Grand Chamber hearing concerning Italy
The Court held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Mansouri v. Italy.
The case concerns the lawfulness and conditions of a Tunisian national’s confinement on board the ship being used to return him to his country of origin on the basis of a refusal-of-entry order issued by the border police.
Chamber News
In the case of P.J. and R.J. v. Switzerland the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life.
The case concerned a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s expulsion from Switzerland following his conviction for drug trafficking. The Court found that the national courts had focused their assessment on the nature and gravity of the offence, without weighing in the balance other aspects to the case such as the fact that the applicant had no criminal record and had only been given a suspended sentence, the fact that he had secured stable employment after his conviction and had shown good behaviour from then on and the adverse impact of the expulsion on his family.
In the case of Shlosberg v. Russia the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to free elections.
The case concerned an opposition politician who stood as a candidate in the 2021 State Duma elections and was disqualified on account of his involvement in an organisation classified as extremist by the Russian authorities. This “involvement”, according to the authorities, had consisted in taking part in a peaceful rally in support of Alexei Navalny and in encouraging others to do the same.
The Court found that exercising the Convention right to peaceful assembly could not constitute grounds for any sanction, including disqualification from standing for Parliament. This reason had been an arbitrary ground for disqualification. That consideration was all the more relevant with regard to the action for which the applicant had been criticised, which consisted in merely encouraging other people to take part in this rally. The applicant’s disqualification, while formally complying with positive law, had thus been based on arbitrary grounds.
In the case of Tsulukidze and Rusulashvili v. Georgia the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to a fair trial.
The case concerned the alleged lack of impartiality of a Supreme Court judge who was a member of three-judge panels which rejected claims brought by the applicants and whose judicial assistant was the daughter of the lawyer of the respondent party, the Telasi electricity distribution company, in those proceedings.
The Court found that the fact that the judge’s judicial assistant was the daughter of Telasi’s legal representative, coupled with the broad mandate given to judicial assistants in the Georgian judicial system, had created a situation which legitimately could raise doubts as to the impartiality of the judge. The applicants had not known to what extent the judicial assistant had actually been involved in their cases, and the Supreme Court had failed to elucidate the circumstances of her involvement, thereby failing to dispel their doubts concerning the impartiality of that judge. The Court therefore found that their doubts were objectively justified and that they had not been provided with sufficient procedural safeguards in this respect.
In the case of Pasquinelli and Others v. San Marino the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to respect for private and family life.
The case concerned the effects on the applicants – all healthcare workers – of their refusal to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
Bearing in mind the wide discretion States had in healthcare policy matters, the Court found that the measures had been proportionate and justified in view of the legitimate aim pursued, specifically, the health of the population in general, including the applicants themselves, and the rights and freedoms of others. It noted furthermore that the losses suffered by the applicants were an unavoidable consequence of an “exceptional and unforeseeable” context of a global pandemic that had pertained at the relevant time in this case.
In the case of Yasak v. Türkiye the Court held that there had been no violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and no violation of the principle of no punishment without law.
The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for membership of an armed terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure.
The Court considered that the applicant’s detention conditions in prison had not reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment to which he had been subjected as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of the Convention.
As to the foreseeability of the applicant’s conviction for membership of an armed terrorist organisation, the Court considered that the offence of which he had been convicted had had a basis in the relevant national law at the time when it was committed and that this offence had been defined sufficiently clearly to meet the requirement of foreseeability and thus to enable the applicant to regulate his conduct.
Forthcoming Judgments & Decisions
Grand Chamber News
In the case of Pindo Mulla v. Spain the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life read in the light of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
The case concerned blood transfusions administered to the applicant, a Jehovah’s Witness, during emergency surgery, despite her refusal to undergo a blood transfusion of any kind.
The Court found that the authorisation to proceed with that treatment had resulted from a decision-making process that had been affected by the omission of essential information about the documenting of the applicant’s wishes, which had been recorded in various forms and at various times in writing. Since neither the applicant nor anyone connected with her had been made aware of the decision taken by the duty judge authorising all treatment, it had not been possible to rectify that omission. Neither this issue nor the issue of her capacity to take a decision had been addressed in an adequate manner in the subsequent proceedings. The national system had therefore not responded adequately to her complaint that her wishes had been wrongly overruled.
The Court will be delivering a Grand Chamber ruling in the case of Fabbri and Others v. San Marino on 24 September 2024.
The case concerns delays in separate criminal investigations resulting in the alleged offences becoming time-barred.
On 23 September 2024 a panel of 5 judges will examine thirteen Grand Chamber referral requests.
Decisions
The Court declared inadmissible the application in the case of Longo v. Italy.
The case concerned a demolition order issued as part of a judgment convicting the applicant of unauthorised construction of a 200 sq. m agricultural warehouse in Sicily. The Court held that even though the demolition order in this case had been issued in the criminal jurisdiction, the purpose had been restorative – to return the site to its previous state – not punitive.
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, 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 the Convention.
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 apparently comparable 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 will be holding a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Mansouri v. Italy on 18 September 2024.
The case concerns the lawfulness and conditions of a Tunisian national’s confinement on board the ship being used to return him to his country of origin on the basis of a refusal-of-entry order issued by the border police.
Other News
On 17 September 2024, a delegation from the Italian Tax Justice Council (Consiglio di Presidenza della Giustizia Tributaria), headed by its President, Carolina Lussana, and its Vice-President, Cosimo Ferri, paid a working visit to the ECHR. The delegation was greeted by the President of the Court, Marko Bošnjak, and took part in roundtable discussions with judges of the Court and members of the Registry.
The Judge elected in respect of Serbia, Маteja Đurović, was formally sworn in in the Court's Main Hearing Room.
On 16 September 2024, a delegation from the Supreme Court of Slovenia, headed by its President, Miodrag Đorđević, and its Vice-President, Marjeta Švab Širok, paid a working visit to the Court and was received by the President of the Court, Marko Bošnjak. During the visit the delegation took part in roundtable discussions with judges of the Court and members of the Registry.