ECHR

In the case of Hasmik Khachatryan v. Armenia the Court held that there had been a violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment/investigation as concerned the legislative and regulatory framework, and the State’s obligation to respond adequately to reports of domestic violence and to carry out an effective investigation.

The case concerned severe domestic violence inflicted on the applicant by her common-law husband. Although he had been convicted, he was ultimately exempted from serving his sentence.

In addition, the Court concluded that there was an obligation under Article 3 of the Convention for States to enable the victims of domestic violence to claim compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage from the perpetrator.

• Press release
• Key theme: Domestic violence

In the case of Ramaj v. Albania the Court held that there had been no violation of the protection of property as concerned the part of the plot of land which had been occupied by illegal buildings. Those particular parts of the land had in effect been expropriated and the applicant could have applied for compensation, which he had apparently not done. However, it held that there had been a violation of the right to protection of property as concerned the remaining part of the plot of land.

The case concerned a plot of land which had been seized by the communist regime. A 2004 judgment restoring title of the land to the applicant has never been enforced, while the authorities have repeatedly refused his requests to register his ownership.

The Court found that the authorities’ manner of dealing with the applicant’s situation had lacked clarity and transparency. Interference by the executive with property titles, faulty landregistry maps, a lack of clear procedures in cases of overlapping titles, and discrepancies in the domestic legal practice over compliance with court-ordered registration had all contributed to leaving the applicant in a state of uncertainty over his property for more than 26 years. The Court advised the national authorities to establish efficient and transparent procedures and a functional immovable property registration system in order to ensure respect for property owners’ rights.

• Press release

The Court has clarified what constitutes “family life” between adults under the Convention in two rulings concerning the Netherlands.

The cases Kumari v. the Netherlands and Martinez Alvarado v. the Netherlands concerned complaints about refusals to grant family reunification. In both cases the Court reiterated that there could be no family life between parents and their adult children or adult siblings unless they could demonstrate “additional elements of dependence, involving more than normal emotional ties”. It clarified that the Court’s dependency test required an individualised review of the relationship at issue, and other relevant circumstances. The additional elements could be related to health, financial or material dependence and would often be the result of a combination of those elements.

• Press release

In the case of F.M. and Others v. Russia the Court held that there had been violations of the prohibition of slavery and forced labour in respect of: the lack of an adequate legislative framework to prohibit and prevent trafficking, forced labour and servitude and to protect its victims; the failure to take operational measures to protect the applicants; and the failure to conduct an effective investigation, as well as a violation of the prohibition of discrimination.

The case concerned the alleged trafficking and labour exploitation in Moscow shops of three Kazakh and two Uzbek nationals, and the authorities’ response in that regard.

The Court held that the Russian legal framework had been inadequate, in particular as its criminal law had not effectively penalised trafficking in human beings, forced labour and servitude, and lacked protection for victims of trafficking. The authorities had failed to take steps to protect the applicants, instead treating legitimate efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice as improper and potentially criminal. The authorities had failed to institute and conduct a criminal investigation into these allegations and to cooperate with other States concerned.

The Court held that the State’s inaction had amounted to repeatedly condoning trafficking, labour exploitation and related gender-based violence and had reflected a discriminatory attitude towards the applicants as women who were foreign workers with an irregular immigration status. That had created a climate that had been conducive to the applicants’ trafficking and exploitation.

• Press release

In the case Kezerashvili v. Georgia the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to a fair trial on account of a lack of objective impartiality of the Supreme Court, and no violation of the right to a fair trial on account of the Supreme Court’s reversal of the applicant’s acquittal by the lower courts.

The case concerned a set of proceedings in which the applicant, a former Minister of Defence, was tried, acquitted, and ultimately convicted, in absentia, of embezzlement.

The Court found that the inclusion of the Judge who had been Georgia’s Prosecutor General when the appeal proceedings were pending, in the bench of judges which heard the applicant’s high-profile case, had been sufficient to cast doubt on the objective impartiality of the Supreme Court in its ruling on the appeal in the case. At the same time, having reviewed the judgment and the reasons contained within it, it did not appear to the Court that the Supreme Court’s findings had been arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable to the point of prejudicing the fairness of the proceedings or resulting in a “denial of justice”.

• Press release