By Article

Protection of vulnerable groups from eviction from the Court! An interesting intervention regarding the protection the home

1st P - Article 1
21/12/2020 18:40

JUDGMENT
Béla Németh v. Hungary 17.12.2020 (app. no. 73303/14)
The case concerned the applicant’s not being able to take possession of a property he had bought
owing to a legal moratorium on evictions. State bodies had been exempt from the moratorium. He
had had to wait two years before ultimately being able to exercise his ownership rights.
The Court found that the moratorium had had a basis in law, had served a legitimate interest, and, in
particular, had not deprived him of his legitimate expectation regarding ownership of the property,
merely delayed it.
The Court also found that the applicant’s situation had not been comparable to that of State actors
and as such he had suffered no discrimination

The Court did not acquit a member of the SS who was accused of being involved in 300,000 murders!

Article 6
20/12/2020 09:40

JUDGMENT
Gröning v. Germany 2.11.2020 (app. no. 71591/17)
The case concerned a complaint by a former member of the SS about the length of the criminal
proceedings against him for assisting in murder in the Auschwitz extermination camp.
The applicant was questioned in 1978 while being investigated by the Frankfurt public prosecutor’s
office for crimes committed when serving in the Auschwitz extermination camp. The investigation
was discontinued in 1985. The applicant was questioned again in 2014 after the the Hannover public
prosecutor’s office initiated an investigation and he was convicted in 2015. He argued that the
proceedings had been running since 1978 because the authorities had failed to notify him of the
discontinuation decision in 1985, making the proceedings excessively lengthy.

Inaction of authorities to protect residents from noise coming from a police station. Violation of the right to respect for privacy and residence

Article 8
19/12/2020 14:56

JUDGMENT
Yevgeniy Dmitriyev v. Russia 01.12.2020 (app. no. 17840/06)
Noise protection. Right to respect for privacy and peaceful enjoyment of home.
The applicant appealed to the national courts for harassment from the emission of various noises due to the installation of a police station and detention center in the basement of his apartment building. Prior to appealing to the Court, he had complained in writing to the competent authorities but his complaint was not considered. Although the national courts ruled that the police station should be relocated, the decision was not enforced. He brought an action for violation of the right to privacy and residence.
The Cound that the day-to-day operations of the police department had directly interfered with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention, due to excessive noise and insufficient measures 13 years and either were not effective or were not taken at all.

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”.

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.

Temporary detention with a standard but insufficient reasoning. Violation of the right to personal liberty

Article 5
12/12/2020 13:45

JUDGMENT
Ghavalyan v. Armenia 22.10.2020 (app. no. 50423/08)
Temporary detention and reasoning. Adequate reasoning is required and not general and standard. Proportionality of temporary detention. Procedural guarantees for adversarial proceedings.
The applicant was charged with tax evasion and remanded in custody for 8 months. The decisions on pre-trial detention contained general reasons, not specific evidence. The domestic courts did not summon the applicant and her lawyer during the hearing of the appeals against the detention order and the Court of Cassation did not quickly consider the applicant’s appeal.

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.

The civil liability of an acquitted driver for driving under the influence of alcohol did not violate his presumption of innocence

Article 6 - Par. 2
10/12/2020 19:58

JUDGMENT
Ilias Papageorgiou v. Greece 10.12.2020 (app. no. 44101/13)
Presumption of innocence and civil trials. Civil decisions against the applicant despite the fact that he was acquitted in criminal proceedings for the same facts. The applicant was involved in a car accident and his passenger was injured. He took two breathalyzer tests, with scores of 0.67 and 0.57 mg / l, but was later acquitted by the criminal court for driving under the influence of alcohol.
Lawsuit of the passenger against the applicant and his insurance company. The insurance company brought an action against the applicant. The civil court of first instance ordered the applicant and the insurance company to pay compensation to the passenger, but rejected the insurance company’s claim against the applicant. On appeal, the Athens Court of Appeal ruled that it was not bound by the applicant’s acquittal in the criminal courts and that, under the terms of the insurance contract, the applicant’s conduct relieved the insurance company of its liability. The Supreme Court held that Article 6 § 2 of the ECHR did not require the civil courts to be bound by the judgment of the criminal courts and therefore the Court of Appeal had not questioned the presumption of innocence of the applicant.