{"id":13518,"date":"2025-11-26T09:25:56","date_gmt":"2025-11-26T07:25:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/11\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-26-11-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-11-26T09:25:56","modified_gmt":"2025-11-26T07:25:56","slug":"review-of-echr-decisions-for-26-11-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/11\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-26-11-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of ECHR decisions for 26\/11\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

CASE OF RASMUSSEN AND OTHERS v. DENMARK<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the Rasmussen and Others v. Denmark decision from the European Court of Human Rights:<\/p>\n

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

The case concerned the death of a prisoner, J.F., from an accidental drug overdose while in Kragskovhede Prison in Denmark. His relatives claimed the prison authorities failed to adequately supervise and provide medical care, violating Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found no violation of Article 2 (right to life), concluding that while there were shortcomings in the prison’s procedures, the authorities did not know or couldn’t have known there was a real and immediate risk to J.F.’s life. The Court emphasized that the prison staff had taken basic precautions to minimize potential risks to J.F.’s health and well-being, and the domestic courts thoroughly examined the case.<\/p>\n

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

* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the case’s subject matter.
\n * **Facts:** Details the events leading to J.F.’s death, including his transfer to the prison, observations of his intoxication, the discovery of drugs, the autopsy results, and subsequent investigations. It also covers the domestic proceedings, including the District Court and High Court judgments, and the involvement of the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Describes the relevant Danish laws and regulations concerning prison management, searches, observation cells, medication, and internal prison regulations. It also mentions reports from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT).
\n * **Law:** This section outlines the applicants’ complaints, the government’s arguments, and the Court’s assessment based on Article 2 of the Convention.
\n * **Admissibility:** The Court declared the application admissible.
\n * **Merits:** The Court assessed the case based on the arguments presented by both parties and the general principles of Article 2. It concluded that there was no violation of Article 2.
\n * **For These Reasons, the Court:** Formally declares the application admissible and holds that there was no violation of Article 2 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

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

* **Positive Obligations under Article 2:** The decision reiterates the State’s positive obligation to protect the right to life, especially for individuals in custody. This includes taking reasonable measures to prevent self-harm.
\n * **”Real and Immediate Risk” Threshold:** The Court emphasizes that a positive obligation arises only when authorities knew or should have known of a “real and immediate risk” to an individual’s life.
\n * **Basic Precautions:** Even without knowledge of a specific risk, authorities are expected to take basic precautions to protect the health and well-being of those in custody.
\n * **Thorough Examination by Domestic Courts:** The Court gave weight to the fact that the domestic courts thoroughly examined the case and made findings of fact.
\n * **Contributory Negligence:** The District Court considered J.F.’s contributory negligence in taking the drugs when awarding damages.
\n * **Availability of Naloxone:** The applicants raised the question of the lack of availability of naloxone, which could have been administered as an antidote. The Court notes that this was not raised before the domestic courts.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF SELIMI v. ALBANIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

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

1. **Essence of the Decision:**
\n The ECHR found that Albania violated Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) in the case of Mr. Selimi, a Supreme Court judge dismissed following a vetting process. The Court determined that the vetting bodies (Independent Qualification Commission and Special Appeal Chamber) failed to adequately inform Mr. Selimi about the essential factual elements underlying allegations of his inappropriate contact with individuals involved in organized crime. This lack of information and access to supporting documents significantly restricted his ability to mount a viable defense, thus affecting the very essence of his procedural rights. While the Court acknowledged the importance of national security concerns, it found that the restrictions on Mr. Selimi’s rights were not sufficiently counterbalanced by adequate procedural safeguards. The Court also found the complaint concerning the alleged interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect of his private life admissible, but considered that there is no need to give a separate ruling on it in view of the Court\u2019s findings under Article 6 \u00a7 1 in the present case.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * **Introduction:** Briefly introduces the case, focusing on the applicant’s dismissal from the Supreme Court due to vetting proceedings under Albania’s Vetting Act.
\n * **Facts:** Details the background of Albania’s justice system reforms and the vetting process. It outlines the specific vetting proceedings against Mr. Selimi, including reports from the Classified Information Security Directorate (CISD) and the International Monitoring Operation (IMO). It describes the investigation by the Independent Qualification Commission (IQC), the IQC’s decision to dismiss Mr. Selimi, and the subsequent appeal to the Special Appeal Chamber (SAC).
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Summarizes the applicable domestic laws and regulations related to the vetting process, including provisions concerning the role of international observers, the handling of classified information, and the assessment of inappropriate contacts.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1:** This section forms the core of the judgment. It presents the applicant’s arguments that he did not receive a fair hearing due to the vetting bodies’ failure to disclose crucial information. It also presents the government’s counter-arguments, emphasizing that Mr. Selimi was informed of the factual basis for the allegations and that the restrictions on disclosure were necessary for national security reasons. The Court then assesses these arguments, applying general principles concerning the disclosure of evidence related to national security.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 8:** States the applicant’s complaint that there had been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention on account of his dismissal from office, given the findings and conclusions of the vetting bodies and serious procedural violations in his case.
\n * **Application of Articles 46 and 41:** Discusses the application of Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments) and Article 41 (just satisfaction). The Court rejects the applicant’s request for reinstatement and finds that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awards EUR 6,500 in respect of costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
\n * **Right to Information:** The decision underscores the importance of providing individuals subject to legal proceedings with sufficient information about the allegations against them. Even in cases involving national security concerns, authorities must make reasonable efforts to disclose the essential factual elements to allow for a meaningful defense.
\n * **Counterbalancing Measures:** When restrictions on procedural rights are necessary (e.g., to protect national security), authorities must implement adequate counterbalancing measures to ensure the overall fairness of the proceedings. This may include providing summaries of classified information, allowing for ex parte proceedings, or appointing a cleared representative for the individual.
\n * **Burden of Proof:** The decision highlights the need for caution when shifting the burden of proof onto an individual, particularly when the allegations are vague or based on limited evidence. The individual must have a reasonable opportunity to rebut the allegations and present mitigating circumstances.
\n * **Fairness in Disciplinary Proceedings:** The decision emphasizes that disciplinary proceedings against judges must be conducted in a manner that respects their dignity and ensures public confidence in the judiciary. The proceedings must adhere to the principles of fairness and due process.<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

The case concerns an injury sustained by the applicant during Labour Day demonstrations in Istanbul in 2013, where he lost an eye due to a tear-gas grenade fired by police. The core issue is the lack of an effective investigation into the potential responsibility of high-ranking officials (the Governor of Istanbul and the head of the Istanbul Security Directorate) for the excessive use of force. The Court found that Turkey failed to fulfill its obligation under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to conduct a proper investigation into whether these officials were responsible for shortcomings in the planning and execution of the police operation. The Court emphasized that the State authorities were under an obligation to carry out an effective investigation in order to elucidate the circumstances surrounding the contested use of force. The Court awarded the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.<\/p>\n

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

* **Introduction:** Sets out the case’s subject matter: the applicant’s injury and the lack of investigation into the high-ranking officials’ responsibility.
\n * **Facts:** Details the background to the events, including the restrictions on demonstrations in Taksim Square, the police intervention, the applicant’s injury, and the domestic investigations that followed. It outlines the initial refusal to investigate the Governor and Security Directorate head, the applicant’s appeals, and the parallel investigation into the police officers who used force.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework:** Summarizes domestic laws regarding the use of force by police, specifically tear gas, and Law no. 4483 concerning the prosecution of civil servants. It also references relevant international materials, including resolutions from the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 3:** Presents the applicant’s complaint that the lack of investigation into the high-ranking officials led to impunity.
\n * **Admissibility:** Addresses the Turkish Government’s arguments that the application should be inadmissible due to abuse of the right to individual application, failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and loss of victim status. The Court rejects these arguments.
\n * **Merits:** Assesses whether the authorities had an obligation to investigate the high-ranking officials and whether an effective investigation took place. The Court finds that Turkey failed to conduct an adequate investigation, violating Article 3.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** Addresses the applicant’s claims for damages and costs. The Court awards compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs but rejects the claim for pecuniary damage due to a lack of causal link to the specific violation found.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedural Obligation under Article 3:** The decision reinforces the principle that when an individual makes a credible claim of ill-treatment by state agents, there is an obligation to conduct an effective official investigation.
\n * **Scope of Investigation:** The investigation must extend beyond the individual officers who directly used force and consider the planning and control of the operation, including the potential responsibility of high-ranking officials.
\n * **Burden of Proof:** The Court reiterates that the burden of proof lies with the government, especially when individuals are injured while under the control of state authorities. It is unreasonable to expect an applicant to provide direct evidence of incitement by high-ranking officials.
\n * **Ineffectiveness of Law No. 4483:** The Court reaffirms its previous findings that the implementation of Law No. 4483, which requires prior authorization to prosecute civil servants, is a structural problem that hinders effective investigations.
\n * **Victim Status:** The decision clarifies that initiating compensatory proceedings does not absolve the state of its obligation to carry out an effective investigation, and compensation alone may not remedy a breach of Article 3 in cases of wilful ill-treatment.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

This European Court of Human Rights judgment concerns a friendly settlement regarding just satisfaction in the case of Associated Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom. The case initially addressed the compatibility of success fees and After the Event (ATE) insurance premiums with Article 10 of the Convention, specifically concerning legal proceedings against media defendants. The Court previously found a violation of Article 10 regarding success fees but not concerning ATE premiums. Following the initial judgment, the applicant claimed GBP 319,977.92 in respect of success fees. The parties reached a friendly settlement where the government agreed to pay the applicant GBP 321,772.23 in pecuniary damages, inclusive of interest and tax. The Court approved this settlement, finding it equitable and respectful of human rights, and decided to strike the case out of its list.<\/p>\n

The structure of the decision includes a procedural overview, detailing the background of the case, the initial judgment, and the subsequent claim for just satisfaction under Article 41. It then outlines the friendly settlement reached by the parties, including the agreed-upon sum and payment terms. Finally, it presents the Court’s legal reasoning for accepting the settlement and striking the case out, citing Article 39 of the Convention and Rule 75 of the Rules of Court. Compared to the principal judgment of 12 November 2024, this decision focuses solely on the resolution of the Article 41 claim through a friendly settlement, rather than the broader issues of freedom of expression and recoverability of legal fees.<\/p>\n

The main provision of this decision is the Court’s acceptance of the friendly settlement between Associated Newspapers Limited and the United Kingdom government. This settlement resolves the outstanding issue of pecuniary damages related to the violation of Article 10 concerning success fees. The agreement specifies the amount to be paid (GBP 321,772.23), the timeframe for payment (three months), and the interest rate applicable in case of late payment. This judgment confirms that the case is closed, providing legal certainty for both parties.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

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

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) judgment in the case of *Azadl\u0131q Newspaper v. Azerbaijan*:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**
\n The ECHR found that Azerbaijan violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned a monetary sanction imposed on Azadl\u0131q Newspaper for publishing an article that was deemed defamatory towards a public figure. The Court determined that the domestic courts in Azerbaijan failed to conduct a proper balancing exercise between the newspaper’s right to freedom of expression and the public figure’s right to protection of reputation. Additionally, the ECHR found that the domestic courts did not provide sufficient reasoning for the severity of the monetary sanction, which appeared disproportionate. The newspaper was ordered to pay EUR 25,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 in respect of costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * **Introduction:** Sets the stage, outlining that the case revolves around a claim of disproportionate interference with the newspaper’s freedom of expression due to defamation judgments in domestic courts.
\n * **Facts:** Details the background, including the newspaper’s history, the article in question (alleging misappropriation by a Baku Metro executive), and the subsequent civil defamation proceedings.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework:** Cites Article 23 of the Azerbaijani Civil Code, which pertains to the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, and the possibility of retraction and compensation for damages.
\n * **Law:** This section forms the core of the judgment.
\n * It addresses the alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
\n * It assesses the admissibility of the complaint.
\n * It analyzes the merits of the case, including submissions from both the applicant newspaper and the Azerbaijani government.
\n * The Court’s assessment examines whether there was an interference with freedom of expression, whether it was lawful and pursued a legitimate aim, and crucially, whether it was “necessary in a democratic society.”
\n * The Court applies general principles related to freedom of expression, the role of the press, and the distinction between statements of fact and value judgments.
\n * It finds that the domestic courts failed to conduct the required balancing exercise between competing rights.
\n * The Court conducts its own balancing exercise, considering factors such as the contribution to public interest, the notoriety of the person affected, the content and form of the publication, the way information was obtained, and the severity of the penalty.
\n * Ultimately, the Court concludes that there was a violation of Article 10.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** Addresses the issue of just satisfaction, including damages and costs.
\n * It considers the parties’ submissions regarding pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
\n * The Court determines the appropriate amounts to be awarded to the applicant newspaper.
\n * **Operative Provisions:** Formally declares the application admissible, holds that there has been a violation of Article 10, specifies the amounts to be paid by the respondent State, and dismisses the remainder of the applicant newspaper\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

3. **Key Provisions for Use:**
\n * **Balancing Exercise:** The judgment emphasizes the importance of domestic courts conducting a thorough balancing exercise between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation, using criteria established in the ECHR’s case law.
\n * **Statements of Fact vs. Value Judgments:** The Court reiterates the distinction between statements of fact and value judgments, noting that even value judgments require a sufficient factual basis.
\n * **Due Diligence and Good Faith:** The judgment highlights that journalists must comply with standards of due diligence and act in good faith to provide reliable and precise information, especially when making serious allegations.
\n * **Proportionality of Sanctions:** The ECHR stresses that penalties for defamation must be proportionate to the injury to reputation suffered and should not have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. The Court will scrutinize large awards carefully.
\n * **Financial Hardship:** Domestic courts should consider the financial situation of media outlets when determining the amount of damages to be awarded.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

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

This judgment concerns a case brought by Mr. Lampros Makris against Greece regarding the decision-making process and length of judicial proceedings related to the return of his daughter to her habitual residence in the United States. The Greek courts had refused to order the return of the child, citing Article 13 of the Hague Convention, which allows for exceptions if there is a grave risk of harm to the child. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found no violation regarding the refusal to return the child, as the domestic courts had conducted a thorough assessment of the child’s best interests, considering her objections, emotional well-being, and integration in Greece. However, the ECtHR did find a violation of Article 8 of the Convention due to the excessive length of the proceedings, which lasted approximately 20 months. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 800 for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The structure of the decision includes an introduction outlining the parties and the background of the case, followed by a detailed account of the facts, including the initial request for the child’s return, the decisions of the Greek courts, and the applicant’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court then assesses the alleged violations of Article 8, first addressing the dismissal of the applicant’s request for the child’s return and then the length of the proceedings. The decision concludes with the application of Article 41, addressing the applicant’s claims for damages and costs, and the final ruling. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this is the initial judgment on the case.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the length of the proceedings in Hague Convention cases. The Court reiterated that such cases require expedition and found that the 20-month duration in this case was excessively long, leading to a violation of Article 8. This highlights the importance of swift judicial action in international child abduction cases to protect the best interests of the child and the rights of the parents.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CASE OF RASMUSSEN AND OTHERS v. DENMARK Here’s a breakdown of the Rasmussen and Others v. Denmark decision from the European Court of Human Rights: **1. Essence of the Decision:** The case concerned the death of a prisoner, J.F., from an accidental drug overdose while in Kragskovhede Prison in Denmark. His relatives claimed the prison…<\/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-13518","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\/13518","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=13518"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13518\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13518"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13518"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13518"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}