{"id":14631,"date":"2026-01-16T09:42:20","date_gmt":"2026-01-16T07:42:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/01\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-16-01-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-01-16T09:42:20","modified_gmt":"2026-01-16T07:42:20","slug":"review-of-echr-decisions-for-16-01-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/01\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-16-01-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of ECHR decisions for 16\/01\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

CASE OF BILI\u0143SKI v. POLAND<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Bili\u0144ski v. Poland:<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Poland violated Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to a fair trial) in the case of Judge \u0141ukasz Bili\u0144ski. The violation stemmed from the lack of an independent and impartial review of his non-consensual transfer between two divisions of the same court, each adjudicating a different area of law. The Court found that the reformed National Council of Judiciary (NCJ) lacked the necessary independence, and domestic law did not provide for judicial review of the NCJ’s decisions, thus impairing the very essence of the applicant\u2019s right of access to court. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting judicial independence against arbitrary measures affecting judges’ careers.<\/p>\n

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

* **Introduction:** Sets the stage by outlining the case’s focus on the judge’s transfer and the lack of judicial review.
\n * **Legal Context:** References previous cases concerning judicial reforms in Poland and highlights the novelty of this case involving an allegedly arbitrary transfer.
\n * **Facts:** Details the applicant’s background, his rulings on freedom of assembly, and the circumstances surrounding his transfer, including the abolition of his division and the actions of the court president.
\n * **Appeal to the NCJ:** Describes the applicant’s appeal to the NCJ, the annulment of the transfer decision by the President of the Warsaw Regional Court, and the NCJ’s dismissal of his appeal.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework:** Summarizes domestic laws concerning the judiciary, the NCJ, and administrative supervision by court presidents. It also references international materials and the Venice Commission’s opinion on judicial reforms in Poland.
\n * **The Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the Court. It addresses the applicability of Article 6, the existence of a right to protection against arbitrary transfer, and the “civil” nature of that right. It applies the Eskelinen test to determine whether Article 6 applies, finding that while the first condition (exclusion of access to court) is met, the second (justification on objective grounds) is not.
\n * **Merits:** Assesses whether the proceedings before the NCJ met the requirements of Article 6 \u00a7 1, considering the NCJ’s independence and the procedural safeguards available.
\n * **Article 41:** Addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention regarding just satisfaction, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.<\/p>\n

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

* **Applicability of Article 6 to Judges’ Transfers:** The Court explicitly states that Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) can apply to disputes concerning a judge’s non-consensual transfer between divisions within the same court, especially when it affects their independence.
\n * **Eskelinen Test:** The decision reinforces the application of the Eskelinen test to determine whether Article 6 applies to civil servants, emphasizing that the exclusion of judicial review must be justified on objective grounds in the State’s interest.
\n * **Independence of the NCJ:** The Court reiterates its previous findings that the reformed NCJ in Poland lacks sufficient independence from the legislative and executive branches.
\n * **Procedural Safeguards:** The decision highlights the importance of procedural safeguards in proceedings affecting judges’ careers, including the right to be heard and the provision of reasons for decisions.
\n * **Right to Protection Against Arbitrary Transfer:** The Court recognizes a right for judges to be protected against arbitrary transfers, emphasizing that this right is essential for maintaining judicial independence.<\/p>\n

This decision underscores the importance of judicial independence and the right of judges to a fair hearing when their careers are affected by administrative decisions. It also serves as a critical assessment of the judicial reforms in Poland and their impact on the rule of law.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF MAGHERINI AND OTHERS v. ITALY<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

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

1. **Essence of the Decision:**
\n The case concerns the death of an Italian man, R.M., after being restrained by police officers. The Court found that Italy violated Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life. The Court determined that the officers used excessive force by keeping R.M. in a prone position for too long, which contributed to his death. The Court also highlighted the lack of clear guidelines and training for law enforcement on the risks associated with prone restraint, especially when dealing with individuals in a state of agitation. Finally, the Court found that the investigation into R.M.’s death lacked independence because officers involved in the incident participated in the initial investigative steps.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the death of R.M. during a police intervention and the subsequent investigation. It then details the facts, including the events of March 3, 2014, when R.M. was reported to be in distress and was restrained by police. The judgment describes the investigation into R.M.’s death, including forensic medical reports and criminal proceedings against the officers involved. It also references relevant domestic laws, police circulars, and international law and practice. The Court then assesses the admissibility of the application, addressing issues such as the victim status of some applicants and the six-month time limit for lodging the application. The Court analyzes the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention, both in its substantive and procedural aspects, ultimately finding violations in both areas. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction for the injured party, awarding damages to the applicants.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
\n * **Violation of Article 2 (Substantive):** The Court emphasized that the use of force by police must be “absolutely necessary.” While the initial restraint of R.M. was deemed acceptable, prolonging the prone position for approximately twenty minutes after he was handcuffed was not justified.
\n * **Positive Obligations:** The Court found that Italy failed to provide adequate guidelines and training to law enforcement regarding the dangers of prone restraint, especially for individuals in agitated states.
\n * **Violation of Article 2 (Procedural):** The investigation into R.M.’s death lacked independence because officers involved in the incident participated in the initial investigative steps.
\n * **Victim Status:** The Court clarified that while close family members are typically recognized as victims in such cases, cousins are not automatically granted this status unless they can demonstrate a legitimate interest.<\/p>\n

This decision underscores the importance of proper training and clear guidelines for law enforcement when using restraint techniques. It also highlights the need for independent investigations when state agents are implicated in a death.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF RAZESU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

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

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

The case concerned a group of minority shareholders in a Moldovan company who claimed their right to access a court was violated. They had sued the company, alleging mismanagement, but the Moldovan Court of Appeal struck out their case, citing a failure to follow a mandatory pre-trial settlement procedure. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the Court of Appeal’s decision was contrary to domestic law and lacked coherent reasoning, thus violating the shareholders’ right to a fair trial under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECtHR emphasized that the shareholders were effectively denied the opportunity to have their case examined on its merits. The Court awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.<\/p>\n

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

* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Details the applicants’ grievances regarding the management of the joint-stock company and their unsuccessful attempts to obtain information and exercise their rights as shareholders.
\n * **The Proceedings at Issue:** Describes the legal actions taken by the applicants in Moldovan courts, including the initial acceptance of their case, the subsequent appeal by the company, and the Court of Appeal’s decision to strike out the case.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework:** Outlines the relevant articles of the Moldovan Code on Civil Proceedings and the Law on Joint-Stock Companies that are pertinent to the case.
\n * **The Court\u2019s Assessment:**
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention:** This section forms the core of the judgment. It addresses the Government’s objections regarding the applicability of Article 6 and the applicants’ victim status. The Court dismisses these objections, finding that Article 6 is indeed applicable and that the applicants remain victims of a violation.
\n * The Court reiterates the principles of access to court, emphasizing that limitations must not impair the very essence of that right. It finds that the Moldovan Court of Appeal’s decision was contrary to domestic law and lacked coherent reasoning, thus violating Article 6 \u00a7 1.
\n * **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Addresses the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction (compensation). The Court rejects the claim for pecuniary damage but awards compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
\n * **Operative Provisions:**
\n * Declares the application admissible.
\n * Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.
\n * Orders the respondent State to pay the applicants jointly specified amounts for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
\n * Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

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

* **Confirmation of the Right to Access to Court:** The decision reinforces the principle that individuals have the right to have their civil claims heard by a court.
\n * **Limitations on Access to Court:** While acknowledging that the right of access to court is not absolute, the ECtHR emphasizes that any limitations must not impair the very essence of that right.
\n * **Importance of Coherent Legal Reasoning:** The Court stresses the importance of domestic courts providing coherent and reasoned interpretations of domestic law and the Convention.
\n * **Violation of Article 6:** The decision highlights that a violation of Article 6 can occur when a court’s decision is contrary to domestic law and lacks coherent reasoning, effectively denying a party the right to have their case examined on its merits.<\/p>\n

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

CASE OF BILI\u0143SKI v. POLAND Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Bili\u0144ski v. Poland: 1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Poland violated Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms…<\/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-14631","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\/14631","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=14631"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14631\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14631"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14631"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14631"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}