JUDGMENT Särgava v. Estonia 16.11.2021 (app. no. 698/19) see here SUMMARY Confiscation of a lawyer’s personal belongings. The lawyer and the mobile phone of the applicant, a lawyer, were confiscated from his house and car and then examined by the authorities in the context of a criminal investigation. The applicant’s judicial attempts to declare the […]
JUDGMENT Mirčetić v. Croatia 22.04.2021 (app. no. 30669/15) see here SUMMARY According to the ECtHR, in order to establish a fair trial in criminal proceedings, the presence of the accused is required in both the first and second instance courts, which adjudicates the case on the merits and has the jurisdiction to annul the first […]
JUDGMENT Saber v. Norway 17.12.2020 (app. no. 459/18) see here SUMMARY Protection of mobile phone data relating to professional secrecy between a lawyer and a client. Right of respect for correspondence. Seizure and copying of the applicant ‘s mobile phone data for clarification of a criminal offense. In an investigation into an attempted murder of […]
JUDGMENT Gestur Jónsson and Ragnar Halldór Hall v. Iceland 22.12.2020 (app. no. 68273/14 and 68271/14) see here SUMMARY The case concerned two lawyers who were fined in absentia by the district court for contempt of court because they had withdrawn from their roles as defence lawyers in a criminal trial. In spite of the district […]
JUDGMENT Ramazan Demir v. Turkey 09.02.2021 (app. no. 68550/17) see here SUMMARY The case concerned the prison authorities’ refusal to grant a request for access to certain Internet sites, lodged by Mr Demir in the course of his pre-trial detention in Silivri Prison in 2016. Mr Demir, a lawyer, wished to access the Internet sites […]
JUDGMENT
Navalnyy and Gunko v. Russia 10.11.2020 (app. no. 75186/12)
Two protesters were arrested in Bolotnaya Square in Russia in May 2012 during a political demonstration against the government. Their overnight detention in a police station and administrative conviction for violating legal police orders.
One of the protesters, Aleksey Navalnyy, a lawyer and political activist, claimed in his application before the ECtHR that a police officer had used excessive force during his arrest. Both protesters also claimed that their arrest and overnight detention was unjustified and arbitrary, that the administrative proceedings against them were unfair, that the dissolution of the demonstration, their arrest and subsequent conviction were disproportionate and that these violations of their rights were intended to undermine the freedom of assembly.
JUDGMENT Pervane v. Turkey 08.09.2020 (app. no. 74553/11) see here SUMMARY Right of access to a lawyer at the pre-trial stage and a fair trial. Overall assessment of the process. The applicant was arrested in an armed clash between PKK members and security forces, possessing a Kalashnikov rifle. At the pre-trial stage, under current law, […]
JUDGMENT Macovei v. Romania 28.07.2020 (no. 53028/14) see here SUMMARY The case concerned the applicant being found liable for defaming another politician. The Court found in particular that the applicant’s statements, whereby she had called the other politician’s combination of work as a lawyer and as a member of parliament an example of corruption, had […]
JUDGMENT Bagirov v. Azerbaijan 25.06.2020 (no. 81024/12 and 28198/15) see here SUMMARY Disbarrement of a lawyer by a Bar Association. Lawyer’s confidentiality duty. Freedom of expression and the right to privacy. The applicant, a lawyer by profession, disclosed the cause of death of his client’s son. He was suspended from practising law for one year, for […]
Χρησιμοποιούμε cookies για να σας προσφέρουμε καλύτερη εμπειρία στο διαδίκτυο. Συμφωνώντας, αποδέχεστε τη χρήση των cookies σύμφωνα με την Πολιτική Cookies.
Όταν επισκέπτεστε μία ιστοσελίδα, μπορεί να λάβει κάποιες βασικές πληροφορίες από τον browser σας, κατά βάση υπό τη μορφή cookies. Εδώ μπορείτε να ρυθμίσετε τη συγκατάθεσή σας σε όλα αυτά.
The criminal conviction of a CEO of a company for comments about unprofessional behavior of a lawyer, violated the freedom of expression!
JUDGMENT Matalas v. Greece 25.03.2021 (app. no. 1864/18) see here SUMMARY Criminal liability of a managing director of a Greek public limited company for defamation for comments he had made in his capacity regarding a former legal adviser of the company regarding her work. Freedom of expression. In particular, he sent her an official document […]