ECHR - Homepage of the European Court of Human Rights - ECHR
Grand Chamber judgment concerning Germany
In the case of Humpert and Others v. Germany the Court held that there had been no violation of the freedom of assembly and association.
The case concerned the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicants, teachers with civil-servant status, for having participated, during their working hours, in strikes organised by their trade union in order to protest against worsening working conditions for teachers.
The Court found that the prohibition of strikes by teachers with civil-servant status did not render their trade-union freedom devoid of substance, as the variety of different institutional safeguards which had been put in place enabled civil servants and their unions to effectively defend their professional interests. As a result, the Court held that the disciplinary measures against the applicants following their participation in strikes had been within the State’s discretion (“margin of appreciation”).
Advisory Opinion
The ECHR has delivered its advisory opinion in reply to a request submitted by the Conseil d’État of Belgium.
The request was submitted in the context of an application lodged by a security guard before the administrative judicial division of the Belgian Conseil d’État, seeking the annulment of a decision by the Ministry of the Interior to withdraw an identity card entitling him to work as a security or surveillance guard, on the grounds that he was in contact with individuals associated with the “scientific” strand of Salafism.
Chamber News
In the case of M.L. v. Poland the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life.
The case concerned restrictions on abortion rights. The applicant alleged that she had been banned from having access to a legal abortion in the case of foetal abnormalities, following a 2020 Constitutional Court judgment. She had become pregnant and the foetus was diagnosed with trisomy 21. A scheduled hospital abortion had been cancelled when the legislative amendments resulting from the Constitutional Court ruling had come into force. Unable to have an abortion in Poland, she had ultimately had to travel to a private clinic abroad for the procedure.
The Court found that the legislative amendments in question, which had forced her to travel abroad for an abortion at considerable expense and away from her family support network, had to have had a significant psychological impact on her. Such interference with her rights, and in particular with a medical procedure for which she had qualified and which had already been put in motion, had created a situation which had deprived her of proper safeguards against arbitrariness.
In the case of Przybyszewska and Others v. Poland, the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life.
The case concerned the alleged lack of any form of legal recognition and protection available for same-sex couples in Poland.
The Court considered that the Polish State had failed to comply with its duty to ensure that the applicants had a specific legal framework providing for the recognition and protection of their samesex unions. That failure had resulted in the applicants’ inability to regulate fundamental aspects of their lives and amounted to a breach of their right to respect for their private and family life.
In the case of Jasuitis and Šimaitis v. Lithuania the Court held that there had been no violation of no punishment without law.
The case concerned the applicants’ conviction for trafficking in human beings. They had hired a number of women to work as “web models”, but complaints were made by one woman that they had used threats and psychological violence to force her to carry out that work.
The Court found that the relevant law in this case and its interpretation by the national courts had been clear. The applicants should have been able to see that their actions would have come under the definition of trafficking in human beings as set out in the Lithuanian Criminal Code.
In the case of Vučković v. Croatia the Court held that there had been a violation of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and of the right to respect for private and family life.
The case concerned the sexual assaults that the applicant, a nurse, suffered at the hands of an ambulance driver colleague while working shifts together. Her assailant was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment, but that sentence was commuted to community service on appeal.
The Court found it concerning that the appellate court had chosen to replace the prison sentence with community service without giving adequate reasons or considering in any way the interests of the victim. Such an approach suggested that the Croatian courts were lenient in punishing violence against women.
Delivered Judgments and Decisions
Grand Chamber News
The Court has accepted the referral to the Grand Chamber of the case Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina.
This case concerns the inability of the applicant, a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina, due to a combination of territorial and ethnic requirements, to vote for the candidates of his choice in legislative and presidential elections at State level. The applicant complained that because of a combination of the territorial and ethnic requirements applicable to the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, he had been unable to vote for the candidates of his choice in the latest legislative elections. Similarly, he had been unable to vote for the candidates of his choice in the most recent presidential elections.
The Court has also decided to reject a request to refer one other case.
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 first 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.
The Court has communicated to the Government of Slovakia the application Fico v. Slovakia and has asked them to submit their observations on its admissibility and merits.
The application concerns the secret monitoring of the applicant’s private meetings, when he was an opposition member of parliament after already having been Prime Minster, in the context of an investigation into what was seen as suspected poaching. The applicant is the leader of a social democratic party SMER and the current Prime Minister of Slovakia.
Hearings
The Court will be holding a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Pindo Mulla v. Spain on 10 January 2024.
The case concerns blood transfusions administered to the applicant, a Jehovah’s Witness, against her will.
The Court held a Grand Chamber hearing in the inter-State case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea).
The case concerns Ukraine’s allegations of a pattern (“administrative practice”) of violations of the European Convention by the Russian Federation in Crimea beginning in February 2014.
Decisions
The ECHR has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Gyulumyan and Others v. Armenia.
The case concerned the termination of the four applicants’ terms of office at the Constitutional Court in 2020, following constitutional amendments which had not been subject to judicial review. The context of those events was the “Velvet Revolution”, a new government and their efforts to combat corruption.
The Court found that even though the applicants’ claim had concerned an arguable right under Armenian law, namely their entitlement to serve their full terms of office until retirement, their exclusion from access to a court had been justified on objective grounds. In particular, their terms of office had been ended through a constitutional amendment, which had been part of broader reform and which had not been directed against them specifically.
Other News
On 10 December 2023, President Síofra O’Leary attended a conference Defending the rights of everyone, everywhere held in Paris on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the presence of Emmanuel Macron, President of the French Republic. She was accompanied by Mattias Guyomar, Judge elected in respect of France. President O’Leary also delivered an address during an official event hosted by Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris.
On 4 December 2023 President Síofra O’Leary attended an awards ceremony at the Faculty of Law, Political Science and Management of the University of Strasbourg, where she was accompanied by Judge Mattias Guyomar, elected in respect of France. She delivered an address on that occasion.
- Speech by President Síofra O’Leary (in French only)
On 1 December 2023 President Síofra O’Leary took part in the Conference Human Rights in Practice: the Role of Human Rights on the 20th anniversary of the ECHR Act 2003 organised by the Irish Centre for European Law (ICEL) in Dublin (Ireland). She delivered a speech on that occasion.