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 Société Editrice de Mediapart and others . France 14.01.2021 (app. no. 281/15 and no. 34445/15) see here SUMMARY The two cases concerned an order issued against Mediapart, a news website, its publishing editor and a journalist to remove from the news company’s website audio extracts and transcripts of illegal recordings made at the home […]
JUDGMENT Munir Johana v. Denmark (app. no. 56803/18) and Khan v. Denmark (no 26957/19) see here and here SUMMARY Deportation and criminal convictions. Deportation of the applicants from Denmark and a six-year ban on their re-entry following repeated convictions for various criminal offenses, despite the fact that they had lived there from a young age. […]
JUDGMENT Cristina Maria Albuquerque Fernandes v. Portugal 12.01.2021 ( app.no. 50160/13) see here SUMMARY The case concerned disciplinary proceedings brought against Ms Albuquerque Fernandes, at the close of which the High Council of the Judiciary (HCJ) decided to impose compulsory retirement, and the ensuing judicial proceedings. Ms Albuquerque Fernandes accused the Constitutional Court of showing […]
JUDGMENT Shlykov and others v. Russia 19.01.2021 (app. no. 78638/11) see here SUMMARY Handcuffs on detainees each time they came out of their cells. The first applicant, in addition, complained about his detention conditions and two other applicants complained about their inability to access legal proceedings to complain about the handcuffs. According to the ECtHR, […]
GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT X and others v. Bulgaria 2.2.2021 (no. 22457/16) see here SUMMARY The case concerned allegations of sexual abuse committed against three children in a Bulgarian orphanage prior to their adoption by an Italian couple in June 2012, the European Court of Human Rights held : – that the applicants, owing to their […]
JUDGMENT Terna v. Italy 14.01.2021 (no. 21052/18) see here SUMMARY Right of family life of grandmother – granddaughter and ethnic discrimination The applicant is a Roma national. She was assigned custody of her minor granddaughter when the girl’s parents were jailed for serious offenses. With various court proceedings under the supervision of the competent Judge, […]
JUDGMENT
M.L. v. Norway 22.12.2020 (app. no. 64639/16)
Inadequacy of a mother to raise her child for psychological reasons. Removal of parental responsibility from the mother. Approval of adoption of her daughter by foster parents, to whom she was placed from the age of 9 days. The domestic authorities based the adoption decision, mainly on the absence of ties between the biological mother and daughter and on her attachment to the foster parents.
According to the ECtHR, although the relationship between the biological mother and daughter was very limited, the placement of the latter in a foster family when she was only 9 days old had left no room for them to develop any real relationship. The ECtHR also pointed out that the applicant’s very limited rights of communication with her daughter (four times a year, for 2 hours at a time) had been decided on the grounds that the parental decision was to be long-term. There was no indication that the domestic authorities had taken any real steps to reconsider the right of communication while the child was in a foster family.
GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT
Slovenia v. Croatia 16.12.2020 (no. 54155/16)
The case concerned unpaid and overdue debts owed to Ljubljana Bank by various Croatian
companies on the basis of loans granted at the time of the former Yugoslavia.
The Court observed that under Article 34 (individual applications) a legal entity could bring a case
before it provided that it was a “non-governmental organisation” within the meaning of that Article.
The idea behind this principle was to ensure that a State Party could not act as both an applicant and
a respondent in the same matter.
Article 33 of the Convention (inter-State applications) did not allow an applicant Government to
defend the rights of a legal entity which did not qualify as a “non-governmental organisation” and
which therefore would not be entitled to lodge an individual application under Article 34.
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”.
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.