias or disproportionate effect.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF FTITI v. GREECE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Ftiti v. Greece*:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Greece violated Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to have a criminal conviction reviewed by a higher tribunal. The violation occurred because the applicant’s appeal against his conviction was excessively delayed, rendering it ineffective. By the time the appeal was heard, Mr. Ftiti had already served the minimum term of his sentence, been conditionally released, and expelled from Greece, making it impossible for the review to address any deficiencies in the initial trial effectively.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the case’s subject matter: the effectiveness of the applicant’s right to appeal.
\n * **Facts:** Details the applicant’s arrest, conviction for aggravated theft, the sentencing to seventeen years\u2019 imprisonment and a fine of 1,000 euros, his subsequent appeal, conditional release, and eventual deportation to Tunisia. It highlights the delays in scheduling the appeal hearing and the circumstances that led to the appeal being rejected due to the applicant’s absence.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Refers to Greek law regarding the suspensive effect of appeals and the conditions under which a stay of execution can be requested.
\n * **The Law:**
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7:** Presents the applicant’s complaint regarding the violation of his right to appeal.
\n * **Admissibility:** Addresses the Government’s arguments that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies and lost his victim status. The Court dismisses the Government’s objection regarding the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, finding that the Government did not demonstrate that a request for a stay of execution would have been an effective remedy. The Court joins the objection regarding the loss of victim status to the merits of the case.
\n * **Merits:** Examines the substance of the applicant’s complaint, considering whether the delayed examination of his appeal rendered it ineffective. The Court reiterates the general principles regarding the right to appeal, including the need for the appeal to be effective and provide a means of rectifying deficiencies in the initial trial.
\n * **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Discusses the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction, including non-pecuniary damage and the request for reopening the proceedings. The Court awards the applicant EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
\n * **Operative Provisions:**
\n * Declares the application admissible.
\n * Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.
\n * Orders the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
\n * Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Right to an Effective Appeal:** The decision underscores that the right to appeal must be practical and effective, not theoretical. Delays that undermine the purpose of the appeal can constitute a violation.
\n * **Suspensive Effect of Appeals:** While the absence of a suspensive effect on the execution of a sentence is not inherently a violation, it becomes problematic when the appeal process is excessively delayed, and the individual has already served a significant portion of their sentence.
\n * **State’s Responsibility:** The state has a responsibility to ensure that appeal hearings are scheduled and conducted in a timely manner. Delays attributable to the authorities can contribute to a finding of a violation.
\n * **Victim Status:** Even if an individual has served their sentence or been released, they may still retain victim status if the appeal process was ineffective in addressing deficiencies in the initial trial.<\/p>\n

This judgment highlights the importance of a timely and effective appeal process in criminal proceedings, ensuring that individuals have a genuine opportunity to have their convictions reviewed by a higher tribunal.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF KROI AND NOCKA v. ALBANIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Kroi and Nocka v. Albania, concerning the impartiality of the Albanian Constitutional Court. The applicants complained that their right to an impartial tribunal was violated because three judges who had previously ruled on their case at the Supreme Court also participated in the Constitutional Court’s proceedings. The ECtHR found that the participation of these judges raised objectively justified fears of a lack of impartiality, as they were essentially deciding whether their own prior judgments had contributed to a breach of the applicants’ constitutional rights. The Court emphasized that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, and the circumstances of the case warranted a finding of a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The ECtHR also noted structural deficiencies in the timely filling of vacancies on the Constitutional Court’s bench, which contributed to the case being heard by an incomplete panel.<\/p>\n

The decision begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter, followed by a detailed account of the facts, including the property restitution process, the legal challenges, and the composition of the Constitutional Court. It then presents the relevant domestic legal framework and practice, including articles from the Albanian Constitution, the Constitutional Court Act, and the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court then assesses the admissibility of the complaint, joining the Government’s objection regarding the applicants’ failure to request recusal to the merits. The merits section includes the parties’ submissions and the Court’s assessment, focusing on the impartiality of the tribunal, judges’ recusal, and the Constitutional Court’s quorum. The decision concludes with the application of Article 41 of the Convention, addressing damages and costs, and ultimately orders Albania to pay the applicants compensation and to allow for the reopening of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the assessment of impartiality when judges participate in different stages of the same case. The ECtHR emphasized the importance of objective impartiality and the need to avoid even the appearance of bias. The Court also highlighted the significance of national procedures for ensuring impartiality, such as rules regulating the withdrawal of judges. Furthermore, the decision underscores the importance of a fully functional Constitutional Court and raises concerns about the simultaneous appointment of multiple judges from the Supreme Court to the Constitutional Court, which could hinder decision-making when issues of impartiality arise.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF M.A. v. ICELAND<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of M.A. v. Iceland:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Iceland in violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) due to the ineffective investigation into M.A.’s complaints of domestic violence against her former boyfriend. The investigation suffered from delays and administrative confusion, leading to the expiration of the statute of limitations for the alleged assaults. However, the Court found no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8, as the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of gender-based discrimination in the handling of domestic violence cases in Iceland.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Introduction:** Outlines the case’s subject matter: the alleged ineffective investigation of domestic violence and gender-based discrimination.
\n * **Facts:** Details the applicant’s complaints of physical assault and threats by her former boyfriend, the police investigation, and decisions by domestic authorities. It highlights the delays in questioning the alleged perpetrator, which led to the expiration of the statute of limitations for the assaults.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework:** Describes Icelandic laws related to assault, domestic violence, and criminal procedure, as well as relevant Council of Europe and United Nations documents.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Articles 3 and 8:** Examines the applicant’s claim that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into her allegations of ill-treatment. The Court found a violation of Article 8 due to the delays and administrative confusion in the investigation.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 14:** Addresses the applicant’s complaint of gender-based discrimination. The Court found no violation, stating that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of structural bias or disproportionate effect.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** Discusses just satisfaction, awarding the applicant EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage but rejecting claims for pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **State’s Positive Obligations:** The decision reinforces the State’s positive obligation to protect individuals from domestic violence, including establishing a legislative and regulatory framework, responding promptly to reports of domestic violence, and conducting an effective investigation.
\n * **Effective Investigation:** The decision emphasizes that investigations into domestic violence allegations must be prompt and thorough. Delays and administrative confusion can lead to a violation of Article 8, especially when they result in the expiration of limitation periods.
\n * **Burden of Proof in Discrimination Cases:** The decision clarifies the burden of proof in discrimination cases, stating that the applicant must provide prima facie evidence of structural bias or disproportionate effect to shift the burden of proof to the State.
\n * **Evidentiary Challenges in Domestic Violence Cases:** The Court acknowledges the evidentiary challenges in domestic violence cases, particularly when incidents occur in private settings without witnesses. However, it emphasizes that these challenges do not absolve the authorities of their obligation to conduct an effective investigation.<\/p>\n

I hope this analysis is helpful.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF VERVELE v. GREECE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Vervele v. Greece:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**
\n The European Court of Human Rights found Greece in violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The case concerned the excessive length of civil proceedings related to the applicant’s employment dispute and the ineffectiveness of the domestic remedy (Law no. 4239\/2014) designed to compensate for such delays. The Court criticized the “fragmentation” of proceedings, where remedies had to be pursued at each level of jurisdiction, preventing a comprehensive assessment of the overall delay. It also found that domestic courts’ interpretation of “reasonable time” criteria did not align with the Court’s standards, and the compensation awarded was often inadequate, especially after considering the costs incurred by the applicant.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * **Introduction and Facts:** The judgment outlines the case’s background, including the applicant’s initial claim against a hospital for unpaid salary supplements, the various appeals and delays in the proceedings, and the relevant domestic laws concerning limitation periods, time-limits in labor disputes, and compensation for excessive length of proceedings.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** This section details the relevant Greek laws, including Legislative Decree no. 496\/1974, Law no. 4239\/2014 on just satisfaction for excessive length of proceedings, and laws on legal aid for low-income citizens. It also references previous pilot judgments by the Court on the issue of lengthy proceedings in Greece.
\n * **Case-Law of the Domestic Courts:** The judgment analyzes decisions of Greek courts regarding claims for just satisfaction, highlighting instances where compensation was awarded and cases where claims were dismissed. It points out inconsistencies in the application of criteria for assessing the length of proceedings.
\n * **Statistical and Other Information:** The judgment includes statistical data from the CEPEJ evaluation report and the EU Justice Scoreboard, indicating Greece’s poor performance in clearance rates and disposition time for civil and commercial cases.
\n * **The Law:** This section presents the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, the Government’s arguments, and the Court’s assessment.
\n * **Admissibility:** The Court declares the complaints admissible, joining the Government’s objection on exhaustion of domestic remedies to the merits of the Article 13 complaint.
\n * **Merits:** The Court examines the alleged violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 \u00a7 1, focusing on the “fragmentation” of proceedings, the criteria for assessing “reasonable time,” the compensation awarded, and the costs incurred. It concludes that the domestic remedy is ineffective.
\n * **Article 6 \u00a7 1 Violation:** The Court analyzes the length of the proceedings, the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the authorities, and concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1.
\n * **Article 41 Application:** The Court addresses the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction, rejecting the claim for pecuniary damage but awarding EUR 11,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 240 for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
\n * The decision highlights the importance of a remedy that allows for a comprehensive assessment of the overall length of proceedings, rather than requiring separate claims at each level of jurisdiction.
\n * It emphasizes that domestic courts’ interpretation of “reasonable time” criteria must align with the Court’s case-law, considering factors such as the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant.
\n * The decision underscores that compensation awarded for excessive length of proceedings must be adequate and not be undermined by the costs incurred in pursuing the claim.
\n * The Court reiterates that states have a duty to organize their judicial systems to ensure cases are heard within a reasonable time, and that a chronic overload of cases cannot justify excessive delays.<\/p>\n

**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, as it underscores the importance of ensuring effective remedies for violations of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, particularly in the context of ongoing legal challenges and potential backlogs in the judicial system.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF ATANASIJE RISTI\u0106 v. SERBIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Atanasije Risti\u0107 v. Serbia:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Serbia violated the rights of Mr. Atanasije Risti\u0107 under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to his unlawful arrest and detention. Risti\u0107 was arrested, detained in a hospital, and subjected to a medical intervention after swallowing drugs to avoid police detection. The Court emphasized that there was no record of his arrest, he wasn’t informed of the reasons for his arrest, he was not promptly brought before a judge, and he had no opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. The Court rejected his complaint regarding inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3, finding insufficient evidence of ill-treatment.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Introduction:** Briefly introduces the case, the applicant, and the articles of the Convention at issue.
\n * **Facts:** Details the events leading to the application, including the applicant’s arrest, detention in a hospital, medical intervention, criminal proceedings against him, and his complaint to the Constitutional Court of Serbia.
\n * **Law:**
\n * **Preliminary Remarks:** Addresses the Government’s objection regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, which the Court dismisses.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 3:** Examines the applicant’s complaint of inhuman and degrading treatment, ultimately finding it inadmissible due to lack of evidence.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 5:** Focuses on the core of the case, addressing the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention. It references relevant parts of Article 5, assesses the arguments of both parties, and concludes that there were violations of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2, 3, and 4.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** Deals with the issue of just satisfaction, including damages and costs. The Court awards the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
\n * **Operative Provisions:** Concludes with the Court’s decision, declaring parts of the application admissible\/inadmissible, holding that there was a violation of Article 5, and outlining the compensation to be paid by Serbia.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**<\/p>\n

* **Violation of Article 5:** The core finding is the violation of the right to liberty and security of person. The Court highlights the importance of proper arrest records, informing individuals of the reasons for their arrest, and ensuring prompt access to judicial review of detention.
\n * **Unacknowledged Detention:** The Court emphasizes that the absence of an arrest record is a “most serious failing” and a “grave violation” of Article 5 \u00a7 1.
\n * **Informing of Reasons for Arrest:** The decision underscores that informing a person of the reasons for their arrest is a fundamental safeguard, allowing them to challenge the lawfulness of their detention.
\n * **Judicial Control of Detention:** The Court reiterates that judicial control of interferences with an individual’s right to liberty is an essential feature of Article 5 \u00a7 3.
\n * **Right to Judicial Review:** The decision emphasizes that individuals deprived of their liberty must have the opportunity to seek judicial review of their detention.<\/p>\n

This decision reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in cases of arrest and detention, particularly the need for clear records, prompt information, and access to judicial review to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF G.R.N. v. ROMANIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of G.R.N. v. Romania:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Romania in violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to an ineffective investigation into domestic violence against the applicant, G.R.N., who was a 15-year-old with a psychomotor disability at the time of the incident. The Court emphasized that the investigation, which lasted over five years and was restarted twice due to omissions, was neither prompt nor diligent, especially considering the applicant’s vulnerability as a child with disabilities. The Court highlighted the contrast between the lengthy investigation and the Romanian government’s own methodology, which prioritizes and expedites cases involving child victims. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant 20,000 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 500 EUR for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Subject Matter of the Case:** The case concerns the ineffectiveness of a criminal investigation into domestic violence inflicted on the applicant, who was a 15-year-old with a psychomotor disability.
\n * **Facts:** The applicant was allegedly assaulted by his mother\u2019s partner in February 2017, resulting in a nasal bone fracture. A criminal complaint was lodged, and an investigation was initiated but faced repeated discontinuations due to lack of evidence, despite forensic evidence of the injury.
\n * **The Court\u2019s Assessment:** The Court examined the case under Article 3 of the Convention, focusing on the State’s obligation to protect individuals from ill-treatment. It found the investigation to be excessively long and marred by significant delays and omissions, failing to meet the required diligence for cases involving child victims.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court addressed the applicant\u2019s claims for damages and costs, awarding 20,000 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 500 EUR for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Violation of Article 3:** The core finding is the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, emphasizing the State’s failure to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into allegations of domestic violence against a vulnerable child.
\n * **Positive Obligation:** The decision reaffirms the State’s positive obligation to take measures to protect individuals from ill-treatment, including that inflicted by private individuals, and to conduct thorough investigations into such allegations.
\n * **Diligence and Promptness:** The Court stressed the importance of diligence and promptness in investigations, particularly when dealing with vulnerable victims such as children with disabilities.
\n * **Impact of Delays:** The decision highlights how delays and omissions in investigations can undermine their effectiveness and violate the State’s obligations under the Convention.<\/p>\n

This decision underscores the importance of swift and thorough investigations in cases of domestic violence, especially when involving vulnerable individuals, and serves as a reminder of the State’s duty to protect its citizens from ill-treatment.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF G\u00dcNG\u00d6RAY v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

This decision concerns the case of Mr. Yusuf G\u00fcng\u00f6ray against T\u00fcrkiye, focusing on his detention conditions given his health issues, specifically asthma and diabetes. The applicant complained about being held in a cell with smokers in Silivri L-Type Prison, which he argued deteriorated his asthma. His requests to be moved to a non-smoking or less crowded cell were rejected by the prison administration and enforcement judge, citing COVID-19 measures and the applicant’s prisoner status. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that T\u00fcrkiye had violated Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.<\/p>\n

The decision is structured around the applicant’s complaint regarding Article 3 of the Convention. It addresses the admissibility of the application, considering the Turkish government’s argument of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, which the Court rejected. The Court then assesses the merits of the case, examining whether the applicant’s health was adequately secured during his detention, considering his exposure to passive smoking. The decision references previous case law on the conditions of detention for prisoners with health issues and the State’s obligation to protect them from harmful effects like passive smoking.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the finding that the applicant’s continued detention in a cell with smokers, despite his known health condition and medical recommendations, amounted to degrading treatment, violating Article 3 of the Convention. The Court emphasized that the prison authorities failed to take adequate steps to ensure the applicant’s health and well-being, despite being aware of his condition and the availability of a non-overcrowded, non-smoking cell. This highlights the State’s responsibility to protect the health of prisoners, especially those with pre-existing conditions, and to act on medical recommendations.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF P\u00c2RVU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

This decision concerns a case brought by the parents and brother of Mr. Sorin P\u00e2rvu, who was fatally shot by a police officer in Romania in 2009 during an operation to execute a European arrest warrant. The applicants alleged that the authorities were responsible for Mr. P\u00e2rvu’s death and that the subsequent investigation was ineffective. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined the case under Article 2 of the Convention (right to life). The Court found that the domestic investigation into Mr. P\u00e2rvu’s death was indeed ineffective due to its lack of expedition and thoroughness, noting numerous judicial decisions that sent the case back to the prosecutor’s office because of investigative omissions. Ultimately, the ECtHR concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, both in its substantive and procedural aspects. The Court awarded the applicants 50,000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

The decision begins by outlining the subject matter of the case, detailing the factual background, including the shooting of Mr. P\u00e2rvu and the ensuing criminal investigation. It then presents the applicants’ claims under Articles 2 and 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, specifically focusing on the authorities’ responsibility for the killing and the effectiveness of the investigation. The Court’s assessment addresses the alleged violation of Article 2, first considering the admissibility of the application. Here, the Court dismisses the Government’s preliminary objections, including the argument that the application was substantially the same as a previous one brought by Mr. P\u00e2rvu’s widow and that it was lodged out of the six-month time limit. The decision then moves to the merits of the case, referencing general principles concerning the right to life in policing operations and highlighting deficiencies in the domestic investigation. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, and awards the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the finding of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, both under its substantive and procedural limbs. This confirms that the Romanian authorities failed in their duty to protect Mr. P\u00e2rvu’s life and to conduct an effective investigation into his death. The Court’s emphasis on the lack of expedition and thoroughness in the domestic investigation, despite numerous judicial decisions highlighting omissions, serves as a critical point for future cases involving state responsibility for deaths and the need for effective investigations.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF RUTKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Rutkauskas v. Lithuania, concerning a Jehovah’s Witness who refused military service due to his religious beliefs. The applicant’s request to perform alternative civilian service was ignored, and he was not exempted from mandatory military service. The ECtHR found that Lithuania had violated Article 9 of the Convention (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) by failing to strike a fair balance between the interests of society and the individual’s right to conscientious objection. The Court dismissed the government’s request to strike the case out and declared the application admissible. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses but held that the finding of a violation was sufficient compensation for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

The decision begins by outlining the facts of the case, including the applicant’s religious beliefs, his refusal of military service, and the domestic court proceedings. It then addresses the government’s request to strike the application out of the list of cases, which the Court dismisses. The decision proceeds to assess the admissibility of the application and then examines the merits of the case under Article 9 of the Convention. The Court refers to its previous case law, particularly Teliatnikov v. Lithuania, which concerned similar issues. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention regarding just satisfaction, awarding the applicant costs and expenses but finding that the violation itself was sufficient compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The structure is standard for ECtHR judgments, following a logical progression from facts and procedure to legal analysis and conclusions.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the right to conscientious objection to military service under Article 9 of the Convention. The Court emphasizes that states must provide alternative civilian service options that are not intrinsically linked to military service. This decision reinforces the principles established in previous case law, such as Bayatyan v. Armenia and Teliatnikov v. Lithuania, and highlights the importance of accommodating individuals’ deeply held beliefs in the context of mandatory military service.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CASE OF B.A. v. ICELAND The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rendered a judgment in the case of B.A. v. Iceland, concerning the alleged inadequate investigation into the applicant’s claims of domestic violence and sexual assault, as well as gender-based discrimination in handling such cases. The applicant argued that Icelandic authorities failed to protect…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[129],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11433","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-echr-decisions","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11433","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11433"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11433\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}