Article 6 - Par. 1 Archives - Page 16 of 41

Prosecution and conviction of juvenile victims of human trafficking who were forced to work in drug plantations. Violation of the ECHR. First decision for criminal prosecution and conviction of a victim of human trafficking

Article 4
16/02/2021 12:30

JUDGMENT V.C.L. and Α.Ν. v. United Kingdom 16.02.2021 (app. no. 77587/12 and 74603/12) . see here SUMMARY The case concerned two Vietnamese youths who police officers had discovered working on cannabis farms. They were arrested and charged with drugs-related offences, to which they pleaded guilty. Following their conviction they were detained in young offenders’ institutes. […]

Dismissal of a court judge due to non-justification and concealment of her property. The Court did not acquit her!

Administrative
15/02/2021 12:50

JUDGMENT Xhoxhaj v. Albania 09.02.2021 (app. no. 15227/19) see here SUMMARY The case concerned a Constitutional Court judge who had been dismissed from office following the outcome of proceedings commenced in relation to her, as part of an exceptional process for the reevaluation of suitability for office of all judges and prosecutors in the country, […]

The subsequent judicial review of the substance and legality of the act of the Regulatory Authority, ensured a fair trial, despite its lack in the procedure before the Regulatory Authority.

Administrative
11/02/2021 19:42

JUDGMENT Edizioni Del Roma Societa Cooperativa A.R.L. and Edizioni del Roma S.R.L. v. Italy 10.12.2020 (app. no. 68954/13 and 70495/13) see here SUMMARY These two cases concerned the financial penalties imposed by the Italian Communications Regulatory Authority (Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni – “AGCOM”) on the applicant companies, which operated in the publishing field. […]

A judge was delaying the issuance of 210 court decisions, as well as misplacing lawsuits! Disciplinary conviction and unacceptable appeal. Non-violation of a fair trial

Article 6 - Par. 1
07/02/2021 19:03

JUDGMENT Cristina Maria Albuquerque Fernandes v. Portugal 12.01.2021 ( app.no. 50160/13) see here SUMMARY The case concerned disciplinary proceedings brought against Ms Albuquerque Fernandes, at the close of which the High Council of the Judiciary (HCJ) decided to impose compulsory retirement, and the ensuing judicial proceedings. Ms Albuquerque Fernandes accused the Constitutional Court of showing […]

Insufficient judicial control regarding a measure of dismissal of an official in a public body imposed after the failure of a military coup in Turkey. Violation of the ECHR

Article 6 - Par. 1
15/12/2020 17:47

JUDGMENT
Pişkin v, Turkey 15.12.2020 (app. no. 33399/18)
The case concerned Mr Pişkin’s dismissal on the grounds that he had links with a terrorist
organisation, in the wake of the declaration of a state of emergency in Turkey following the failed
military coup of 15 July 2016, as well as the subsequent judicial review of that measure.
Mr Pişkin complained that neither the procedure leading to his dismissal nor the subsequent judicial
proceedings had complied with the guarantees of a fair trial. He also complained that he had been
branded a “terrorist” and “traitor”.

The conviction based on contradictory testimonies of witnesses, a lost video and a witness who was not examined in the Court of Appeals violated the fair trial!

Article 6 - Par. 1
14/12/2020 09:10

JUDGMENT
Dan v. Democracy of Moldova 10.11.2020 (no. 2) (app. no. 57575/14)
Evidence, contradictory testimonies of witnesses, non-examination of a key witness, compensatory factors in the lack of evidence and a fair trial.
The applicant was acquitted a second time by the the Court in the same case, which concerned his conviction for bribery.
He was sentenced by an irrevocable decision to 5 years in prison for ribery. The ECtHR ruled in its first appeal that his rights to a fair trial had been violated. Following the conviction, the procedure was repeated in the domestic courts.

Complaints of degrading treatment in prisons must include a detailed and adequate description of the circumstances and events

Article 3
13/12/2020 09:46

JUDGMENT
Melnikov v. Ukraine 22.10.2020 (app. no. 66753/11)
Humiliating treatment and detention conditions. The applicant was convicted of serious offenses (intentional homicide, kidnapping, robbery, theft, etc.) and was sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 years in prison.
He complained about the conditions of his detention in the prisons, stating that the personal space in his cell was 2.5 sq.m. and generally that there was an overcrowding of prisoners. He also complained about the way his sentences were calculated.
The ECtHR ruled that his allegations were vague and unproven. According to the Court, the applicants must provide a detailed and sufficient description of the facts and situations which they complain about regarding prison conditions and which do not have sufficient general objections, as in the present case. It also considered that the applicant had not substantiated his action in the part concerning the calculation of the penalties and the breach of Article 7 of the ECHR.

Lack of impartiality of the court when in a trial for revealing state secrets 1/3 of the jurors were related to secret services!

Article 10
11/12/2020 18:20

JUDGMENT
Danilov v. Russia 01.12.2020 (app. no. 88/05)
Jurors, principle of impartiality and the right to examine witnesses.
A famous physicist was found guilty of treason for revealing state secrets. The applicant complained of jury bias and that his restrictions on the examination of witnesses meant that he did not have access to a fair trial.
The ECtHR found that bias issues were identified in the composition of the jury as 4 of the 12 jurors carried “state security clearance”. The national court should therefore have considered this issue in detail. The failure of the courts to do so violated the ECHR.

Participation of a judge illegally appointed by the Minister of Justice in an appellate court. Violation of the right of access to a court established by law

Article 6 - Par. 1
07/12/2020 12:08

GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT
Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland 01.12.2020 (app. no. 26374/18)
The case concerned the applicant’s allegation that the new Icelandic Court of Appeal (Landsréttur)
which had upheld his conviction for road traffic offences was not “a tribunal established by law”, on
account of irregularities in the appointment of one of the judges who heard his case.
Given the potential implications of finding a violation and the important interests at stake, the Court
took the view that the right to a “tribunal established by law” should not be construed too broadly
such that any irregularity in a judicial appointment procedure would risk compromising that right.
It thus formulated a three-step test to determine whether irregularities in a judicial appointment
procedure were of such gravity as to entail a violation of the right to a tribunal established by law. It
then proceeded to find as follows.

Establishment of an extraordinary criminal court for a bank fraud trial with all the legal guarantees provided. Non-violation of the independence and impartiality of the court

Article 6 - Par. 1
05/12/2020 10:02

JUDGMENT
Bahaettin Uzan v. Turkey 24.11.2020 (app. no. 30836/07)
The right of every person to be tried by an independent and impartial court operating and established legally.
The applicant was accused of participating in a banking fraud through software resulting in the interception of a large sum of money transferred from the bank to the account of the company in which he was a managing director. The 8th Istanbul Criminal Court was established by law to adjudicate the case. He was sentenced to a fine of 12,314,900,000 euros and 17 years in prison. He complained about the lack of an independent and impartial court.
The Court reiterated that according to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, “the organization of the judiciary in a democratic society does not depend on the discretion of the executive, but is governed by a law of the Parliament”.

Article 6 – Par. 1