Abstract
Article 2
Zarema Musayeva and others v. Russia (application no. 4573/22)
The case concerned Zarema Musayeva, wife of a former Chechen Supreme Court judge, who was forcibly removed in January 2022 by the police from her home in the Nizhniy Novgorod region in Russia and taken 2,000 km away to Grozny in Chechnya, as well as her subsequent detention and the administrative and criminal proceedings brought against her there. It also concerned the illtreatment that Ms Musayeva and her husband and daughter had been subjected to by the Chechen police, against the background of repeated public death threats against them by high-ranking Chechen officials, including the President Ramzan Kadyrov, who had promised to “hunt them down” and “cut their heads off”. The Court found that the Russian authorities, whose representatives had been the source of the death threats, had to have been aware of but had done nothing about the real and immediate risk to the lives of Ms Musayeva, her husband and their daughter. It also found that they had been illtreated by the Chechen police and that Ms Musyeva’s arrest and detention had been arbitrary and intended as retaliation against her family, who were involved in human-rights work and opposition activities in Chechnya. The hurried administrative proceedings against her, without legal representation and while she was quite obviously unwell, had breached fair trial guarantees. Lastly, the Court held, unanimously, that in early March 2022 the Russian authorities had stopped providing updates on medical treatment given to Ms Musayeva, who suffers from diabetes, in spite of an interim measure it had issued, in violation of Article 34 (right of individual petition).
Outcome
Violation of Article 2 (right to life)
Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment)
Violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security)
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial)
Violation of 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights)
Just satisfaction: the Court held that Russia was to pay, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 52,000 euros (EUR) to Ms Musayeva and EUR 6,500 each to her husband and daughter.
Varyan v. Armenia (application no. 48998/14)
The applicant, Vano Varyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Abovyan (Armenia). The case concerns the applicant’s son’s death while on military service, and the subsequent investigation. In February 2012 he was found dead with a gunshot to the head. The investigation by the Armenian authorities concluded that the death had been the result of suicide. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Varyan complains of the death of his son, of a failure to investigate the death properly, that his son had been physically and psychologically ill-treated by service personnel and commanding officers, and that there had been no possibility to seek compensation for the State’s alleged failure to protect the right to life of his son and to carry out an effective investigation.
Outcome
Violation of Article 2 (right to life)
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
Violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of a legal possibility, for the applicant, of claiming compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the breach of his son’s right to life Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 30,000 euros (EUR)
T.V. v. Croatia (no. 47909/19)
The applicant, Ms T.V., is a Slovenian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Celje (Slovenia). The case concerns the death of the applicant’s partner, who had a history of mental-health problems, in the course of a police intervention and the alleged ineffectiveness of the ensuing criminal investigation. The police were called to a hotel in Opuzen (Croatia) on 16 November 2017 when her partner got into a fight with a hotel guest. The police ended up immobilising her partner face down on the ground and calling for an ambulance to assist in the intervention. He died on the way to hospital. An official investigation was opened into the incident in 2020 which concluded that he “had a violent death as a result of mental trauma” but that the force by the police had been lawful and proportionate and that the medical staff had not been negligent. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life/effective investigation) of the Convention, Ms T.V. alleges that her partner died because five police officers had beaten him, causing him serious bodily injuries and that, even though he had bitten off and swallowed part of his finger and was turning blue, the officers and the medical personnel had put him on his stomach on the ambulance stretcher without the supervision of a doctor or nurse. She also complains that the ensuing criminal investigation was inadequate.
Outcome
Violation of Article 2 (right to life)
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 13,300 costs and expenses: EUR 5,000
Article 3
Matthews and Johnson v. Romania (application nos. 19124/21 and 20085/21) and Lazăr v. Romania (no. 20183/21)
The case concerned the applicants’ detention and the Romanian courts’ ordering their extradition to the United States in March 2021. All three applicants were wanted for, among other charges, racketeering, drugs and money-laundering offences. The Court found, in particular, that the applicants had failed to show that they were at risk of life imprisonment without parole if extradited to the US, noting the sentencing practice in similar cases before trial courts in the US.
Outcome
No violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) (right to liberty and security)
The complaint under Article 3 (prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment) was inadmissible
E.L. v. Lithuania (application no. 12471/20)
The case concerned the applicant’s allegation that he had been sexually abused by three older boys when placed in a children’s home between 2008 and 2013. The Court found in particular that both the prosecuting authorities and the courts had been reluctant to order or to explicitly address the need for a comprehensive psychiatric and psychological examination in connection with the alleged abuse, despite the applicant’s requests. The authorities had therefore failed in their Convention duty to effectively investigate the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment.
Outcome
Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment/investigation)
Just satisfaction: the Court held that Lithuania was to pay the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
A.P. v. Armenia (application no. 58737/14)
The applicant, Ms A.P., is an Armenian national who was born in 1997 and lives in Armenia. She has had a mild intellectual disability since birth. The case concerns the applicant’s complaints concerning her sexual abuse at the age of 14 by a 49-year-old man who was her physical education teacher and the administrative head of the community where she lived. The perpetrator was charged with aggravated rape and indecent acts in respect of a minor. The Regional Court conducted the trial in camera, with a number of witnesses giving evidence. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. The applicant later introduced a civil claim for damages against the State and was unsuccessful at three levels of jurisdiction. The details concerning the civil case, including her full name were published in the publicly accessible online judicial database. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 8 (right to protection for private and family life), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms A.P. complains that the State failed to protect her from the abuse that she suffered, that her personal data was published in the publicly accessible online judicial database, and that she did not have an effective remedy for her complaints.
Outcome
Violation of Article 3
Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13
Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: 32,000 euros (EUR)
Z v. the Czech Republic (application no. 37782/21)
In this case, the applicant complained that she had been subjected to non-consensual sexual acts by a priest from 2008 to 2009. More specifically, she complained of the authorities’ restrictive interpretation of the constituent elements of the offences of rape and sexual abuse under Law no. 140/1961 (Criminal Code) then in force, of the fact that this legal framework had not been sufficient to ensure effective punishment for the sexual offences allegedly perpetrated against her and of the lack of an effective investigation. The Court found, in particular, that the authorities’ approach had been incapable of affording the applicant adequate protection. In consequence, the Court considered that the Czech State had failed to fulfil its positive obligations, which had required the effective application of a criminal-law system capable of punishing the non-consensual sexual relations alleged by the applicant. Moreover, the Court noted that the authorities had considered that the suspect’s actions might have constituted sexual coercion under the new Criminal Code (Law no. 40/2019) that had entered into force after the events at issue (1 January 2010).
Outcome
Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)
Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life)
Just satisfaction: the Court held that the Czech Republic was to pay the applicant 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
Temporale v. Italy (no. 38129/15)
The applicant, Antonio Temporale, is an Italian national who was born in 1955. The applicant in this case complains about the fact that his detention was maintained despite his state of health, and about the quality of the care he received in prison. He submits that, despite medical reports attesting to the seriousness of his health problems, he did not receive the necessary medical care in detention and that, as a result, his condition gradually deteriorated. He considers that this put his life at risk and that such conditions of detention were inhuman and degrading; he relies in that regard on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. Relying on Article 38 (obligation to furnish all necessary facilities for examination of the case) of the Convention, he also considers that the Italian Government failed to provide the information requested by the Court.
Outcome
No violation of Article 3
No violation of Article 38
Article 5
Aydın Sefa Akay v. Türkiye (application no. 59/17)
The case concerned a UN judge’s arrest and pre-trial detention, as well as the search of his house and person, in the aftermath of the 2016 attempted military coup in Türkiye, in spite of his diplomatic immunity. He was working remotely from his home in Istanbul for the United Nations International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (“the UN Criminal Tribunals Mechanism”) when arrested. The Court was not convinced by the national courts’ interpretation of international law when rejecting his claim for diplomatic immunity. It also found that Mr Akay appeared to have been entitled to full diplomatic immunity, including the inviolability of his person and private residence and being shielded from any form of arrest or detention, under international law. His arrest, pre-trial detention, search of his house and person had thus been unlawful. Moreover, the courts had only first examined the issue of the applicant’s diplomatic immunity after over eight months, rendering futile any protection Mr Akay had had as an international judge, and had not examined it at all in relation to the searches of his house and person.
Outcome
Violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security)
Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life and home)
Just satisfaction: the Court held that Türkiye was to pay Mr Akay 21,100 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 7,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
M.B. v. the Netherlands (application no. 71008/16)
The applicant, Mr M.B., is a Syrian national who was born in 1997 and at the time of lodging his application was being held in immigration detention in Rotterdam (the Netherlands). The applicant entered the Netherlands in October 2015 and applied for asylum. He was arrested shortly afterwards on suspicion of participation in a terrorist organisation and placed in pre-trial detention. He was convicted to 10 months’ detention by a first-instance Court. He was released in September 2016, but immediately placed in immigration detention pending the assessment of his asylum application. The case concerns the decision to order the applicant’s immigration detention on the ground that he posed a threat to public order. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr M.B. alleges that this decision was unlawful and arbitrary.
Outcome
Violation of Article 5 § 1
Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: 4,560 euros (EUR)
Rytikov v. Ukraine (application no. 52855/19)
The applicant, Mykhaylo Sergiyovych Rytikov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1987 and lives in Kryzhanivka (Ukraine). The case concerns the applicant’s arrest without a prior court order in the framework of a criminal investigation into unauthorised interference with communication systems and the creation, storage and dissemination of malicious software and pornographic material. Relying on Articles 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), 5 § 5 (enforceable right to compensation/unlawful arrest and detention) and 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that his arrest without a prior court order was unlawful, that he did not have an enforceable right to compensation, and that his right to be presumed innocent had been breached.
Outcome
Violation of Article 5 § 1
Violation of Article 5 § 5
Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: 1,800 euros (EUR)
M.C. v. Türkiye (no. 31592/18)
The applicant, Mr M.C., is a Georgian national who was born in 1978. The case concerns the Turkish authorities’ decision to extradite Mr M.C., who had been apprehended in May 2017 at Istanbul airport, to Russia where he was wanted in connection with a homicide case. He was placed in detention pending extradition but was released in December 2018 and returned to Georgia. Mr M.C. complains that his extradition to Russia would have been in breach of Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), given his severe medical problems and the fact that he had actively engaged in combat for the Georgian army during the Abkhazia war between 1992 and 1995. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), he also complains that his detention pending extradition for over one and a half years was unlawful and arbitrary.
Outcome
Violation of Article 5 § 1
Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 8,000
Bluks Savickis v. Latvia (no. 44570/19)
The applicant, Jurijs Bluks Savickis, is a Latvian national who was born in 1962. At the time the application was lodged, he was detained in Riga. The case concerns his pre-trial detention after being arrested in November 2017 on suspicion of drug-related offences. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (right to liberty and security) and 3 (entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial), he complains about his continued pre-trial detention.
Outcome
Violation of Article 5 § 3 (on account of the failure to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s continued detention)
Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,600
Cviková v. Slovakia (nos. 615/21, 9427/21, and 36765/21)
The applicant, Denisa Cviková, is a Slovak national who was born in 1970 and lives in Bratislava. The case originates in a large-scale investigation in 2019 into alleged organised corruption in the judiciary in the Bratislava region. Ms Cviková, a lawyer and judge of the Bratislava I District Court, was a target of the investigation, which led to her and 17 others being charged with various offences, including corruption, abuse of official power and interfering with the judiciary. She was suspected in particular of having accepted a bribe in exchange for assisting another judge to unlawfully rule in a case concerning a promissory note. As part of the investigation, her home was searched and she was detained pending trial from 11 March to 8 October 2020. 3 Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Ms Cviková complains about her detention, which she argues was unjustified and arbitrary, and the proceedings to review the lawfulness of her detention in relation to her request for release. Lastly, she complains that the search of her home breached Article 8 (right to respect for home) because it was unnecessarily invasive and the authorities seized information unrelated to the criminal proceedings.
Outcome
No violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 - as regards the period until the dismissal of the applicant’s request for release (decision of 24 August 2020)
Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 - as regards the period upon the dismissal of the applicant’s request for release (decision of 24 August 2020)
Violation of Article 5 § 4
Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 19,500
Friedrich and Others v. Poland (no. 25344/20 and 17 other applications)
The applicants are 18 individuals who are Australian, Austrian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Fijian, German, Italian, Polish, or Spanish nationals. They were born between 1964 and 1992. They are 16 Greenpeace activists and two journalists. The case concerns the Polish Border Guard Service’s boarding of the Rainbow Warrior ship, interrupting a protest being held at sea, the immobilisation of the applicants and their vessels, and the arrest of two applicants and their being taken ashore. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, and Article 2 §§ 1 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) to the Convention, the applicants complain, in particular, of being corralled on the bow of the Rainbow Warrior or of the arrest record in terms of their deprivation of liberty being unlawful and unjustified; that the remedy before the Polish courts was ineffective; and that the intervention by the border guards limited their rights to free expression and assembly.
Outcome
Violation of Article 5 § 1 in respect of the detention of all the applicants from the evening of 9 September 2019 until the early morning of 10 September 2019
Violation of Article 5 § 1 in respect of the first and the second applicants on account of the lack of reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence and their detention from the early morning of 10 September 2019 until their release on 11 September 2019;
Violation of Article 5 § 2 in respect of all applicants
Violation of Article 10 in respect of all applicants
Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 4,000 to the first and the second applicants, each, and EUR 2,000 to the third to eighteenth applicants, each; costs and expenses: EUR 3,239 jointly to the applicants
Article 6
Sacharuk v. Lithuania (application no. 39300/18)
The case concerned Mr Sacharuk’s conviction in 2017 of abuse of office and of unlawful use of an official document because he had used another parliamentarian’s identity card to vote in parliament on his behalf. The Court found in particular that the Supreme Court had not freshly examined the case in its second set of proceedings brought against Mr Sacharuk. As a result, his concern that the judge who sat on the bench in both sets of proceedings might have a preconceived view of his guilt had been legitimate, and his doubts as to the impartiality of the Supreme Court had been justified. Therefore, his request for that judge to be replaced should have been accepted. At the same time, Mr Sacharuk could have foreseen that his acts would constitute an offence under the criminal law applicable at the time. The Court could not discern any flagrant non-observance or arbitrariness in the application of the law in question.
Outcome
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial)
No violation of Article 7 (no punishment without law)
Just satisfaction: the Court held that the finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. Moreover, as he had not made a claim for costs and expenses, no amount was awarded in that respect.
Bosev v. Bulgaria (application no. 62199/19)
The case concerned the conviction of a journalist for defamation of a senior Government official and, more specifically, doubts as to the impartiality of one of the judges having ruled on the charges laid against him on appeal. The Court observed that several years prior to the present case Mr Bosev, in his capacity as a journalist, had written and published articles in which he had questioned the professionalism and integrity of a judge who was a member of the bench that had subsequently ruled on his conviction on appeal. It took the view that Mr Bosev might accordingly have harboured objective and reasonable doubts as to the impartiality of the judge in question, whom he had asked to withdraw from the case. However, his request had been permanently dismissed by the bench of which the judge in question was a member and the decision had been dictated to the clerk by that judge herself during the hearing. The Court notes, lastly, that no appeal on points of law lay against a conviction handed down on appeal. Consequently, the Court held that the appellate court had not constituted an “impartial tribunal” and that the manner in which the sanction had been imposed on Mr Bosev in the present case had fallen short of securing one of the essential guarantees of a fair trial. It further held that the restriction on the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had not been accompanied by effective and adequate safeguards against arbitrariness.
Outcome
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial)
Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)
Just satisfaction: the Court held that Bulgaria was to pay the applicant 511.29 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,013.55 in respect of costs and expenses.
L.T. v. Ukraine (no. 13459/15)
The applicant, Ms L.T., is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Poltava (Ukraine). The case concerns criminal proceedings against Ms L.T. which led to a decision to commit her to a psychiatric facility. In particular, she was accused of assaulting a woman in the street. The courts convicted her in July 2014 of inflicting bodily harm, but found that she was not responsible for the offence and ordered her involuntary medical treatment. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial/right to legal assistance), Ms L.T. alleges that the criminal proceedings against her were unfair because she had been excluded from her trial and denied access to the case file and the State-appointed lawyers who had represented her had been manifestly passive, with one of them openly supporting the prosecutor’s position. She alleges moreover that, as a person subject to court-ordered medical treatment, the only possibility for her to appeal the ruling of the criminal against her had been through her defence counsel, who had failed to do so. She also relies on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters).
Outcome
Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)
Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 5,400 costs and expenses: EUR 3,800
Article 8
Wangthan v. Denmark (no. 51301/22)
The applicant, Karnchana Wangthan, is a Thai national who was born in 1980 and lives in Sakskøbing (Denmark). Ms Wangthan entered Denmark at the age of 37 with her two children. Following her marriage to a Danish national, she was granted a residence permit. The case concerns her conviction in 2021 for attempting to stab her husband and threatening to kill him, and for violence against her son. She was given a six-month prison sentence and her expulsion from the State was ordered, with a re-entry ban of six years imposed. It is not known if the expulsion has been carried out. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, Ms Wangthan complains of her expulsion from Denmark and of the re-entry ban imposed on her.
Outcome
No violation of Article 8
Pietrzak and Bychawska-Siniarska and others v. Poland (applications nos. 72038/17 and 25237/18)
The case concerned a complaint by five Polish nationals about Polish legislation authorising a secret-surveillance regime covering both operational control and the retention of telecommunications, postal and digital communications data (“communications data”) for possible future use by the relevant national authorities. In particular, they alleged that there was no remedy available under domestic law allowing persons who believed that they had been subjected to secret surveillance to complain about that fact and to have its lawfulness reviewed. Given the secret nature and wide scope of the measures provided for by the Polish legislation and the lack of effective review by which persons who believed that they had been subjected to surveillance could challenge this alleged surveillance, the Court found it appropriate to examine the legislation at issue in abstracto. It considered that the applicants could claim to be the victims of a violation of the Convention, and that the mere existence of the relevant legislation constituted in itself an interference with their Article 8 rights. The Court then held that all the shortcomings identified by it in the operational-control regime led to a conclusion that the national legislation did not provide sufficient safeguards against excessive recourse to surveillance and undue interference with individuals’ private life; the absence of such guarantees was not sufficiently counterbalanced by the current mechanism for judicial review. In its view, the national operational-control regime, taken as a whole, did not comply with the requirements of Article 8. It further considered that the national legislation, under which information and communication technologies (“ICT”) providers were required to retain communications data in a general and indiscriminate manner for possible future use by the relevant national authorities, was insufficient to ensure that the interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life was limited to what was “necessary in a democratic society”. Lastly, the Court concluded that the secret-surveillance provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act also failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention, noting, among other points, that neither the imposition of secret surveillance nor its application in the initial three-month period were subject to any review by a body that was independent and did not include employees of the service conducting that surveillance.
Outcome
Violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) in respect of the complaints concerning the operational-control regime, the retention of communications data for potential use by the relevant national authorities, and the secret-surveillance regime under the Anti-Terrorism Act
Just satisfaction: the applicants did not submit a claim for damages, stating that the finding of a violation would constitute in itself sufficient redress. The Court therefore considered that no award in respect of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage should be made. It held, however, that Poland was to pay three of the applicants the following amounts in respect of costs and expenses: 2,602.92 euros (EUR), EUR 252.58 and EUR 300.
Namazli v. Azerbaijan (application no. 8826/20)
The applicant, Fariz Mubariz oglu Namazli, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1982 and lives in Sumgayit (Azerbaijan). He is a lawyer and member of the Azerbaijani Bar Association. In August 2018, the applicant was visiting his client, A.H., in Gobustan Prison, where the latter was serving a prison sentence, to discuss his case before the European Court. Allegedly, the applicant had to have his documents searched before being allowed to meet his client. He was searched again when leaving, and a written statement that A.H. had given to him was allegedly seized by the guards and not returned to him. Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial), 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, in particular, of the inspection of his documents and the seizure of his client’s statement by the prison.
Outcome
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 4,500 euros (EUR) costs and expenses: EUR 39.56
Article 10
Lutgen v. Luxembourg (no. 36681/23)
The applicant, André Lutgen, is a national of Luxembourg who was born in 1948 and lives in Luxembourg (Luxembourg). The case concerns the sentencing of the applicant, a lawyer, to a criminal-law fine for contempt of court after he criticised a judge in an email sent to two ministers and the Principal State Prosecutor. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant submits that his criminal conviction amounts to a violation of his right to freedom of expression.
Outcome
Violation of Article 10
Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
Sokolovskiy v. Russia (no. 618/18)
The applicant, Ruslan Sokolovskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1994 and lives in Shadrinsk (Russia). He is a content-creator and blogger. At the relevant time, his YouTube channel had 470,000 subscribers. The case concerns the applicant’s sentencing to two years’ and three months’ imprisonment, suspended, for the posting of nine videos on his YouTube channel between 2015 and 2016. The courts took the view that the videos in question constituted extremist acts aimed at inciting hatred or hostility towards individuals targeted for belonging to ethnic, religious or social groups and that seven of these videos had infringed the right to freedom of conscience. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant submits that his prosecution and conviction for having expressed his opinions constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression. In particular, he complains of the unforeseeability of Articles 148 and 282 of the Criminal Code, under which he was convicted, arguing that the national courts interpreted his statements – which he claims were critical remarks on numerous topical issues – as being extremist and insulting towards people of faith. He submits that the statements in question, while having in part been expressed in a highly polemical form, were of public interest.
Outcome
Violation of Article 10
Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,000
Article 14
Allouche v. France (application no. 81249/17)
The applicant, Myriam Allouche, is a French national who was born in 1978 and lives in Paris. The case concerns criminal proceedings following a complaint lodged by the applicant concerning antisemitic insults and threats directed at her by a private individual. The applicant complains that the domestic courts refused to characterise the perpetrator’s statements as antisemitic. Relying in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains of the domestic courts’ refusal to recognise the antisemitic character of the perpetrator’s statements, submitting that the authorities did not adequately protect her from the violent verbal attacks that caused her acute suffering and had a profound impact on her private life. The Court considers that the complaints fall to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14.
Outcome
Violation of Article 8 taken in conjunction with Article 14
Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: 15,000 euros (EUR) costs and expenses: EUR 3,840
Karter v. Ukraine (no. 18179/17)
The applicant, Nik Vitaliyovych Karter, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1986 and, according to the most recent information available, lives in Amsterdam. The case concerns the investigation into allegations of hate crimes against the applicant, who is openly gay. He was the victim of two attacks in Kyiv: in 2015 he was attacked in the street by four individuals with brass knuckles and in 2016 he was harassed in a supermarket by two individuals who then followed him and physically attacked him in an underground passage. On each occasion his attackers made homophobic remarks. The investigation into the first attack is apparently still ongoing, while the investigation into the second attack was most recently discontinued. Relying mainly on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment/investigation) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention, Mr Karter complains that the attacks against him were not investigated effectively, notably that they were classified as robbery and infliction of bodily harm and that this undermined any investigation into the homophobic motivation behind the attacks.
Outcome
Violation of Article 3 taken in conjunction with Article 14 in respect of the investigation into the 2015 attack on the applicant
Violation of Article 3 taken in conjunction with Article 14 in respect of the investigation into the 2016 attack on the applicant
Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 7,500 costs and expenses: EUR 4,400
Spišák v. the Czech Republic (application no. 13968/22)
The case concerned the pre-trial detention of Mr Spišák for several serious crimes while a minor. He had been arrested while on probation, and, owing to the risk of reoffending, had been remanded from 23 November 2020 until 20 May 2021, when he had begun serving a prison sentence. His detention had been extended for six months at one point by the courts. He was not eligible for three-month automatic review of his detention. The Court found in particular that the Government had failed to justify the difference in treatment of Mr Spišák from adult detainees, who had an automatic review of their detention within three months. This had amounted to discrimination on the basis of his age.
Outcome
Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 5 (right to liberty and security)
Just satisfaction: the Court held that the Czech Republic was to pay the applicant 6,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
Article 1 Protocol 1
Nikolay Kostadinov v. Bulgaria (application no. 21743/15)
The applicant, Nikolay Kostadinov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Versailles (France). The judgment concerned the just satisfaction to be awarded following the Court’s ruling of 8 November 2022 with regard to the fraudulent takeover of the applicant’s company, Vandom OOD, based in Sofia. In that judgment the Court found that the criminal investigation into the fraud had been ineffective.
Outcome
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)
Just satisfaction: The Court decided that the respondent State was to pay the applicant 80,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 600 for costs and expenses.
Mandev and others v. Bulgaria (applications nos. 57002/11, 61872/11, 46024/12, 6430/13, and 67333/13)
The applicants are 11 Bulgarian nationals born between 1940 and 1978 who live in Sliven, Plovdiv, Shumen and Pernik (all Bulgaria), and three Bulgarian companies based in Plovdiv. The case concerns the forfeiture of the applicants’ assets as proceeds of crime. It also concerns the allegedly excessive court fees that they had to pay in the forfeiture proceedings. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention, the applicants complain that the forfeiture of their assets was unfair and unjustified, and that the court fees in the forfeiture proceedings were too high.
Outcome
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning applications nos. 57002/11, 46024/12, 6430/13, and 67333/13) on account of the forfeiture of the applicants’ assets as proceeds of crime
No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning application no. 61872/11 on account of the forfeiture of the applicants’ assets as proceeds of crime
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all cases on account of the high level of court fees paid by the applicants
Just satisfaction: For the details of the amounts awarded to the applicants for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, please see the operative part the judgment.