{"id":13580,"date":"2025-11-28T09:34:52","date_gmt":"2025-11-28T07:34:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/11\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-28-11-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-11-28T09:34:52","modified_gmt":"2025-11-28T07:34:52","slug":"review-of-echr-decisions-for-28-11-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/11\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-28-11-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of ECHR decisions for 28\/11\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

CASE OF EUROPA WAY S.R.L. v. ITALY<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) decision in the case of Europa Way S.r.l. v. Italy:<\/p>\n

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

The ECHR found that Italy violated Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression) due to the suspension and annulment of a bidding process for digital terrestrial television frequencies. The Italian government’s actions, influenced by political concerns, interfered with the independence of the Communications Regulatory Authority (AGCOM) and undermined the applicant company’s ability to obtain broadcasting rights. The Court emphasized that the legal framework was not foreseeable and lacked sufficient safeguards against arbitrary interference, thus failing to meet the “quality of law” requirement. The decision underscores the importance of independent regulatory authorities in ensuring media pluralism and protecting freedom of expression.<\/p>\n

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

* **Introduction:** Sets the context of the case, focusing on the suspension and annulment of the bidding procedure.
\n * **Facts:** Details the “digital switchover” process in Italy, the bidding process itself, its suspension, and subsequent annulment. It also covers the fee-based selection procedure that replaced the original one, as well as related administrative court proceedings, appeals to the Consiglio di Stato, and a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines relevant domestic law, EU law, and Council of Europe materials pertaining to media freedom, regulatory independence, and digital broadcasting.
\n * **The Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the court.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 10:** States the applicant’s complaint regarding the breach of freedom of expression.
\n * **Admissibility:** Addresses the Government’s objections regarding the six-month time limit, the applicant’s victim status, and the lack of significant disadvantage. The Court rejects these objections and declares the application admissible.
\n * **Merits:** Assesses whether there was an interference with freedom of expression, whether it was prescribed by law, and whether it was necessary in a democratic society. The Court finds that the interference was not “prescribed by law” and did not meet the “quality of law” requirement.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** Deals with just satisfaction, including damages and costs. The Court awards the applicant company compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.
\n * **Operative part:** Declares the application admissible, holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, holds on payments, dismisses the remainder of the applicant company\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

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

* **Importance of Regulatory Independence:** The decision highlights the critical role of independent regulatory authorities in safeguarding media pluralism and freedom of expression. Any interference with their functions, especially due to political pressure, can be a violation of Article 10.
\n * **Quality of Law:** The ECHR emphasizes that any interference with freedom of expression must be based on a legal framework that is foreseeable and provides adequate safeguards against arbitrariness. This includes clear rules and procedures, as well as protection against undue influence.
\n * **Impact on Broadcasting Rights:** Limitations on the ability to apply for or the refusal of a broadcasting license can constitute an interference with the exercise of freedom of expression.
\n * **Victim Status:** An applicant can still claim to be a victim of a violation even if they have received some compensation, unless the national authorities have acknowledged the violation and provided adequate redress.<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

CASE OF VUJOVI\u0106 AND LIPA D.O.O. v. MONTENEGRO (No. 2)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

This judgment concerns the case of Vujovi\u0107 and Lipa D.O.O. v. Montenegro (No. 2), where the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found violations of Article 6 \u00a7 1 (right to a fair trial and reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case revolved around insolvency proceedings initiated against the applicant company, Lipa D.O.O., following a request by a secured creditor, X. The Constitutional Court of Montenegro repeatedly ruled that the Court of Appeal’s decisions upholding the insolvency proceedings were arbitrary and insufficiently reasoned, as secured creditors should not have the same standing as insolvency creditors. Despite these rulings, the Court of Appeal persisted in its initial stance, leading to multiple remittals. The ECtHR concluded that the applicants were not afforded a fair trial due to the arbitrary decisions and the excessive length of the proceedings, and that their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions was violated as a result of the flawed insolvency proceedings and the sale of the company’s properties.<\/p>\n

The judgment 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 insolvency proceedings, the Constitutional Court’s rulings, and the Court of Appeal’s repeated non-compliance. It then presents the relevant legal framework and practice in Montenegro, including the Constitution, the Constitutional Court Act, the Insolvency Act, and the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time Act. The judgment proceeds to analyze the alleged violations of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, examining the admissibility and merits of the complaints. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. This judgment is a sequel to a previous ECtHR case (Vujovi\u0107 and Lipa D.O.O. v. Montenegro, no. 18912\/15), which found a violation of Article 6 due to a lack of access to court. The current judgment addresses the subsequent developments and the repeated failures of the Court of Appeal to comply with the Constitutional Court’s rulings.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the fairness of the proceedings, the length of the proceedings, and the protection of property. The ECtHR emphasized that national courts must provide sufficient reasoning in their decisions and comply with the rulings of constitutional courts. The Court also highlighted that excessive delays in proceedings, particularly when caused by repeated errors by the courts, can violate the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the judgment underscores the State’s positive obligation to ensure that individuals have access to effective legal remedies to challenge interferences with their property rights.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF ALPINIA S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the Alpinia S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova decision:<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) in the case of Alpinia S.R.L. against Moldova. The case revolved around a dispute over the right to exploit a sand quarry, where domestic courts upheld a claim against Alpinia S.R.L. that was allegedly time-barred. The ECtHR ruled that the Moldovan courts failed to adequately address Alpinia S.R.L.’s argument that the claim was indeed time-barred, thus denying the company a fair trial. While Alpinia S.R.L. also claimed a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the Court deemed this inadmissible. The Court awarded the applicant company EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

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

* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the parties involved and the nature of the dispute.
\n * It details the facts, focusing on the administrative decisions and court proceedings that led to the application before the ECtHR.
\n * The judgment then presents relevant domestic legislation, specifically concerning limitation periods for court actions and the rights of accessory interveners in legal proceedings.
\n * The Court’s assessment addresses the alleged violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1, examining the arguments presented by both the applicant company and the government. It emphasizes the importance of limitation periods in ensuring a fair trial and finds that the domestic courts did not provide a convincing response to Alpinia S.R.L.’s argument regarding the expiry of the prescription period.
\n * The judgment also addresses the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, but dismisses it as manifestly ill-founded.
\n * Finally, the Court considers the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), rejecting the claim for pecuniary damage but awarding EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

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

* **Importance of Limitation Periods:** The decision underscores the significance of adhering to admissibility requirements, particularly limitation periods, as a crucial aspect of the right to a fair trial.
\n * **Rights of Accessory Interveners:** The Court clarifies that accessory interveners have almost the same rights as the main party they are supporting, including the right to rely on the expiry of prescription periods.
\n * **Adequate Examination of Arguments:** Domestic courts must provide convincing responses to important arguments raised by parties in proceedings, especially when those arguments could lead to a different outcome in the case.<\/p>\n

This decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the need for domestic courts to properly consider all relevant arguments presented by parties in a case.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF BABENKO v. UKRAINE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) under its procedural limb due to an inadequate investigation into Mr. Babenko’s claims of police ill-treatment following his arrest in 2007. While the Court couldn’t definitively conclude that the ill-treatment occurred (substantive limb), the investigation was deemed ineffective due to repeated closures and remittals. Additionally, the Court found violations of Article 6 \u00a7 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) due to the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against Mr. Babenko and the lack of effective remedies for this issue. As a result, the Court awarded Mr. Babenko 4,000 EUR in non-pecuniary damages.<\/p>\n

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

* **Subject Matter of the Case:** The judgment addresses complaints regarding ill-treatment during criminal proceedings, the ineffectiveness of the investigation into these allegations, and the excessive length of the criminal proceedings.
\n * **Criminal Proceedings Against the Applicant:** This section (paragraphs 2-11) outlines the timeline of Mr. Babenko’s arrest, detention, trial, appeals, and eventual release after serving his sentence.
\n * **Investigations into the Applicant\u2019s Allegations of Ill-Treatment:** This section (paragraphs 12-32) details the applicant’s claims of assault by police officers in 2007 and the subsequent investigations, which were marked by numerous closures and remittals.
\n * **The Court\u2019s Assessment:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court analyzes the facts in light of the relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.
\n * **Article 3:** The Court examines the complaints under Article 3, focusing on both the alleged ill-treatment itself (substantive limb) and the adequacy of the investigation into those allegations (procedural limb).
\n * **Other Violations:** The Court addresses complaints regarding the length of proceedings and lack of effective remedies, referencing its established case-law.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** This section deals with the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction (compensation). The Court awards 4,000 EUR for non-pecuniary damage.
\n * **Operative Provisions:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s formal declarations of violations and the order for compensation.<\/p>\n

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

* **Violation of Article 3 (procedural limb):** The key takeaway is the finding that Ukraine failed to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by the police. This highlights the importance of effective investigations into such claims.
\n * **Lengthy Investigations:** The Court emphasizes that despite the difficulties in establishing facts after a long time, the domestic investigations did not reflect a serious effort by the authorities to determine the relevant facts quickly and convincingly.
\n * **Systemic Problem:** The Court refers to its previous findings that the reluctance of Ukrainian authorities to ensure prompt and thorough investigations of ill-treatment complaints against police constitutes a systemic problem.
\n * **Violation of Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13:** The judgment underscores the importance of timely criminal proceedings and the availability of effective remedies for violations of Convention rights.<\/p>\n

This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of states’ obligations to investigate allegations of ill-treatment promptly and thoroughly, and to ensure fair and timely judicial proceedings.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF BARTO\u0160OV\u00c1 v. SLOVAKIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of Barto\u0161ov\u00e1 v. Slovakia, concerning the excessive length of judicial review of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The applicant, who was detained on suspicion of a serious economic crime, complained that the judicial review of her detention was not carried out speedily, violating Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. The ECtHR found that the review process, which lasted two months and eight days over two levels of jurisdiction, was excessively long. It rejected the Government’s argument that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies and found no justification for the delay, concluding that there had been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant 1,200 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 250 euros for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history, outlining the application to the Court and the representation of the parties. It then presents the facts of the case, including the applicant’s detention, the charges against her, and the timeline of her requests for release and appeals through the Slovakian court system. The decision proceeds to the legal analysis, addressing the alleged violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, including the Government’s objections and the Court’s assessment of the speediness of the judicial review. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, and outlines the compensation awarded to the applicant. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as the document appears to be the final judgment.<\/p>\n

The main provision of the decision is the finding that Slovakia violated Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention due to the excessive length of the judicial review of the applicant’s detention. This reaffirms the importance of speedy judicial review in detention cases and sets a precedent for similar cases in Slovakia. The Court’s assessment of the timeline, attributing specific delays to the authorities, provides a clear standard for evaluating the speediness of such proceedings. The decision also highlights the importance of prompt service of court decisions to the applicant, as the period under consideration ends when the decision is communicated to the applicant.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF BEZULYA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Bezulya and Others v. Ukraine, concerning nine applications related to inadequate detention conditions and lack of effective remedies in Ukraine. The applicants primarily complained about overcrowding, poor hygiene, and limited access to basic necessities during their detention, arguing these conditions violated Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The Court rejected the Government’s argument regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, emphasizing that compensatory remedies are only effective after the unsatisfactory conditions have ceased. The ECHR found that the detention conditions were indeed inadequate and that the applicants lacked effective remedies, thus constituting a violation of Articles 3 and 13. Some applicants also raised additional complaints, which the Court found admissible and in violation of the Convention based on established case-law. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicants sums ranging from EUR 7,500 to EUR 9,800 each in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history, outlining the lodging of the applications and notification to the Ukrainian Government. It then presents the facts, including a list of applicants and details of their complaints. The legal analysis includes a joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter, followed by a detailed examination of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 13. The Court addresses the Government’s objection regarding domestic remedies and reiterates its established principles on inadequate detention conditions. Furthermore, the decision considers other alleged violations under well-established case-law and addresses remaining complaints, some of which were rejected. Finally, it outlines the application of Article 41, determining the compensation to be awarded to the applicants. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions in the provided text.<\/p>\n

: The most important provisions of this decision are the findings of violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention due to inadequate detention conditions and the lack of effective remedies in Ukraine. The Court’s emphasis on the ineffectiveness of compensatory remedies until the unsatisfactory conditions cease is also significant. Additionally, the decision highlights the importance of providing primary evidence, such as cell floor plans and inmate numbers, in response to complaints of ill-treatment. The decision also awards sums to the applicants, which means that Ukraine has to pay compensation to each of them.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF DA\u0160I\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of Da\u0161i\u0107 v. Montenegro, concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention. The applicant complained that the time of his apprehension was inaccurately recorded, leading to an unlawful deprivation of liberty and subsequent unlawful detention, violating Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The Court found that the applicant was de facto deprived of his liberty earlier than officially recorded and that there was no detention order for the period between his actual apprehension and the recorded time. This, coupled with the fact that he was brought before a judge later than the allowed 72 hours, constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 regarding the lawfulness of his initial detention. The Court deemed the complaint regarding the initial detention admissible, while the complaint regarding the subsequent detention was found inadmissible.<\/p>\n

The judgment is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history and the facts of the case, followed by a summary of the case, including the applicant’s complaints and the relevant domestic law. The Court then assesses the alleged violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1, addressing the admissibility and merits of the complaint regarding the initial detention, and subsequently addressing the complaint regarding the subsequent detention. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, including the applicant’s claims for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. The decision includes operative part, where the Court declares the violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and orders payments to the applicant. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions in the text.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the initial detention of the applicant. The Court emphasized that the applicant was effectively deprived of his liberty from the moment of apprehension, not from the time recorded in the police report. The absence of a correctly recorded time of arrest and the failure to bring the applicant before a judge within the legally prescribed time limit of 72 hours were critical factors in the Court’s finding of a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1. This highlights the importance of accurate record-keeping and adherence to time limits in detention cases to safeguard individual liberties.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF F.P.C. DESCRIM S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the F.P.C. Descrim S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights found the Republic of Moldova in violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) due to the prolonged non-enforcement of a domestic court decision in favor of F.P.C. Descrim S.R.L. The case concerned a debt owed to the applicant company by a heating supplier, company T., whose majority shareholder was the Chi\u0219in\u0103u Municipality. Despite a court ruling in 2001 ordering company T. to pay the debt, the applicant company only received partial payments, and a significant amount remained outstanding for over two decades. The Court held that the State was responsible for the debts of company T. due to its control over the company and that the non-enforcement of the judgment constituted a violation of the applicant’s rights. The Court rejected the Government’s request to strike out the application and awarded the applicant company compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** Details the application process, the parties involved, and the representation.
\n * **Facts:** Outlines the factual background, including the debt owed to the applicant company, the insolvency proceedings against company T., the legislative measures taken by the Moldovan Parliament, and the applicant company’s attempts to recover the debt.
\n * **Law:**
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** States the applicant’s complaints regarding the non-enforcement of the final domestic decision.
\n * **Government\u2019s request to strike out the application on the basis of the unilateral declaration:** Details the Government’s attempt to settle the case by acknowledging the violation and offering compensation, which the applicant company rejected. The Court rejected the Government’s request to strike out the application, finding that the proposed compensation was insufficient, particularly regarding pecuniary damage.
\n * **Admissibility and merits:** The Court examined the admissibility and merits of the complaints, finding that the State was liable for the debts of company T. and that the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment constituted a violation of the applicant’s rights.
\n * **Other Complaints:** Addresses the applicant company’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention but finds it unnecessary to examine it separately.
\n * **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Discusses the issue of just satisfaction and determines the amounts to be awarded to the applicant company for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.
\n * **For These Reasons, The Court, Unanimously:** Summarizes the Court’s decisions, including the rejection of the Government’s request to strike out the application, the finding of a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and the amounts to be paid to the applicant company.
\n * **Appendix:** Provides a table with specific details of the application, including the applicant’s name, the date of the decision, the length of the enforcement proceedings, and the amounts awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

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

* **State Responsibility for Debts of Controlled Entities:** The decision reinforces the principle that a State can be held responsible under the Convention for the acts and omissions, as well as for any debts incurred by entities over which it exercises control, even if those entities have a separate legal status.
\n * **Non-Enforcement of Judgments as a Violation:** The judgment reiterates that the execution of a judgment is an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6 and that prolonged non-enforcement of a final domestic judgment can constitute a violation of the Convention.
\n * **Lack of Funds as an Excuse:** The Court emphasizes that a State authority cannot cite a lack of funds as an excuse for not honoring a judgment debt.
\n * **Just Satisfaction:** The decision provides guidance on the assessment of just satisfaction in cases of non-enforcement of judgments, including the consideration of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

CASE OF JELINI\u0106-STAR\u0106EVI\u0106 v. CROATIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the Jelini\u0107-Star\u0107evi\u0107 v. Croatia decision from the European Court of Human Rights:<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Croatia in violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicant, Nada Jelini\u0107-Star\u0107evi\u0107. The proceedings concerned two charges of defamation, one of which was dismissed as time-barred, and the applicant was acquitted of the other. The Court ruled that the nearly eight-year duration of the proceedings related to the charge of which the applicant was acquitted was unreasonably long. While part of the application concerning the time-barred charge was deemed inadmissible, the Court awarded the applicant 4,600 euros for non-pecuniary damage. The Court also dismissed the Government’s argument that the applicant had lost her victim status or had not suffered any significant disadvantage.<\/p>\n

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

The judgment begins with the procedural history, outlining the application’s origin and notification to the Croatian Government. It then presents the facts of the case, including the applicant’s details and the nature of her complaint regarding the length of the criminal proceedings. The core of the decision addresses the alleged violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, focusing on the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court assesses the length of proceedings concerning the criminal charge of which the applicant was acquitted, referencing established case-law on the criteria for reasonableness (complexity, conduct of parties, and what was at stake). It distinguishes this from the charge that was dismissed as time-barred, deeming that part of the application inadmissible due to the applicant not suffering a significant disadvantage. The judgment concludes with the application of Article 41, awarding compensation to the applicant.<\/p>\n

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

* **Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1:** The core finding is the violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time due to the excessive length (7 years and 9 months) of the criminal proceedings.
\n* **Admissibility:** The decision clarifies that while a portion of the application was deemed inadmissible (the time-barred charge), the complaint regarding the charge of which the applicant was acquitted was admissible.
\n* **Victim Status:** The Court explicitly rejects the Government’s argument that the applicant lost her victim status or did not suffer a significant disadvantage, reinforcing the importance of timely justice.
\n* **Compensation:** The award of 4,600 euros for non-pecuniary damage serves as a tangible measure of the harm suffered due to the excessive delay.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF K.G. AND S.G. v. POLAND<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

This judgment concerns the detention of a Russian mother and her young child in a guarded center for aliens in Poland pending their expulsion to Russia. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Poland violated Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the unlawful and disproportionate detention of the applicants. The Court emphasized that the Polish authorities failed to consider alternatives to detention, especially given the mother’s mental health issues and the child’s vulnerability. The ECtHR also highlighted the excessive duration of the detention (nine months) and the lack of individualized assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the measure. As a result, the Court awarded the applicants 15,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

The judgment is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural aspects, including the parties involved and the complaints raised. It then presents the factual background, detailing the applicants’ journey from Russia to Poland and their subsequent detention. The judgment proceeds to analyze the alleged violations of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) and Article 8 of the Convention, examining the Government’s arguments and the applicants’ counter-arguments. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41, concerning just satisfaction, and outlines the compensation awarded to the applicants. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions in the provided text.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the emphasis on the need for authorities to consider alternatives to detention, especially when dealing with vulnerable individuals such as single mothers with young children. The judgment underscores that detention should be a measure of last resort and that authorities must provide sufficient reasons to justify it, taking into account the individual circumstances of the case. This decision reinforces the principle that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children, including immigration detention.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF KOZAK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Kozak and Others v. Ukraine:<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in three joined applications. The cases concerned the dismissal of three local court judges for “breach of oath.” The ECtHR concluded that the dismissal procedures suffered from structural shortcomings that compromised the principles of independence and impartiality. The Court also found that the subsequent judicial review of these dismissals was insufficient to remedy these shortcomings, and that the dismissals interfered with the judges’ private lives without sufficient legal basis.<\/p>\n

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

* **Subject Matter:** The judgment addresses complaints regarding the dismissal of judges for “breach of oath,” focusing on the fairness of the dismissal procedure and its impact on the judges’ private lives.
\n * **Background:** The decision outlines the specific circumstances of each applicant’s dismissal, including the involvement of the High Council of Justice (HCJ), Parliament, the President of Ukraine, and the Temporary Special Commission (TSC).
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework:** The judgment refers to previous ECtHR cases (Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine and Kulykov and Others v. Ukraine) for the domestic law governing the dismissal of judges for “breach of oath.”
\n * **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the three applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Article 6 \u00a7 1 Violation:** The Court found a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1, citing the lack of independence and impartiality in the dismissal procedure and the inadequacy of judicial review. This finding relies heavily on the precedent set in Oleksandr Volkov and Kulykov and Others.
\n * **Article 8 Violation:** The Court found a violation of Article 8 in two of the three cases, stating that the dismissals constituted an interference with the applicants’ private lives and lacked a sufficient basis in law.
\n * **Other Complaints:** The Court decided not to examine additional complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13, considering that the main legal questions had already been addressed.
\n * **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court addressed the applicants’ claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, awarding EUR 5,000 to two of the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 to one applicant for legal fees.<\/p>\n

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

* **Structural Shortcomings:** The decision highlights the structural issues within the Ukrainian system for dismissing judges at the time, particularly concerning the independence and impartiality of the HCJ.
\n * **Insufficient Judicial Review:** The judgment emphasizes that the judicial review process did not adequately address the shortcomings in the initial dismissal procedures.
\n * **”Breach of Oath” Definition:** The Court reiterates the lack of a clear and restrictive interpretation of the term “breach of oath,” which led to the finding that the dismissals were not “lawful” for the purposes of Article 8.
\n * **Impact on Private Life:** The decision acknowledges that dismissal from judicial office can have a significant impact on an individual’s private life, triggering the protection of Article 8.<\/p>\n

**** This decision is particularly relevant to Ukraine as it addresses systemic issues within its judiciary and the process for dismissing judges. It underscores the need for reforms to ensure the independence and impartiality of judicial disciplinary bodies and to provide for effective judicial review of their decisions. The findings regarding the “breach of oath” provision also highlight the importance of clear and predictable legal standards in disciplinary proceedings.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF LEMESHKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the Lemeshko and Others v. Ukraine decision:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to inadequate conditions of detention in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility and the lack of effective remedies for these conditions. The applicants complained about issues such as overcrowding, poor hygiene, lack of access to basic amenities, and insufficient exercise. Additionally, some applicants raised other complaints related to the length of criminal proceedings and pre-trial detention, which were also found to be in violation of the Convention. The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for the damages suffered.
\n 2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications lodged against Ukraine concerning detention conditions.
\n * **Facts:** It outlines the applicants’ complaints regarding inadequate detention conditions and lack of effective remedies.
\n * **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Articles 3 and 13:** This section focuses on the core complaints regarding detention conditions and the absence of effective remedies. The Court rejected the Government’s argument about the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, citing previous case-law that compensatory remedies are effective only after the unsatisfactory conditions have ended.
\n * **Other Alleged Violations:** Some applicants raised additional issues under the Convention, which the Court also found admissible and in violation, based on its established case-law.
\n * **Remaining Complaints:** One applicant’s complaints regarding conditions before a specific date were rejected due to a temporary transfer to another facility.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined the amounts to be awarded to the applicants in respect of damages.
\n * **Decision:** The Court formally declared the complaints admissible, held that there had been breaches of Articles 3 and 13, and ordered Ukraine to pay the specified amounts to the applicants.
\n 3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
\n * **Inadequate Detention Conditions:** The decision reinforces the ECtHR’s established principles regarding what constitutes “degrading” treatment under Article 3, particularly concerning prison overcrowding and lack of basic amenities.
\n * **Effective Remedy:** The judgment highlights the importance of an effective remedy for complaints about detention conditions, emphasizing that compensatory remedies are only effective once the unsatisfactory conditions have ceased.
\n * **Standard of Proof:** The decision refers to the standard of proof required in conditions-of-detention cases, placing the burden on the government to provide evidence such as cell floor plans and inmate numbers to counter allegations of ill-treatment.
\n * **Compensation:** The amounts awarded to the applicants provide a benchmark for compensation in similar cases involving inadequate detention conditions in Ukraine.<\/p>\n

**** This decision is relevant to Ukraine as it addresses systemic issues within its pre-trial detention facilities and the lack of effective remedies for detainees. It also highlights the importance of addressing excessive length of criminal proceedings and pre-trial detention, which are recurring issues in Ukrainian legal practice.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF LINGYS AND SHPAKOVSKYY v. UKRAINE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in the case of Lingys and Shpakovskyy v. Ukraine:<\/p>\n

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

The ECtHR found Ukraine in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned two applicants who were fined and had cash confiscated for failing to declare amounts exceeding 10,000 euros when crossing the Ukrainian border. The Court ruled that the mandatory confiscation of the undeclared amounts, in addition to a fine of the same amount, was a disproportionate sanction. The Court emphasized that domestic courts had no discretion in imposing such penalties under the relevant Ukrainian customs regulations.<\/p>\n

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

* **Subject Matter:** The judgment addresses complaints regarding disproportionate sanctions for failing to declare foreign currency at the Ukrainian border.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework:** The decision cites Articles 471 and 472 of the Customs Code of Ukraine, which outline penalties for violating customs control procedures and failing to declare goods or vehicles.
\n * **Joinder of Applications:** Due to the similar subject matter, the Court decided to examine both applications jointly.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** The core of the judgment focuses on whether the confiscation and fines were proportionate. The Court references its previous case law, particularly Yaremiychuk and Others v. Ukraine, which dealt with similar issues.
\n * **The Court\u2019s Assessment:** The ECtHR found that the sanctions imposed were disproportionate, especially considering the mandatory nature of the confiscation and fines under Ukrainian law.
\n * **Remaining Complaints:** Additional complaints regarding the quality of domestic law and the fairness of proceedings were deemed inadmissible.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court addressed the applicants’ claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, awarding compensation for the confiscated amounts and a portion of the fines.<\/p>\n

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

* **Disproportionate Sanctions:** The key takeaway is that mandatory confiscation of undeclared cash, coupled with a fine of the same amount, is likely to be considered a disproportionate sanction under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
\n * **Lack of Judicial Discretion:** The judgment highlights the problem when domestic laws do not allow courts any discretion in determining the appropriate sanction.
\n * **Impact on Ukraine:** This decision reinforces the ECtHR’s stance on the need for proportionality in customs-related penalties in Ukraine, building on the precedent set in Yaremiychuk and Others.<\/p>\n

**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, indicating that its customs regulations, specifically regarding penalties for failing to declare currency, may need to be revised to allow for more flexible and proportionate sanctions.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

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

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in the case of M.A. v. T\u00fcrkiye:<\/p>\n

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

The case concerned a Syrian national, M.A., who was detained in T\u00fcrkiye pending deportation due to suspected links with ISIS. The ECtHR found violations of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding his detention conditions and the lack of effective remedies to challenge them. Specifically, the Court ruled that the conditions at the Gaziantep Removal Centre were inhuman, violating Article 3. Additionally, the Court found violations of Article 5 concerning the lack of information about the reasons for detention and the absence of effective remedies to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. The Court also held that Turkey failed to provide an effective remedy regarding the detention conditions, violating Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3.<\/p>\n

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

* **Initial Arrest and Criminal Proceedings (Paragraphs 2-3):** Outlines M.A.’s initial arrest on suspicion of ISIS affiliation, subsequent release with a travel ban, and the deportation order issued against him.
\n * **Ensuing Detention and Applications for Release (Paragraphs 4-10):** Details M.A.’s multiple applications for release, their dismissal by Turkish courts, and his application to the Constitutional Court.
\n * **Subsequent Developments and Legal Proceedings (Paragraphs 11-13):** Notes M.A.’s deportation to Sudan, his acquittal in criminal proceedings, and the Constitutional Court’s declaration of his application as inadmissible.
\n * **The Court\u2019s Assessment (Paragraphs 14-48):** This section forms the core of the judgment, addressing alleged violations of Articles 3, 5, 8, and 13 of the Convention.
\n * **Article 3 (Paragraphs 14-26):** Focuses on the conditions of detention at the Gaziantep Removal Centre, finding a violation due to inhuman conditions.
\n * **Article 5 (Paragraphs 27-44):** Addresses the lawfulness of detention, the lack of information provided to the applicant, and the absence of effective remedies.
\n * **Article 8 (Paragraphs 45-48):** Examines the alleged violation of the right to private and family life, finding part of the complaint inadmissible due to lack of substantiation.
\n * **Application of Article 41 (Paragraphs 49-54):** Deals with compensation for damages and costs, awarding M.A. EUR 6,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,500 for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

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

* **Article 3 Violation:** The finding of a violation of Article 3 due to the conditions at the Gaziantep Removal Centre is significant. The Court emphasized the lack of sufficient evidence from the government to refute the applicant’s claims of overcrowding, poor hygiene, and lack of outdoor exercise.
\n * **Article 5 Violations:** The Court’s findings regarding Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 4 are crucial. The Court highlighted the failure to properly inform M.A. of the reasons for his detention and the lack of effective remedies to challenge its lawfulness.
\n * **Article 13 Violation:** The violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 underscores the importance of effective domestic remedies for addressing complaints about detention conditions. The Court found that the Constitutional Court’s delayed response and the lack of immediate relief undermined the effectiveness of the remedy.<\/p>\n

This decision highlights the importance of ensuring humane detention conditions, providing clear information about the reasons for detention, and offering effective remedies to challenge the lawfulness of detention, particularly in cases involving foreign nationals facing deportation.<\/p>\n

**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainians seeking refuge or facing detention in T\u00fcrkiye, particularly concerning the standards of detention and access to legal remedies.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF MOTSNYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Okay, here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Motsnyy and Others v. Ukraine*.<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Ukraine violated Article 6 \u00a7 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights in a series of joined applications. The applicants complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against them and the lack of effective domestic remedies to address this issue. The Court found that the length of the proceedings in each case was indeed excessive and that the applicants did not have access to effective remedies to expedite the proceedings or seek redress for the delays. As a result, the Court awarded the applicants sums ranging from EUR 1,200 to EUR 3,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** This section outlines how the case was brought before the Court, referencing Article 34 of the Convention and the notification to the Ukrainian Government.
\n* **The Facts:** This section briefly identifies the applicants and refers to an appended table for specific details of their applications. The core complaint is summarized as the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies.
\n* **The Law:**
\n * **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine all applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13:** This is the central part of the judgment. The Court refers to its established case law, emphasizing that the “reasonableness” of the length of proceedings is assessed based on the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants. The Court refers to a previous similar case against Ukraine, *Nechay v. Ukraine*, where a violation was also found. The Court concludes that the length of proceedings was excessive and no effective remedy was available.
\n* **Application of Article 41:** This section deals with just satisfaction. The Court, referring to its previous case law, decides on the amounts to be awarded to each applicant for damages.
\n* **Operative Part:** This section summarizes the Court’s decisions: the joinder of applications, the declaration of admissibility, the finding of violations of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13, and the order for the respondent State to pay the specified amounts to the applicants within three months, with interest on any overdue amounts.
\n* **Appendix:** A table listing each application, the applicant’s details, the duration of proceedings, the levels of jurisdiction involved, and the amount awarded.<\/p>\n

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

* **Confirmation of Systemic Issue:** The judgment reinforces the ECtHR’s recognition of the systemic problem of excessively lengthy criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in Ukraine.
\n* **Criteria for Assessing Length of Proceedings:** The judgment reiterates the key criteria used to assess whether the length of proceedings is “reasonable” under Article 6 \u00a7 1.
\n* **Award of Damages:** The specific amounts awarded to the applicants provide a benchmark for assessing potential compensation in similar cases.
\n* **Reference to *Nechay v. Ukraine*:** The citation of this earlier case highlights the consistency of the Court’s approach to these types of complaints against Ukraine.<\/p>\n

**** This decision is directly related to Ukraine and highlights ongoing issues within its judicial system. It serves as a precedent for similar cases involving Ukrainian citizens and can be used to advocate for judicial reform and improved access to justice.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF MUDRAK AND RASKIN v. UKRAINE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the Mudrak and Raskin v. Ukraine decision:<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the cases of Mudrak and Raskin. The Court ruled that the pre-trial detention of both applicants was excessively long, lasting seven years and six months. The ECtHR also identified issues such as the failure to explore alternative measures of restraint, collective detention orders, and repetitive reasoning by domestic courts. Additionally, the Court found a violation related to the lack of effective compensation for unlawful arrest or detention under Article 5(5) of the Convention, referencing previous case law. As a result, the Court awarded each applicant 3,000 euros in damages and 250 euros for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** Details the lodging of the applications and representation.
\n * **Facts:** Briefly outlines the applicants’ complaints regarding the length of their pre-trial detention.
\n * **Law:**
\n * **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3:** The Court referenced previous judgments establishing principles regarding reasonable time for trial or release pending trial. It found that the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessively unreasonable, constituting a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 3.
\n * **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court addressed additional complaints, finding violations based on well-established case law, specifically related to the lack of effective compensation for unlawful detention.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined the compensation to be awarded to the applicants.
\n * **Decision:**
\n * The Court declared the applications admissible.
\n * It held that there was a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 3 regarding excessive pre-trial detention.
\n * It also held that there were violations related to other complaints under established case law.
\n * It specified the amounts to be paid to the applicants for damages and costs, along with interest on any delayed payments.
\n * **Appendix:** Provides a detailed list of the applications, including applicant information, detention periods, specific defects in the detention, other complaints, and awarded amounts.<\/p>\n

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

* **Violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3:** The core finding is the violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial due to the excessive length of pre-trial detention.
\n * **Systemic Issues:** The decision highlights systemic issues within the Ukrainian justice system, including the failure to consider alternative measures to detention, the use of collective detention orders, and repetitive reasoning in court decisions.
\n * **Lack of Effective Compensation ():** The Court emphasizes the lack of an effective remedy for individuals who have suffered unlawful arrest or detention, referencing previous cases against Ukraine (Tymoshenko and Kotiy). This aspect is particularly important for Ukrainian legal reform.
\n * **Compensation:** The decision sets a precedent for compensation amounts in similar cases, awarding 3,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage related to the violations.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK 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 \u00d6zt\u00fcrk and Others v. T\u00fcrkiye, concerning the lack of access to a court regarding decisions made by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) in T\u00fcrkiye. The applicants, who are judges and prosecutors, complained that they were unable to challenge the CJP’s decisions, specifically disciplinary sanctions, in court. The ECHR found that this lack of access to judicial review violated Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. The Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, stating that excluding members of the judiciary from the protection of Article 6 in matters concerning their appointment and conditions of employment was not justified. As a result, the Court awarded the applicants sums for non-pecuniary damage and, in one case, for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The judgment begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and the notification to the Turkish Government. It then presents the facts, including a list of applicants and details of their applications, focusing on their complaints about the lack of access to a court regarding CJP decisions. The “Law” section addresses the joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter. It then delves into the alleged violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1, referencing previous ECHR rulings, such as Grz\u0119da v. Poland, Bilgen v. Turkey, Emina\u011fao\u011flu v. Turkey and Oktay Alkan v. T\u00fcrkiye, to support its reasoning. The Court reiterates that civil servants can only be excluded from the protection embodied in Article 6 if the State in its national law excluded access to a court for the category of staff in question and if this exclusion was justified on objective grounds in the State\u2019s interest. The judgment concludes with the application of Article 41, addressing compensation, and a breakdown of the awarded amounts in an appended table.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the applicability of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention to decisions made by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) concerning members of the judiciary in T\u00fcrkiye. The Court emphasizes that excluding judges and prosecutors from the protection of Article 6, specifically the right to a fair trial and access to a court, is not justified, especially in matters concerning their appointment, conditions of employment, and disciplinary sanctions. This decision reinforces the principle that judicial independence and the rule of law require that members of the judiciary have the right to challenge decisions affecting their careers and professional lives in an independent court.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF TIRAMISA S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in the case of Tiramisa S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova:<\/p>\n

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

The case concerns a Moldovan company, Tiramisa S.R.L., which complained about the non-enforcement of a final judgment in its favor against a State-owned company, R. The ECtHR found that Moldova violated Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial, including enforcement of judgments) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) due to the prolonged non-enforcement. The Court held that the State was responsible for the debts of the State-owned company, especially since the company performed public duties and was under State control. The Court rejected the Government’s request to strike out the application based on a unilateral declaration, finding the proposed compensation insufficient.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** The judgment outlines the case’s origins, the parties involved, and the representation.
\n * **Facts:** It details the commercial relationship between Tiramisa S.R.L. and the State-owned company R, the court proceedings initiated to recover the debt, and the subsequent enforcement issues. It highlights that despite court orders, a significant portion of the debt remained unpaid due to the lack of enforceable assets of company R.
\n * **Law:** This section presents the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It addresses the Government’s request to strike out the application based on a unilateral declaration, which the Court rejects. The Court then examines the admissibility and merits of the case, referencing relevant case law on the enforcement of judgments and State responsibility for the debts of State-owned entities.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court addresses the issue of just satisfaction, awarding the applicant specific amounts for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.
\n * **Appendix:** Provides a summary table of the key details of the application, including dates, amounts, and court information.<\/p>\n

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

* **State Responsibility for State-Owned Entities:** The decision reinforces the principle that a State can be held responsible for the debts of its State-owned entities, particularly when those entities perform public functions and are under significant State control.
\n * **Non-Enforcement as a Violation:** The judgment reiterates that the prolonged non-enforcement of a final judgment constitutes a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
\n * **Sufficiency of Compensation:** The Court emphasizes that when a government seeks to resolve a case through a unilateral declaration, the proposed compensation must adequately address both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to restore the applicant to the position they would have been in had the violation not occurred.
\n * **Obligation to Organize Legal Systems:** The decision reminds states of their obligation to organize their legal systems to ensure that competent authorities can meet their obligations regarding judgment debts, and that lack of funds is not an acceptable excuse for non-compliance.<\/p>\n

This decision serves as a reminder to states of their obligations to ensure the enforcement of court judgments, particularly when State-owned entities are involved.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CASE OF EUROPA WAY S.R.L. v. ITALY Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) decision in the case of Europa Way S.r.l. v. Italy: 1. **Essence of the Decision:** The ECHR found that Italy violated Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression) due to the suspension and…<\/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-13580","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\/13580","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=13580"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13580\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13580"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13580"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13580"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}