ECtHR Cases April - June 2022

Nana Muradyan v. Armenia (application no. 69517/11)

The applicant, Nana Muradyan, is an Armenian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Armavir (Armenia). The case concerns the death of the applicant’s 18-year-old son during his compulsory military service on the territory of the unrecognised Nagorno Karabakh Republic. On 15 March 2010 he was found hanging from a metal pole behind the officers’ room of his military unit. The ensuing investigation has been stayed three times and is still ongoing. According to the findings thus far, the applicant’s son committed suicide because of harassment.

Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Muradyan disputes that her son committed suicide, alleging that he was murdered because he had witnessed a theft in his military unit. She also complains that the authorities’ investigation into her son’s death was ineffective.

Landi v. Italy (application no. 10929/19)

In the present case Ms Landi alleged that the Italian State had failed to take the requisite action to protect her and her two children from the domestic violence inflicted by her partner, which had led to the murder of her one-year-old son and her own attempted murder in 2018.

The Court noted that the national authorities had failed in their duty to conduct an immediate and proactive assessment of the risk of a repetition of the violent acts committed against Ms Landi and her children, and to adopt operational and preventive measures to mitigate the risk and to protect those concerned. In particular, the authorities had remained passive in the face of the serious risk of ill-treatment of Ms Landi, and their inaction had enabled the applicant’s partner to continue to threaten, harass and attack her unhindered and with impunity. The authorities ought to have assessed the risk of renewed violence and adopted appropriate and adequate measures. Such measures could have been adopted by the authorities, pursuant to Italian legislation, whether or not there had been a complaint or any change in the victim’s perception of the risk. The authorities had reacted neither immediately, as required in cases of domestic violence, nor at any other time. They had therefore failed to show the requisite diligence and to honour their obligation to protect Ms Landi’s and her son’s lives. Nevertheless, the Court did not consider that the impugned shortcomings could be considered, per se, as pointing to any discriminatory attitude on the authorities’ part. The complaint concerning Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 2 was therefore manifestly ill-founded.

Bouras v. France (application no. 31754/18)

The case concerned a complaint, under the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention, about a gendarme’s use of armed force resulting in the death of a prisoner who attacked another gendarme in the vehicle that was transferring him from Strasbourg Prison to the Colmar tribunal de grande instance.

Like the national courts – whose decisions, the Court noted, had contained particularly comprehensive reasoning – the Court found that the gendarme had acted in the honest belief that his colleague’s life was in danger and had genuinely believed it was necessary to use armed force. The investigation had not cast any doubt on the genuineness or honesty of that belief. The Court observed that the decision to use the weapon had been preceded by verbal warnings and other unsuccessful attempts to stop the attack. The danger to the gendarmes was borne out by the forensic ballistics report, whose conclusions were endorsed by the Investigation Division of the Court of Appeal. Noting that the administrative inquiry conducted by the internal affairs department of the national gendarmerie had found no breach of regulations, the Court likewise held that the transfer could not be regarded as not having been prepared and managed in such a way as to minimise any risk to the prisoner’s life or the lives of the gendarmes. In the circumstances, the Court concluded that the gendarme’s decision to use his firearm could be considered justified and absolutely necessary “in defence of any person from unlawful violence” within the meaning of Article 2 § 2 (a) of the Convention.

Boboc and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 44592/16)

The applicants are three Moldovan nationals, Ala Boboc, Victor Boboc and Natalia Romanciuc who were born in 1963, 1959 and 1987 respectively. They live in Bubuieci and Chișinău. The case concerns the beating to death of the applicants’ 24-year-old son/husband by the police during mass protests in the centre of Chișinău in April 2009, as well as the manner in which his ill-treatment and death were subsequently investigated. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain that he was killed by the police, and that the investigation into his death was inefficient.

Skorupa v. Poland (no. 44153/15)

The applicant, Ryszard Skorupa, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Czerwionka-Leszczyny (Poland). The case concerns his arrest on his way home from a nearby bar, his being driven to a police station in the same street as his house, and his placement in a sobering-up centre 35 kilometres away.

Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains that he was ill-treated during his arrest and at the police station, and that his detention at the sobering-up centre was unlawful.

De Giorgi v. Italy (application no. 23735/19)

The applicant complained that despite the filing of several criminal complaints the Italian authorities had failed to afford her protection and assistance after she suffered domestic violence at the hands of her husband, from whom she had been separated since 2013.

The Court found that the Italian authorities had not conducted an assessment of the risk of ill-treatment focused specifically on the context of domestic violence and in particular the situation of the applicant and her children, an assessment which would have warranted concrete preventive measures to protect them from such risk. The authorities had therefore breached their duty to protect the applicant and her children from the husband’s acts of domestic violence. The Court determined that the Italian authorities had taken no action in response to the serious risk of ill-treatment faced by the applicant and her children and had, by their failure to act, created a situation of impunity, with the husband yet to be tried for the injuries inflicted on the applicant in the assault of 20 November 2015 and the investigation into the applicant’s other complaints remaining pending since 2016.

The Court also held that the State had breached its duty to investigate the ill-treatment of the applicant and her children, and that the manner in which the domestic authorities had conducted the criminal prosecution in the case also qualified as judicial inaction and could not be regarded as meeting the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.

Other Article 3 Cases from April - June 2022

Volodya Avetisyan v. Armenia (application no. 39087/15)

Dokukiny v. Russia (application no. 1223/12)

Alıcı and Others v. Turkey (application no. 70098/12)

The case concerned applicants who were arrested while travelling by bus from Adana to Ankara to take part in a demonstration and who incurred an administrative fine for withholding their identities from the police who stopped their bus.

The Court found that the main reason for arresting and detaining the applicants had been to prevent them from travelling to Ankara and thus from participating in demonstrations which had been declared unlawful. In particular the Court observed that the applicants had not been released until 2.50 p.m. on 28 March 2012, whereas their identities had been determined by 4.50 a.m. Nothing had warranted holding them after their identities had been established. In any event their detention had ceased to be warranted to secure fulfilment of the obligation to identify themselves and no longer fell within Article 5 § 1 (b) of the Convention. The Court also specified that the material in the case files did not show that all the conditions had been met for arresting and detaining the applicants in order to compel them to fulfil a concrete and specific obligation already incumbent on them which they had until then failed to satisfy. The Court reiterated that an arrest would be acceptable only where fulfilment of an “obligation prescribed by law” could not be secured by milder means. Accordingly the applicants’ arrest and continued detention had not been compatible with Article 5 of the Convention.

The Court reiterated that the authorities had a duty to take appropriate measures with regard to lawful demonstrations to ensure their peaceful conduct and the safety of all citizens. In this case it appeared that the only measure that had in fact been taken vis-à-vis the applicants and other demonstrators had been to prevent them outright from travelling to Ankara, a measure which the Court regarded as disproportionate and unnecessary for the prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights of others (the legitimate aims pursued by the authorities).

Galeano Peñas v. Spain (no. 48784/20)

The applicant, Ruben Galeano Peñas, is a Spanish national who was born in 1987 and lives in Griñón (Spain).

In 2011 Mr Galeano Peñas, who was a Guardia Civil officer, had a traffic dispute while off duty. Following a criminal complaint, he was subsequently convicted in 2013 of forgery of facts in a public record committed by a civil servant, receiving a three-year prison sentence, a fine and disqualification from public posts for two years. The penalty in his case was suspended while he was awaiting the resolution of a pardon request. The sentence was executed only over five years after it had become final. The case concerns the application of modified provisions of the Criminal Code (which only came into force after his conviction and after his sentence had already been suspended) concerning the statutory period applicable in his case, and whether that was in fact a retroactive application of a prejudicial criminal law.

Relying on Article 7 (no punishment without law) and Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention, the applicant complains that he was imprisoned after the statutory period had expired, and that he was punished by virtue of retroactive application of the law.

P.W. v. Austria (application no. 10425/19)

The applicant, P.W., is an Austrian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Linz. The case concerns her confinement in an institution for mentally ill offenders as a preventive measure. She was charged with resisting arrest after she had struck a police officer who had been called when she had been unable to pay a taxi fare.

Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms P.W. complains that her confinement in an institution for mentally ill offenders was not proportionate or necessary, of not being allowed to consult an additional medical expert, and that she would not have been confined had she slapped someone who was not a State official.

Wang v. France (application no. 83700/17) and Dubois v. France (application no. 52833/19)

Both cases concerned individuals prosecuted and convicted for unlawfully practising medicine. They complained of the conditions in which their voluntary police interviews had been conducted.

While noting the fact that legislative reforms substantially strengthening the rights of persons being interviewed voluntarily had been adopted subsequently – and thus had no practical impact on the applicants’ situation – the Court found, with regard to the defence rights protected by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, that the requisite safeguards should be the same as those applicable to police custody. It went on to examine compliance with those safeguards as part of its assessment of the overall fairness of the proceedings.

The Court noted that the applicants in both cases had consented to being interviewed and had been informed of their right to end the interview at any point, in accordance with the law as applicable at that time. However, they had not been expressly informed of their right to remain silent and had not been offered an opportunity to obtain legal assistance and, in one case, the assistance of an interpreter. During the interviews both applicants had described actions performed by them which constituted the alleged offence. The Court therefore considered that they should be regarded as having incriminated themselves for the purposes of the Court’s case-law.

With regard to Ms Wang, whose mother tongue was Chinese, the Court, noting the vulnerability of her position, found, firstly, that the lack of assistance from an interpreter during questioning and the failure to inform the applicant expressly of her right to remain silent had contributed to her incriminating herself. Secondly, the role played by the statements taken during the voluntary interview and the witness statements produced afterwards had rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair. The Court therefore found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.

In the case of Mr Dubois, however, the Court considered that the criminal proceedings, taken as a whole, had cured the procedural defects occurring during the voluntary police interview. It noted that the Court of Appeal, in convicting the applicant, had based its decision primarily on evidence with high probative value that was unconnected to the voluntary interview. It found that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the statements made during that interview had ultimately played only an incidental role in the applicant’s conviction.

Tabouret v. France (no. 43078/15)

The applicant, Dominique Tabouret, is a French national who was born in 1956 and lives in La Bruffière. In 1992 Ms Tabouret entered into an agreement with a court bailiff to take over his office, which at the time employed four people. Criminal proceedings were brought against the bailiff for fraud and breach of trust. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to be heard within a reasonable time), the applicant alleges that the length of the proceedings, and in particular the length of time taken to produce the expert report needed to rule on the civil action, was excessive and made it impossible to recover the sums her predecessor had been ordered to pay, as he had been declared bankrupt.

Kohen and Others v. Türkiye (no. 66616/10 and three other applications)

The applicants, Erol Maks Kohen, Nail Tahsildaroğlu, Ezra Ören and Hüseyin Özçallı are four Turkish nationals who were born in 1959, 1948, 1961 and 1944 respectively, and live in Istanbul. The case concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against them for running a fictitious and fraudulent export scheme. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, the applicants complain that they had no access to a lawyer during the preliminary investigation stage, and that the statements made by them and certain other co-defendants in the absence of a lawyer were used by the trial court. They also complain that there was a breach of the principle of equality of arms in relation to the collection and examination of certain expert reports at the trial stage, and that the court failed to specify the documents on the basis of which it asked the defendants to make additional submissions.

Alexandru-Radu Luca v. Romania (no. 20837/18)

The applicant, Alexandru-Radu Luca, is a Romanian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint around a judge’s handling of a criminal case against him at the pre-trial stage, alleging that his ensuing trial was prejudiced as a result. He was ultimately convicted in 2017 of accessory to fraud while he was working as a loans broker and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, Mr Luca alleges that the criminal proceedings brought against him were unfair because: the pre-trial proceedings took place in chambers and, in the absence of the parties, were not adversarial; and, he was not given the opportunity to challenge the pre-trial judge’s decision to send his case to trial.

Boutaffala v. Belgium (application no. 20762/19)

The applicant, Khaled Boutaffala, is a Belgian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Brussels. The case concerns the applicant’s criminal conviction by the Belgian courts for resisting the police and assaulting an officer who came to assist. The facts of the case relate to events which occurred when the applicant was stopped by the police on 28 August 2009 and which gave rise to two sets of proceedings: one (the subject of the present application) against the applicant, who was charged with resisting and assaulting the officers who had stopped him, and another (the subject of a prior application, no. 48302/15 – see details below) against those officers.

The applicant’s grounds of complaint in the present case are as follows: First, the applicant contends that his conviction by the domestic courts for resisting the police violated Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments) read in conjunction with Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. He alleges that the Belgian courts misrepresented the unilateral declaration previously filed with the European Court by the Belgian Government in connection with application no. 48302/15, in which he had complained of suffering violence at the hands of the police on the day of the events. In those proceedings the Belgian Government had filed a unilateral declaration recognising that “the manner in which the stop of the applicant took place was not conducive to full respect for his right against degrading treatment guaranteed by Article 3 of the European Convention” and had agreed to pay the applicant the sum of 15,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court had subsequently issued a striking-out decision (Boutaffala v. Belgium (dec.), no. 48302/15, 27 June 2017) recording the Government’s recognition of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Second, the applicant contends that his conviction for resisting the police was contrary to Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention.

Other Article 6 Cases from April - June 2022

Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) (application no. 32734/11)

Yeğer v. Türkiye (no. 4099/12)

Sinan Çetinkaya and Ağyar Çetinkaya v. Turkey (nos. 74536/10 and 75462/10)

The applicants, Sinan Çetinkaya and Ağyar Çetinkaya, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966 and 1964 respectively and live in Istanbul. They were the general director and chairman of the board of directors of a car company and, in 1999, were charged with allegedly having obtained bank loans from the Ziraat Bank on behalf of 76 customers by using forged documents and for using those loans for personal purposes. In the meantime, due to the introduction of a new law, the legal status of the Ziraat Bank changed from a public bank into a public limited company, with the result that its employees were no longer considered public officials in respect of criminal prosecutions. The applicants were ultimately convicted of embezzlement under a new Criminal Code even though embezzlement was a special offence that could only be committed by a public official.

The applicants complain that their conviction for embezzlement despite the fact that they lacked the status of public officials, and without there being a principal offender who was a public official, lacked any legal basis in domestic law and gave rise to a violation of Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention.

Haščák v. Slovakia (application nos. 58359/12, 27787/16 and 67667/16)

The case concerned a surveillance operation (“the Gorilla operation”) carried out in 2005 and 2006 by the Slovak Intelligence Service and the intelligence material obtained by it. The Court, citing its findings in substantially the same situation of the applicant in Zoltán Varga v. Slovakia, highlighted the deficiencies in the applicable rules and procedures and the lack of external oversight of both the SIS operation and the retention by the SIS of some of the resulting data, and found that both had thus not been in accordance with the law for the Convention purposes.

M.D. and Others v. Spain (application no. 36584/17)

The case concerned the compiling of files by the police in Catalonia on judges who had expressed certain views on that region’s independence from Spain. Material from the files, including photographs, had been subsequently leaked to the press. The Court found in particular that the mere existence of the police reports, which had not been compiled in accordance with any law, had contravened the Convention. As for the investigation into the leak, the Court found it to have been inadequate owing to the failure to interview a person crucial to the investigation, the Senior Chief of Police of Barcelona.

Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia (application nos. 32401/10 and 19 others)

The case concerned various actions taken by the State against Jehovah’s Witnesses religious organisations in Russia over a ten-year span, including a requirement to re-register, amendments to anti-extremist legislation leading to the banning of their religious literature and international website and the revocation of their permit to distribute religious magazines, and eventually to a nation-wide ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses religious organisations in Russia, the criminal prosecution of hundreds of individual Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the confiscation of their property.

The Court found that the definition of “extremism” was overly broad in Russian law and had been misused for the prosecution of believers or religious ministers on the basis of the content of their beliefs alone. In addition, under Article 46 (binding force and enforcement), the Court held, by four votes to three, that Russia was to take all necessary measures to discontinue pending criminal proceedings against Jehovah’s Witnesses and to release those in prison.

Lings v. Denmark (application no. 15136/20)

The applicant is a doctor and the founder of a pro-assisted-suicide organisation, Physicians in Favour of Euthanasia. The case concerned his conviction on two counts of assisted suicide, and one count of attempted assisted suicide. He asserted that he had just been disseminating information about suicide. The Court found in particular that the authorities had acted within their wide discretion in convicting Mr Lings. The relevant law criminalised specific acts of assisted suicide, which the applicant had been found guilty of, rather than general provision of information about suicide. The aims of the authorities – protection of health and morals and the rights of others – had been legitimate.

Bumbeș v. Romania (application no. 18079/15)

The case concerned the fining of Mr Bumbeș for taking part in a protest against proposed gold- and silver-mining activity in the Roșia Montană area. He along with three others had handcuffed themselves to one of the entrance barriers of the main Government building and displayed signs. The Court found in particular that the domestic courts had not focussed on the issue of public speech on a matter of public interest and had not duly considered the extent of the “disruption of ordinary life” caused by the protest, instead looking primarily at the lack of prior notification of the protest. The resulting fine had had a chilling effect on such speech, and overall had not been “necessary in a democratic society”.

Patrício Monteiro Telo de Abreu v. Portugal (application no. 42713/15)

The case concerned the applicant’s conviction and his sentencing to payment of a fine and damages for aggravated defamation of a municipal councillor (Ms E.G.) on account of the publication on a blog administered by him of three cartoons drawn by an artist.

The Court held that the domestic courts had not taken sufficient account of the context in which the applicant had published the cartoons on his blog. They had not carried out a thorough balancing exercise between the rights at stake. Furthermore, they had not taken into consideration the characteristics of political satire emerging from the Court’s case-law or made any reference to the Court’s case-law on freedom of expression. The Court held that the reasons given by the domestic courts to justify the applicant’s conviction could not be regarded as relevant and sufficient. In its view, imposing criminal sanctions for conduct such as that of the applicant in the present case was liable to have a chilling effect on satirical forms of expression concerning political issues. The applicant’s conviction had thus not been necessary in a democratic society.

Rouillan v. France (application no. 28000/19)

The case concerned the sentencing of Jean-Marc Rouillan, formerly a member of the terrorist group Action directe, to a term of 18 months’ imprisonment including a suspended portion of 10 months with probation, upon his conviction as an accessory to the offence of publicly defending acts of terrorism for remarks he had made on a radio show in 2016 and which had subsequently been published on a media website.

The Court took the view that the applicant’s conviction and sentencing as an accessory to the offence of defending acts of terrorism had amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression. It recognised that the interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime. Turning to whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 10 § 2, the Court accepted, first, that the remarks in issue fell to be regarded as an indirect incitement to terrorist violence and saw no reasonable basis on which to depart from the meaning and scope attached to them by a decision of the Criminal Court, whose duly stated reasons had been adopted by the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation. The Court further stated that it saw no reasonable ground, in this case, on which to depart from the domestic courts’ assessment regarding the principle behind the penalty. It held in this regard that their reasoning as to why the penalty imposed on the applicant had been warranted – based on the need to combat defence of terrorism and on consideration of the offender’s personal characteristics – appeared both “relevant” and “sufficient” to justify the interference at issue, which fell to be regarded as responding, in principle, to a pressing social need.

However, after reiterating that the authorities were required, in matters of freedom of expression, to exercise restraint in the use of criminal proceedings and especially in the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment, the Court held that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the reasons relied on by the domestic courts in the balancing exercise which had been theirs to perform were not sufficient to enable it to regard the 18-month prison sentence passed on the applicant – the suspension of 10 months notwithstanding – as proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The Court thus concluded that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the severity of the criminal penalty imposed on the applicant.

Silgir v. Turkey (no. 60389/10)

The applicant, Halit Silgir, was born in 1976 and lives in Şanlıurfa (Turkey). The case concerns the fact that the applicant was sentenced to two years and one month’s imprisonment for participating in a demonstration organised by members of the People’s Democratic Party in Viranşehir (a district of Şanlıurfa) in September 2005.

Some time after the demonstration the public prosecutor’s office indicted Mr Silgir on charges of breaching the provisions of the Law on public gatherings and demonstrations (“Law no. 2911”), accusing him of having brandished a poster with a photograph of A. Öcalan during the march along an unauthorised route. The public prosecutor’s office also charged the applicant with spreading propaganda for a terrorist organisation (PKK - the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). Mr Silgir was convicted in June 2006, and his prison sentence was upheld by the Court of Cassation in June 2010. He served his sentence from September 2010 to January 2012.

Before the European Court Mr Silgir relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).

Oganezova v. Armenia (applications nos. 71367/12 and 72961/12)

The applicant, Armine Oganezova, is an Armenian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Nacka, (Sweden). The case concerns an aggressive homophobic campaign against the applicant, a well-known member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in Armenia, including an arson attack in May 2012 on the bar she co-owned and ran in Yerevan.

In the weeks following the arson attack, which was publicly condoned by leading political figures, groups of people gathered outside the bar to intimidate and harass the applicant and vandalised what was left inside. She was also subjected to death threats and abuse, including online hate speech, leading her to permanently leave Armenia and request asylum in Sweden. Two brothers, members of “Black Ravens Armenia”, which is associated with a neo-Nazi group, were arrested shortly after the arson attack and admitted that they had set the bar on fire because it was “a gathering place for LGBT persons who brought shame on Armenia”. They were found guilty in July 2013 of intentional damage to property and given a two-year suspended prison sentence. They were subsequently given an amnesty.

Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Oganezova complains that the authorities failed to protect her from harassment, attacks and threats because of her sexual orientation and to effectively investigate her complaints. She also complains, under the same provisions, of the lack of an adequate legislative framework to combat hate crimes directed against the LGBT minority in Armenia. She also requests, under Article 46 (binding force and implementation) of the European Convention, that the Court order the Armenian Government to amend sentencing legislation to include homophobia as an aggravating factor and to protect sexual orientation.

Stoyanova v. Bulgaria (application no. 56070/18)

The case concerned the homophobic murder of the applicant’s 26-year-old son. His attackers, secondary-school students, had singled him out for assault because they had thought he looked like a homosexual. The attackers had been found guilty of aggravated murder, but had been given sentences which were below the statutory minimum after the courts took into account mitigating factors such as their young age and clean criminal records.

The Court found in particular that, although the Bulgarian courts had clearly established that the reason behind the attack had been the perpetrators’ hatred for homosexuals, there had been no tangible legal consequences. This was because the Bulgarian Criminal Code did not provide for homophobia as a specific aggravating factor in respect of the crime of murder. Therefore, under Article 46 (binding force and implementation), the Court found that Bulgaria had to ensure that violent attacks motivated by hostility towards the victim’s actual or presumed sexual orientation were treated as aggravated in criminal-law terms.

Călin v. Romania (no. 54491/14)

The applicant, Oprea Călin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns the seizure of the applicant’s apartment, cars and money in the context of a criminal investigation against him in April 2003 for unlawfully approving bank loans. The applicant was a member of the board of directors of the bank in question and was charged with dereliction of duty. Those charges were dropped in January 2014.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant complains that the duration of the seizure of his assets was excessive, alleging that the title deeds to his apartment and registration documents for his cars have still not been returned to him, and that he did not have the possibility to contest the measure in court. He further complains, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), that the length of the criminal proceedings against him, which lasted over ten years, was also excessive.

Goulandris and Vardinogianni v. Greece (no. 1735/13)

The applicants, Georgios Goulandris and Christianna Vardinogianni, are Greek nationals who live in London. The case concerns their having been fined for building two stone walls on their property without the requisite building permit, and their trial and punishment in criminal proceedings resulting in a sentence of seven months’ imprisonment. The applicants allege an infringement of their right not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence, provided for in Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.