{"id":11907,"date":"2025-09-17T11:03:53","date_gmt":"2025-09-17T08:03:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/09\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-17-09-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-09-17T11:03:53","modified_gmt":"2025-09-17T08:03:53","slug":"review-of-echr-decisions-for-17-09-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/09\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-17-09-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of ECHR decisions for 17\/09\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

CASE OF SEPPERN v. ESTONIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

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

1. **Essence of the Decision:** The case concerns whether the applicant’s right to a fair trial was violated when domestic courts used unlawfully obtained phone call transcripts to assess his credibility during the trial, ultimately leading to his statements being deemed unreliable. The Court found no violation, emphasizing that the domestic courts provided sufficient reasoning for their actions, the applicant had the opportunity to challenge the evidence, and the use of the transcripts was not decisive for the trial’s outcome. The Court underscored that it is primarily up to national courts to regulate the admissibility and assessment of evidence.<\/p>\n

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

* The judgment outlines the facts of the case, including the applicant’s criminal charges, the wiretapping of his phone, and the domestic courts’ decisions regarding the admissibility and use of the intercepted conversations.
\n * It details the relevant domestic legal framework, specifically the Code of Criminal Procedure, concerning surveillance activities and the assessment of witness credibility.
\n * The judgment presents the applicant’s arguments that the use of unlawfully obtained evidence violated his right to a fair trial.
\n * It also presents the government’s counter-arguments, asserting that the use of the evidence was in accordance with domestic law and did not render the proceedings unfair.
\n * The Court’s assessment section lays out the general principles regarding fair trial rights and the admissibility of evidence.
\n * The Court applies these principles to the specific facts of the case, ultimately concluding that there was no violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.
\n * Concurring opinions from Judges Pavli and N\u00ed Raifeartaigh are attached, offering additional perspectives on specific aspects of the case.<\/p>\n

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

* The decision reinforces the principle that national courts have primary authority in regulating the admissibility and assessment of evidence.
\n * It clarifies that the use of unlawfully obtained evidence does not automatically violate Article 6 \u00a7 1 if the proceedings as a whole are fair, the defendant has the opportunity to challenge the evidence, and its use is not decisive for the outcome.
\n * The judgment highlights the importance of procedural safeguards, such as limited access to unlawfully obtained material and the opportunity for the applicant to provide explanations.
\n * It emphasizes that the Court’s role is to assess the overall fairness of proceedings, not to act as a fourth instance in reviewing domestic court decisions on evidence.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF CANTEMIR v. ROMANIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Cantemir 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 the lack of an effective investigation into the ill-treatment suffered by Mr. Tiberiu Cantemir during the December 1989 demonstrations against the communist regime. The Court determined that the lengthy and flawed investigation into the events surrounding the Romanian Revolution did not meet the required procedural standards, particularly regarding reasonable expedition. Despite the applicant’s later decision to withdraw as an injured party, the Court held that this did not negate his victim status for the period prior to his withdrawal. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 12,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

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

The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation into the applicant’s ill-treatment in December 1989. It then details the facts of the case, including the applicant’s participation in the demonstrations, his arrest, and the ill-treatment he endured. The judgment references the opening of investigations in 1990 and the applicant’s involvement as an injured party. It also mentions the applicant’s later decision to become a witness. The judgment then outlines the relevant domestic legal framework, including provisions of the former and current Codes of Criminal Procedure. The Court then addresses the alleged violation of Article 3, examining the admissibility of the application, including the Government’s preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and victim status. The Court dismisses these objections and proceeds to assess the merits of the case, finding a violation of Article 3 due to the ineffective investigation. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

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

The most important aspect of this decision is the reaffirmation of the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment, even in cases involving historical events. The Court emphasizes that investigations must be carried out with reasonable expedition and must not be marred by procedural shortcomings. The decision also clarifies that an applicant’s decision to withdraw as an injured party does not necessarily negate their victim status, particularly for the period prior to their withdrawal. This ruling reinforces the importance of thorough and timely investigations into human rights violations and provides guidance on the assessment of victim status in such cases.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF CILIA v. MALTA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the Cilia v. Malta decision:<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Malta in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (protection of property) due to a unilaterally imposed lease on property owned by the first applicant, Ms. Cilia, under Maltese law. The domestic court had acknowledged the violation but the ECtHR found that the compensation awarded by the Maltese court was insufficient, particularly because it did not fully consider the period during which Ms. Cilia’s ancestors were affected by the law. The Court dismissed the Government’s objections regarding the applicant’s victim status and exhaustion of domestic remedies. The second applicant, Ms. Cilia’s husband, was deemed inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.<\/p>\n

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

* **Subject Matter:** The case concerns a unilaterally imposed lease under Act XXIII of 1979 amending Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta affecting the first applicant\u2019s property as of July 2008.
\n * **Domestic Proceedings:** The applicants lodged constitutional redress proceedings complaining that the application of Article 12 of the Ordinance was in breach of their property rights as well as that of their predecessors in title, particularly due to the low amount of rent received.
\n * **Preliminary Considerations:** The Court clarified that the only complaint notified to the Government was that under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the remainder of the application having been declared inadmissible.
\n * **Second Applicant:** The Court upheld the Government\u2019s objection that the complaint in respect of the second applicant is, in any event, inadmissible for non\u2011exhaustion of domestic remedies.
\n * **First Applicant:** The Court referred to its general principles concerning victim status and its established case\u2011law in similar cases. The Court observed that the domestic court has acknowledged the violation and awarded EUR 12,750 in compensation covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, having considered that the first applicant\u2019s predecessor in title had remained inactive and that she obtained full ownership in 2014, date of the contract of division.
\n * **Article 41 of the Convention:** The first applicant claimed EUR 12,815 in respect of pecuniary damage representing lost rent from 2008 to 2019 according to her calculation of the relevant deductions in the light of the Court\u2019s case law in Cauchi. She further claimed an unquantified sum of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
\n * **Decision:** The ECtHR declared the first applicant’s application admissible, found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and awarded her additional compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.<\/p>\n

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

* **Victim Status:** The ECtHR clarified that even though the Maltese court acknowledged a violation, the initial compensation was insufficient, allowing the applicant to retain victim status and pursue the case at the European level.
\n * **Compensation for Heirs:** The Court emphasized that compensation should also consider the period during which the applicant’s ancestors were affected by the impugned law, aligning with the Constitutional Court’s approach in Malta.
\n * **Unjust Enrichment:** The ECtHR reiterated its approach to calculating damages in such cases, considering factors like the rent received, market value, and any potential unjust enrichment.
\n * **Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies:** The Court considered the timeline of changes in domestic case law when assessing whether the applicant could have been expected to appeal the initial compensation decision.<\/p>\n

I hope this analysis is helpful.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CASE OF SEPPERN v. ESTONIA Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Seppern v. Estonia: 1. **Essence of the Decision:** The case concerns whether the applicant’s right to a fair trial was violated when domestic courts used unlawfully obtained phone call transcripts to assess his credibility during…<\/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-11907","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\/11907","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=11907"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11907\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11907"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11907"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11907"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}