Chamber News


Main hall ceiling of the Human Rights building
12/12/24

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.

Human Rights building in winter (detail)
10/12/24

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.

Roof of the Human Rights building
10/12/24

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.

Roof of the Human Rights building
10/12/24

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.

Carpet of the main hearing room of the Human Rights building (detail)
05/12/24

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”.

Responsive Image

Forthcoming Judgments & Decisions


Grand Chamber News


Main hearing room of the Human Rights building (detail)
12/12/24

On 16 December 2024 a panel of 5 judges will examine seven Grand Chamber referral requests.

Judges' seats in the Main hearing room of the Human Rights building
24/09/24

The Court has accepted the referral to the Grand Chamber of the case Tsaava and Others v. Georgia.

The case concerns the dispersal of a protest in 2019 from the front of the Parliament building in Tbilisi. The applicants were either participants in the demonstration, or journalists reporting on the protests. They allege, in particular, excessive use of force by the authorities resulting in their injury.

The Court has also decided to reject a request to refer twelve other cases. 

Hearings


Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
20/11/24

The Court held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The case concerns the applicant’s voting rights in legislative and presidential elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Due to a combination of the territorial and ethnic requirements applicable to elections for the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly and for the Presidency, he was unable to vote for the candidates of his choice in those elections in 2022.

Decisions


Human Rights building in winter
12/12/24

The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Uçar v. Türkiye.

The case concerned the commander of one of the 15 tanks deployed in the context of the attempted military coup in Türkiye of 15 July 2016. He was subsequently convicted of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and causing criminal damage.

The Court rejected his complaints alleging that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. There had been nothing arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable in the Turkish courts’ assessment. They had based their findings on various pieces of evidence, and after a detailed analysis of both the accusations against him and of arguments or points in his favour.

Human Rights building by night
12/12/24

The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Borzykh v. Ukraine.

The case concerned the prohibition on wearing the St George ribbon (a war commemoration symbol) in public.

In 2016 Ukraine banned the production and use of the St George ribbon for its associations with the Soviet totalitarian rule and the modern Russian military. The applicant is a former military officer who wished to wear the ribbon on Victory Day. Since the occupation of the Crimean Peninsula by Russia and the start of hostilities in the eastern regions of Ukraine, the red poppy has been adopted in Ukraine as a symbol of commemoration.

The Court noted the changed significance of the St George ribbon in the ongoing armed conflict with Russia and found that although Ukraine’s ban had restricted freedom of expression, it had been within the State’s discretion (“margin of appreciation”).

Human Rights building in winter
12/12/24

The Court has declared inadmissible the applications in the cases of Kaya v. Türkiye and Feza Almaz and Others v. Türkiye.

The cases concerned disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicants for participating in one-day work stoppages called by their trade union.

The applicant in the first case was fined for taking part in a one-day work stoppage to protest against the curfew which had been imposed in certain cities in south-east Türkiye. The other applicants received disciplinary sanctions for failing to report for work, in protest against “the Government’s actions” during the Gezi Park events in Istanbul.

The Court found that, in the circumstances of the present cases, the applicants could not rely on the right to trade-union freedom protected by Article 11, in that the sanctions imposed had related to industrial action, organised by their trade union, that had not been intended to defend their own professional interests.

Communication of cases


Responsive Image
25/11/24

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 fourth 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. 

Other News


Official visit by a delegation of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights to the ECHR
13/12/24

On 11-13 December 2024, a delegation from the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, headed by its President, Rémy Ngoy Lumbu, paid a working visit to the Court. During the visit, the delegation took part in a roundtable discussion with Arnfinn Bårdsen, Vice-President of the Court, Judge elected in respect of Norway, and Anja Seibert-Fohr, Judge elected in respect of Germany. The delegation also had exchanges with members of the Court’s Registry and members of the Council of Europe Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR.

Marko Bosnjak at the 15th Warsaw Human Rights Seminar
10/12/24

On 10 December 2024, the President of the Court, Marko Bošnjak, accompanied by Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Judge elected in respect of Poland, attended the 15th Warsaw Human Rights Seminar organised by the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Council of Europe and the 65th anniversary of the ECHR. President Bošnjak delivered a keynote speech on the role of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court in strengthening democratic institutions on that occasion.

Official visit by Marko Bošnjak, President of the ECHR, to Donald Tusk, Prime Minister of Poland
09/12/24

On 9 December 2024, the President of the Court, Marko Bošnjak, paid an official visit to Poland, accompanied by Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Judge elected in respect of Poland. On that occasion, they took part in bilateral meetings with Donald Tusk, Prime Minister of Poland, Radosław Sikorski, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Adam Bodnar, Minister of Justice, and Marcin Wiącek, Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman).