ECtHR Cases July - August 2022

Safi and Others v. Greece (application no. 5418/15)

The case concerned the sinking on 20 January 2014 of a fishing boat transporting 27 foreign nationals in the Aegean Sea, off the island of Farmakonisi, resulting in the death of 11 people, including relatives of the applicants. According to the applicants, the coastguard vessel was travelling at very high speed in order to push the refugees back towards Turkish waters, and this caused the fishing boat to capsize. According to the national authorities, the boat was being towed towards the island of Farmakonisi in order to rescue the refugees, and it capsized because of panic and sudden movements among those on board.

The Court found that there had been shortcomings in the proceedings and concluded that the national authorities had not carried out a thorough and effective investigation capable of shedding light on the circumstances in which the boat had sunk.The Court found that the Greek authorities had not done all that could reasonably be expected of them to provide the applicants and their relatives with the level of protection required by Article 2 of the Convention. The Court also found, concerning 12 of the applicants who had been on board the boat after it had sunk, that they had been subjected to degrading treatment on account of the body searches they had undergone on arriving in Farmakonisi.

Tagiyeva v. Azerbaijan (application no. 72611/14)

The applicant, Maila Bulud gizi Tagiyeva, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in in 1964 and lives in Baku. The case concerns the death of the applicant’s husband, Rafig Tagiyev, following his stabbing on 19 November 2011. Mr Tagiyev was a well-known writer and columnist. He was known in particular for his critical views on Islam, and a religious fatwa was issued in Iran in 2006 calling for his death after the publication of a series of articles, the “East-West studies”, he had authored. The investigation into his killing was suspended in 2013 because it had not been possible to identify the perpetrator. The national courts dismissed all the applicant’s subsequent challenges to this decision.

Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 10 (freedom of expression) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that the State failed to protect her husband’s right to life, that the criminal investigation into his murder was ineffective, and that he was targeted on account of his publications.

Pârvu v. Romania (application no. 13326/18)

The case concerned the applicant’s allegation of a chaotic police operation in which her husband had been shot in the head after officers had mistaken him for an international fugitive. Her husband died in hospital shortly afterwards.

The Court had serious doubts whether the manner in which the police had responded during the incident had been “absolutely necessary”. The Court was not convinced either by the arguments put forward, first self-defence, then a combination of self-defence and accidental shooting. It was particularly concerned by the planning and control of an operation where it had been possible to make a significant error in identifying a suspect and the officers involved had not been clearly identifiable as being from the police. The investigation, lasting more than 11 years, had moreover been ineffective, with the domestic courts themselves identifying various deficiencies over four judicial decisions.

Lastly, the Court pointed out that there had already been similar cases against Romania forwarded to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers for enforcement and considered that general measures were called for under Article 46 (binding force and enforcement) to ensure that allegations of excessive use of force by the police were effectively investigated

Traskunova v. Russia (no. 21648/11)

The applicant, Nonna Vladimirovna Traskunova, now deceased, was a Russian national who was born in 1925. Her grandson is continuing the application on her behalf.

The case concerns the death of the applicant’s daughter in 2006 while she was participating in the clinical trial of a new drug – asenapine – for schizophrenia. The ensuing inquiry revealed that her daughter had slipped into a coma and died because of heart disease which had gone undetected and which had been aggravated by the experimental drug. The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to have disciplinary proceedings instituted against those responsible and to bring criminal proceedings into the death.

Relying on Article2 (right to life), the applicant argued that her daughter’s doctors had put her life at risk by failing to carry out comprehensive medical check-ups prior to admitting her to the trials, to then monitor her condition, and to discontinue the trials as soon as side effects had appeared.

M.S. v. Italy (application no. 32715/19)

The case concerned the domestic violence to which the applicant was subjected by her husband. The applicant complained, in particular, that the respondent State had failed to protect and assist her. She also alleged that the authorities had not acted with the requisite diligence and promptness, as the prosecution of several offences had become time-barred.

The Court could not accept that the purpose of effective protection against acts of ill-treatment, including domestic violence, was achieved where the criminal proceedings were discontinued on the grounds that the prosecution had become time-barred, where this occurred as a result of failings on the part of the authorities. Offences linked to domestic violence should be classified among the most serious offences. According to the Court’s case-law, it was incompatible with the procedural obligations arising out of Article 3 for investigations into these offences to be terminated through statutory limitation resulting from the authorities’ inactivity.

In the present case the Court considered that a situation in which the domestic authorities, firstly – on the basis of the mechanisms governing limitation periods in the national legal framework – had upheld a system in which statutory limitation was closely linked to the judicial action even after proceedings had commenced and, secondly, had prosecuted the case with a degree of judicial passivity incompatible with that framework, could not be deemed to satisfy the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.

Torosian v. Greece (no. 48195/17)

The applicant, Garik Torosian, is an Armenian national who was born in 1983. He lives in Thessaloniki (Greece). The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that he was subjected to ill-treatment by police officers on the day of his arrest. It also concerns the criminal and disciplinary proceedings against those police officers.

On 16 February 2015 he was arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by an investigating judge and placed in pre-trial detention in relation to criminal proceedings that were pending against him for armed robbery, committed jointly and in coincidence with other offences and in a particularly brutal manner against persons, resulting in death and serious bodily injury. In 2020 he was sentenced twice by the appeal court to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed on points of law.

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, the applicant alleges that he was submitted to physical violence by the police officers during his arrest. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he submits that the administrative and judicial authorities did not carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of police violence. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), he alleges a breach of his right of access to a court on account of the dismissal, as inadmissible, of an appeal lodged by him on 6 July 2016.

Sabuncu and Others v. Turkey (application no. 23199/17)

The case concerned the applicants’ initial and continued pre-trial detention on account of the editorial stance taken by the daily newspaper Cumhuriyet in its articles and in posts on social media, criticising certain government policies.

The Court found in particular that:

- the decisions of the domestic courts ordering the applicants’ initial and continued pre-trial detention had been based on mere suspicion that did not reach the required level of reasonableness;

The Court also found that:

- although the review by the Constitutional Court in the present case could not be described as “speedy” in an ordinary context, in the specific circumstances of the present case the time taken had not contravened Article 5 § 4 (right to speedy review of the lawfulness of detention);

Lastly, the Court rejected the part of the application concerning the applicants Turhan Günay and Ahmet Kadri Gürsel, with the exception of their length-of-proceedings complaint, as the Constitutional Court had already found a breach of the rights relied on by those applicants.

Loizides v. Cyprus (application no. 31029/15)

The case concerned the trial of Mr Loizides in connection with the Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion and in particular the tied verdict on his appeal. The applicant, Andreas Loizides, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1958 and lives in Nicosia.

In 2011 Mr Loizides was the Chief of the Special Unit for Disaster Response in Cyprus. Following the Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion in that year, which led to the death of thirteen people and numerous casualties, Mr Lozides was charged along with five others in connection with the incident.

In 2013 the Larnaca Assize Court convicted him of causing death by a rash, reckless or dangerous act, sentencing him to two years’ imprisonment. In 2014 the Supreme Court heard an appeal by the applicant and some of the other defendants. Three different judgments were delivered – the first judgment, delivered by six judges, dismissed the appeal; the second judgment, delivered by two judges, allowed the appeal and acquitted the applicant of all charges; and the third judgment, delivered by four judges, stated that they would allow the appeal under a different reasoning. However none of these had a majority of the 12-judge bench (one judge had not sat owing to his upcoming retirement).

After the judgments were pronounced, the President of the Supreme Court made a separate announcement concerning, among other things, the summary of the applicant’s appeal, stating as follows: “... The Criminal Appeal of the sixth defendant, Andreas Loizides, is dismissed, because there was a tie vote of 6-6 concerning the outcome of his appeal and he did not discharge the burden of proving that the first-instance decision and sentence was incorrect.”

Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 2 (presumption of innocence), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), the applicant alleged various irregularities in the proceedings, in particular that the dismissal of his appeal as a consequence of a tie vote had been in breach of his right to have a fair trial. He also complained that the burden of proof had been reversed in his trial, that he had been denied review of his conviction, and that there had been no effective remedy for his complaints.

The Court found in particular that the domestic-court reasoning had been adequate, and that it had been clear that a tie would lead to dismissal of the appeal for failure to discharge the burden of proof.

Lilian Erhan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 21947/16)

The applicant, Lilian Erhan, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1974 and lives in Chișinău. The case concerns the applicant’s conviction for drink driving. The courts relied on his breathalyser test rather than on a blood test taken later at hospital, which was ruled inadmissible as he had been unaccompanied when giving it. Mr Erhan asserts that he tried to get a police officer to accompany him, to no avail.

Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention, Mr Erhan alleges, in particular, that it was impossible for him to secure the relevant proof, thus harming the principle of equality of arms and the principle of legality, rendering his trial unfair. He also complains that he lost his job as a result of his conviction.

Kotlyar v. Russia (application no. 38825/16)

The applicant, Tatyana Mikhaylovna Kotlyar, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Obninsk, Kaluga Region, Russia. She is a human-rights defender, providing legal advice and social assistance to migrants from other republics of the former Soviet Union.

The case concerns the applicant’s prosecution under a new law introduced in January 2014 for having falsely registered her flat as the place of residence of hundreds of foreign nationals – who were not actually living there – so that they could apply for Russian citizenship. She submitted that her actions were a form of civil disobedience to raise awareness about the urgent problem of housing people who resettled in Russia. She was convicted twice, while another set of proceedings against her were discontinued.

Relying on Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that she was tried for acts that did not constitute a criminal offence at the time at which they had been committed. Also relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention, she alleges that the criminal proceedings against her were intended to stifle her standing up for migrants’ rights and expressing an opinion on a systemic social problem.

C. v. Romania (application no. 47358/20)

The case concerned allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace following a criminal complaint lodged by the applicant, a cleaning lady in a railway station, against the railway station manager, accusing him of repeatedly trying to force himself on her, and the State’s alleged failure to deal with the matter. Without expressing an opinion as to whether the station manager was guilty of sexual harassment, the Court found in particular that the investigation had been significantly flawed, which amounted to a breach of the State’s obligations under Article 8 of the Convention.

Sergey Sorokin v. Russia (no. 52808/09)

The applicant, Sergey Vladimirovich Sorokin, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Syktyvkar, Republic of Komi (Russia).

The applicant is a journalist and public activist. In 2008 he published an interview – on the website of his weekly newspaper, Zyryanskaya zhizn – with a high-ranking police officer regarding a scandal about abuse of power. A criminal case was subsequently opened against the police officer for disclosing State secrets. The applicant’s case with the European Court concerns the search of his flat and the seizure of his computer, four hard drives and an audio cassette in the context of these criminal proceedings.

Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention, the applicant alleges in particular that the search and seizure warrant was worded in such wide terms that all his electronic devices were seized, along with confidential information completely unrelated to the criminal case. He also alleges that the subsequent judicial review of the measures against him failed to balance protection of journalistic sources against the needs of the criminal investigation. He also relies on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.

Ferhatović v. Slovenia (no. 64725/19)

The applicant, Sebastjan Ferhatović, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Ljubljana. The case concerns the seizure of three large bags of copper wire from the applicant – then a defendant in criminal proceedings – and their handover to Company E., from which the wire had allegedly been stolen. The wire, at a value of 23,000 euros, had allegedly been stolen from the company. Charges were lodged against the applicant for the alleged crime in 2010 and dropped in 2012.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant complains about the handover of the wire.

Korporativna Targovska Banka AD v. Bulgaria (applications nos. 46564/15 and 68140/16)

The case concerned the withdrawal of the applicant bank’s licence by the Bulgarian National Bank and the resulting court proceedings in which it was ordered that it be wound up.

In finding violations, the Court held, in particular, that: the relevant legislation and how it had been applied by the Bulgarian courts had denied KTB a proper judicial review of the decision to withdraw its licence; KTB had been represented in court by individuals dependent on the BNB and had not been able to put forward its case; and there had been no judicial or other legal safeguards against the decision to withdraw KTB’s licence.

It also held under Article 46 (binding force and implementation) that the only way to put right the violation of the Convention relating to the impossibility for KTB to obtain proper judicial review of the withdrawal of its licence was to give it such a possibility, but that it did not necessarily follow that the form of redress following a possible finding that the decision to withdraw KTB’s licence had been unlawful or unjustified should consist of the annulment of that decision and a reversal of its effects rather than of an award of compensation. The Court went on to say that the State should examine the relevant legislation to see if any gaps were causing repeated violations of this nature.