ECtHR cases October – December 2021

Khayauri and Others v. Russia (nos. 33862/17, 83040/17, and 83409/17)

The applicants are Russian nationals who live in the Republic of Ingushetia (Russia). They are close relatives of Magomed Khayauri, born in 1991, Islam Tachiyev, born in 1992, and Artur Karsamauli, born in 1986. The case concerns the killing by State agents of the three young men on a university campus in July 2012. The investigation into the incident was terminated, owing to the death of the suspects, and reopened by decision of the investigators’ superiors more than ten times. It is still pending.

Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention, the applicants allege that State agents killed their relatives in a botched security operation and that the authorities failed to investigate the matter effectively. Under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, the applicants complain that they had no effective remedy at their disposal.

Outcome

Violation of Article 2 (investigation)

Violation of Article 2 (right to life)

Just satisfaction: Details of the amounts awarded to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, are appended to the judgment.

Khojoyan and Vardazaryan v. Azerbaijan (application no. 62161/14)

The applicants, Hasmik Khojoyan, Heghine Vardazaryan and Haykaz Khojoyan (now deceased), are three Armenian nationals who were born in 1964, 1967 and 1959, respectively. The case concerns the captivity and alleged ill-treatment of the applicants’ father, Mamikon Khojoyan, in Azerbaijan in early 2014. The applicants’ father left his home in Armenia, close to the border with Azerbaijan on the morning of 28 January 2014. It was reported in the Azerbaijani news 2 days later that he was an armed guide of an Armenian sabotage group and was being detained. He was handed over to the Armenian authorities on 4 March 2014 and died at home ten weeks later.

Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants allege that their father was tortured during his captivity, including severe beatings, being burnt with incandescent metal and drug injections, which had posed a danger to his life and which had not been investigated, that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty, that they did not have an effective legal remedy and that the alleged violations occurred as a result of discrimination based on ethnic origin.

Outcome

Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Mamikon Khojoyan

Violation of Article 2 (investigation) in respect of Mamikon Khojoyan

Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) on account of Mamikon Khojoyan’s torture

No violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants

Violation of Article 5 in respect of Mamikon Khojoyan

Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: 40,000 euros (EUR) jointly to the applicants costs and expenses: the Court rejected the applicants’ claim for costs and expenses

Petrosyan v. Azerbaijan (no. 32427/16)

The applicant, Artush Petrosyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Chinari (Armenia). His son, Karen Petrosyan, born in 1981, lived with him in Chinari, close to the border with Azerbaijan. On 7 August 2014 his son crossed the border into Azerbaijan and was captured by the Azerbaijani armed forces. He died while in captivity.

Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention, the applicant complains that his son was tortured and killed in illegal detention, that his body was not repatriated in a timely manner, that there was no effective investigation and that the alleged violations occurred as a result of discrimination based on ethnic origin.

Outcome

Violation of Article 2 (investigation and right to life)

Violation of Article 3 in respect of Karen Petrosyan

Violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant

Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 40,000, costs and expenses: EUR 8,370

M.H. and Others v. Croatia (applications nos. 15670/18 and 43115/18)

The case concerned the death of a 6-year-old Afghan child, MAD.H., who was hit by a train after allegedly having been denied the opportunity to seek asylum by the Croatian authorities and ordered to return to Serbia via the tracks. It also concerned, in particular, the applicants’ detention while seeking international protection. The Court found in particular that the investigation into the death had been ineffective, that the applicant children’s detention had amounted to ill-treatment, and that the decisions around the applicants’ detention had not been dealt with diligently. It also held that some of the applicants had suffered a collective expulsion from Croatia, and that the State had hindered the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of individual application by restricting access to their lawyer among other things.

Outcome

Violation of Article 2 (right to life) as concerned the investigation into the death of the Afghan family’s daughter

Violation of Article 3 (prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment) in respect of the applicant children

No violation of Article 3 in respect of the adult applicants

Violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to security and liberty) in respect of all the applicants

Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (prohibition of collective expulsions of aliens) in respect of the applicant mother and her five children, and

Violation of Article 34 (right of individual petition) in respect of all the applicants.

Just satisfaction: the Court held that Croatia was to pay the applicants 40,000 euros (EUR) non-pecuniary damage and EUR 16,700 in respect of costs and expenses.

Derenik Mkrtchyan and Gayane Mkrtchyan v. Armenia (application no. 69736/12)

The applicants, Derenik G. Mkrtchyan and Gayane Mkrtchyan, are Armenian nationals who were born in 1948 and 1976 respectively and live in Alapars (Armenia). The case concerns death of Derenik G., the applicants’ grandson and son respectively, at the age of ten in 2010 following a fight in the classroom in his school. It also concerns the subsequent investigation and legal proceedings.

Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants claim, in particular, that the boy’s death was a result of a failure by the school authorities to protect him while under their control and that the subsequent investigation was ineffective.

Outcome

No violation of Article 2 (right to life)

Violation of Article 2 (investigation)

Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage of EUR 24,000 euros (EUR)

A.P. v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 41086/12)

The case concerned the effectiveness of an investigation conducted by the Moldovan authorities into allegations of sexual abuse perpetrated by a 12-year-old boy on the applicant, who was 5 years old at the time. The Court found in particular that the investigation carried out by the authorities in the present case had been ineffective in that it had not been thorough and had taken no account of the applicant’s particular vulnerability.

Outcome

Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment)

Just satisfaction: the Court held that the Republic of Moldova was to pay the applicant 7,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,360 in respect of costs and expenses.

Bancsók and László Magyar (no. 2) v. Hungary (application nos. 52374/15 and 53364/15)

The case concerned the imposition of life sentences with eligibility for release on parole only after 40 years of imprisonment. The Court found that such sentences did not, in effect, offer any real prospect of release, and were thus not compatible with the Convention.

Outcome

Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)

Just satisfaction: the Court held that Hungary was to pay Mr Bancsók 3,000 euros (EUR) and Mr Magyar EUR 10,600 in respect of costs and expenses. The finding of a violation constituted in itself just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained.

Tunikova and Others v. Russia (application nos. 55974/16, 53118/17, 27484/18, and 28011/19)

The case concerned acts of domestic violence, including death threats, bodily injuries and one case of severe mutilation, which the applicants sustained at the hands of their former partners or husbands, and the domestic authorities’ alleged failure to establish a legal framework for combating acts of domestic violence and bringing the perpetrators to account.

The Court found, in particular, that the Russian authorities had failed to establish a legal framework to combat domestic violence effectively; they had not assessed the risks of recurrent violence; and they had not carried out an effective investigation into the domestic violence the applicants had suffered. It found it established that as regards protection against the risk of domestic violence, women in Russia are in a situation of de facto discrimination. The Court recommended under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments) that urgent changes to domestic law and practice to prevent similar violations from occurring be made.

Outcome

Violation of Article 3 (prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment)

Violation of Article 14 (prohibition on discrimination) in conjunction with Article 3.

Just satisfaction: the Court held that Russia was to pay Ms Gracheva 330,660 euros (EUR) in respect of medical expenses, both past and future, and the loss of income, and also EUR 40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 20,000 each to Ms Tunikova, Ms Gershman and Ms Petrakova, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; and EUR 5,000 to each applicant in respect of costs and expenses.

Women’s Initiatives Supporting Group and Others v. Georgia (application no. 73204/13 and 74959/13)

The concerned an attack by a mob on LGBT demonstrators on 17 May 2013 – the International Day Against Homophobia – in central Tbilisi.

The Court found in particular that the authorities had failed to take measures to protect the LGBT demonstrators from the mob, despite being aware of the risks associated with the event. There was furthermore evidence, namely video footage by independent journalists, of official connivance in the acts of violence and underlying prejudice. Indeed, the Court could not exclude the possibility that the unprecedented scale of the violence had been influenced by the authorities’ failure to carry out a timely and objective investigation into the attacks on the LGBT community during the previous year’s event, which was also the subject of a case before the Court where violations of the Convention were found. See press release in the case of Identoba and Others v. Georgia.

Outcome

Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) both on account of the authorities’ failure to protect the peaceful demonstrators from homophobic and transphobic aggression and of the ensuing inadequate investigation

Violation of Article 11 (freedom of association) taken in conjunction with Article 14

Just satisfaction: the Court held that Georgia was to pay the applicants amounts totalling overall 193,500 euros (EUR). In particular, it awarded EUR 10,000 euros to the applicant who had suffered concussion and EUR 6,000 to the applicant who had been humiliated by the police in the supermarket

S.T. and Y.B. v. Russia (no. 40125/20)

The applicants, Mr S.T. and Ms Y.B., are Russian nationals who were born in 2001 and 1999 respectively and live in Grozny (Chechen Republic, Russia). They are a couple. The case concerns an allegation of unlawful detention and ill-treatment of the first applicant, a moderator of an opposition channel known for criticising the Chechen authorities, by State agents in September 2020 in Chechnya, and the ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation into the matter.

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain that the first applicant was unlawfully detained and subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by State agents.

Outcome

Violation of Article 3 (investigation) in respect of the first applicant

Violation of Article 3 (right to life) in respect of the first applicant

Violation of Article 5 in respect of the first applicant

Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 26,000 to the first applicant (to be paid to the second applicant)

Kovrov and Others v. Russia (nos. 42296/09, 71805/11, 75089/13, 1327/16, and 14206/16)

The case concerns pre-trial detention and house arrest in Russia. The applicants are five Russian nationals who were arrested on suspicion of various crimes, ranging from fraud to inflicting bodily harm resulting in death. The domestic courts authorised the applicants’ detention and house arrest and the extension of these measures on several occasions, based on the gravity of the charges and the possibility of reoffending, influencing witnesses, destroying evidence, or otherwise obstructing the proper course of the proceedings. Their pre-trial detention and/or house arrest lasted for periods from one to four years. They were all subsequently convicted as charged.

Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants allege that their pre-trial detention and house arrest was not necessary or properly justified, and was automatically extended without considering alternative measures. Mr Kovrov further relies on Article 5 § 5 (enforceable right to compensation) to complain that it was impossible for him to obtain compensation for the violation of his right to release pending trial.

Outcome

Violation of Article 5 § 3 in respect of each of the applicants on account of unjustified pre-trial detention and house arrest

Violation of Article 5 § 5 in respect of Mr Kovrov on account of his inability to obtain compensation for the violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial

Just satisfaction: details are appended to the judgment.

Turan v. Turkey (no. 75805/16 and 426 other applications)

The applicants are 427 Turkish nationals, all members of the Court of Cassation or the Supreme Administrative Court, or judges in lower courts or prosecutors at the time of the events giving rise to the applications. The case concerns the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants, all of whom were sitting as judges or prosecutors at the time, in the aftermath of the military coup attempt of 15 July 2016, on suspicion of being members of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the ‘Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation/Parallel State Structure’ (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü/Paralel Devlet Yapılanması).

Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain that they were placed in pre-trial detention in breach of the domestic law governing the arrest and pre-trial detention of the members of the judiciary. They contest the allegation that the facts of the case precluded them from the procedural safeguards afforded to all judges and prosecutors and complain that the magistrates’ courts did not have the competence and territorial jurisdiction to detain them. Some of the applicants also complain under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 (liberty and security) that they were placed in pre-trial detention without relevant and sufficient reasons, and that the length of that detention was excessive. Some applicants further complain under Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) that the reviews conducted by the domestic courts into their detention did not comply with certain procedural safeguards, and/or under Article 5 § 5 (enforceable right to compensation) that there were no effective domestic remedies to allow them to obtain compensation for the alleged breaches of their rights.

Outcome

Violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the unlawfulness of the initial pre-trial detention of the applicants who were ordinary judges and prosecutors at the time of their detention

Violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the unlawfulness of the initial pre-trial detention of the applicants who were members of the Court of Cassation or the Supreme Administrative Court at the time of their detention

Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses to each of the applicants

Jarrand v. France (application no. 56138/16)

The case concerned a police raid on the home of Mr Jarrand after he had failed to return his elderly, dependent and highly vulnerable mother to her care home, in breach of a placement order, in addition to his arrest and questioning at the police station without being formally taken into police custody.

The applicant began by challenging the necessity of the interference with his right to respect for his private life caused by the police intervention at his home. The Court took the view that the applicant’s conduct had rendered the police intervention necessary in the context of an expedited police investigation opened for ‘ill-treatment of a vulnerable person’. Having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded in such cases to the respondent State and given the particular circumstances of the case, and the pressing social need for the home raid, the Court acknowledged that it was necessary in a democratic society. Therefore there had not been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

The applicant further complained about the conditions in which he had been questioned at the police station. The Court found that the measure constituted a “deprivation of liberty” for the purposes of Article 5 of the Convention. After noting that in domestic law there had been, already at the time, a constitutional requirement that anyone brought before a police officer by force should enjoy the specific safeguards provided for within the framework of police custody, the Court observed that he had been questioned outside this framework, thus concluding that he had not been detained ‘in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law’ as required by Article 5 § 1. In the very specific circumstances of the case, where the courts which examined the applicant’s complaint had failed to consider whether his detention had been compatible with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the Court found that there had also been a violation of Article 5 § 5, as he had not been able to claim compensation for his unlawful detention in breach of Article 5 § 1.

Outcome

Violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security)

Violation of Article 5 § 5 (right to compensation for unlawful detention)

No violation of Article 8 (right to respect for one’s home)

Just satisfaction: the Court held that France was to pay the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage

Bara and Kola v. Albania (application no. 43391/18 and 17766/19)

The case concerned proceedings before the domestic courts at a time when judicial reforms had been taking place. An election to the post of rector of a university had been at issue in Mr Bara’s case, while Mr Kola’s had concerned his trial for murder.

The Court found in particular that, even taking into account the judicial reforms taking place in Albania at the time, the domestic courts had failed to deal with the applicants’ cases with sufficient expedition, meaning that the proceedings had not taken place within a reasonable time. In addition it found that the new remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure enacted in 2017 had not helped with expediting proceedings, leaving the first applicant with no remedy available to deal with the violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1. However, the Court stated that the new remedy is in principle compatible with Article 13 and must therefore be exhausted before bringing similar complaints to the Court.

Outcome

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time)

Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) concerning the first applicant only

Just satisfaction: the Court held that Albania was to pay the applicants 1,200 euros (EUR) and EUR 2,300, respectively, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,200 each in respect of costs and expenses

Ignat v. Romania (application no. 17325/16)

The applicant, Radu-Florin Ignat, is a Romanian national who was born in 1985 and is detained in Turda (Romania). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint of the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against him for complicity in influence peddling, namely facilitating the life of a prisoner in exchange for money. In 2015 the appellate court overturned the applicant’s acquittal, finding that the court had incorrectly assessed evidence, in particular video footage of the attempted exchange of money and phone transcripts between the applicant and a former prisoner involved in setting up the exchange. The applicant was sentenced to one year and four months’ imprisonment.

Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleges that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair because the appellate court convicted him on the basis of the same evidence which had led the first-instance court to acquit him, and without rehearing oral evidence from witnesses.

Outcome

No violation of Article 6 § 1

Sassi and Benchellali v. France (application nos. 10917/15 and 10941/15)

The case concerned the fairness of the criminal proceedings in France against the applicants, who had been held at the Guantánamo Bay US naval base before being repatriated. They alleged that statements they had made during that period of detention had subsequently been used for the purposes of the criminal proceedings against them in France and relied upon by the courts in convicting them.

During their detention from January 2002 onwards at Guantánamo Bay, in the US base located on the south-east coast of Cuba, the applicants, who are French nationals, were visited on three occasions by agents in the context of a ‘tripartite mission’, made up of a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a representative of the External Security Agency (DGSE) and a representative of the intelligence unit of the Domestic Intelligence Agency (DST). In July 2004, the US authorities authorised the applicants’ repatriation to France. They were arrested on arrival in France and taken into police custody on 27 July 2004.

In order to assess the merits of the claim of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, the Court reviewed the fairness of the French criminal proceedings as a whole. It first confirmed the assessment of the domestic courts, considering that the tripartite missions to Guantánamo Bay had been purely administrative in nature and unrelated to the parallel judicial proceedings in France. On the basis of the case file, the Court found that the purpose of the missions had been to identify detainees and gather intelligence, not to collect evidence of a suspected criminal offence. The Court further noted, specifically with regard to the conduct of the proceedings in France, that the applicants had been interviewed 13 times while in police custody, answering the investigators’ questions with considerable detail about their background and motives. There was nothing in the file to show that the officers of the DST’s judicial unit responsible for interviewing the applicants while in police custody had been aware of the content of the intelligence collected at Guantánamo Bay by their colleagues from the intelligence unit of that agency. Subsequently, assisted by their lawyers, the applicants were questioned ten and eight times respectively by the investigating judge. Throughout the proceedings, they were able to put forward their arguments, submit their requests and exercise the remedies available to them under French law.

The Court also noted that, while statements made by the applicants during their detention at Guantánamo Bay were included in the case file before the trial court, they had been admitted in evidence following a preliminary ruling granting their request for the declassification of the relevant documents so that they could be open to debate between the parties. In view of all the documents in the file, the Court noted that the domestic courts, in lengthy reasoned decisions, had relied on other incriminating evidence to find the applicants guilty, relying mainly on information gathered elsewhere, as well as on the detailed statements made by the applicants while they were in police custody and during the judicial investigation. In particular, the Criminal Court, whose reasoning was later upheld by the Court of Appeal, had relied on evidence that was unrelated to any statements made by the applicants at Guantánamo Bay, with the exception of a single reference to a memo from the DST’s intelligence unit.

Observing, lastly, that any statements taken during the three tripartite missions to Guantánamo Bay had not been used a basis for the criminal proceedings against the applicants or relied upon by the courts in convicting them, the Court found that, in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings against each of the applicants had been fair overall and there had been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

Outcome

No violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mucha v. Slovakia (application no. 63703/19)

The case concerned the applicant’s conviction and sentencing to 23 years’ imprisonment for various organised-crime activities, including violent offences. Part of the reasoning of the domestic courts had been based on evidence testimony by accomplices who had turned State’s evidence following plea-bargain agreements. The applicant’s conviction had been pronounced by the exact same three-judge bench as had adjudicated in the plea-bargain agreement convictions, and that bench recognised that those convictions were a part of the case against the applicant.

The Court found in particular that the earlier judgments had made it clear that the applicant had been responsible for specific criminal actions. Given the role they had played in the applicant’s trial before the same court, his doubts as to its impartiality were objectively justified.

Outcome

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial)

Just satisfaction: the Court held that Slovakia was to pay the applicant 7,800 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 630 in respect of costs and expenses

Filat v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 11657/16)

The case concerned criminal proceedings which had led, in 2016, to Mr Filat being sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for passive bribery and influence peddling. Mr Filat was Prime Minister from 2009 to 2013, and was a party leader and MP at the material time.

Relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), Mr Filat complained about statements made by officials during the parliamentary sitting on 15 October 2015 concerning the lifting of his parliamentary immunity, statements which he considered to have infringed his presumption of innocence. Relying on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of his detention), Mr Filat complained that he had been unable to obtain a review of the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, which had been ordered after his conviction at first instance.

The Court held that neither the statements made by the State Prosecutor during the parliamentary sitting on 15 October 2015 nor the reasoning set out in the latter’s written request, which had been read out during the sitting by the Speaker of Parliament, had infringed the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent until proved otherwise. There had therefore been no violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. The Court further found that pursuant to its established case-law, the safeguards contained in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention were inapplicable to the applicant’s detention during the appeal proceedings. That complaint was therefore manifestly ill-founded and was rejected under Article 35(3)(a).

Outcome

No violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence)

Yakhymovych v. Ukraine (no. 23476/15)

The applicant, Oleg Ignatiyovych Yakhymovych, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1954 and is currently detained in Lozivskyy. The case concerns the applicant’s prosecution and conviction for ordering the contract killing of a Mr S., who had allegedly defrauded the applicant of property. The murder was falsely ‘carried out’ by a person the applicant found through a friend, following which the applicant paid. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicant complains of allegedly having been a victim of police entrapment and of his having been unable to examine a key witness at trial.

Outcome

Violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the domestic courts’ failure to address adequately the applicant’s plea of police incitement

Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage EUR 3,600, costs and expenses EUR 5,000

Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 54806/18) (no. 3)

The applicant, Dmitriy Grigoryevich Shabelnik, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1979. He is currently serving a life sentence in Zhytomyr, Ukraine. The case concerns the domestic judicial review of his previous conviction for two murders, following judgments by the European Court on his case. In particular following the European Court’s second judgment in relation to the criminal proceedings against Mr Shabelnik, the Supreme Court quashed his conviction in respect of one of the murders, as it involved breaches of his Convention rights, but reaffirmed his life imprisonment in respect of the other, as it had not been concerned by the European Court’s finding of violations of his rights.

Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the Convention, the applicant complains that the Supreme Court of Ukraine imposed a new punishment on him for a crime committed 17 years earlier, despite the fact that under domestic law, if somebody is sentenced for an offence that is punishable by a life sentence more than 15 years after the crime was committed, the sentence given cannot be longer than 15 years. He also complains that the Supreme Court ignored the issue and did not analyse the applicability of the statute of limitation in respect of his criminal case.

Outcome

No violation of Article 7

Vasil Vasilev v. Bulgaria (application no. 7610/15)

The applicant, Vasil Tonchev Vasilev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Sofia. He is a lawyer. The case concerns the interception, recording and transcription of a telephone conversation in 2010 between the applicant and one of his clients, a former Minister of Defence, who was being covertly monitored in connection with a criminal case. Mr Vasilev complained to the prosecuting authorities and brought a claim for damages, arguing that the conversation was covered by lawyer-client privilege and that its recording and transcript should have been destroyed. Both actions were to no avail.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private, family life and the home) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Vasilev complains that the covert recording and transcription of the telephone conversation with his client was unlawful and unnecessary. He argues in particular that Bulgarian law did not have sufficiently clear rules on the destruction of accidentally intercepted lawyer-client communications. Also relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, he complains that the proceedings for damages were classified because the evidence admitted had been obtained via secret surveillance. The public was therefore excluded from hearings in the case and the ensuing judgments were not delivered publicly.

Outcome

Violation of Article 8

Violation of Article 6 § 1 owing to the exclusion of the public from the hearings in proceedings for damages brought by the applicant

Violation of Article 6 § 1 owing to the absence of publicity of the judgments given in the proceedings for damages brought by the applicant

Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage 3,000 euros (EUR), costs and expenses EUR 3,000

Särgava v. Estonia (no. 698/19)

The applicant, Viktor Särgava, is an Estonian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Tallinn. He is a lawyer. The case concerns legislation on lawyer–client confidentiality. Mr Särgava was suspected of belonging to a criminal organisation and in 2018 the authorities authorised a search of his law firm, home and car. In the context of the criminal proceedings brought against him he unsuccessfully argued that the seizure of his laptop and mobile phone during the searches was unlawful. The proceedings against him are still ongoing.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private, family life and the home) of the Convention, the applicant submits that the information contained on his laptop and telephone was covered by legal professional privilege, and that its seizure was therefore unlawful.

Outcome

Violation of Article 8

Just satisfaction: the Court held that it was not necessary to award just satisfaction

Špadijer v. Montenegro (application no. 31549/18)

The case concerned the alleged bullying of a prison guard following her reporting an incident involving male prison guards coming into the women’s prison where she worked and their inappropriate contact with female prisoners, and her attempts to address this with the authorities. The Court found in particular that the manner in which the legal mechanisms had been implemented in the applicant’s case had been inadequate, constituting a violation of the obligation on the State to protect her rights.

Outcome

Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life)

Just satisfaction: the Court held that Montenegro was to pay the applicant 4,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 in respect of costs and expenses.

Mukhametov and Others v. Russia (no. 53404/18 and 3 others)

The applicants are four Russian nationals who were defendants in criminal proceedings and detained in remand prison SIZO-1 in Kazan. The case principally concerns the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention. All the applicants had asked to see members of their family for a short-term visit, but their requests were refused under section 18 of the Defendants’ Detention Act, which provides that defendants may have no more than two visits per month from family members and other persons.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complain of the refusals to grant them family visits and the ineffectiveness of the related judicial review proceedings. They also complain under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that appeal hearings in those proceedings were held in their absence. Mr Mukhametov further alleges under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) that the length of his pre-trial detention – over one and a half years – was excessive.

Outcome

Violation of Article 8

Violation of Article 5 § 3 in respect of Mr Mukhametov

Just satisfaction: the Court awarded amounts for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. Details are appended to the judgment

Budimir v. Croatia (application no. 44691/14)

The applicant, Jovan Budimir, is a Croatian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Beli Manastir (Croatia). The applicant is a car mechanic. The case concerns the revocation of his licence to work as a motor vehicle inspector. The Ministry of the Interior revoked his licence in 1999 pending criminal proceedings against him for allegedly falsifying a tractor’s inspection record. His employer immediately dismissed him. He was acquitted of all charges in 2001, owing to insufficient evidence. His licence was ultimately returned to him in 2004 at the end of administrative proceedings he brought to challenge the revocation of his licence. He unsuccessfully claimed compensation for damage against the State.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that he was left unemployed for some five years because of the unlawful decision to revoke his licence and that he was not able to obtain compensation for damage.

Outcome

Violation of Article 8

Just satisfaction: costs and expenses 2,000 euros (EUR)

Other Article 8 Cases from October–December 2021

Lysyuk v. Ukraine (no. 72531/13)

Avci v. Denmark (no. 40240/19)

Kuzminas v. Russia (no. 69810/11)

Vedat Şorli v. Turkey (application no. 42048/19)

The case concerned the sentencing of the applicant to a term of imprisonment–with delivery of the judgement suspended for five years–for insulting the President of the Republic, on account of two posts which he shared on his Facebook account. The content comprised, among other things, a caricature and a photograph of the President of the Republic accompanied by satirical and critical comments concerning him. The judgment convicting the applicant was based on Article 299 of the Criminal Code, which afforded a higher level of protection to the President of the Republic than to other persons.

The Court found in particular as follows.

- There had been no justification in the present case for Mr Şorli’s placement in police custody and in pre-trial detention or for the imposition of a criminal sanction, despite the fact that delivery of the judgment imposing a prison term had been suspended. Such a sanction, by its very nature, inevitably had a chilling effect on the willingness of the person concerned to express his or her views on matters of public interest, especially in view of the effects of conviction.

Outcome

Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)

Just satisfaction: the Court held that Turkey was to pay Mr Şorli 7,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage

Genov and Sarbinska v. Bulgaria (no. 52358/15)

The applicants, Asen Georgiev Genov and Tsvetelina Ognyanova Sarbinska, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1969 and 1973, respectively, and live in Sofia. The case concerns the applicants’ spray-painting on the anniversary of the October Revolution of a partisans’ monument in protest against the then Government, which was led by the Bulgarian Socialist Party (the former Communist Party). They were convicted of hooliganism and fined.

Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention, the applicants complain of their conviction.

Outcome

Violation of Article 10

Just satisfaction: pecuniary damage EUR 998.33 to the first applicant, non-pecuniary damage EUR 4,000 to each applicant, costs and expenses EUR 767 to the first applicant and EUR 153 to the second applicant and EUR 2,276.20 jointly to the applicants to be paid directly to the applicants’ representatives

Pal v. the United Kingdom (no. 44261/19)

The applicant, Rita Pal, is a British national who was born in 1971 and lives in Birmingham (United Kingdom). The applicant is a journalist and former psychiatrist. The case concerns her arrest on charges of harassment following a social-media exchange between her and a certain A.B. concerning health service whistle-blowing issues. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains that her arrest, conditions of bail and prosecution violated her rights.

Outcome

Violation of Article 10

Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage EUR 2,500, costs and expenses: EUR 1,400

Yasin Özdemir v. Turkey (application no. 14606/18)

The case concerned the criminal conviction of the applicant, a teacher, for praising crime and criminals, on account of comments which he had posted on the social networks in April 2015, in favour of the Gülenist organisation and its leader (Fethullah Gülen).

The Court noted the following points:

- When the applicant had posted his messages, they had contained ideas and opinions expressed in the framework of public debates on certain sensitive subjects (his viewpoint on the underlying facts of the judicial investigations initiated on 17 and 25 December 2013 into allegations of corruption, his criticism of the policies conducted by the political authorities against the opposition, and his criticism of the alleged relations between the political authorities and an armed Islamist organisation). Those opinions had not incited people to commit violence or revolt.

In that regard, the Court held that the applicant could not reasonably be expected to have foreseen that the impugned comments, which had clearly opposed the Government’s line but had constituted peaceful contributions to a public debate and had not incited people to revolt, might give rise to a real and immediate risk of disorder, such as an attempted military coup, over one year later. The fact of basing a conviction on circular reasoning, as the court in question had done in the instant case, amounted to an excessively broad interpretation of the law and a circumvention by the court in question of the obstacle set up by the legislature to ambiguous accusations punishing the expression of peaceful opinions in a public debate. The Court took the view that such a broad interpretation of Article 215 of the Penal Code had been unforeseeable for the applicant at the material time. Consequently, the interference in the applicant’s exercise of his right to freedom of expression had failed to meet the ‘quality of the law’ requirement under Article 10 of the Convention.

Outcome

Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)

Just satisfaction: the Court ruled that no award could be made for damages and costs and expenses because the applicant had not lodged his claim for just satisfaction in accordance with the Rules of Court

Standard Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v. Austria (no. 3) (application no. 39378/15)

The case concerned court orders for the applicant media company to reveal the sign-up information of registered users who had posted comments on its website, derStandard.at, the website of the newspaper Der Standard. This had followed comments allegedly linking politicians to, among other things, corruption or neo-Nazis, which the applicant company had removed, albeit refusing to reveal the information of the commenters.

The Court found in particular that user data did not enjoy the protection of ‘journalistic sources’, and there was no absolute right to online anonymity. However, the domestic courts had not even balanced the interests of the plaintiffs with the interests of the applicant company in keeping its users anonymous so as to help promote the free exchange of ideas and information as covered by Article 10. The court orders had thus not been necessary in a democratic society.

Outcome

Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)

Just satisfaction: the Court dismissed the applicant company’s claim in respect of pecuniary damage. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the applicant company may have sustained. It also held that Austria was to pay the applicant company 17,000 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses

Wojczuk v. Poland (no. 52969/13)

The applicant, Ireneusz Wojczuk, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Warsaw. He is an art historian. Between 1997 and 2008 Mr Wojczuk was employed by the Museum of Hunting and Horse-riding. The case concerns his conviction in 2012 for libel against the museum for four anonymous letters allegedly sent by him which were critical of the museum’s management. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains that his criminal conviction was disproportionate and unjustified.

Outcome

No violation of Article 10

Mukhin v. Russia (no. 3642/10)

The applicant, Yuriy Ignatyevich Mukhin, is a Russian national who was 1949 and lives in Moscow. The case concerns two controversial articles that Mr Mukhin published while editor of Duel (Дуэль), a newspaper, which included political, anti-Semitic and violent references, including the phrase ‘Death to Russia!’, and the reaction of the authorities that followed. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains of his criminal conviction on the basis of editorial choices, of the classification of one of the articles as extremist, and of the ending of the newspaper’s ‘mass-media status’.

Outcome

Violation of Article 10 on account of the applicant’s criminal conviction

Violation of Article 10 on account of the termination of the newspaper’s media-outlet status

Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage EUR 10,000, costs and expenses EUR 6,000

Yefimov and Youth Human Rights Group v. Russia (nos. 12385/15 and 51619/15)

The applicants, Maksim Mikhaylovich Yefimov, and Youth Human Rights Group, are a Russian national and a Russian non-governmental organisation respectively. Mr Yefimov was born in 1976 and he founded Youth Human Rights Group in 2000 in Petrozavodsk (Republic of Karelia, Russia). The case concerns the law in Russia providing that an association may be dissolved if it refuses to expel a member who has been suspected of an extremist offence. In 2011 Mr Yefimov was charged with an extremist offence of hate speech in connection with his publication in which he criticised the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church in public life. Two years later, the Youth Human Rights Group was liquidated for failure to expel from its ranks Mr Yefimov, who had been charged with an extremism offence.

Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Yefimov complains of his prosecution for expressing his views. Relying on Article 11 (freedom of association) the applicants complain of the order to expel the first applicant from Youth Human Rights Group and the order to dissolve the latter.

Outcome

Violation of Article 10 in respect of the first applicant

Violation of Article 11 read in the light of Article 10 in respect of both applicants

Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage EUR 10,000 to the first applicant

Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan (application nos. 74288/14 and 64568/16)

The case concerned judicial orders against the applicants, a human rights non-governmental organisation and its chairman, pending the investigation into a criminal case brought against a number of NGOs in 2014 for alleged financial irregularities.

The Court noted that neither applicant had been named in the criminal proceedings against the NGOs. It therefore found that the freezing of the applicants’ bank accounts and the prosecuting authorities’ imposition of a travel ban on Mr Mustafayev had been unlawful. The domestic courts imposing another travel ban on Mr Mustafayev had, on the other hand, been in accordance with domestic law but had not pursued any legitimate aim. It considered that such restrictions on the applicants’ rights had been to punish them for their work in the area of human rights and to prevent them from continuing their activities. Under Article 46 (binding force and enforcement), it decided that the Committee of Ministers, the executive arm of the Council of Europe, was best placed to assess and supervise the measures necessary to remove any impediment to the applicants’ exercise of their activities.

Outcome

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in respect of both applicants as concerned the freezing of their bank accounts

Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol

No. 1 to the European Convention in respect of both applicants

Two violations of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) to the Convention on account of travel bans imposed on Mr Mustafayev by the prosecuting authorities and by the domestic courts

Violation of Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of both applicants and in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in respect of Mr Mustafayev

Just satisfaction: the Court held that Azerbaijan was to pay 8,000 euros (EUR) to the applicant association and EUR 15,000 to Mr Mustafayev in respect of pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage. EUR 1,900 was awarded in respect of costs and expenses.

Abdullin v. Russia (no. 37677/16)

The applicant, Ildar Abdullin, is a Russian national who was born in 1954. He is imprisoned in Kazan (Russia). The case concerns the prolonged seizure of the applicant’s real estate after his conviction for fraud and the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him.

In 2014 a criminal investigation for fraud was opened into the circumstances surrounding the award of public procurement contracts by Kazan City Technical University concerning the purchase of equipment for one of its laboratories. In the same year, the applicant, who was deputy head of the University at the time, was charged in this investigation and the provisional seizure of his property was ordered. In 2015 the Moskovskiy District Court of Kazan found the applicant guilty of fraud and sentenced him to six years and six months' imprisonment. The court also ordered that the seizure of the applicant’s property be maintained on the grounds that the representative of the victim (the University) had expressed an intention to file a civil suit to claim compensation for the damage caused by the offence.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention, the applicant complains about the prolonged seizure of his property after his conviction.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair.

Outcome

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage EUR 1,300, costs and expenses EUR 850

Godlevskaya v. Russia (application no. 58176/18)

The case concerns an order for the seizure and sale (обращение взыскания по приговору) of the applicant’s immovable property, imposed by the courts following the criminal conviction of her former husband. The Court specified that the seizure and sale of assets amounted to an interference – involving control of the use of property – with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. It reiterated that any interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions had to have a legal basis in domestic law. In the present case, it concluded that there had been no legal basis for the measure and, in consequence, that there had been a breach of the Convention.

Outcome

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)

Just satisfaction: the Court held that Russia was to pay the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage

Stołkowski v. Poland (no. 58795/15)

The applicant, Marek Stołkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1975. The case concerns the seizure of the applicant’s Peugeot XV car in 2005. It was initially seized to cover any payments of fines or damages that could have resulted from his then upcoming criminal trial. While in storage, the condition of the car greatly degraded. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention, the applicant complains that the seizure was unjustified.

Outcome

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage EUR 2,500

Kindlhofer v. Austria (application no. 20962/15)

The applicant, Manfred Kindlhofer, is an Austrian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Graz (Austria). In 2012, Mr Kindlhofer was issued with a penalty notice for failing to inform the police of a minor traffic accident he had been involved in, having caused material damage only. The case concerns the court proceedings that followed, in particular the Regional Administrative Court’s holding that, pursuant to section 25(a) of the Administrative Court Act, its decision was not amenable to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court.

Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) to the European Convention, the applicant complains, in particular, of not being able to appeal the judgment to the Supreme Administrative Court and of a lack of equality of arms in that it had been open to the State to lodge such as appeal.

Outcome

No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7