ECtHR Cases Sep - Dec 2022

P.H. v. Slovakia (application no. 37574/19)

The case concerned an incident in which the applicant had fallen from a second-storey window next to a toilet in a police station while in custody on suspicion of theft, and the resulting investigative proceedings.

The Court found that the investigation had been inadequate from the point of view of the situation not having been looked at as a whole, the evidence taken and procedural steps not carried out, and the negligible disciplinary penalty imposed, with that decision not having even been sent to the P.H. and the Constitutional Court misconstruing her subsequent complaint. In the absence of any recollection by the applicant of the circumstances of her fall, the Court held that the domestic authorities had failed to look after her in the vulnerable position of police custody. In particular, the police could have ensured that the windows had been locked or that P.H. had been accompanied to the toilet by a woman, and so could have prevented her fall.

Deme v. Romania (application no. 7624/18)

The applicant, Gyula Deme, is a Romanian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Oituz, Romania. The case concerns the death of the applicant’s son, aged 17, in his room at the boarding facilities of a State secondary school on 15 May 2014 and the domestic authorities’ investigation into the circumstances. While in the company of other students, the applicant’s son became unwell. The other students alerted the supervisory staff, who called the emergency services. Despite the care given at the scene, he died. The police officers dispatched to the boarding house took the decision to initiate an investigation that day. On 10 May 2016 the case was closed without charges. The public prosecutor concluded that the applicant’s son had died as a consequence of cardiorespiratory failure brought on by a congenital illness which had gone undetected during his lifetime. The applicant appealed against the decision to close the case without charges, but the appeal was dismissed.

Garrido Herrero v. Spain (no. 61019/19)

The applicant, María Isabel Garrido Herrero, was born in 1960 and lives in Orihuela (Spain). The case concerns the authorities’ investigation into the death of the applicant’s six-year-old daughter in 2013 because of a faulty medical ventilator. She had been left in need of assisted ventilation following a car accident in 2010. The investigation lasted five years and was ultimately discontinued in 2019 because the time-limit for ascertaining the cause of the death (and as a result, whether someone could be held criminally liable) eventually ran out.

Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant complains that the domestic courts failed to sufficiently investigate the causes of her daughter’s death following the injuries caused by the allegedly faulty ventilator.

Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan v. Armenia (application nos. 2169/12 and 29887/14)

The case concerned the death of the applicants’ son and brother, A. Nazaryan, whilst he was in the army, and the subsequent investigation. The Court found in particular that, due to the absence of any system of psychological assistance in the military forces, no such support had been available to A. Nazaryan despite the apparent risk that he might commit suicide. Furthermore, the authorities had failed to take appropriate and effective measures to prevent that known risk from materialising. Therefore, the State had failed to comply with its obligation to take appropriate measures to safeguard his life during his military service. The Court also considered that the investigation conducted in the case had not been sufficiently thorough and had failed to protect the applicants’ interests and to enable them to properly exercise their rights.

J.I. v. Croatia (application no. 35898/16)

The case concerned a rape victim’s complaint that the authorities had not taken seriously her allegation that her rapist – her father – had threatened to kill her during prison leave.

The Court found in particular that even though the applicant had informed the police on three occasions of a serious threat to her life by her rapist, they had never even commenced criminal enquiries, let alone opened an investigation. The authorities had been well aware that the applicant was particularly vulnerable as a Roma woman and victim of serious sexual offences and should therefore have reacted promptly and efficiently to protect her from her rapist’s threat being carried out as well as from intimidation, retaliation and repeat victimisation.

G.M. and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 44394/15)

The case concerned the imposition of abortions and birth-control measures on three intellectually disabled women, residents in a neuropsychiatric asylum, after they had been repeatedly raped by one of the head doctors there, and the investigation into their complaints.

The Court found in particular that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment despite it having been reopened on four occasions following their appeals. The inquiry had not factored in their vulnerability as intellectually disabled women exposed to sexual abuse in an institutional context. It found that the domestic criminal law had not provided effective protection against such invasive medical interventions carried out without the patient’s valid consent.

D.K. v. Italy (application no. 14260/17)

The applicant is an Italian and Irish national who was born in 1963. She lives in Italy. In this case she complains that the Italian authorities did not carry out an effective investigation into her allegations of sexual abuse by her uncle. In particular, she alleges that between 1974 and 1987 she and her sister were subjected to sexual abuse which occurred at her uncle’s house while her parents were at work, and subsequently at his legal practice, where the applicant worked from the age of 16. The alleged violence reportedly ceased when she moved to another town at the age of 21.

After reaching the age of majority and receiving psychological counselling, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint in 1999, which was dismissed in 2003 as being out of time. She brought an action for damages in the civil courts which was subsequently dismissed.

In the proceedings before the Court the applicant relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, arguing that the Italian authorities failed in their duty to protect her physical and psychological integrity.

Başer and Özçelik v. Türkiye (nos. 30694/15 and 30803/15)

The applicants, Mustafa Başer and Metin Özçelik, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1969 and 1970 respectively. At the time of the events in question, the applicants were judges in the criminal courts in Istanbul. The case concerns their pre-trial detention while being held on suspicion of, among other charges, attempting to overthrow the Government and membership of an illegal armed organisation. They had been involved in the decisions to release suspects allegedly connected to the Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation/Parallel State Structure (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması). The applicants were ultimately found guilty of membership of an armed terrorist organisation and abuse of power only in 2017.

Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), Article 7 (no punishment without law), and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicants complain, in particular, that their pre-trial detention was in breach of the law and was not adequately justified by the courts, that their challenge to that decision was hindered by lack of access to the case files, that their detention was overly long, and that the courts failed to respond to their arguments and interpreted the law in an arbitrary manner.

Rimšēvičs v. Latvia (application no. 56425/18)

The case concerned the arrest and approximately 46-hour detention of Mr Rimšēvičs – a former Governor of the Central Bank of Latvia and former ECB Governing Council member – on corruption-related charges in connection with a Latvian bank.

The Court found in particular that Mr Rimšēvičs’s arrest and subsequent detention had been lawful as he had been held for less than the statutory period for doing so, that decision had not been arbitrary owing to the suspicion against him, and that holding him for that period had not needed to be authorised by a judge, and it had been in accordance the Criminal Procedure Law. This judgment is without prejudice to Mr Rimšēvičs’s ongoing criminal trial. The Court also rejected, by a majority, Mr Rimšēvičs’s complaints under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4.

Bjerg v. Denmark (no. 11227/21)

The applicant, Rasmus Ardan Bjerg, is a Danish national who was born in 1990 and lives in Holstebro (Denmark). Mr Bjerg was found guilty of making threats and witness tampering in November 2013 and sentenced to treatment in a psychiatric facility. He was discharged in January 2014. The case concerns his complaint that he could not obtain judicial review of three decisions in 2018 to place him in psychiatric care again.

Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the European Convention, Mr Bjerg complains that the chief physician of the psychiatric facility and the Department of Prisons and Probation were responsible for the decisions to return him to psychiatric care, and that his request for judicial review of their decisions was dismissed.

Merahi and Delahaye v. France (no. 38288/15)

The applicants, Dany Merahi and Loïc Delahaye, are French nationals who were born in 1991 and 1998 respectively and live in France. The case concerns an interview under caution at which the first applicant, Mr Merahi, acknowledged that, together with the second applicant, Mr Delahaye, he had started a fire on a bus in July 2010.

Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair hearing, right to remain silent and right of access to a lawyer) of the European Convention, the applicants complain that they were convicted in criminal proceedings on the basis of statements made by Mr Merahi during the interview under caution, at which he was not informed of his right to remain silent and was not assisted by a lawyer.

Suslov and Batikyan v. Ukraine (nos. 56540/14 and 57252/14)

The applicants are Merabi Otarovich Suslov, a Russian and Armenian national, and David Batikovich Batikyan, an Armenian national. They were born in 1963 and 1965 respectively. The case concerns the applicants’ trial for aggravated murder, for which they received life sentences. Mr Suslov was convicted for ordering and acquiring the means to carry out a contract killing, and Mr Batikyan for carrying out the assassination in Kyiv.

Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, both applicants complain that their trial was held in camera and that those proceedings were unfair. Mr Suslov additionally complains under Article 6 that he was excluded from the courtroom for a substantial part of the trial. Mr Batikyan also alleges, in particular, suffering ill-treatment and psychological duress in police custody, and complains of his detention conditions, in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment).

Loucaides v. Cyprus (application no. 60277/19)

The applicant, Loukis Loucaides, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1937 and lives in Nicosia. He is a lawyer and was Deputy Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus from 1975 to 1998. The case concerns Mr Loucaides’ complaint that criminal proceedings brought against him for obstruction of justice were unfair. In 2015 he was found guilty of interfering with justice for informing the Larnaca District Court in private prosecutions brought against him and two of his clients that a “direction of no prosecution” (Nolle prosequi) had been granted in all three cases. He was given a four months’ suspended prison sentence in 2018. His subsequent appeal was unsuccessful.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleges that the domestic courts failed to carefully examine his arguments and erred in their assessment of the facts in his case.

Xenofontos v. Cyprus (applications nos. 68725/16, 74339/16, and 74359/16)

The applicants, Grigoris Xenofontos, Anastasis Krasopoulis and his sister, Elli Krasopouli Skordelli, are three Cypriot nationals who were born in 1981, 1973 and 1968 respectively. They are currently serving life sentences in the Central Prison of Nicosia. The case concerns the shooting dead of an executive of a private television channel and evidence against the applicants being provided by an accomplice who had been spared prosecution.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain that their trial was unfair, as the only evidence against them had come from that accomplice.

Mamaladze v. Georgia (application no. 9487/19)

The case concerned the proceedings against a priest and director of a medical clinic for plotting to kill the personal secretary of the Georgian Orthodox Church’s Patriarch while in Berlin. She was part of a delegation accompanying the Patriarch to that city for medical treatment. Mr Mamaladze was ultimately found guilty of “preparation of murder”.

The Court found that the trial court had not sufficiently addressed Mr Mamaladze’s argument regarding the possibility of only partly closing the trial to the public and that certain public statements following his arrest, the prosecuting authorities’ disclosing material from the criminal case file, and a non-disclosure obligation, considered cumulatively, had encouraged the public to believe he had been guilty before the actual verdict. However, it considered that the proceedings as a whole had been fair, notably with regard to Mr Mamaladze’s allegations concerning the key evidence – cyanide found in his suitcase checked into a Berlin flight. It found in particular that the procedure for the seizure and search of his luggage had been lawful and that his argument that the cyanide had been planted had not been made out. Furthermore, his arguments concerning the use of the evidence against him had been dismissed by the courts in reasoned decisions.

Gaggl v. Austria (no. 63950/19)

The applicant, Hildegard Gaggl, is an Austria national who was born in 1940. The case concerns her criminal trial and conviction for the attempted murder of her husband, Alois Gaggl. In January 2018 the 77-year-old applicant repeatedly stabbed and attempted to kill her 84-year-old spouse to whom she had been married for over 52 years. She later testified that she had intended to kill him and then to commit suicide because of their advanced age and state of health, and his not agreeing for them to move into a nursing home. Her husband testified during the trial hearing in his wife’s favour, stating that he was not upset with her for what she had done.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention, the applicant complains that her criminal conviction was unfair and the detention resulting from it unlawful. In particular, she complains of not having been provided with the opportunity to understand the reasons on which the jury based her conviction given that the conclusions of the two expert opinions on her mental state at the time of the offence were diametrically opposed and that the domestic courts dismissed her application, which had the support of the public prosecutor, to obtain a third and decisive expert opinion.

Spasov v. Romania (application no. 27122/14)

The case concerned a Romanian court judgment convicting Mr Spasov, the owner and captain of a Bulgarian-flagged vessel, of illegal fishing inside Romania’s exclusive economic zone in the Black Sea.

In the proceedings before the Romanian authorities, Mr Spasov argued that the quantity of fish in question was part of Bulgaria’s catch quota for turbot under the European Union (EU) Common Fisheries Policy. However, the Constanța Court of Appeal took the view that EU law was not applicable and convicted the applicant under domestic law.

The Court pointed out that according to the principle of the primacy of EU law, a Regulation with direct effect took precedence over any conflicting domestic law. It noted in the present case that the European Commission had clearly indicated to the Romanian authorities that the proceedings against the applicant were contrary to EU law, and in particular Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 and Regulation (EU) No 1256/2010. In the light of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 and the very clear opinion of the European Commission regarding the application of the Common Fisheries Policy rules, the Court held that, in convicting Mr Spasov, the Court of Appeal had committed a manifest error of law and that the applicant had been the victim of a “denial of justice”. In the event of doubt the Court of Appeal could have requested a ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as to the interpretation of the rules of EU law.

The Court also held that the domestic provisions on which the Court of Appeal had based its decision (OUG no. 23/2008) could not serve as a legal basis for the additional pecuniary penalties imposed on the applicant, as he had been entitled under clear European rules to fish in the zone concerned.

Vasaráb and Paulus v. Slovakia (application nos. 28081/19 and 29664/19)

The case concerned the trial of the applicants for a contract murder allegedly carried out by Mr Paulus for Mr Vasaráb. In particular it concerned the courts’ refusal to examine witnesses that would have allegedly been able to rebut key evidence that had led to their convictions.

The Court found in particular that the request to have the rebuttal witness evidence examined had been relevant; it noted that the domestic courts had not given reasons for that refusal; and concluded that the fairness of the trial had as a result been compromised. The Court added that the finding of a violation in the present case did not imply that the applicants had been wrongly convicted.

Mørck Jensen v. Denmark (application no. 60785/19)

The case concerned a Danish citizen’s conviction for a stay in a conflict zone in an area of Syria where the Danish State had restricted travel. The Court found in particular that the conviction had been in accordance with the relevant law, which had been very clearly drawn up, and it saw no reason not to try and convict the applicant on the law that had been applicable at the time of the offence. Furthermore, the applicant’s having been free to leave Denmark and enter Syria, but not this narrow restricted zone, meant that the domestic authorities had balanced his rights with the needs of the community as a whole.

Thörn v. Sweden (application no. 24547/18)

The case concerned the conviction and fine issued to Mr Thörn for a cannabis offence. He asserted that he had been taking the drug for pain relief, but did not have a prescription to that effect. He had been confined to a wheelchair since 1994 following breaking his neck in a traffic accident, with many pain-related issues in the years since. At the time, medical cannabis was available in Sweden, ordinarily for the treatment of multiple sclerosis.

The Court, noting that no information had been provided regarding the impact on Mr Thörn of his sentence, and the willingness of the authorities to authorise prescription cannabis-based medication while awaiting his trial, found in particular that the authorities had correctly balanced Mr Thörn’s need to alleviate pain and the wider need to control drugs. They had acted within their wide discretion.

Otite v. the United Kingdom (application no. 18339/19)

The European Court of Human Rights held, by five votes to two, that there would be: no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the applicant were deported from the United Kingdom to Nigeria. The case concerned a Nigerian national being served in October 2015 with notice of his liability to deportation, despite having been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK in 2004. The notice came after his conviction in 2014 on two counts of conspiracy to make or supply articles for use in fraud which had resulted in a four-year-and-eight-month prison sentence. His appeal against deportation was dismissed as the Upper Tribunal concluded that the effect on his wife and children, all British citizens, would not be “unduly harsh”.

The Court found in particular that the strength of the applicant’s family and private life in the UK did not outweigh the public interest in his deportation.

Aygün v. Belgium (application no. 28336/12)

In this case the applicants complained of the investigating judge’s refusal to allow them to transfer their sons’ bodies to Türkiye, their country of origin, while the investigation was ongoing.

The Court observed that the investigating judge’s decision amounted to interference with the applicants’ rights under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention. It accepted that the decision fell within the investigating judge’s statutory remit to oversee the criminal investigation and that it had pursued legitimate aims such as the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the rights of others, and in particular the defence rights of the accused. Therefore, the Court did not doubt the necessity of the initial decision by the investigating judge from the perspective of Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention.

However, the Court noted that the applicants in the present case had not had any remedy by which to request that the necessity of the initial refusal by the investigating judge be reassessed in the light of the progress of the investigation. All their attempts throughout that period, which had lasted for approximately two and a half years, had been unsuccessful, and during that time they had been prevented from having the necessity of the interference re-examined by the domestic courts from the standpoint of their rights under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention.

Malagić v. Croatia (application no. 29417/17)

The applicant, Lenka Malagić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Marčana (Croatia). The case concerns the termination of precautionary measures imposed on Ms Malagić’s former husband, a police officer, who had allegedly committed acts of domestic violence or abuse against her and their children.

Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that, by terminating the precautionary measures, the domestic authorities failed to protect her without assessing whether her ex-husband still posed a danger to her and their children. She also complains that she had no possibility of challenging that decision before the domestic courts.

Bodalev v. Russia (application no. 67200/12)

The applicant, Ivan Sergeyevich Bodalev, is a Russian national. The case concerns the applicant’s prosecution following his participation in peaceful demonstrations in St Petersburg between 2011 and 2013. Some of the demonstrations were rallies to protest against the recent elections, while others were “performances” staged in criticism of the Government. He was convicted for not complying with orders to disperse during events which had not been officially approved. He was mainly sentenced to fines and on one occasion to 11 days’ detention.

The applicant alleges that the convictions breached his rights under Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Rabczewska v. Poland (application no. 8257/13)

The case concerned a pop singer in Poland known as Doda and comments she had made in an interview about the Bible which the courts decided were blasphemous.

The Court found in particular that the applicant’s statements – suggesting that the Bible’s authors had written under the influence of alcohol and narcotics – had been made in reply to questions about her private life, in a frivolous and colourful language with her young audience of fans in mind. They had neither amounted to hate speech nor incited to hatred or religious intolerance and the Court therefore ruled that the domestic courts had failed to provide sufficient reasons to justify the interference with the applicant’s freedom of speech.

Zemmour v. France (application no. 63539/19)

The case concerned the applicant’s conviction and sentencing for the offence of inciting discrimination and religious hatred against the French Muslim community for statements made on a television show in 2016. He alleged a violation of his right to freedom of expression.

The Court dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection under Article 17 of the Convention (prohibition of abuse of rights) but relied on that provision as an aid to interpreting Article 10 for the purposes of assessing whether the interference complained of had been necessary.

Like the domestic courts, the Court pointed out that the applicant’s statements had contained derogatory and discriminatory claims of a kind that might exacerbate a rift between French people and the Muslim community as a whole. It took the view that the statements in issue had not belonged to a category of speech enjoying enhanced protection under Article 10 of the Convention and concluded that the French authorities had therefore had a wide margin of appreciation to impose restrictions. The Court noted that the statements had been made on live, prime-time television and observed that the applicant, who was a journalist and pundit, had not been exempt, although he had been speaking as an author at the time, from the “duties and responsibilities” of a journalist.

The Court was of the opinion that his remarks had not been confined to criticism of Islam but had, in view of the context of terrorist violence in which they had occurred, been made with discriminatory intent such as to call on viewers to reject and exclude the Muslim community. The Court concluded that the grounds on which the domestic courts had convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a fine, the amount of which was not excessive, had been sufficient and relevant.

In conclusion the Court held that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society to protect the rights of others which had been at stake in the case, and therefore there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

Makarashvili and Others v. Georgia (nos. 23158/20, 31365/20, and 32525/20)

The applicants, Giorgi Makarashvili, Irakli Katcharava and Zurab Berdzenishvili, are Georgian nationals who were born in 1985, 1978 and 1991 respectively and live in Tbilisi and Kutaisi (Georgia). The case concerns the applicants’ arrest at a demonstration in 2019 in which all entrances to the Georgian Parliament building were blocked in protest against the Parliament’s failure to pass reforms to the electoral system. It also concerns the subsequent administrative-offence proceedings, in which the applicants were ultimately found guilty and given custodial sentences ranging between four and twelve days.

Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complain, in particular, that the courts gave too much weight to the police officers’ statements, unfairly placed the burden of proof on them, and that in the absence of a prosecutor in the administrative-offence proceedings the trial judge assumed the latter’s functions and so was partial. Furthermore, they allege they did not have enough time to prepare their defence, and that they were unable to secure witness attendance on the same terms as the prosecution. Lastly, they complain that their arrest and conviction violated their right to peaceful assembly.

Çiçek and Others v. Türkiye (nos. 48694/10, 74018/11, 29254/12, 77545/12, and 81601/12)

The case concerns five applications lodged by five Turkish nationals (born between 1965 and 1990) who were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment for taking part in demonstrations allegedly held at the behest of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal armed organisation) on various dates between 2006 and 2009.

Relying on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention, the applicants complain of their conviction and sentencing for taking part in the demonstrations.

Peradze and Others v. Georgia (application no. 5631/16)

The case concerned the applicants’ arrest and conviction for brandishing a banner likening Panorama Tbilisi, an urban development project, to a human penis during a public demonstration. The project aimed to build four new city areas on Sololaki Hill overlooking Tbilisi Old Town.

The Court found that the applicants’ arrest and fine had been based on a legal provision that explicitly prohibited the use of profanities in public places in order to protect the morals and the rights of others. However, the applicants had wished to alert the public and the domestic authorities to their concerns regarding the damage that Panorama Tbilisi might cause to the landscape of the Old Town, as well as to express their disapproval of what they considered to be the authorities’ failure to involve society in the decision-making process. The applicants’ conduct had been peaceful and passive, and they had not behaved in a disruptive manner during the demonstration.

The Court considered the slogan had not been used to insult or to denigrate anyone in particular; it had been used as a stylistic tool to express the applicants’ high degree of disapproval of the urban development project. Its controversial form was in itself no justification for restricting speech in a public demonstration that had aimed to highlight a matter of considerable public interest.

Basu v. Germany (no. 215/19)

The applicant, Biplab Basu, is a German national who was born in 1955 and lives in Berlin. The case concerns Mr Basu’s allegation that the police carried out an identity check on him only because of his skin colour. He was travelling on a train which had just passed the border from the Czech Republic in 2012, with his daughter. He is a German national of Indian origin. When asked, the police told him that it was a random check. He unsuccessfully brought an action in the courts, arguing that he and his daughter were singled out as they were the only passengers with dark skin colour in the train carriage.

Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention, Mr Basu complains that the identity check amounted to racial discrimination and that the domestic courts refused to investigate or examine on the merits his allegations. He also relies on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) to the Convention to complain that there was no legal basis for the identity check.

Muhammad v. Spain (no. 34085/17)

The applicant, Zeshan Muhammad, is a Pakistani national who was born in 1992 and lives in Santa Coloma de Gramanet (Barcelona, Spain). The case concerns the police’s stopping Mr Muhammad in a busy area of Barcelona in 2013 to check his identity documents. According to the police officers, the applicant laughed at them as they passed by and referred to them using disrespectful language, which was the reason why they approached him and requested to see his identity documents. The applicant denies the officers’ version and argues that he was only stopped because of his skin colour.

Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complains of the allegedly discriminatory motivation of the officers when carrying out his identity check, as well as of the lack of a sufficient and effective investigation by the Spanish authorities into his claims of having suffered racial discrimination.

Malygina v. Russia (no. 29962/18)

The applicant, Tatyana Malygina, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Moscow. She complains about the forced transfer to the State (обращение взыскания) of a sum of money found in her home (15,500, 000 roubles (RUB) in cash). This transfer was ordered by the courts following the criminal conviction of her husband – for a corruption-related offence – and the imposition of a prison term and a fine of RUB 20,000,000. Without reaching a conclusion as to the origins or ownership of the money, the court ordered that it be transferred to the State, with a view to paying the fine. The applicant’s husband lodged an appeal, arguing that the money in question did not belong to him, but his request was dismissed. Civil proceedings brought by the applicant in an attempt to establish her ownership and recuperate the money were also unsuccessful.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant alleges that the transfer of her money to the State, imposed following her husband’s conviction in criminal proceedings, breached her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.

Nikolay Kostadinov v. Bulgaria (no. 21743/15)

The applicant, Nikolay Kostadinov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1971 and lives in

Versailles (France). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the authorities’ response to a fraudulent takeover of his company, Vandom OOD, based in Sofia.

He had set the company up in 2004 with his sister. They discovered in 2008, during a legal dispute over a plot of land bought by the company, that they were no longer considered shareholders in Vandom. A certain D.A., unknown to them, had had the entry in the register of companies with regard to Vandom changed using forged documents showing that the applicant and his sister had authorised him to sell their shares. D.A. was subsequently found guilty of aggravated fraud and given an 11-month suspended prison sentence. The authorities did not try to identify potential accomplices. All the applicant’s subsequent efforts to defend his rights and to regain control of his company were ultimately unsuccessful, in particular because the people who took over the company after D.A.’s fraudulent actions were able to transfer the shares while the proceedings brought by the applicant against them were pending.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, Mr Kostadinov complains that domestic law, as applied in his case, did not adequately protect his property rights.

Gherardi Martiri v. San Marino (no. 35511/20)

The applicant, Maria Cristina Gherardi Martiri, is an Italian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Montelibretti (Italy). In 2009 Ms Gherardi Martiri became aware that she had been defrauded by her bank, some of its employees, and other persons. The case concerns criminal proceedings and civil proceedings taken by Ms Gherardi Martiri in that connection. The criminal proceedings were discontinued as the alleged offences were time-barred. The various civil proceedings did not result in her gaining satisfaction (some appear to be still pending).

Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, Ms Gherardi Martiri complains, in particular, that the State failed to protect her property rights, and that the proceedings in her case were too long.