JUDGMENT Rola v. Slovenia 04.06.2019 (no. 12096/14) see here SUMMARY Revocation of a license and deprivation of profession. Liquidator ‘s complaint that his permission to act in bankruptcy proceedings after his conviction for violent behavior was revoked. The revocation had interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of his property because he was no longer entitled to exercise […]
The imposition of a fine for stock market manipulation and the criminal prosecution for the same offense, consisted of violation of the principle “ ne bis in idem”
JUDGMENT Nodet v. France 06.06.2019 (no. 47342/14) see here SUMMARY Excessive administrative fine for stock market manipulation. Alongside a criminal case was brought for the same case and a conviction followed. Clear prohibition of double conviction for the same offense. Principle ne bis in idem.The applicant, a financial analyst, was fined by the financial markets […]
The unjustified decision to secretly surveil telephone conversations violated the right to respect for privacy and correspondence
JUDGMENT Liblik and others v. Estonia 28.05.2019 (no. 173/15, 181/15, 374/15, 383/15, 386/15 and 388/15) see here SUMMARY Surveillance of phone conversations. The applicants were accused of high-level corruption. The Inter-Criminal Tribunal had been instructed by the Homeland Security Service to monitor the telephone conversations of the three applicants. Their interference with privacy and correspondence […]
JUDGMENT Kobiashvili v. Georgia 14.03.2019 (no. 36416/06) see here SUMMARY Drug conviction. The manner in which the basic evidence against the applicant was gathered calls into question the credibility and accuracy of the evidence. Procedural irregularities in the applicant’s personal investigation, inconsistent and contradictory evidence of the actual circumstances of the investigation, inadequate judicial control […]
The refusal of the courts to display the recorded video of the fight between the parties, violated the right of the accused to a fair trial
JUDGMENT Abdullayev v. Azerbaijan 07-03-2019 (no. 6005/08) see here SUMMARY The refusal of the courts to examine the video evidence. Prosecution and conviction of a former Parliament Member due to his fight with another Member during the parliamentary assembly. The Court found that the refusal of the national courts to examine the video evidence without […]
JUDGMENT Lolov and others v. Bulgaria 21.02.2019 (no. 6123/11) see here SUMMARY Presumption of innocence and family criminal organization. A family is accused of creating a criminal organization that favors tax evasion and extortion. They complaint that their presumption of innocence had been violated because of a press release issued by the Ministry of Interior, […]
GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT Murtazaliyeva v. Russia 18.12.2018 (no. 36658/05) see here SUMMARY The case concerned the applicant’s being found guilty of terrorism charges and her complaint that the trial had not been fair because she had not been able properly to view a police video surveillance tape in court and that the courts had refused […]
The removal of the lawyer from the police because he informed the accused of his rights to silence and non-self-incrimination. The active and guaranteeing role of the lawyer in criminal proceedings is important.
JUDGMENT Soytemiz v. Turkey 27.11.2018 (no. 57837/09) see here SUMMARY Criminal proceedings for the offense of assisting in the illegal organization of the Turkish Revolutionary Party. The role of advocates. Right to silence and non-self-incrimination in the pre-trial proceedings. The removal and replace the officially appointed lawyer of the accused because he has informed him […]
JUDGMENT Wanner v.Germany 22.11.2018 (no. 26892/12) see here SUMMARY The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for giving false testimony as a witness in criminal proceedings against his former accomplices. The Court observed that, since Mr Wanner’s conviction for assault had become final, there was no legal possibility of him being prosecuted again for his participation […]
Rejection of a defendant’s request for expert examination violated his defense right to examine witnesses.
JUDGMENT Avagyan v. Armenia 22.11.2018 (no. 1837/10) see here SUMMARY An accused of manslaughter of two brothers with poisoning during his trial asked the experts to come in order for them to examine them. The reasoning put forward was that there were contradictory and conflicting expert reports on the cause of the deaths of the […]