Grand Chamber judgment in an inter-State case
In the case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) the Court has found multiple violations of the European Convention.
The case concerned the Ukrainian Government’s allegations of human-rights violations that had been part of a campaign of repression since early 2014 in Crimea, which included in particular disappearances; ill-treatment; unlawful detention; impossibility to opt out of Russian citizenship; suppression of Ukrainian media and of the Ukrainian language in schools; pre-trial detention in overcrowded conditions; prosecution and conviction on fabricated charges in reprisal for any pro-Ukrainian stance; discrimination against Crimean Tatars; and, transfers from Crimea to prisons in Russia.
The Court considered that it had enough evidence to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the incidents had been sufficiently numerous and interconnected to amount to a pattern or system of violations. Moreover, the apparent lack of an effective investigation into the incidents and/or the general application of the measures to all people concerned, among other things, proved that such practices had been officially tolerated by the Russian authorities.
Chamber News
In the case of Selçuk v. Türkiye the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to life in its substantive and procedural aspects.
The case concerned a suicide bombing committed in Ankara on 10 October 2015. The Court held that, in the absence of a specific, concrete and imminent threat to the lives of those due to take part in a demonstration on that day, the authorities had taken the reasonable precautions necessary to ensure the safety of persons and property. The Turkish authorities had therefore not been in breach of their substantive obligations under the Convention. As to the procedural limb of the Article 2, the Court noted that the Turkish legal system had afforded the applicant, in addition to criminal proceedings, compensatory remedies that in the present case could therefore be regarded as having satisfied the conditions of an “effective judicial system”. In addition, the Court considered that the redress afforded to the applicant had been sufficient in the circumstance of the case.
In the case of Savinovskikh and Others v. Russia, the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life.
The case concerned the termination of custody and of the foster-care agreement for two children aged four and five, on the ground of their foster parent being transsexual and undergoing a change of gender identity.
The Court found that the national authorities had failed to conduct an in depth examination of the overall family situation and to properly weigh up the respective interests of each person whilst focusing on what would be the best solution for the children.
In the case of the National Youth Council of Moldova v. the Republic of Moldova the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to freedom of expression.
The case concerned the local authorities’ refusal to allow the applicant NGO to display anti-discrimination illustrations on advertising panels, on the grounds that they depicted some social groups in an undignified and humiliating manner.
The Court noted that the applicant NGO’s poster was part of an anti-discrimination campaign involving several other NGOs, one of the aims of which was to promote the first freephone discrimination helpline in Moldova. The central issue in the present case was the applicant NGO’s decision to illustrate its poster with cartoons. On that point, the Court reiterated that satire was a form of artistic expression and social commentary which naturally aimed to provoke and agitate, thereby contributing to public debate. The cartoons on the poster had been accompanied by text encouraging the communities concerned to call a freephone helpline if they experienced discrimination. It was obvious for the Court that the intended goal had not been to insult, ridicule or stigmatise those vulnerable population groups or insidiously to promote hate speech and intolerance.
In the case of Z v. the Czech Republic the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and of the right to respect for private life.
In this case, the applicant complained that she had been subjected to non-consensual sexual acts by a priest. More specifically, she complained of the authorities’ restrictive interpretation of the constituent elements of the offences of rape and sexual abuse under Criminal Code then in force, of the fact that this legal framework had not been sufficient to ensure effective punishment for the sexual offences allegedly perpetrated against her and of the lack of an effective investigation.
The Court found that the authorities’ approach had been incapable of affording the applicant adequate protection and considered that the Czech State had failed to fulfil its positive obligations, which had required the effective application of a criminal-law system capable of punishing the non-consensual sexual relations alleged by the applicant.
Grand Chamber News
The Chamber to which the case H.M.M. and Others v. Latvia had been allocated has relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.
The case concerns alleged “pushbacks” in the vicinity of the Latvian‑Belarusian border starting from 10 August 2021.
There are currently over 30 cases pending before the Court against Lithuania, Latvia and Poland concerning the situation at the Belarusian borders from spring 2021 to summer 2023.
On 28 June 2024 the Court decided to refuse the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania.
The High Court had requested the ECHR to give an opinion on two questions concerning the interpretation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention. The Court decided not to accept the request, considering that it did not concern a question of principle, within the meaning of Article 1 § 1 of Protocol No. 16, warranting examination by the Court’s Grand Chamber. The Court’s case-law was well developed with regard to the questions asked, and several aspects of that case-law were judiciously cited by the requesting court in its decision to refer the matter to the Court.
Decisions
The Court declared the application in the case of Ceort v. Romania inadmissible.
The case concerned the criminal conviction of a public prosecutor at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, for soliciting a bribe. Relying on the right to a fair trial of the Convention, the applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair.
The Court found that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies for his complaints concerning his lawyers’ access to his case file and his first-instance conviction by a “nonspecialised” three-judge bench. It also found that his allegations regarding the evidence, the use of a co-defendant’s statements and police entrapment were manifestly ill-founded.
The Court has today exceptionally restored to its list of cases the application Bryska v. Ukraine.
The Court had originally struck the application out of its list of cases in 2023. Owing to the Russian military action in Ukraine, it had not been possible for the Court to send postal correspondence to that State. As the application form had not included a functioning method of contact other than a postal address and the applicant had not been in contact with the Court for a considerable time, the Court had considered that she had no longer wished to pursue her application. The Court published a press release about that decision, in order to draw attention of the applicants affected by the decision and give them an opportunity to contact the Court. The applicant contacted the Court, having seen coverage of the decision of her case in the press, to state that she wanted to pursue her application.
Given the grounds on which the case had originally been struck out, exceptional circumstances justifying restoration were present, and so the Court ordered the restoration of her application to its list of cases.
Communication of cases
The Court has communicated to the Government of Türkiye five cases covering 1,000 other applications.
The applications concern convictions for membership of an armed terrorist organisation, based on the alleged use of the encrypted messaging application called ByLock.
The core issues raised by the applicants have already been judged in the Court’s Grand Chamber case Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye. In that judgment the Court highlighted that there were over 8,000 applications on the Court’s docket involving similar complaints. These 1,000 apparent follow-up applications are the third batch to be notified to the Turkish Government. Against that background, the Court decided not to put any questions to the parties or to require any observations on the applications.
Hearings
The Court held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia.
This Inter-State case covers complaints concerning the Russian military operations in Ukraine since 24 February 2022 and the conflict in eastern Ukraine involving pro-Russian separatists which began in 2014, including the downing of Flight MH17.
Other News
On 11 July 2024, the President of the Court, Marko Bošnjak, delivered a video message as part of a side event of the 2024 United Nations High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, entitled Charting the way forward: Combating the impact of climate change on human rights, organised by the Council of Europe and the Permanent Mission of Lithuania to the United Nations in New York.
On 10 July 2024, the President of the Court, Marko Bošnjak, met Gudrun Mosler-Törnström, Standing Rapporteur on Human Rights of the Council of Europe Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, accompanied by Mélanie Lepoultier and Peter Drenth, Deputy Standing Rapporteurs. Marialena Tsirli, Registrar of the Court, also attended the meeting.
On 6 July 2024 the President of the Court, Marko Bošnjak, delivered a keynote speech at the official opening of the 25th edition of the Summer School of European Private Law at the University of Salzburg (Austria).