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 M.A. and Others v. France the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to respect for private life.
The case concerned the creation, under French criminal law, of the offence of purchasing sexual relations, which, in the applicants’ allegation, seriously endangered the physical and mental integrity and health of individuals engaged in prostitution, and radically infringed on their right to respect for private life, in so far as this included the right to personal autonomy and sexual freedom.
In the case of Ždanoka v. Latvia no. 2 the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to free elections.
The case concerned the removal of Ms Ždanoka, a former MEP, from the candidate list for the 2018 parliamentary elections, owing to her active membership of the Communist Party of Latvia during the post-independence struggles against the Soviet Union. She had been a candidate for the Latvian Union of Russians.
In the case of Couso Permuy v. Spain the Court held that there had been no violation of the right of access to a court.
The case concerned the killing in 2003 of the applicant’s brother, a camera operator on mission in Iraq, and the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings opened in Spain to investigate.
In the case of Djeri and Others v. Latvia the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education).
The case concerned 2018 amendments to the law whereby the use of Latvian – the national language – was increased in all pre-schools in Latvia, both public or private, and the use of Russian was consequently reduced. The Court found that the measures taken by the Latvian Government to increase the use of the national language in pre-schools had been proportionate and necessary to prepare pupils for primary education, to ensure unity in the education system and to ensure a sufficient level of Latvian for residents to participate effectively in public life.
Forthcoming Judgments & Decisions
...
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 Levrault v. Monaco inadmissible.
The case concerned a decision by the Monegasque authorities not to renew the secondment of the applicant, Mr Edouard Levrault, a French judge acting as an investigating judge in Monaco. The applicant complained to the Court, alleging a breach of the right to a fair hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention.
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.
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 19 July 2024, the President of the Court, Marko Bošnjak, delivered a keynote speech at the 2nd Liverpool Summer School on the Law of the Council of Europe, entitled “Council of Europe at 75: Protecting Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law in a Rapidly Changing World”, at the University of Liverpool (United Kingdom).
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.