{"id":12585,"date":"2025-10-15T10:34:54","date_gmt":"2025-10-15T07:34:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/10\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-15-10-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-10-15T10:34:54","modified_gmt":"2025-10-15T07:34:54","slug":"review-of-echr-decisions-for-15-10-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/10\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-15-10-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of ECHR decisions for 15\/10\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

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

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

Here’s a breakdown of the B.F. v. Greece decision from the European Court of Human Rights:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:** The case concerns an Iranian national, B.F., who was detained in Greece pending deportation after seeking asylum. The Court found that Greece violated Article 3 of the Convention due to the degrading conditions of his detention in a police station. Additionally, the Court ruled that Greece failed to provide an effective remedy for B.F.’s complaints regarding his detention conditions, violating Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3. However, the Court found no violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 regarding the lawfulness of his detention, nor found it necessary to examine the complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 4.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * **Introduction:** Sets the stage, outlining the applicant’s complaints regarding the lawfulness and conditions of his detention, lack of effective remedy, and absence of substantive judicial review.
\n * **Facts:** Details B.F.’s initial arrest, asylum application, subsequent arrest, and attempts to challenge his detention and deportation. It also covers his complaints about detention conditions and health issues.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework:** Summarizes domestic laws and international materials relevant to the case, including laws on detention of foreign nationals, asylum seekers, and reports from organizations like the CPT and the UN regarding detention conditions in Greece.
\n * **The Law:** This section contains the court’s legal analysis.
\n * **Article 3 (Substantive):** The Court found a violation of Article 3 due to the applicant’s detention for two months and eighteen days in a police station without the amenities required for prolonged detention.
\n * **Article 13 (+ Article 3):** The Court found a violation of Article 13 because there was no substantive judicial review of the applicant\u2019s complaints regarding detention conditions, health and adequacy of medical care.
\n * **Article 5 \u00a7 1:** The Court found no violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 because the applicant\u2019s detention pending deportation was in accordance with domestic law.
\n * **Article 5 \u00a7 4:** The Court found that it was not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.
\n * **Article 41:** Addresses just satisfaction, awarding the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
\n * **Article 3 Violation:** The ruling reinforces that detaining individuals for extended periods in police stations lacking adequate amenities constitutes degrading treatment.
\n * **Article 13 Violation:** Highlights the importance of providing effective remedies for complaints regarding detention conditions, ensuring that domestic courts meaningfully assess such claims.
\n * **Article 5 \u00a7 1:** The Court reiterates the criteria for assessing the arbitrariness of detention under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f), including good faith, connection to the grounds of detention, appropriateness of conditions, and reasonable length.<\/p>\n

I hope this helps you!<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (IV)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of Georgia v. Russia (IV) regarding just satisfaction:<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled on the issue of “just satisfaction” concerning human rights violations stemming from the “borderisation” process in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Court ordered Russia to pay Georgia a total of EUR 252,018,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damages suffered by various groups of Georgian victims. These groups include victims of killings, ill-treatment, unlawful detention, restrictions on freedom of movement, and denial of education in the Georgian language. The Court specified that these sums are to be distributed by the Georgian government to the individual victims, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers. The Court affirmed its jurisdiction in this case, despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe, as the relevant events occurred before Russia’s exit.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** The judgment outlines the background of the case, including Georgia’s initial application, the Court’s principal judgment finding multiple Convention violations, and the subsequent submissions regarding just satisfaction.
\n* **Jurisdiction:** The Court explicitly confirms its jurisdiction to hear the case, even after Russia’s departure from the Council of Europe, because the facts giving rise to the breaches occurred before Russia’s exit.
\n* **Claims for Just Satisfaction:** This section details the specific claims made by Georgia for various categories of victims, including the number of victims, the nature of the violations, and the amount of compensation sought per victim.
\n* **The Court’s Assessment:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court analyzes Georgia’s claims based on the evidence presented and the principles established in previous inter-State cases. The Court determines which claims are admissible and calculates the appropriate amount of compensation for each category of victims.
\n* **General Principles:** The Court refers to the general principles concerning just satisfaction claims in inter\u2011State cases.
\n* **Application of the above principles to the facts of the present case:** The Court applies these principles to the facts of the present case.
\n* **Disposition:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision, specifying the amounts Russia must pay for each category of victims, the timeline for payment, the default interest rate, and the mechanism for distributing the funds to the individual victims. It also dismisses some of Georgia’s claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

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

* **Confirmation of Jurisdiction:** The Court’s explicit confirmation of its jurisdiction despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe is significant.
\n* **Victim Identification:** The Court emphasizes that just satisfaction claims must be in respect of violations of the Convention rights of \u201csufficiently precise and objectively identifiable\u201d groups of people who were victims of those violations.
\n* **Distribution Mechanism:** The judgment underscores that the awarded sums must be distributed to the individual victims by the applicant Government.
\n* **Supervision by the Committee of Ministers:** The Committee of Ministers will supervise the execution of the Court\u2019s judgments against the Russian Federation.
\n* **Amounts Awarded:** The specific amounts awarded for each category of violation provide a clear indication of how the Court values different types of human rights abuses in this context.<\/p>\n

**** This decision is directly related to the consequences of the conflict between Georgia and Russia and the human rights of Georgians living in or displaced from Abkhazia and South Ossetia.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

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

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

1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) due to a lack of objective impartiality in disciplinary proceedings against a Greek prosecutor. The President of the Court of Cassation (CC), who initiated the disciplinary investigation and action, had previously issued a public statement regarding the case, analyzing the recusal request of the applicant and deeming it unfounded. The ECtHR emphasized that this statement, given the President’s high position and the context of the case, was incompatible with the notion of an independent and impartial tribunal, even though the disciplinary councils of the CC ultimately decided the case. The Court highlighted that the disciplinary council failed to address the impact of the President\u2019s public statement on the fairness of the proceedings.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * The judgment outlines the facts of the case, including the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, her recusal request, and the press release issued by the President of the CC.
\n * It details the relevant legal framework and practice, including provisions of the Greek Constitution, the Code of Courts, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
\n * The ECtHR assesses the admissibility of the complaint, finding that Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention applies under its civil limb.
\n * On the merits, the Court applies the principles of independence and impartiality, focusing on the objective test.
\n * It analyzes the impact of the President of the CC’s public statement on the fairness of the proceedings before the disciplinary councils, concluding that it violated Article 6 \u00a7 1.
\n * The judgment concludes with the application of Article 41 of the Convention, noting that the applicant did not submit any claim with respect to just satisfaction or costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
\n * The decision emphasizes the importance of objective impartiality and the appearance of impartiality, especially in cases involving members of the judiciary.
\n * It highlights that public statements by high-ranking officials regarding ongoing proceedings can compromise the independence and impartiality of a tribunal.
\n * The ECtHR stresses that disciplinary regimes for judges must have safeguards to prevent political control over judicial decisions.
\n * The decision underscores the obligation of authorities to act objectively and impartially when conducting disciplinary investigations against members of the judiciary.
\n * It clarifies that even if a disciplinary body is considered a “tribunal” under Article 6, a violation can be found if the proceedings are tainted by a lack of impartiality due to external factors, such as public statements by influential figures.<\/p>\n

I hope this helps!<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF TU\u011eLUK v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

This judgment concerns the pre-trial detention of Aysel Tu\u011fluk, a well-known Turkish politician, on suspicion of forming or leading an armed terrorist organization. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found violations of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), Article 10 (freedom of expression), and Article 18 (limitations on use of restrictions on rights) in conjunction with Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court concluded that there was no reasonable suspicion to justify Tu\u011fluk’s detention, that the domestic courts failed to provide sufficient reasons for her continued detention, and that her detention pursued the ulterior purpose of stifling pluralism and limiting political debate. The Court also held that Turkey’s derogation under Article 15 of the Convention was not applicable to the case.<\/p>\n

The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter, followed by a section detailing the facts, including Tu\u011fluk’s background, arrest, pre-trial detention, the indictment against her, subsequent criminal proceedings, and her individual application to the Constitutional Court. It then presents the relevant domestic law and practice, followed by the Court’s reasoning on the preliminary question concerning Turkey’s derogation under Article 15 and the preliminary objection regarding the admissibility of the application. The judgment then addresses the alleged violations of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3, Article 5 \u00a7 4, Article 10, and Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5 \u00a7 1, providing the parties’ submissions and the Court’s assessment for each. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, including damages and costs and expenses. Compared to previous versions, this judgment provides a detailed analysis of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding Tu\u011fluk’s detention, emphasizing the lack of reasonable suspicion and the ulterior political motives behind it.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of this decision are those related to the violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 due to the lack of reasonable suspicion, the violation of Article 10 due to the unlawful nature of the pre-trial detention impacting on lawfulness of interference, and the violation of Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5 \u00a7 1, highlighting that the pre-trial detention pursued the ulterior purpose of stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate. These findings underscore the importance of ensuring that pre-trial detention is based on concrete evidence and not used to suppress political opposition.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF BUDAK AND OTHERS v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Budak and Others v. T\u00fcrkiye, concerning the arrest and pre-trial detention of numerous applicants following the attempted coup in Turkey on July 15, 2016. The applicants were suspected of being members of the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation\/Parallel State Structure” (FET\u00d6\/PDY). The ECHR found a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to liberty and security, due to the lack of reasonable suspicion justifying the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention. The Court emphasized that the mere use of the ByLock messaging application, as well as other circumstantial evidence such as banking activities, social media posts, and affiliation with certain institutions, were not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offense. The Turkish authorities’ justification for the detention orders, based on general references to the Criminal Procedure Code and the severity of the alleged offense, was deemed insufficient by the Court. Consequently, the ECHR awarded each applicant (excluding those in five specific applications) a lump sum of 5,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The decision begins by outlining the subject matter of the case, focusing on the arrests and pre-trial detentions following the 2016 coup attempt. It details the grounds for suspicion used by Turkish authorities, including the use of ByLock, financial support to FET\u00d6\/PDY, social media activity, and affiliations with certain institutions. The structure then moves to the Court’s assessment, starting with the joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter. The core of the decision addresses the alleged violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1, examining the admissibility of the complaints and the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the Turkish government. The Court then assesses other complaints under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 3, and 4, deciding not to examine them further due to its findings on Article 5 \u00a7 1. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage and rejecting claims for pecuniary damage. This decision builds upon previous rulings, such as Akg\u00fcn v. Turkey and Taner K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 v. Turkey (no. 2), reinforcing the principle that circumstantial evidence and generalized justifications are insufficient grounds for pre-trial detention under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the emphasis on the requirement of “reasonable suspicion” for pre-trial detention under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention. The Court clearly states that the mere use of the ByLock messaging application, along with other circumstantial evidence, does not automatically constitute reasonable suspicion of having committed an offense. This decision reinforces the need for individualized assessments and concrete evidence linking suspects to criminal activities, rather than relying on broad associations or affiliations. The ruling also highlights the inadequacy of general references to the Criminal Procedure Code and the severity of the alleged offense as sufficient justification for detention orders. This aspect of the decision is particularly important for ensuring that pre-trial detention is based on specific and verifiable evidence, rather than on vague or unsubstantiated claims.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF \u00c7ETIN AND OTHERS v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has delivered a judgment in the case of \u00c7etin and Others v. T\u00fcrkiye, concerning 137 applications related to arrests and pre-trial detentions following the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey. The applicants, suspected of being members of the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation\/Parallel State Structure” (FET\u00d6\/PDY), alleged violations of Article 5 of the Convention, particularly regarding the lack of reasonable suspicion for their detention and the insufficiency of reasons provided by domestic courts for ordering and extending their pre-trial detention. The ECtHR found a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention due to the absence of sufficient grounds for the applicants’ pre-trial detention, noting that the domestic courts’ reasoning was formulaic and stereotyped, without an individualised assessment of the risks involved. The Court did not find it necessary to examine the complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention. The Court awarded 3,000 euros to each applicant who submitted a claim for just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The decision is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural history and the facts of the case, outlining the applicants’ arrests and detentions, the evidence relied upon by the Turkish authorities, and the domestic legal proceedings. The Court then addresses the joinder of the applications and the admissibility of the complaints, dismissing the Government’s objections regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies and abuse of the right of application. The core of the decision lies in the Court’s assessment of the merits of the complaints under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3, where it analyses the reasoning provided by the domestic courts for ordering and extending the applicants’ pre-trial detention. Finally, the Court addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, awarding just satisfaction to the applicants.<\/p>\n

The main provisions of the decision highlight the ECtHR’s concern with the lack of individualised assessment and the formulaic reasoning used by Turkish courts in ordering and extending pre-trial detention in the aftermath of the 2016 coup attempt. The Court reiterated that any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. The Court emphasized that even when a reasonable suspicion exists, decisions ordering and prolonging pre-trial detention must contain relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the necessity of the detention. This decision reinforces the importance of providing concrete justifications for pre-trial detention, especially in the context of mass arrests and detentions following states of emergency. **** This decision has implications for Ukrainians, as it highlights the importance of individualized assessments and concrete justifications for pre-trial detention, especially in situations of armed conflict or political instability.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF COSTA FIGUEIREDO v. PORTUGAL<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the Costa Figueiredo v. Portugal decision:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Portugal violated Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) in the case of Mr. Costa Figueiredo. The applicant, a professor, was convicted of aggravated defamation for statements he made to the press and in publications criticizing a prosecutor and a judge involved in his previous criminal proceedings. The ECtHR ruled that the imposed sanction, a suspended prison sentence conditioned on a donation and publication of the sentence, was disproportionate and therefore not necessary in a democratic society. While the Court acknowledged reasons to punish the applicant, it deemed the severity of the sanction an excessive interference with his freedom of expression.<\/p>\n

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

* The decision begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicant’s initial conviction for non-compliance with a legal order and the subsequent defamation proceedings against him.
\n * It details the applicant’s statements that led to the defamation conviction, including those made to journalists, in an online publication, and in communications to the High Council of the Judiciary.
\n * The decision then assesses the admissibility of the application, finding it admissible under the Convention.
\n * The Court focuses its analysis on Article 10 (freedom of expression), acknowledging that the domestic courts’ judgments interfered with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression but examining whether that interference was justified.
\n * The ECtHR applies its established case-law on the necessity of an interference with freedom of expression, balancing the applicant’s rights under Article 10 with the rights of the judge and prosecutor to respect for their private life under Article 8.
\n * The Court concludes that the sanction imposed on the applicant was disproportionate, leading to a finding of a violation of Article 10.
\n * Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), awarding the applicant compensation for costs and expenses incurred before the ECtHR but rejecting claims for pecuniary damage and domestic costs, as the applicant could seek reimbursement through the reopening of domestic proceedings.<\/p>\n

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

* **Disproportionate Sanction:** The core finding is that imposing a suspended prison sentence for defamation, coupled with a donation requirement and publication of the sentence, was a disproportionate sanction and violated Article 10. This highlights the importance of ensuring that penalties for speech-related offenses are carefully calibrated and do not unduly restrict freedom of expression.
\n * **Balancing Competing Rights:** The decision reaffirms the need to balance freedom of expression (Article 10) with the right to respect for private life (Article 8), emphasizing that neither right automatically takes precedence. Courts must conduct a careful assessment of the specific circumstances to strike a fair balance.
\n * **Impact on Public Debate:** The case underscores the principle that sanctions for speech can have a “chilling effect,” particularly when they involve imprisonment, even if suspended. This can deter individuals from expressing critical opinions on matters of public interest.<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

CASE OF IANCU AND RISTEA v. ROMANIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the Iancu and Ristea v. Romania decision from the European Court of Human Rights:<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found Romania in violation of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to life) due to an ineffective investigation into the death of one applicant’s daughter and the injury of the other applicant during the December 1989 events that led to the fall of the communist regime. The Court determined that the investigation into these events was excessively long, lacked victim involvement, and lacked transparency, thus failing to meet the required standards of an effective investigation. The Court dismissed the Romanian Government’s preliminary objections, including arguments that Article 2 was not applicable to the injured applicant and that the applicants had lost their victim status. As a result, the Court awarded each applicant 20,000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

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

* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Summarizes the facts, referencing similar cases and detailing the events of December 1989, including the death of the first applicant’s daughter and the injury of the second applicant.
\n * **The Court\u2019s Assessment:**
\n * **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 2 of the Convention:** Addresses the government’s preliminary objections regarding the applicability of Article 2 and the applicants’ victim status, dismissing these objections.
\n * **Admissibility:** Declares the applications admissible, finding they are not manifestly ill-founded.
\n * **Merits:** Analyzes the effectiveness of the investigation, finding it procedurally defective due to excessive length, inactivity, lack of victim involvement, and lack of public information.
\n * **Conclusion:** Concludes that the applicants were deprived of an effective investigation, constituting a violation of Article 2.
\n * **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Addresses the applicants’ claims for non-pecuniary damage and awards each applicant EUR 20,000.
\n * **Operative Provisions:** Formally declares the applications admissible, holds that there has been a violation of Article 2, and specifies the amount of damages to be paid to each applicant.<\/p>\n

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

* **Applicability of Article 2 to Non-Fatal Injuries:** The Court clarifies that Article 2 can apply to cases of bodily harm inflicted by State agents that did not result in death, particularly when the actions put the victim’s life at grave risk.
\n * **Effectiveness of Investigation:** The decision reiterates the requirements for an effective investigation into violent deaths or injuries, including reasonable expedition, victim involvement, and transparency.
\n * **Victim Status:** The Court emphasizes that applicants do not lose their victim status unless national authorities acknowledge a breach of the Convention and provide redress.
\n * **Ratione Temporis:** The Court reaffirms its jurisdiction to examine complaints regarding the ineffectiveness of criminal investigations when the majority of proceedings and important procedural measures occurred after the Convention’s entry into force for the respondent State.<\/p>\n

**** This decision highlights the importance of conducting thorough and timely investigations into cases involving loss of life or serious injury, particularly when State agents are involved. It also underscores the need for victim involvement and transparency in such investigations. This case may have implications for similar cases in Ukraine, especially those related to investigations into deaths or injuries resulting from conflict or actions by State agents.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF \u0130MRAK AND YILDIZ v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of \u0130mrak and Y\u0131ld\u0131z v. T\u00fcrkiye:<\/p>\n

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

The case concerns allegations of ill-treatment of two applicants, Mr. \u0130mrak and Mr. Y\u0131ld\u0131z, by prison guards in T\u00fcrkiye, and the subsequent investigation into these allegations. The applicants claimed that they were subjected to ill-treatment during a prison search and headcount, and that the investigation into their allegations was ineffective. The Court found a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights under its procedural limb, due to the lack of a thorough and independent investigation by the Turkish authorities. However, the Court found no violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb, as there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants had been subjected to ill-treatment.<\/p>\n

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

* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Details the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment by prison guards during a prison search and headcount in Antalya L-Type Prison.
\n * **The Court\u2019s Assessment:**
\n * **Admissibility:** Addresses the Turkish Government’s objection that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies. The Court rejected this objection, stating that the applicants had submitted criminal complaints to the public prosecutor, which was the appropriate remedy.
\n * **Merits:** Examines the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court found that the investigation into the applicants’ allegations was not effective because the public prosecutor did not obtain statements from the applicants or other relevant witnesses, failed to ensure medical examinations were carried out, and relied heavily on a preliminary disciplinary investigation that lacked independence.
\n * **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Awards the applicants EUR 3,000 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 jointly for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedural Obligation under Article 3:** The decision reinforces the importance of conducting a thorough and independent investigation into allegations of ill-treatment, particularly in situations where individuals are under the control of the State, such as in prisons.
\n * **Medical Examinations:** The Court emphasizes that proper medical examinations are an essential safeguard against ill-treatment and that the failure to obtain medical reports can undermine the effectiveness of an investigation.
\n * **Independence of Investigations:** The decision highlights the need for investigations to be independent from those targeted by the allegations, noting that disciplinary investigations carried out by colleagues of the alleged perpetrators can cast doubt on the impartiality of the process.
\n * **Burden of Proof:** The Court reiterates the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” for establishing ill-treatment but acknowledges that such proof may be inferred from strong, clear, and concordant evidence.<\/p>\n

This decision underscores the importance of States’ obligations to protect individuals from ill-treatment and to conduct effective investigations when such allegations are made, particularly in custodial settings.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan, concerning criminal defamation proceedings against the applicant, an investigative journalist. The case arose from information she published on her Facebook account in 2011, which led to a private prosecution by a member of an opposition party. The domestic courts convicted the journalist of libel, based largely on a letter from the Ministry of National Security (MNS). The ECtHR found that the applicant’s right to a fair trial was violated because she was not given the opportunity to examine the author of the letter, which was decisive evidence against her. The Court concluded that the trial was unfair, violating Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,600 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history and the facts of the case, outlining the applicant’s initial social media post, the subsequent legal proceedings in Azerbaijan, and the evidence presented by both sides. It then moves to the Court’s assessment, focusing on the alleged violation of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3(d) concerning the right to a fair trial and the right to examine witnesses. The Court analyzes the admissibility of evidence and the domestic courts’ reliance on the MNS letter. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41, awarding damages and costs to the applicant. The decision does not explicitly refer to previous versions, but it does cite relevant case law, such as Y\u00fcksel Yal\u00e7\u0131nkaya v. T\u00fcrkiye and Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), to establish the general principles concerning the right to a fair trial.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the emphasis on the right of the accused to examine witnesses, especially when their statements are decisive for the conviction. The Court highlights that when a conviction rests primarily on specific evidence, the defendant must have an adequate opportunity to challenge the source of that evidence. This decision reinforces the principle that untested evidence from law enforcement authorities should not be accepted without caution and that domestic courts must ensure a fair trial by allowing the examination of key witnesses.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF JABRAYILZADE v. AZERBAIJAN<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of Jabrayilzade v. Azerbaijan:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**
\n The ECtHR found Azerbaijan in violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned a journalist’s denied access to information of public interest held by the President’s Office. The Court determined that the denial interfered with the journalist’s right to receive and impart information, and that domestic legal framework did not provide an effective remedy for his complaints. The Court emphasized that the President’s Office’s inaction was not compliant with domestic law, leading to the violation.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * The judgment begins by outlining the applicant’s complaints regarding the denial of access to information and the lack of fair proceedings and effective remedies.
\n * It then assesses the applicability of Article 10, considering the purpose of the information request, the nature of the information, the applicant’s role as a journalist, and the availability of the information.
\n * The Court dismisses the Government’s objection regarding the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, finding that the applicant had attempted to raise his complaints before domestic courts.
\n * The judgment concludes that there was an interference with the applicant’s right to receive and impart information, which was not “prescribed by law,” leading to a violation of Article 10.
\n * It also finds a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 10, as the applicant did not have an effective remedy to complain about the alleged violation of his right to freedom of expression.
\n * Finally, the Court decides that there is no need to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and dismisses the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
\n * **Applicability of Article 10:** The decision reinforces the principle that Article 10 can be engaged when access to information is instrumental for a journalist’s work as a “public watchdog.”
\n * **Burden of Proof:** The Government has the burden to prove that a remedy was effective and available.
\n * **State’s Duty:** Even if a public authority doesn’t possess the requested information, it has a duty to determine the relevant information holder or inform the applicant in a clear and substantiated manner why the request is refused.
\n * **Effective Remedy:** Article 13 requires that individuals have a remedy before national authorities for violations of their Convention rights.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF MEDAROV v. BULGARIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Medarov v. Bulgaria, concerning a violation of the presumption of innocence. The applicant, Mr. Medarov, alleged that statements made by three officials from the Bulgarian Prosecutor’s Office violated his right to be presumed innocent. These statements were made during a press conference and subsequent television interviews regarding a criminal investigation into espionage, in which Mr. Medarov was implicated. The ECHR found that the statements made by the officials went beyond merely informing the public and conveyed the idea that Mr. Medarov was guilty before any court had convicted him. Consequently, the Court ruled that there had been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the presumption of innocence. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for moral damages and EUR 1,800 for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The decision is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural details and the facts of the case, outlining Mr. Medarov’s role, the criminal proceedings against him, and the specific statements made by the prosecution officials. It then presents an assessment of the admissibility of the application, rejecting the government’s objection regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court proceeds to the merits of the case, analyzing whether the statements made by the prosecution violated Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The decision refers to established principles regarding the presumption of innocence and applies them to the facts of the case. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, which concerns just satisfaction, and determines the amounts to be awarded to the applicant for damages and costs.<\/p>\n

The main provision of the decision is the finding that the statements made by the Bulgarian prosecution officials violated Mr. Medarov’s right to the presumption of innocence, as guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The Court emphasized that the statements went beyond merely informing the public about the criminal proceedings and conveyed a sense of guilt before any judicial determination had been made. This decision highlights the importance of restraint and impartiality on the part of public officials when discussing ongoing criminal investigations, particularly before a trial has taken place.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF \u00d6LMEZ v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the \u00d6lmez v. T\u00fcrkiye decision from the European Court of Human Rights:<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights found T\u00fcrkiye in violation of Article 3 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the ill-treatment of the applicant, a lawyer, by a police officer and the subsequent inadequate handling of the case by domestic courts. The Court determined that the police officer used unnecessary force, constituting degrading treatment. Furthermore, the suspension of the judgment against the police officer and the lack of disciplinary measures resulted in impunity, violating the procedural aspect of Article 3. The Court dismissed the government’s objection regarding the applicant’s victim status, emphasizing that the remedies provided by domestic courts were insufficient.<\/p>\n

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

* The judgment begins by outlining the facts of the case, including the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by a police officer, the domestic investigation and court proceedings, and the applicant’s complaints to the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights.
\n * It then addresses the admissibility of the application, considering the government’s challenge to the applicant’s victim status.
\n * The Court proceeds to assess the merits of the case, examining both the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 3 of the Convention.
\n * The decision references established principles regarding the use of force by State agents and the State’s obligation to conduct effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment.
\n * The Court concludes that there was a violation of Article 3 under both its substantive and procedural aspects, finding that the police officer used unnecessary force and that the domestic courts failed to provide adequate redress.
\n * Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

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

* The decision reinforces the principle that any use of physical force by law-enforcement officers that is not strictly necessary diminishes human dignity and violates Article 3 of the Convention.
\n * It emphasizes the importance of effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment by State agents, including the punishment of those responsible and the implementation of disciplinary measures.
\n * The judgment highlights that suspending the pronouncement of judgment in cases involving violations of Article 3 results in impunity and is unacceptable.
\n * The decision clarifies that administrative lawsuits for compensation are not sufficient remedies in cases of ill-treatment and cannot replace criminal proceedings that lead to the identification and punishment of those responsible.<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

CASE OF PARLAS AND OTHERS v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

This judgment concerns a series of applications against T\u00fcrkiye regarding criminal convictions for expressing opinions, primarily through banners, slogans, or social media posts. The applicants were sentenced to imprisonment, with the pronouncement of the judgment suspended, for offenses such as defamation, inciting hatred, insulting the President, or disseminating terrorist propaganda. They argued that these convictions violated their freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. The Turkish Constitutional Court had previously declared their individual applications inadmissible. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has consolidated these applications and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

The decision begins by outlining the subject matter of the cases, focusing on the applicants’ convictions and their complaints under Article 10, and sometimes Articles 11 or 6. It then addresses the admissibility of the applications, considering and dismissing the Government’s objections based on abuse of the right of individual application, incompatibility *ratione materiae*, victim status, non-compliance with the four-month time limit, and the manifestly ill-founded nature of certain applications. The judgment proceeds to assess the merits of the complaints, examining whether the convictions constituted an interference with freedom of expression and whether such interference was justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41, concerning just satisfaction, awarding amounts for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the finding that the criminal convictions with suspended sentences for expressing critical opinions constituted a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The Court emphasized that the suspension of the pronouncement of judgments under Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not offer sufficient protection against arbitrary breaches of Convention rights. This confirms the ECtHR’s stance that even suspended sentences can have a deterrent effect and thus interfere with freedom of expression, particularly when the legal framework lacks adequate safeguards against abuse.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF RARANI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of *Rarani and Others v. Albania*, concerning a dispute over property rights and the fairness of proceedings before the Albanian Supreme Court. The applicants alleged that the Supreme Court, in its judgment of 12 April 2017, unfairly assessed the facts of the case, differing significantly from the lower courts without providing adequate reasoning or evidence. The ECtHR found that the Supreme Court’s judgment lacked sufficient reasoning and arbitrarily overturned the factual findings of the lower courts. This, according to the ECtHR, constituted a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. The Court also indicated that the most appropriate form of reparation would be the reopening of domestic proceedings, should the applicants request it.<\/p>\n

The decision is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural history and the facts of the case, outlining the property dispute and the various decisions of the Albanian courts. It then details the relevant domestic law, followed by the Court’s assessment, which includes preliminary remarks, admissibility considerations, and the merits of the Article 6 \u00a7 1 complaint. The Court then addresses other alleged violations under well-established case-law, ultimately deciding it was not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, awarding the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the finding that the Albanian Supreme Court violated Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention due to a lack of a reasoned judgment. The ECtHR emphasized that the Supreme Court’s reassessment of facts, which contradicted the findings of lower courts and lacked evidentiary support, was arbitrary. This decision underscores the importance of national courts, especially supreme courts, providing clear and logical reasoning for their judgments, particularly when overturning prior factual findings. The Court also highlighted that the applicants have an opportunity to seek the reopening of the proceedings before domestic courts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CASE OF B.F. v. GREECE Here’s a breakdown of the B.F. v. Greece decision from the European Court of Human Rights: 1. **Essence of the Decision:** The case concerns an Iranian national, B.F., who was detained in Greece pending deportation after seeking asylum. The Court found that Greece violated Article 3 of the Convention due…<\/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-12585","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\/12585","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=12585"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12585\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12585"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12585"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12585"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}