Grand Chamber judgment concerning the Netherlands
In the case of Ships Waste Oil Collector B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to respect for correspondence and no violation of the right to an effective remedy.
The case concerned the transmission of data, lawfully obtained in a criminal investigation, to another law-enforcement authority, the Competition Authority, which used those data in an investigation into the applicant company’s involvement in price-fixing.
The Court found that the transfers of data had been lawful, the procedural safeguards afforded by the domestic law were sufficient, the Dutch courts had adequately balanced the interests of the applicant companies and those of the State, and that the transfers had been necessary for the enforcement of competition law. The Netherlands had thus acted within their discretion (“margin of appreciation”).
Chamber News
In the case of of Van Slooten v. the Netherlands the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for family life.
The case concerned the termination of Ms van Slooten’s parental authority over her daughter, who had been placed in foster care.
In the case of Bădescu and Others v. Romania the Court held that there had been no violation of the principle of no punishment without law.
The case concerned a lack of foreseeability in the criminal law alleged by the applicants, who were judges who had been convicted of abuse of office.
- Press release
- ECHR-KS: Guide on Article 7 : No punishment without law
- Key theme: Protection of the judiciary
In the case of Backović v. Serbia (no. 2) the Court held that there had been no violation of the freedom of expression.
The case concerned a fine imposed on the applicant – a lawyer – for contempt of court in election-related proceedings, in which he sought an acknowledgement that he, and six other individuals, were still city councillors. Among other things, he had called the decision “a supreme nonsense” and the judges in the case “legal geniuses”.
The Court noted that the terms used by the applicant – such as “legal giants” and legal “ingenuity” – had ridiculed the professionalism of the judge in question and the court. It found that sufficient reasons had been given for the fine, and it had not been disproportionate.
In the case of Green v. the United Kingdom the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to respect for private life.
The case concerned the question of whether States have a duty to take measures to prevent parliamentary privilege being used to circumvent a court injunction. In 2018 the applicant, a well-known businessman, was granted an interim injunction against the Telegraph group to prevent it from identifying him as the subject of allegations of sexual harassment and bullying made by former employees. Invoking parliamentary privilege, a member of the House of Lords took the floor of the House after a debate and identified the applicant as the subject of the allegations, despite the interim injunction.
The Court found that it should be left to the respondent State, and Parliament in particular, to decide on the controls required to prevent parliamentary members from revealing information subject to privacy injunctions. To find otherwise would run contrary to the principle of the autonomy of Parliament, which had already considered and rejected the need for further controls.
In the case of Hayk Grigoryan v. Armenia the Court held that there had been a violation of freedom of expression.
The case concerned an incident in which the applicant, at that time a freelance journalist, was covering a demonstration in Yerevan in 2016 when he was allegedly grabbed by police officers, hit, and had his mobile telephone and camera seized. The protests followed the storming of the premises of the Patrol Service Regiment of the Armenian Police. The police returned the camera to the applicant with the footage of the police reaction to the protests allegedly deleted.
The Court found the assault on the applicant and seizure of his camera by the police while he had been working had neither been lawful nor had a legitimate aim.
Grand Chamber News
The Court will be delivering a Grand Chamber ruling in the case of Ships Waste Oil Collector B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands on 1 April 2025.
The case concerns the transmission of data, lawfully obtained in a criminal investigation, to another law enforcement authority, the Competition Authority, which used those data in an investigation into the applicant company’s involvement in price-fixing.
The Court has accepted the referral to the Grand Chamber of the case Jesus Pinhal v. Portugal.
The case concerns three sets of proceedings brought against the applicant by the criminal-law authorities, the Securities Market Commission and the Bank of Portugal, respectively, for criminal and administrative offences committed while he was Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors of a private bank, Banco Comercial Português, S.A.
The Court has also decided to reject a request to refer fifteen other cases.
Hearings
The Court held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of 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.
Communication of cases
The Court has communicated to the Government of the Russian Federation the application Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children v. Russia and requested that they submit their observations.
The case concerns ten Ukrainian children who were in childcare in Crimea in 2014 when Russia asserted jurisdiction over the peninsula. According to the association (UHHRU) acting on their behalf, Russian nationality was forced on the children and they were put up for adoption and may have been adopted. There has been no information on their whereabouts since 2014, despite the Ukrainian authorities’ repeated requests.
The Court has communicated to the Government of the Russian Federation the application Ukraine v. Russia (IX) and requested that they submit their observations.
The case concerns the Ukrainian Government’s allegations of political-assassination operations ordered by the Russian Federation and attempts to cover them up. Among the assassinations or attempted assassinations cited by the Ukrainian authorities: Umar Israilov (in Austria); Vladimir Kara-Murza, Alexei Navalny and Anna Politkovskaya (in Russia); and, Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei Skripal (in the United Kingdom).
Decisions
The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Călin Georgescu v. Romania.
The case concerned the annulment by the Constitutional Court of Romania of the presidential elections of 2024, for which the applicant was a candidate.
The Court held that in the light of the constitutional structure of Romania, there was no indication that the powers of the President of Romania are such as to make that office part of the “legislature” of the respondent State, within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, guaranteeing the right to free elections. Therefore, it rejected the complaint raised in that respect.
- Press release
- Press release (in Romanian)
The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Kotnik and Jukič v. Slovenia.
The case concerned the emergency measures taken by the Bank of Slovenia in 2013 and 2014 to protect the financial system. As a result of the measures, subordinated bonds and shares belonging to the applicants had been voided without compensation.
The applicants complained that the Slovenian authorities had failed to implement a European Court judgment of 2021 in their favour. That judgment had ruled that it was essential that former holders of cancelled shares or bonds had a legal avenue to effectively challenge the interference with their property rights.
The Court noted that in 2024 a new law had come into force allowing former holders of cancelled bonds or shares to bring legal actions against the Bank of Slovenia, with the possibility of damages being awarded. It therefore rejected the applicants’ complaints because they had not yet used all the legal avenues available at national level.
Other News
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has elected Sébastien Biancheri as judge to the Court in respect of Monaco for a 9-year term of office which will begin not later than three months after his election.
On 8 April 2025, Xavier Espot Zamora, the Head of the Government, and Imma Tor Faus, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Andorra, visited the Court and were received by Mattias Guyomar, Section President and Judge elected in respect of France. Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, Judge elected in respect of Andorra, and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar, also attended the meeting.
On 3 and 4 April 2025, the President of the Court, Marko Bošnjak, paid an official visit to Belgium, accompanied by Frédéric Krenc, Judge elected in respect of Belgium, and Johan Callewaert, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar. During the visit, the delegation met, in particular, with Annelies Verlinden, the Minister of Justice of Belgium. The delegation also took part in meetings with Pierre Nihoul and Luc Lavrysen, the Presidents of the Constitutional Court, a delegation of the Court of Cassation, led by its First President, Éric de Formanoir, and a delegation of the Council of State, led by its President, Pascale Vandernacht. During the visit, the delegation also attended a conference organised on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the first ruling of the Belgian Constitutional Court. Lastly, President Bošnjak delivered speeches at the University UCLouvain Saint-Louis, in Brussels, and at a joint Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) - Council of Europe event.