Article 8 Archives

The dismissal of a teacher who taught Serbian in a Croatian school violated the right to privacy

Article 8
18/12/2020 20:13

JUDGMENT
Mile Novaković v. Croatia 17.12.2020 (app. no. 73544/14)
The case concerned a teacher’s complaint about being dismissed in 1999 for giving his classes in
Serbian rather than in Croatian. Of Serb ethnicity, he had lived and worked in Croatia for most of his
professional life and at the time of his dismissal was working at a secondary school in Eastern
Slavonia, in an area which had been peacefully reintegrated into Croatian territory after the war. The
authorities held in particular that he could not be expected to learn Croatian, given that he was
55 years old at the time.
The Court ruled that the authorities had dismissed the teacher, without considering any alternatives
such as training. Relying solely on his age and years of service, the authorities had applied the most
severe sanction, thereby significantly interfering with his rights.

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”.

Deportation for sexual assault on a minor. A proportional measure according to the ECHR.

Article 8
09/12/2020 14:35

JUDGMENT
M.M. v. Switzerland 8.12.2020 (app. no. 59006/18)
The case concerned the applicant’s expulsion from Switzerland for a period of five years following
the imposition of a 12-month suspended prison sentence for having committed acts of a sexual
nature against a child and consumed narcotics.
The Court recognised that the cantonal courts and the Federal Supreme Court had carried out a
serious assessment of the applicant’s personal situation and the various interests at stake. These
authorities had thus had very solid arguments in favour of the applicant’s expulsion from
Switzerland for a limited duration. In consequence, the Court concluded that the interference had
been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and had been necessary in a democratic society,
within the meaning of the Convention.

Strasbourg for the first time against the coronavirus! Inadmissible application for omissions and inadequate handling of the health crisis due to Covid-19, without the plaintiff being a victim!

Article 10
03/12/2020 16:12

JUDGMENT
Le Mailloux v. France 03.12.2020 (app. no. 18108/20)
The case concerned the applicant’s objections to the handling by the French State of the Covid-19
health crisis.
The Court observed that the applicant was complaining about the measures taken by the French State to curb the propagation of the Covid-19 virus among the whole population of France, but had not shown how he was personally affected. It reiterated that it did not recognise an actio popularis:
meaning that applicants cannot complain about a provision of domestic law, a domestic practice or
public acts simply because they appear to contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. In
order for applicants to be able to claim to be a victim, they must produce reasonable and convincing
evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting them personally will occur.
The application was thus incompatible with the European Convention.

Expulsion of a forged foreigner and his separation from his partner and their 3 children. The gravity of the offense cannot outweigh the best interests of the children. Violation of respect for family life!

Article 8
27/11/2020 20:36

ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ
Unuane κατά Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου της 24.11.2020 (αρ. προσφ. 80343/17)
Απέλαση αλλοδαπού που καταδικάστηκε για πλαστογραφίες αδειών παραμονής. Χωρισμός του με σύντροφο και τρία παιδιά. Δικαίωμα σεβασμού της οικογενειακής ζωής.
Ο προσφεύγων υπήκοος Νιγηρίας, διέμενε μόνιμα με την σύντροφο του και τα τρία παιδιά τους στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο. Απελάθηκαν οικογενειακώς, πλην του τρίτου παιδιού, για λόγους δημόσιας τάξης και ασφάλειας καθόσον οι δύο γονείς καταδικάστηκαν για πλαστογραφία αδειών διαμονής. Οι αιτήσεις ακύρωσης της συντρόφου και των δύο παιδιών έγιναν δεκτές από τα εγχώρια Δικαστήρια, σε αντίθεση με αυτή του προσφεύγοντα, η οποία απορρίφθηκε και εκείνος αναγκάστηκε να αποχωρήσει από το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο. Άσκησε προσφυγή για παραβίαση του άρθρου 8.

The surreptitiously taken photos of the applicant who was the Party Chairman partner at her exit from the hospital violated the respect for private life

Article 10
23/11/2020 07:27

JUDGMENT
Dupate v. Latvia 19.11.2020 (app. no. 18068/11)
Photographes taken secretly of mother and newborn child as they leave the maternity clinic and their publication in the media. The applicant was the partner of the President of a political party, who was a public figure. Right to the protection of the privacy of the mother. Balancing privacy and freedom of expression.

The deportation of a homosexual to Gambia without assessing the dangers he faced because of his sexual orientation in that country constitutes degrading treatment

Article 3
17/11/2020 15:22

JUDGMENT
B. and C. v. Switzerland 17.11.2020 (app. no. 43987/16 and 889/19)
Same-sex couple. One of the two partners was in danger of returning to Gambia after his partner’s application was rejected by the Swiss authorities for family reunification. He claimed that he was in danger of being mistreated if he returned.

The best interest of the child prevails over the right to communication with his mother’s ex-partner!

Article 8
12/11/2020 19:20

JUDGMENT
Honner v. France 12.11.2020 (app. no. 19511/16)
The case concerned the refusal to award contact rights to the applicant in respect of the child which
had been born to her former partner in Belgium using assisted reproductive techniques while the
two women were a couple, despite the fact that the applicant had raised the child during his early
years.

Overcrowding in the prison, personal space of less than 3 sq.m. and lack of heating. Humiliating treatment!

Article 3
07/11/2020 07:57

The case concerned the conditions of detention in Oporto prison (Portugal), where Mr Bădulescu
had been held between October 2012 and March 2019.

The prosecution and lengthy proceedings against professors for the content of their report violated their freedom of expression, regardless of their acquittal

Article 10
04/11/2020 08:46

The case concerned two university professors (Mr Kaboǧlu and Mr Oran) who had been the target of various reactions following the publication of a report on minority

Article 8