{"id":19425,"date":"2026-09-02T10:58:54","date_gmt":"2026-09-02T07:58:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/09\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-02-09-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-09-02T10:58:54","modified_gmt":"2026-09-02T07:58:54","slug":"review-of-echr-decisions-for-02-09-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/09\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-02-09-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of ECHR decisions for 02\/09\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

CASE OF BRUNELL AND McARDLE v. THE NETHERLANDS<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

****<\/p>\n

The case of *Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea)* (applications nos. 20958\/14 and 38334\/18) concerns the massive and systematic human rights violations occurring in the Crimean Peninsula since February 2014. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined allegations of administrative practices involving killings, disappearances, ill-treatment, and the suppression of religious and linguistic freedoms. The Court confirmed that the Russian Federation exercised “effective control” over Crimea from February 27, 2014, thereby establishing its jurisdiction over the territory. This landmark decision establishes the legal responsibility of the occupying power for the human rights situation in the region. It serves as a foundational judicial recognition of the systemic nature of the violations committed against the Ukrainian population and other groups in Crimea. The ruling effectively anchors the legal accountability of the Russian Federation for its actions within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights.<\/p>\n

The decision is structured into several distinct legal segments: the establishment of jurisdiction, the assessment of administrative practices, and the determination of specific Convention breaches. It follows the Court\u2019s established methodology for inter-State cases, focusing on the existence of an “administrative practice”\u2014a pattern of conduct that is repetitive and officially tolerated. Compared to previous inter-State jurisprudence, this decision is notable for its comprehensive scope, covering a wide array of Articles including the right to life (Article 2), the prohibition of torture (Article 3), and the right to liberty (Article 5). It further expands on the protection of freedom of religion (Article 9) and freedom of expression (Article 10) in the context of an occupation. The structure emphasizes the shift from individual complaints to a systemic analysis of state-sponsored policy.<\/p>\n

The most critical provisions for legal practitioners and observers concern the Court\u2019s findings on the “effective control” test. By confirming that Russia exercised effective control over Crimea, the Court triggered the extraterritorial application of the Convention, meaning all human rights obligations under the treaty became binding upon the Russian Federation in that territory. Furthermore, the Court\u2019s findings regarding the suppression of the Ukrainian language in schools and the systematic persecution of religious groups (specifically the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and Crimean Tatars) provide a definitive legal record of discriminatory practices. The ruling on the “chilling effect” created by the forced imposition of Russian citizenship and the suppression of independent media is also vital for future litigation. These provisions establish a high evidentiary threshold for proving systemic violations, which will be essential for any subsequent claims regarding individual damages or state reparations.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

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

This judgment, *D.T. v. Greece* (application no. 51829\/21), concerns the state\u2019s failure to provide adequate psychiatric care to a detainee suffering from a serious mental health disorder. The applicant, who was held in pre-trial detention, suffered from bipolar disorder and drug addiction, conditions of which the authorities were well aware. Despite medical evidence confirming his need for regular psychiatric monitoring, the Court found that he was effectively abandoned, receiving only one brief psychiatric consultation during his fourteen-month detention. The Court emphasized that the authorities failed to maintain a comprehensive medical record or an individual care plan, which are essential for protecting the rights of vulnerable detainees. Consequently, the Court ruled that the lack of adequate psychiatric monitoring constituted inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Finally, the Court clarified the effectiveness of domestic remedies, finding that while some avenues were insufficient, others remained available to the applicant.<\/p>\n

### Structure and Main Provisions
\nThe decision is structured as a standard Chamber judgment of the Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights. It follows the classic format:
\n* **Facts:** Details the applicant\u2019s medical history, his detention at Korydallos Prison, and the lack of documented psychiatric follow-up.
\n* **Admissibility:** The Court declared the complaints regarding Article 3 (substantive) and Article 13 admissible, while noting that other aspects of the detention had been previously declared inadmissible.
\n* **Merits (Article 3):** The Court established that the burden of proof shifted to the Government once the applicant provided *prima facie* evidence of his condition and the lack of care. It found the state\u2019s medical record-keeping deficient and the psychiatric monitoring non-existent in practice.
\n* **Merits (Article 13):** The Court analyzed the effectiveness of Greek domestic remedies. It distinguished between remedies that are “effective in practice” and those that are merely theoretical.
\n* **Changes\/Clarifications:** The decision marks a significant shift in the Court\u2019s assessment of Greek domestic remedies. It explicitly declares that the complaint to a supervising prosecutor under Article 567 (formerly 572) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is **no longer an effective remedy** due to the lack of judicial review and the prosecutor’s administrative involvement in the prison.<\/p>\n

### Important Provisions for Legal Use
\nFor practitioners, the following points are the most critical takeaways from this judgment:<\/p>\n

1. **The “Shifted” Burden of Proof:** The Court reaffirmed that once a detainee with a known, serious mental health condition provides *prima facie* evidence of inadequate care, the burden shifts to the State to provide “credible and convincing evidence” of comprehensive medical treatment.
\n2. **The Ineffectiveness of Article 567 (CCP):** This is a landmark clarification. The Court held that a complaint to a supervising prosecutor under Article 567 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is **not an effective remedy** for medical complaints because it lacks a mechanism for judicial review and does not result in a legally binding decision that the prison administration must enforce.
\n3. **The Effectiveness of Articles 6 and 86 (Penal Code):** Conversely, the Court confirmed that a complaint to the **Prison Council**, followed by an appeal to the **Court for the Execution of Sentences**, remains the primary and “effective” domestic remedy for individual grievances regarding medical care in Greek prisons.
\n4. **Documentation Standards:** The Court underscored that “adequacy” of care is inextricably linked to the quality of medical records. Brief, handwritten notes that lack a diagnostic strategy or a schedule for follow-up are insufficient to meet the State\u2019s obligations under Article 3.<\/p>\n

*Note: While this case focuses on Greek domestic law, the principles regarding the State’s positive obligation to provide medical care to vulnerable detainees are of universal application across the Council of Europe.*<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF MANKUS v. LITHUANIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The judgment in *Mankus v. Lithuania* (application no. 25336\/22) concerns the dismissal of a public servant from a statutory institution due to a past criminal conviction. The applicant, who had been convicted of perjury in 2011, was hired by the Public Security Service in 2012, dismissed in 2013, and subsequently reinstated in 2014, despite the authorities being aware of his criminal record. In 2019, he was dismissed again based on the same spent conviction, citing a lack of “irreproachable reputation.” The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the authorities\u2019 inconsistent application of the law and their failure to account for their own prior decision to reinstate the applicant violated his right to private life. The Court concluded that the dismissal lacked the necessary consistency and legal protection against arbitrariness required under Article 8 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court ruled that the interference was not “necessary in a democratic society.”<\/p>\n

### Structure and Provisions
\nThe decision is structured as a standard Chamber judgment, moving from the factual background\u2014highlighting the contradictory actions of the Lithuanian authorities\u2014to the legal assessment under Article 8.
\n* **Main Provisions:** The Court examined the “quality of law” and the principle of “good governance.” It specifically analyzed whether the domestic authorities provided relevant and sufficient reasons for the dismissal.
\n* **Changes\/Context:** The decision reflects the evolution of Lithuanian law, specifically noting the 2021 Constitutional Court ruling that struck down the lifetime ban on employment for individuals with spent convictions for intentional crimes. The ECtHR judgment builds upon this by focusing on the procedural failure of the state to act consistently, rather than just the substantive legality of the employment ban itself.<\/p>\n

### Key Provisions for Legal Use
\nFor legal practitioners and observers, the following points are the most critical:
\n1. **Principle of Good Governance:** The Court emphasized that when authorities make decisions affecting fundamental rights, they must act in a consistent manner. Reinstating an employee while aware of a conviction, only to dismiss them years later for that same conviction, constitutes a failure of this principle.
\n2. **Protection Against Arbitrariness:** The judgment clarifies that domestic law must afford adequate protection against arbitrary state action. If authorities fail to investigate or explain how a previous “error” in hiring occurred, they cannot later rely on that “error” to justify a sudden dismissal without a careful balancing of interests.
\n3. **Consistency in Administrative Practice:** The Court held that the domestic courts failed to provide “relevant and sufficient reasons” because they dismissed the fact that the authorities had previously accepted the applicant\u2019s reputation as adequate for service. This establishes that the state cannot ignore its own past administrative decisions when they have created a legitimate expectation of continued employment.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

**:** This decision is highly relevant to the Ukrainian legal context. Given the ongoing reforms in the Ukrainian civil service and the frequent application of “lustration” or “irreproachable reputation” requirements in statutory and law enforcement bodies, this judgment serves as a vital precedent. It underscores that even where high standards of integrity are required for public service, the state must ensure that its administrative actions remain consistent, predictable, and proportionate, preventing the arbitrary use of past convictions to terminate employment long after the fact.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CASE OF BRUNELL AND McARDLE v. THE NETHERLANDS **** The case of *Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea)* (applications nos. 20958\/14 and 38334\/18) concerns the massive and systematic human rights violations occurring in the Crimean Peninsula since February 2014. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined allegations of administrative practices involving killings, disappearances, ill-treatment, 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_total_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[129],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19425","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\/19425","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=19425"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19425\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}