{"id":16406,"date":"2026-05-01T10:36:19","date_gmt":"2026-05-01T07:36:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/05\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-01-05-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-05-01T10:36:19","modified_gmt":"2026-05-01T07:36:19","slug":"review-of-echr-decisions-for-01-05-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/05\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-01-05-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of ECHR decisions for 01\/05\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

CASE OF MLINAREVI\u0106 v. CROATIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

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

1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Croatia violated Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees the right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal. The case concerned the impartiality of the Croatian Constitutional Court in criminal proceedings against the applicant, Mr. Mlinarevi\u0107, and others, including the former Prime Minister of Croatia, in a case known as the “Planinska” case. The ECHR found that the presence of a judge on the Constitutional Court panel, whose son was employed by the law firm representing one of Mlinarevi\u0107’s co-defendants, raised legitimate doubts about the court’s impartiality. The judge in question did not disclose this conflict of interest or recuse himself from the case.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * **Introduction:** Briefly introduces the case and its subject matter.
\n * **Facts:** Summarizes the background of the case, including the criminal proceedings against the applicant, the composition of the Constitutional Court panel, and the connections between the judge, his son, and the law firm representing a co-defendant.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework:** Outlines the relevant articles of the Croatian Constitution, the Constitutional Court Act, the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1:** Details the applicant’s complaint that the Constitutional Court was not impartial.
\n * **Admissibility:** Addresses the government’s argument that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies and the Court’s reasons for dismissing this objection.
\n * **Merits:**
\n * **The Parties’ Submissions:** Summarizes the arguments presented by the applicant and the government.
\n * **The Court’s Assessment:**
\n * **General Principles:** Restates the established principles regarding impartiality under Article 6 \u00a7 1, including the subjective and objective tests.
\n * **Application of these principles to the present case:** Applies the principles to the specific facts of the case, finding that the applicant’s doubts about the Constitutional Court’s impartiality were objectively justified.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** Addresses the applicant’s claims for damages and costs, awarding a sum for costs and expenses but rejecting the claim for pecuniary damage and holding that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.
\n * **Operative Provisions:** Formally declares the application admissible, holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1, and orders the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
\n * The decision reinforces the importance of objective impartiality in judicial proceedings.
\n * It highlights that even the appearance of bias can be sufficient to violate Article 6 \u00a7 1.
\n * It emphasizes the duty of judges to disclose potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves when necessary.
\n * The Court considers family connections and professional relationships when assessing impartiality.
\n * The decision confirms that applicants are not always required to preemptively request the withdrawal of judges whose impartiality could be questioned, especially when the composition of the panel is not easily predictable.<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

CASE OF NIKOLAOU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

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

1. **Essence of the Decision:**
\n The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Cyprus violated the property rights of ten applicants due to the government’s refusal to return a portion of land expropriated over thirty years prior. The land, initially taken for an industrial area development, remained unused for a significant period. The Court found that the Cypriot authorities’ failure to return the land, despite its non-use for the intended purpose, upset the fair balance between the public interest and the protection of individual property rights. The Court highlighted that the authorities’ actions were not based on a current public-interest requirement, leading to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * **Introduction:** Sets out the case’s subject matter: the refusal to return expropriated land.
\n * **Facts:** Details the expropriation in 1976 for an industrial area, subsequent actions, and the refusal to return the 3,974 square meters of unused land. It mentions various failed plans for the land’s use, including an administrative center and a sports center.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines the relevant articles of the Cypriot Constitution and the Compulsory Acquisition Law of 1962, which provide for the return of expropriated property if the purpose of acquisition is not achieved. It also references domestic case law, particularly the *Zinon Efthymiadis Ltd v. the Republic* case, which emphasizes the ongoing duty to pursue the public-interest purpose of expropriation actively.
\n * **The Law:**
\n * **Procedural Succession:** Addresses the death of one applicant and the continuation of the case by his heirs.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** Examines the applicants’ complaint that the continuous deprivation of their property breached their rights.
\n * **Admissibility:** Declares the complaint admissible.
\n * **Merits:**
\n * **The Parties\u2019 Submissions:** Summarizes the arguments of the applicants and the Cypriot Government.
\n * **The Court\u2019s Assessment:** Analyzes the case based on the general principles of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, including the “public interest” requirement and the need for a fair balance between the community’s interests and individual rights. It finds that the refusal to return the land was not based on a public-interest requirement and that the applicants bore a disproportionate burden.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** Discusses just satisfaction, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses. The Court reserves the question of pecuniary damage but awards the applicants 12,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 5,000 euros for costs and expenses.
\n * **Separate Opinions:** Includes a concurring opinion from Judge Serghides and a dissenting opinion from Judge Sabato, providing additional perspectives on the case.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
\n * **Public Interest Requirement:** The decision reinforces that any deprivation of property must be justified by a current and demonstrable public interest.
\n * **Fair Balance:** The ruling emphasizes the need to strike a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the protection of individual property rights.
\n * **Right to Restitution:** The decision highlights the importance of domestic legal frameworks that provide a right to restitution when the purpose of expropriation is not achieved.
\n * **Timeframe and Non-Use:** The Court considers the length of time the property remained unused as a significant factor in determining whether a violation occurred.
\n * **Margin of Appreciation:** While acknowledging the national authorities’ margin of appreciation in matters of public interest, the Court asserts its power to review whether the requisite balance was maintained.<\/p>\n

This decision serves as a reminder that governments must actively pursue the public-interest purpose for which land is expropriated and that prolonged non-use can lead to a violation of property rights under the Convention.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

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

This judgment concerns the just satisfaction phase of a case regarding a “raider attack” against Theo National Construct S.R.L. in Moldova. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) had previously found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, concerning the illegal seizure of the company’s goods with the assistance of corrupt courts and law-enforcement agencies. The applicant company sought compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Court dismissed the claims for pecuniary damage, finding no causal link between the alleged losses and the violation found in the initial judgment. However, the Court awarded the applicant company EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8,000 for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The structure of the decision includes a procedure section, relevant factual developments since the principal judgment, the law (Article 41 of the Convention), pecuniary damage (the parties\u2019 submissions and the Court\u2019s assessment), non-pecuniary damage (the parties\u2019 submissions and the Court\u2019s assessment), costs and expenses (the parties\u2019 submissions and the Court\u2019s assessment), operative part and concurring opinion of Judge Serghides. The decision addresses the applicant’s claims for pecuniary damage, including the value of road construction equipment, lost profits, and the value of a pledged house, as well as claims for non-pecuniary damage and costs. The Court assessed these claims in light of the previous judgment and relevant domestic legal developments, including revision requests filed by the Government Agent before the Supreme Court of Justice.<\/p>\n

The main provisions of the decision are the dismissal of the applicant’s claims for pecuniary damage due to the failure to establish a causal link with the violation found in the principal judgment, and the award of EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8,000 for costs and expenses. The Court emphasized that while it found a violation of the applicant’s rights, the company did not sufficiently demonstrate that its claimed financial losses directly resulted from its exclusion from the Q. company. The decision also highlights the importance of restitutio in integrum, where possible, but notes that the applicant did not pursue available remedies under domestic law to recover its investments.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF ABDULLAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the Abdullayev and Others v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention on Human Rights, concerning the disproportionate measures taken against participants of a rally in support of defendants in the “Bakhchisaray case” held in Moscow on July 11, 2019. The applicants were arrested during the rally’s dispersal and subsequently convicted of administrative offenses. The Court also found violations regarding unlawful deprivation of liberty and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings due to the absence of a prosecuting party. The ECtHR asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. Each applicant was awarded 4,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** Details the lodging of the applications and notification to the Russian Government.
\n * **Facts:** Lists the applicants and provides relevant details of their applications, focusing on the rally and subsequent arrests.
\n * **Law:**<\/p>\n

* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Jurisdiction:** Confirmed the Court’s jurisdiction as the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 11:** Addressed the complaints regarding disproportionate measures against the rally participants, referencing established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality of interference.
\n * **Other Alleged Violations:** Addressed additional complaints under the Convention, referencing relevant case-law.
\n * **Remaining Complaints:** Determined that there was no need to address additional complaints under Article 6 separately.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** Awarded each applicant EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
\n * **Appendix:** Provides a list of applications, applicant details, details of the administrative offenses, penalties, and final domestic decisions.<\/p>\n

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

* **Violation of Article 11:** The Court explicitly found that the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of assembly was not “necessary in a democratic society,” reinforcing the importance of protecting peaceful assembly.
\n * **Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty:** The decision highlights violations related to unlawful detention, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order, emphasizing the need for legal basis and due process in arrests.
\n * **Lack of Impartiality:** The judgment points out the lack of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings as a violation of the right to a fair trial, stressing the importance of impartiality in judicial processes.
\n * **Jurisdiction:** The Court’s assertion of jurisdiction despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention is significant for cases related to events before the withdrawal date.
\n * **Compensation:** The award of EUR 4,000 to each applicant sets a precedent for compensation in similar cases of Convention violations.<\/p>\n

**** The decision is related to the violation of the rights of the participants of the rally in support of defendants in the “Bakhchisaray case”.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF ABRAHAMYAN v. ARMENIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Abrahamyan v. Armenia (application no. 31326\/17), finding a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the right of access to a court. The case originated from the Armenian Court of Cassation’s decision to reject the applicants’ appeals due to their failure to pay what the court considered the correct amount of court fees. The ECtHR found that there was no clear legal basis for the Court of Cassation’s requirement that the applicants pay eleven times the standard fee because their case involved eleven non-pecuniary claims. The Court also noted that the domestic judicial practice was not sufficiently clear or established to allow the applicants to foresee such a requirement. Consequently, the ECtHR concluded that the decisions declaring the applicants’ appeals inadmissible were disproportionate and impaired the essence of their right of access to a court.<\/p>\n

The judgment begins by outlining the subject matter of the case, which is the Court of Cassation\u2019s refusal to admit the applicants\u2019 appeals due to incorrect court fees. It then details the factual background, including the initial administrative court case concerning real estate registration, the subsequent appeals, and the Court of Cassation’s decisions. The judgment then assesses the alleged violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, examining the relevant legal principles and domestic law. It considers the foreseeability of the court fee requirement, the domestic judicial practice, and the clarity of the Court of Cassation’s decisions. Finally, the judgment addresses the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property) and the application of Article 41 of the Convention regarding just satisfaction, awarding the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the emphasis on the need for a clear legal basis and foreseeable application of court fee regulations, especially when such regulations restrict access to higher courts. The ECtHR underscored that individuals should not be penalized for reasonably interpreting legal provisions, particularly when domestic courts themselves apply inconsistent interpretations. The judgment also highlights the importance of clear communication from courts regarding procedural requirements and the provision of adequate opportunities for parties to comply with those requirements.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF FEDOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the Fedorov and Others v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**
\n The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Russia violated Article 11 of the Convention on Human Rights in the cases of Fedorov and others due to disproportionate measures taken against them as organizers or participants in public assemblies. The applicants were arrested and convicted for administrative offenses related to the dispersal of these assemblies. The Court found that these interferences with the applicants\u2019 freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society.” Additionally, the Court identified violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, restrictions on freedom of expression, and disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators, based on its well-established case-law. The Court awarded the applicants sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * **Procedure:** The judgment addresses applications lodged against Russia under Article 34 of the Convention.
\n * **Facts:** The applicants complained about disproportionate measures taken against them as organizers or participants of public assemblies.
\n * **Law:**
\n * **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
\n * **Article 11 Violation:** The Court found a violation of Article 11, citing its established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality of interference.
\n * **Other Violations:** The Court identified additional violations based on previous rulings, including unlawful deprivation of liberty, absence of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings, disproportionate measures against solo demonstrations, and restrictions on public performance as political expression.
\n * **Remaining Complaints:** The Court decided not to separately address additional complaints under Article 6, considering the findings already made.
\n * **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded sums to the applicants for damages, considering its case-law and the submitted documents.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
\n * **Violation of Freedom of Assembly (Article 11):** The decision reinforces the importance of freedom of assembly and highlights that measures against organizers and participants must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.
\n * **Unlawful Detention and Fair Trial (Articles 5 and 6):** The judgment underscores the need for fair administrative proceedings, including impartiality and lawful detention practices.
\n * **Freedom of Expression (Article 10):** The decision protects various forms of political expression, including public demonstrations and solo protests, against disproportionate restrictions.
\n * **Jurisdiction over Past Events:** The Court confirms its jurisdiction over events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.<\/p>\n

**** This decision is particularly relevant for understanding the scope of freedom of assembly and expression, as well as the standards for fair administrative proceedings, in the context of public demonstrations and political activism.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF FEDOROV v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the Fedorov v. Russia judgment:<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to an ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals against the applicant, Mr. Fedorov. The applicant, who is bisexual, was lured to an apartment, beaten, and threatened by a group of men who demanded money and a video statement about his homosexuality. Despite the applicant providing detailed information to the police, including the identities of the perpetrators, the investigation was repeatedly suspended and deemed ineffective. The Court also found a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 3, noting the failure to investigate the homophobic motives behind the ill-treatment. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,900 in damages.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the procedural history of the case, including the date of application, representation, and notification to the Russian Government.
\n * **Facts:** It summarizes the factual background, detailing the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and the subsequent investigation.
\n * **Law:**
\n * **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserts its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on 16 September 2022.
\n * **Article 3 Violation:** The judgment reiterates the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment, even when perpetrated by private individuals. It emphasizes that the investigation must be capable of establishing the facts, identifying, and punishing those responsible. The Court references previous case law, such as Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, Tyagunova v. Russia, Volodina v. Russia, and Romanov and Others v. Russia, where similar violations were found.
\n * **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court also addresses the complaint under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 3, finding a violation based on the failure to investigate the homophobic motive, referencing Lapunov v. Russia.
\n * **Article 41 Application:** The Court awards the applicant EUR 3,900 in damages, referencing Pobokin v. Ukraine for guidance on the amount.
\n * **Operative Provisions:** The judgment concludes by declaring the application admissible, holding that there was a breach of Article 3 and a violation of the Convention, and ordering Russia to pay the applicant EUR 3,900.<\/p>\n

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

* **State’s Obligation to Investigate:** The judgment underscores the State’s responsibility to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment, even when the perpetrators are private individuals. This obligation includes taking reasonable steps to secure evidence and promptly address complaints.
\n * **Failure to Verify Motives:** The judgment highlights the importance of verifying potential discriminatory motives, such as homophobia, in cases of ill-treatment. The failure to investigate such motives can lead to a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3.
\n * **Jurisdiction over Past Events:** The Court affirms its jurisdiction over cases concerning events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, provided they took place before 16 September 2022.<\/p>\n

**** This decision is particularly relevant for cases involving ineffective investigations into hate crimes or ill-treatment motivated by discrimination, especially in countries with similar legal frameworks or where the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights are applicable.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF FRANCI\u0160KOVI\u0106 v. CROATIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the Franci\u0161kovi\u0107 v. Croatia decision:<\/p>\n

1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Croatia violated Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) in the case of Marko Franci\u0161kovi\u0107. The case arose from civil proceedings where Franci\u0161kovi\u0107 was ordered to pay compensation for a statement he made against G.R., alleging G.R.’s association with the Counterintelligence Service (CIS). The ECtHR concluded that the domestic courts failed to strike a fair balance between protecting G.R.’s reputation and Franci\u0161kovi\u0107’s right to express himself in a political context. The Court emphasized that the statement, made during a political campaign and amidst existing public debate, should have been given more leeway.<\/p>\n

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

* **Subject Matter:** The judgment begins by outlining the core issue: civil proceedings against the applicant for a defamatory statement.
\n * **Background Facts:** It details the factual context, including Franci\u0161kovi\u0107’s political activities, the statement made, and the subsequent legal actions in Croatia.
\n * **Domestic Court Decisions:** Summarizes the rulings of the Zagreb Municipal Court, the Osijek County Court, and the Constitutional Court of Croatia.
\n * **Complaint to the ECtHR:** Specifies that Franci\u0161kovi\u0107 complained of a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 (fair trial).
\n * **The Court\u2019s Assessment:**
\n * **Article 10:**
\n * **Admissibility:** Addresses and dismisses the Government’s objections regarding the applicability of Article 10 and the significance of the disadvantage suffered by the applicant.
\n * **Merits:** Analyzes whether the interference with freedom of expression was justified under Article 10(2), considering whether it was “prescribed by law,” pursued a “legitimate aim,” and was “necessary in a democratic society.”
\n * **Other Complaint:** Briefly addresses the Article 6 complaint but finds it unnecessary to examine it in detail.
\n * **Article 41:**
\n * **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Details the applicant’s claims for damages and costs, and the Court’s awards.
\n * **Operative Provisions:** Concludes with the Court’s decision, declaring the Article 10 complaint admissible, holding that there was a violation of Article 10, and awarding damages and costs.<\/p>\n

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

* **Political Context:** The ECtHR emphasized the importance of the political context in which the statement was made. This suggests that statements made during political campaigns or related to matters of public interest should be assessed with greater tolerance.
\n * **Public Debate:** The Court highlighted the existence of a prior public debate regarding G.R.’s alleged association with the CIS. This indicates that when a statement touches on an issue already in the public discourse, restrictions on freedom of expression should be interpreted narrowly.
\n * **Value Judgment vs. Fact:** The ECtHR determined that the statement was a value judgment rather than a statement of fact. This distinction is crucial because value judgments require a different standard of proof and allow for more subjective expression.
\n * **Proportionality of Sanction:** The Court considered the amount of damages awarded to be significant, which factored into its conclusion that the interference with freedom of expression was not proportionate.<\/p>\n

This decision underscores the importance of protecting freedom of expression, particularly in political contexts and when statements relate to matters of public interest. It also highlights the need for domestic courts to carefully balance the protection of reputation with the right to express opinions and criticisms.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF GASPARI v. ARMENIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

This judgment concerns the case of Mr. Vartgez Gaspari against Armenia, regarding his arrests during two different demonstrations in December 2013 and the subsequent administrative proceedings. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found violations of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention. The applicant complained that his detentions were unlawful and arbitrary, and that his rights to freedom of expression and assembly were breached. The Court decided to join the two applications due to their similar subject matter and examined the complaints chronologically. The ECtHR concluded that both administrative arrests were arbitrary and not justified, violating Article 5 \u00a7 1. Additionally, the Court found that the authorities unjustifiably interfered with the applicant’s right to freedom of assembly, violating Article 11.<\/p>\n

The structure of the decision includes sections on the subject matter of the case, facts related to each application, joinder of the applications, the order of examination of the complaints, the Court’s assessment regarding the alleged violations of Article 5 \u00a7 1 and Article 11, remaining complaints, and the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction). The decision provides a detailed account of the events, the domestic court proceedings, and the applicant’s arguments. It also outlines the general principles of Article 5 \u00a7 1 and Article 11 as established in the Court’s case law. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this appears to be the initial judgment on these applications.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of this decision are the findings of violations of Article 5 \u00a7 1 and Article 11. The Court emphasized that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty was not “necessary in the circumstances” and that the authorities failed to provide sufficient justification for the interference with his right to freedom of assembly. This highlights the importance of ensuring that arrests during demonstrations are not arbitrary and that restrictions on freedom of assembly are proportionate and justified by “relevant and sufficient” reasons. The Court also awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF GRIGORYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of *Grigoryeva and Others v. Russia*, concerning restrictions on public events imposed due to COVID-19. The applicants complained that regional prohibitions on holding public events, enacted in response to the pandemic, violated their right to freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention. The Court examined multiple applications jointly, as they all addressed similar issues. The ECHR found that Russia had indeed violated Article 11 of the Convention. Despite acknowledging the State’s wide margin of appreciation during the health crisis, the Court concluded that blanket bans on public protest were disproportionate, especially considering the easing of other restrictions on commercial and leisure activities.<\/p>\n

The decision is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural history, outlining the lodging of the applications and notification to the Russian Government. It then presents the facts, summarizing the applicants’ complaints regarding restrictions on public events. The legal analysis includes the joinder of the applications, jurisdictional considerations (given Russia’s cessation as a party to the Convention), and the assessment of the alleged violation of Article 11. The Court references its established case-law on freedom of assembly and previous similar cases against Russia. It also considers compliance with the six-month time limit for applications, taking into account the COVID-19-related extensions. The decision concludes with the application of Article 41, finding that the declaration of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction. The appendix lists all applications with detailed information.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the finding that blanket bans on public protests, justified by COVID-19 restrictions, were a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention. The Court emphasized that while authorities have a wide margin of appreciation during a health crisis, this margin is not unlimited. The decision highlights the importance of balancing public health concerns with fundamental rights, particularly when other areas of public life are resuming. This ruling reinforces the principle that restrictions on freedom of assembly must be justified by a pressing social need and be proportionate to the aim pursued.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF KHACHATRYAN v. ARMENIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

This decision concerns the case of Mr. Movses Khachatryan against Armenia, regarding the death of his son during compulsory military service due to inadequate medical care and the subsequent investigation. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Armenia in violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, both in its substantive and procedural aspects. The Court concluded that the authorities failed to protect the son’s right to life while he was under their control, pointing to deficiencies in preventing the spread of varicella in the military hospital and delays in proper diagnosis and treatment. Furthermore, the Court determined that the criminal investigation into the death was ineffective, particularly due to the excessive length of the trial proceedings, which were eventually terminated due to statutory limitations.<\/p>\n

The structure of the decision includes an overview of the facts, detailing the medical treatment received by the applicant\u2019s son, the internal investigation by the Ministry of Defence, and the criminal proceedings initiated. The Court then assesses the admissibility of the application, dismissing the Government’s objections regarding the six-month time limit and exhaustion of domestic remedies. The decision proceeds to analyze the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 2, providing legal principles and applying them to the facts of the case. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this appears to be the initial judgment on the matter.<\/p>\n

The main provisions of this decision that may be the most important for its use are the findings of violations of Article 2 under both its substantive and procedural limbs. The Court emphasized the State’s positive obligation to protect the right to life of individuals under its control, particularly in circumstances where the individual is dependent on the State for medical care. The decision also highlights the importance of a prompt and effective investigation into deaths occurring in such circumstances, with the failure to ensure this leading to a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2. The decision also sets a precedent for cases involving deaths during military service due to medical negligence and ineffective investigations.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF KIVIRYAN v. ARMENIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Kiviryan v. Armenia (application no. 1593\/16), concerning alleged violations of the applicant’s rights to liberty and freedom of assembly during a protest in 2013. The Court found violations of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant, Argishti Kiviryan, participated in a protest against Armenia joining the Eurasian Customs Union and was later arrested for allegedly disobeying police orders. The ECHR concluded that his arrest was arbitrary and that the authorities failed to justify its necessity, violating his right to liberty. Additionally, the Court found that the dispersal of the demonstration and the subsequent fine imposed on Kiviryan were disproportionate interferences with his right to freedom of assembly.<\/p>\n

The decision begins by outlining the facts of the case, including the applicant’s participation in the protest, his arrest, and the domestic court proceedings. It then addresses the alleged violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1, examining whether the applicant’s deprivation of liberty was justified under domestic law and necessary in the circumstances. The Court also assesses the alleged violation of Article 11, considering whether the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of assembly was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41, concerning just satisfaction, and awards the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs. There are no previous versions mentioned in the text.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of the decision are those relating to the violations of Article 5 \u00a7 1 and Article 11. The Court emphasized that any deprivation of liberty must not only be carried out in conformity with national law but must also be necessary in the circumstances. In this case, the authorities failed to demonstrate the necessity of the applicant’s arrest. Regarding Article 11, the Court highlighted the importance of considering the political context of a protest and the proportionality of any restrictions imposed on the right to freedom of assembly. The domestic courts failed to adequately assess these factors, leading to a violation of the applicant’s rights.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF KOMAROV v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s an analysis of the Komarov v. Russia decision:<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression), interpreted in light of Article 11 (freedom of assembly), of the Convention. The case concerned an applicant, Mr. Komarov, who was sentenced to three years in prison for attempted participation in mass disorders. The ECtHR held that while a sanction might have been justified to maintain public order, the length of the prison sentence was disproportionate and had a chilling effect on the applicant and others involved in protest actions. The Court emphasized that the facts occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention, thus establishing its jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** Details the application’s origin, the applicant’s representation, and notification to the Russian Government.
\n * **Facts:** Refers to an appended table for the applicant’s details and relevant information.
\n * **Law:**
\n * **Jurisdiction:** Affirms the Court’s jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention on 16 September 2022, referencing the Fedotova and Others v. Russia case.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 10:** States the applicant’s complaint regarding restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly.
\n * **Court’s Assessment:** Cites a previous case, Taranenko v. Russia, where a similar prison sentence for participation in mass disorders was deemed disproportionate. It concludes that the long prison sentence imposed on Mr. Komarov was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and had a chilling effect on protest actions.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** Awards the applicant a sum of money, as indicated in the appended table.
\n * **Appendix:** Provides a summary of facts, the final decision, the court’s name, the penalty, legal issues, and the amount awarded.<\/p>\n

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

* **Disproportionate Sanctions:** The decision highlights that excessively severe penalties for participation in protests or mass disorders can violate Article 10, especially when considered in light of Article 11.
\n * **Chilling Effect:** The Court emphasizes the “chilling effect” that harsh sanctions can have on freedom of expression and assembly, deterring individuals from participating in protest actions.
\n * **Jurisdiction:** The decision reaffirms the Court’s jurisdiction over cases concerning events that occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention, providing a clear date of reference (16 September 2022).
\n * **Reference to Taranenko v. Russia:** The judgment references a similar case, Taranenko v. Russia, which can be used as a precedent in similar cases involving disproportionate penalties for protest-related activities.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Levchenko v. Ukraine, concerning the seizure of the applicant’s car during criminal proceedings against third parties. The applicant, Mr. Viktor Mykolayovych Levchenko, complained that the seizure was arbitrary and disproportionate, violating Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. The Court found that the seizure, which lasted for over four years, was disproportionate, especially considering the stagnation of the criminal investigation. As a result, the ECtHR ruled that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,348 for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The decision starts by outlining the background of the case, including the purchase of the car, the criminal investigation, and the seizure of the vehicle. It then details the domestic proceedings, including court decisions regarding the seizure and its eventual lifting. The Court’s assessment begins with the admissibility of the application, addressing the Government’s argument that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. The ECtHR rejected this argument, finding that the remedies cited by the Government were not applicable to the applicant’s situation. On the merits, the Court examined whether the seizure complied with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, considering whether it was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim, and was proportionate. While acknowledging the legitimate aim of ensuring the proper functioning of justice, the Court found the length of the seizure and the stagnation of the investigation rendered the measure disproportionate. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the finding that the prolonged seizure of the applicant’s car, especially in light of the stalled criminal investigation, constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. This highlights the importance of the duration of such measures and the need for ongoing justification, particularly when investigations are not progressing. This decision reinforces the principle that even measures that initially serve a legitimate aim can become disproportionate if they are maintained for an excessive period without sufficient justification. **** This is especially relevant for Ukraine, where lengthy investigations and property seizures are not uncommon, and this judgment serves as a reminder of the need for procedural safeguards and proportionality in such cases.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF MANUCHARYAN v. ARMENIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Manucharyan v. Armenia, concerning the death of the applicant’s brother during compulsory military service. The Court found violations of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, both in its substantive and procedural aspects. The applicant’s brother died from a gunshot wound to the head while on duty. The domestic investigation concluded it was suicide due to ill-treatment by superiors, but the applicant alleged a cover-up of a possible murder. The ECHR determined that the authorities failed to protect the deceased’s right to life and that the investigation into the death was inadequate.<\/p>\n

The decision begins by outlining the facts of the case, including the circumstances of the death, the domestic investigation, and the applicant’s appeals. It then assesses the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention, first addressing the substantive limb regarding the state’s obligation to protect life, and then the procedural limb concerning the effectiveness of the investigation. The Court references previous case law to establish the principles applicable to deaths during military service and the requirements for an effective investigation. The decision concludes with the application of Article 41, awarding the applicant EUR 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. There are no changes compared to previous versions, as it is the initial judgment.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of the decision are those related to the violation of Article 2. The Court emphasizes the state’s responsibility to protect conscripts during military service and highlights the deficiencies in the investigation, such as unexplained injuries, the handling of the “hole with burnt edges” on the trousers, and the lack of follow-up on the possibility of third-party involvement. These findings underscore the importance of thorough and impartial investigations in cases of deaths in custody or state care.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF MARCHENKO v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the Marchenko v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights found Russia in violation of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3(d) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the right to a fair trial. The applicant, Aleksandr Marchenko, complained that he did not have the opportunity to examine witnesses against him in court during his criminal trial for espionage. The Court emphasized that the inability to cross-examine key witnesses, coupled with the national courts’ failure to implement counterbalancing measures, resulted in an unfair trial. The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** The judgment starts by outlining the case’s procedural history, including the application’s submission, the applicant’s representation, and the communication of the application to the Russian Government. It also mentions the Ukrainian Government’s intervention.
\n * **Facts:** This section briefly refers to the table appended to the judgment, which contains the applicant’s details and information relevant to the application.
\n * **Law:**
\n * **Jurisdiction:** The Court explicitly states its jurisdiction to examine the application because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d):** This is the core of the judgment. It references established case-law on the right to examine witnesses. The Court found that the applicant’s inability to cross-examine witnesses, combined with the lack of counterbalancing measures by national courts, constituted a violation of his right to a fair trial.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction, referencing that the reopening of proceedings would be the most appropriate form of redress.
\n * **Appendix:** The appendix provides a detailed table summarizing the key aspects of the application, including the applicant’s details, the domestic court’s decision, and an assessment of the fairness of the trial.<\/p>\n

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

* **Jurisdictional Timeframe:** The judgment confirms the Court’s jurisdiction over cases against Russia for events that occurred before September 16, 2022.
\n * **Right to Examine Witnesses:** The decision reinforces the importance of the right to examine witnesses in criminal proceedings. It highlights that the absence of this opportunity, especially when coupled with a lack of counterbalancing measures, can lead to a violation of Article 6.
\n * **Counterbalancing Measures:** The judgment emphasizes the responsibility of national courts to implement measures to compensate for the difficulties faced by the defense when witnesses’ statements are admitted without the possibility of cross-examination.
\n * **Just Satisfaction:** The Court considered that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

**** The decision may have implications for other similar cases involving Russian courts before Russia’s exclusion from the Council of Europe, particularly those involving Ukrainian citizens or issues related to the conflict.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF MINASYAN AND GERAVETYAN v. ARMENIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

This decision concerns the arrest and detention of two applicants, Mr. Minasyan and Mr. Geravetyan, during a demonstration in Yerevan, Armenia. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found violations of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 \u00a7 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court concluded that the applicants’ administrative arrest was arbitrary because the authorities failed to demonstrate its necessity in the given circumstances. Additionally, the Court found that the Court of Cassation breached the second applicant’s right of access to a court by rejecting his appeal on points of law based on procedural errors. As a result, the Court awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.<\/p>\n

The judgment is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history, including the parties involved and the complaints raised. It then presents the facts of the case, detailing the events leading to the applicants’ arrest and subsequent legal proceedings in Armenia. The Court then assesses the admissibility of the complaints, joining the applications due to their similar subject matter. The core of the judgment lies in the Court’s assessment of the alleged violations of Article 5 \u00a7 1 and Article 6 \u00a7 1, where it provides its reasoning for finding violations. Finally, the Court addresses the application of Article 41, awarding just satisfaction to the applicants.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the interpretation and application of Article 5 \u00a7 1 and Article 6 \u00a7 1. The Court emphasizes that any deprivation of liberty must not only be lawful under domestic law but also necessary in the specific circumstances. The decision also clarifies that restrictions on procedural rights should not impair the very essence of the right of access to a court. These principles are crucial for ensuring that individuals’ fundamental rights are protected during arrest, detention, and judicial proceedings.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF OOO GELENDZHIK-SNAB v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of OOO Gelendzhik-Snab v. Russia:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia 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 non-enforcement of a domestic court judgment in favor of OOO Gelendzhik-Snab against a federal State unitary enterprise (FGUP). The Court determined that the FGUP did not have sufficient independence from the State, making the State responsible for its debts. The authorities failed to take adequate measures to enforce the judgment, leading to the violation. The Court also held that there was no need to separately examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy). The Court ordered Russia to ensure the enforcement of the domestic judicial decision and to pay the applicant company 2,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
\n 2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * **Procedure:** Details the case’s origin, the applicant’s representation, and notification to the Russian Government.
\n * **Facts:** Summarizes the applicant’s complaint regarding the non-enforcement of a judicial decision against a federal State unitary enterprise and the lack of effective remedy.
\n * **Law:**
\n * **Jurisdiction:** Affirms the Court’s jurisdiction over the case, as the relevant events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on 16 September 2022.
\n * **Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** States that the non-enforcement of a judgment is a violation of the right to a fair trial. The Court refers to previous case-law, particularly Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, which dealt with similar issues. The Court concludes that the State is responsible for the debts of the FGUP due to its lack of independence and the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment.
\n * **Article 13:** Finds it unnecessary to give a separate ruling on the lack of an effective remedy, given the findings under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
\n * **Article 41:** Orders Russia to enforce the judgment and to pay the applicant company 2,000 euros.
\n * **Operative Provisions:** Formally declares the complaints admissible, finds a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, orders the enforcement of the domestic judgment, and mandates the payment of compensation.
\n 3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
\n * **State Responsibility:** The decision reinforces the principle that the State can be held responsible for the debts of State-owned enterprises if those enterprises lack sufficient institutional and operational independence.
\n * **Enforcement of Judgments:** The ruling underscores the importance of the timely and effective enforcement of domestic court judgments as an integral part of the right to a fair trial.
\n * **Jurisdiction over Pre-Withdrawal Cases:** The Court explicitly asserts its jurisdiction over cases related to events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.<\/p>\n

: This decision may have implications for Ukrainians who have similar cases against Russia related to the non-enforcement of judgments against state-owned enterprises, especially for events that occurred before Russia’s exclusion from the Council of Europe.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF OOO KULTURNYYE PROYEKTY v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled in the case of OOO Kulturnyye proyekty v. Russia, concerning the failure of the Russian State to protect the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression. The case revolves around the disruption of an international LGBT film festival organized by the applicant due to a false bomb threat and the subsequent lack of adequate investigation. The ECtHR found that Russia failed to ensure the safe and uninterrupted conduct of the festival, violating Article 10 of the Convention. Additionally, the Court addressed the refusal to include the film festival in the list of approved festivals, which was seen as discriminatory and a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10. The Court has jurisdiction over the case because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant company EUR 7,500 in damages.<\/p>\n

The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedure, outlining the application’s origin and the parties involved. It then presents the facts of the case, focusing on the disruption of the film festival and the refusal to include it in the list of approved festivals. The legal analysis follows, addressing the Court’s jurisdiction and the alleged violations of Article 10 and Article 14 of the Convention. The Court references previous case-law, particularly Side by Side International Film Festival and Others v. Russia and Bayev and Others v. Russia, to support its findings. Finally, the decision concludes with the application of Article 41, awarding damages to the applicant company. There are no changes compared to previous versions, as this is the initial judgment.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the violation of Article 10 due to the State’s failure to protect the film festival and the violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10 due to discriminatory practices. The ruling reinforces the positive obligation of States to safeguard freedom of expression, particularly for vulnerable groups like the LGBT community. It also highlights the impermissibility of discriminatory measures, such as refusing to include LGBT film festivals in approved lists based on laws prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF POLYAKOV v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Polyakov v. Russia, concerning violations of Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of assembly. The applicant complained about disproportionate measures taken against him for organizing or participating in public events. The Court found that these measures, including the dispersal of a political rally and the applicant’s subsequent conviction for an administrative offense, constituted an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of assembly. The ECHR also addressed additional complaints related to restrictions on the location, timing, or manner of conducting public events, including refusals by the Belgorod administration to approve planned political events, often citing COVID-19 restrictions. The Court determined that these restrictions also violated Article 11. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant 3,500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

The decision begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and the parties involved. It then presents the facts of the case, focusing on the applicant’s complaints regarding disproportionate measures taken against him during public events. The legal analysis addresses the Court’s jurisdiction, confirming its authority to examine the case since the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention. The core of the decision lies in the assessment of the alleged violation of Article 11, where the Court references established principles and case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality of interference. It also considers other alleged violations under well-established case-law, particularly concerning restrictions on the location or timing of public events and the application of COVID-19-related restrictions. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of this decision are those that reaffirm the principles of freedom of assembly and the need for any restrictions to be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. The Court’s findings that the measures taken against the applicant were disproportionate and violated Article 11 highlight the importance of protecting the right to peaceful assembly, even in the context of administrative offenses or public health concerns. The decision also underscores the Court’s consistent stance on similar issues, referencing previous cases where violations were found in respect of restrictions on public events.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

The case concerns a Ukrainian prison officer, Mr. Sklyarenko, who was attacked by a detainee while working at a pre-trial detention center. He complained that the state failed to protect him at his workplace and that the subsequent investigation into the attack was ineffective. The Court found a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically the procedural limb, due to the ineffective investigation. However, the Court rejected the complaint regarding the State’s failure to ensure his safety at work, finding it manifestly ill-founded.<\/p>\n

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

* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Defines the core issue as the attack on the applicant and the subsequent investigation.
\n * **Facts:** Details the events of the attack in January 2017, the internal investigation conducted by the detention center, and the criminal investigations initiated by the police and the Ministry of Justice. It outlines the various testimonies and forensic examinations conducted.
\n * **The Court\u2019s Assessment:**
\n * **Procedural Limb of Article 3:** Focuses on the effectiveness of the investigation. The Court examines the timeline, the investigative measures taken, and the applicant’s cooperation. It concludes that the investigation was unreasonably lengthy and lacked meaningful progress, leading to a violation of Article 3.
\n * **Substantive Limb of Article 3:** Addresses the applicant’s claim that the State failed to protect him. The Court finds that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim, particularly noting that he was accompanied by other officers during the attack and that an internal investigation found he had been drunk at the workplace.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** States that the applicant did not claim for just satisfaction, so no sum was awarded.<\/p>\n

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

* **Ineffective Investigation:** The Court highlights the lengthy duration of the investigation (eight years) and the lack of meaningful steps taken to establish the facts and identify those responsible. This demonstrates a failure by the domestic authorities to conduct an effective investigation, violating the procedural limb of Article 3.
\n * **Burden of Proof:** The Court emphasizes that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the State was responsible for the attack. This underscores the importance of providing concrete evidence to support claims of State responsibility under the substantive limb of Article 3.
\n * **Cooperation with Investigation:** The Court acknowledges that the applicant’s failure to report to the police on several occasions contributed to the length of the proceedings. However, the Court notes that the authorities already had sufficient information at their disposal, and the primary responsibility for the investigation’s protraction rested with them.<\/p>\n

This decision emphasizes the State’s obligation to conduct thorough and timely investigations into allegations of ill-treatment, even when the victim’s own actions may have contributed to the situation.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF SLEPAKOV v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to inadequate conditions of detention of the applicant, Vasiliy Viktorovich Slepakov, while he was under a strict imprisonment regime. The Court had jurisdiction because the facts occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. Slepakov’s complaints regarding detention conditions were deemed admissible, while other complaints under Article 8 were rejected. The Court awarded Slepakov 3,000 euros in damages for non-pecuniary damage. This decision aligns with the Court’s established case-law on similar issues, particularly referencing the N.T. v. Russia case.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** Details the case’s origin, including the application date and notification to the Russian Government.
\n * **Facts:** Briefly describes the applicant and the relevant background.
\n * **Law:**
\n * **Jurisdiction:** Affirms the Court’s jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 3:** Focuses on the applicant’s complaint regarding inadequate detention conditions, referencing established principles and previous judgments, including N.T. v. Russia.
\n * **Remaining Complaints:** States that other complaints under Article 8 were inadmissible.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** Awards compensation to the applicant, referencing previous case-law.
\n * **Decision:**
\n * Declares jurisdiction over the case.
\n * Declares the complaint regarding detention conditions admissible and other complaints inadmissible.
\n * Holds that Article 3 was violated.
\n * Orders Russia to pay the applicant 3,000 euros in damages.
\n * **Appendix:** Provides specific details about the applicant, detention period, and the amount awarded.<\/p>\n

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

* **Jurisdiction:** The Court explicitly states its jurisdiction over cases against Russia for events before September 16, 2022.
\n * **Violation of Article 3:** The decision reinforces the ECtHR’s stance on what constitutes inhuman or degrading treatment in detention, particularly concerning detention conditions.
\n * **Compensation:** The award of 3,000 euros provides a benchmark for similar cases involving inadequate detention conditions.
\n * **Reference to N.T. v. Russia:** This case is highlighted as a leading case with similar issues, suggesting a pattern of violations by Russia related to detention conditions.<\/p>\n

**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainians who were detained in Russia before September 16, 2022, and experienced inadequate detention conditions. They may be able to use this judgment as a precedent in their own cases before the ECtHR.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CASE OF MLINAREVI\u0106 v. CROATIA Here’s a breakdown of the Mlinarevi\u0107 v. Croatia decision from the European Court of Human Rights: 1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Croatia violated Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees…<\/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-16406","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\/16406","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=16406"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16406\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16406"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16406"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}