By Article

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”.

Squatting of a hotel for 3 years for housing refugees. Conviction for violation of property rights and payment of 312,500 euros from Greece!

1st P - Article 1
04/12/2020 17:10

JUDGMENT
Papachela and Amazon S.A. v. Greece 03.12.20 (app. no. 12929/18)
The case concerned the occupation of a hotel for over three years by migrants and a group acting
out of solidarity with them. The hotel belongs to Ms Papachela and to a limited company, of which
she is the sole shareholder.
The applicants complained that the authorities had remained inactive when asked to evict the
squatters, who had remained in the hotel from April 2016 until July 2019, at which point they left
the premises of their own accord. In the meantime, the applicants had lodged a number of
complaints, which were either adjourned or not examined at all. A decision given by a Justice of the
Peace, ordering the eviction and recovery of possession of the hotel, was never enforced. During
that period Ms Papachela was forced to sell her house to cover the debts incurred as a result of the
squatters’ occupation (taxes, water and electricity bills) in order to avoid criminal proceedings.

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.

Cancellation of cadastral registration against owners who had a legal title after 60 years, disrupted the legal certainty and violated the right to property

1st P - Article 1
02/12/2020 12:31

JUDGMENT
Muharrem Güneş and others v. Turkey 24.11.2020 (app. no. 23060/08)
Challenge of ownership of real estate by the state after 55 years and cancellation of title deed after 60 years. Good governance, legal certainty and property rights.
The applicants are owners of a property, the title of which had been registered by their predecessor father, in the Land Registry. Their predecessor had been recognized as the owner of the property since 1951, by virtue of a court decision due to uninterrupted peaceful possession. After 55 years, the ownership of the applicants in some parts of the said property was disputed by the State and after the opinion of the cadastral committee, a registration correction was made and the ownership passed to the state. The domestic courts rejected the applicants’ appeals in an irrevocable decision on the ground that those parts constituted a forest area and were considered inadmissible for the establishment of a right in rem by individuals.

The arrest of a protester violated her freedom of assembly because she could not participate in the demonstration. Police duty to protect LGBT community protesters from homophobic attacks

Article 11
01/12/2020 15:55

JUDGMENT
Berkman v. Russia 1.12.2020 (app. no. 46712/15)
The case concerned a public LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) meeting in St Petersburg and the authorities’ failure to protect
participants from aggressive counter-demonstrators.
The Court found in particular that a State did not just have a duty under the Convention not to
interfere with the right to freedom of assembly. For that right to be genuine and effective, the
authorities also had an obligation to facilitate access to meetings and ensure participants’ safety.

Cancellation of a public contract and withholding of the guarantee due to pending prosecution of the applicant. Serious negligence of the competent body and violation of the right to property

Article 6 - Par. 2
30/11/2020 08:53

JUDGMENT
Kurban v. Turkey 24.11.2020 (app. no. 75414/10)
Right to property, public procurement and proportionality between the means and the intended purpose.
The applicant participated in a tender for the execution of a construction project in which his bid prevailed and a public contract was signed. He paid a guarantee of 6% on the value of the contract. The contract was canceled because the State was subsequently informed of the existence of a pending criminal prosecution against the applicant relating to public procurement. The guarantee was withheld by law. He filed a complaint for violation of the presumption of innocence and his right to property.

Violent beating of a citizen during police control and impunity of police officers due to statute of limitations. Conviction for degrading treatment

Article 3
29/11/2020 08:49

JUDGMENT
Akın v. Turkey 17.11.2020 (app. no. 58026/12)
Citizen beaten by police and serious bodily harm. No police convictions. Humiliating treatment.

The applicant, during a typical identity check from police officers was severely beaten, resulting in severe bodily harm. He filed lawsuits against two police officers. The officers were sentenced to 6 and 5 months in prison respectively. However, no sentence was carried out because until the appeal was heard in the Court of Cassation, the crime of the police officers fell into statute of limitations.

Prisoner did not receive meals compatible with his religion. No written proof is required for a change of religion. Violation of the right to religious freedom

Article 9
28/11/2020 10:43

JUDGMENT
Saran v. Romania 10.11.2020 (app. no. 65993/16)
Religious freedom and compatible meals in prisons. Failure to provide a prisoner with meals compliant with Islamic principles.
The applicant was held in five Romanian prisons between 2016 and 2018. He complained that he had not received meals in accordance with his religious, Islam, in two of them and was required to provide written proof , although he had stated that he was a Muslim when he was admitted in prison and the prison records confirmed this fact.

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.

Freedom of expression is violated by the unlawful detention of a journalist during the performance of his duties. Detention is not compatible with the ECHR when there is no reasonable suspicion of guilt

Article 10
26/11/2020 14:57

JUDGMENT
Şık v. Turkey 24.11.2020 (app. no. 36493/17)
The case concerned the initial and continued pre-trial detention of the journalist Ahmet Şık, who
was suspected of disseminating propaganda in favour of organisations considered to be terrorist
organisations or of assisting them through articles and interviews published in the Turkish daily
newspaper Cumhuriyet and social media posts, all of which criticised government policy.
The Court held that Mr Şık could not be reasonably suspected, at the time of his placement in
detention, of having committed the offences of disseminating propaganda in favour of terrorist
organisations or assisting those organisations. In other words, the facts of the case did not support
the conclusion that a reasonable suspicion had existed against him. Accordingly, although imposed
under judicial supervision, the orders for Mr Şık’s initial and continued detention had been based on
mere suspicion.