ECHR

In the case of Petrović and Others v. Croatia the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life.

The case concerned three mothers’ suspicions that their new-born children, born between 1986 and 1994, had not become ill and died, as the State-run hospitals alleged, but had been abducted and unlawfully given up for adoption. The Court noted similarities between this case and the case of Zorica Jovanović v. Serbia.

The Court found that Croatia had failed to fulfil its duty (“continuing positive obligation”) with regard to the applicants’ allegations that their babies had been abducted from maternity hospitals and had been given up for unlawful adoption. This being so, the Court found that general measures at national level were required in order to establish a mechanism aimed at providing individual redress to all parents in a similar situation. This mechanism should be supervised by an independent body with adequate powers, capable of providing credible answers regarding the fate of each child and awarding adequate compensation as appropriate.

• Press release

In the case of F.D. and H.C. v. Portugal the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life.

The case concerned the enforcement of a seek-and-find order issued by the French authorities in the context of a custody dispute in respect of H.C. – who had been brought by his father, F.D., to Portugal from France – and his subsequent return to his mother.

The Court found that neither father nor son had been heard by a court in Portugal before the decision to return the child had been taken, and the alleged risk to the child of ill-treatment had not been examined, denying them their procedural rights. The Portuguese authorities had ignored the applicant’s rights as the father, and ignored whether the child’s return had been in his best interests. The Court also found that the authorities had failed to protect the child when he had been taken and kept at a police station while his father had been arrested. Overall, the decision had not been “necessary in a democratic society”.

• Press release
• ECHR-KS: Rights of the child
• Key theme: Representation of the child before the ECHR
• Key theme: Right of the child to be heard in domestic proceedings on family matters

In the case of Văleanu and Others v. Romania the Court held that there has been a violation of the protection of property in respect of all the applications which had not been struck off its list of cases.

The case concerned mainly restitution of property, which had been nationalised by the communist regime, and a prolonged non-enforcement of outstanding judgments given in the applicants’ favour and the lack of an effective remedy; the annulment of the applicants’ titles on account of the State’s failure to correctly implement the applicable law without any compensation; and the failure of the authorities to ensure that the compensation awarded had been reasonably related to the current value of the property.

The Court made awards of just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants’ due to their inability to have their property restored to them.

• Press release (in English)
• Press release (in Romanian)

In the case of Alexandru Pătraşcu v. Romania the Court held that there had been a violation of the freedom of expression on account of the applicant’s conviction for statements made by him on his Facebook page, and in relation to the applicant’s conviction for the comments made by third parties on his Facebook page.

The case concerned the applicant’s liability for his statements and the comments published on his Facebook page. As a passionate fan of opera and classical music, the applicant covered a scandal involving the National Opera in Bucharest, which had given rise to extremely strong feelings. He was ordered to pay compensation for the damage caused by the many posts published on his Facebook page. The appellate court found that 22 comments exceeded the limits of freedom of expression and ought to be punished, and that four messages written by the applicant had interfered with the rights and legitimate interests of others.

The Court noted that the factual context of the case could have been used to assess whether each of the applicant’s contested statements had contributed to a debate of public interest. It considered that the national authorities had failed to conduct a proper balancing exercise with a view to demonstrating that the civil judgment against the applicant had corresponded to a “pressing social need”.

With regard to the civil judgment against the applicant for the comments made by third parties on his Facebook page, the Court considered that the legal provisions relied on and interpreted in the present case by the national courts had not been sufficiently clear and detailed to afford appropriate protection against interference by the authorities with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.

• Press release
• ECHR-KS: Freedom of expression

The Court has ruled on two cases, G.R.J. v. Greece and A.R.E. v. Greece, concerning allegations that international protection seekers had been “pushed back” from Greece to Türkiye.

The Court declared the application in the case G.R.J. v. Greece inadmissible. It found that there were strong indications to suggest that there had existed, at the time of the events alleged, a systematic practice of “pushbacks” from the Greek islands to Türkiye. However, it took the view that the applicant, whose statements and allegations had appeared contradictory and inconsistent at times, had failed to provide prima facie evidence of his presence in Greece and of his “pushback” to Türkiye from the island of Samos on the dates alleged. Consequently, he could not claim victim status for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention.

In the case A.R.E. v. Greece the Court found several violations of the Convention. It considered that there were strong indications to suggest that there had existed, at the time of the events alleged, a systematic practice of “pushbacks” of third-country nationals by the Greek authorities, from the Evros region to Türkiye. In particular, it noted that the applicant had been sent back to her home country, Türkiye, – from which she had fled – without a prior examination of the risks she faced on her return. The Court did not, however, find a violation of the right to life or the prohibition of torture, taking the view that the applicant had not produced any prima facie evidence to substantiate her allegations.

• Press release (G.R.J. v. Greece)
• Press release (A.R.E. v. Greece)
• ECHR-KS: Immigration