HR Case Law 2

(met context en relevantie)

A., B. and C. v. Ireland

Three women traveled to the UK for abortions because it was illegal in Ireland. A and B did not have medical risks, but C had cancer and feared for her health. - Margin of Appreciation & Consensus: Although there is a European consensus allowing abortion, the Court granted Ireland a wide margin of appreciation due to the profound moral views in the country. However, regarding applicant C, the Court found a violation because the existing legal right to abortion in Ireland (for life-threatening cases) was not accessible or effective in practice.

Al-Skeini v. UK

The UK exercised powers in Iraq; a person was killed during a security operation by British soldiers. - Extra-territorial Jurisdiction (Art. 1): Jurisdiction can extend outside a state's territory if state agents exercise physical power and control over an individual or have effective control over an area.

Al-Sadoon and Mufdhi v. UK

Prisoners under British control in Iraq were to be handed over to local authorities where the death penalty applied. - Art. 2 & Death Penalty: The Court found a violation. The death penalty is no longer consistent with the Convention (implicit modification of Art. 2 via Protocols 6 and 13).

Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia

A conflict between an ECtHR judgment (prisoners' voting rights) and the Russian Constitution. Russia allowed some prisoners (in camps) to vote but not those in prison. - Execution of Judgments: Shows the tension between national constitutions and ECtHR judgments. The Court accepted Russia's partial compliance as "executing the judgment" within the available legal framework.

Antović and Mirković v. Montenegro

A dean installed cameras in classrooms, claiming it was for safety; professors claimed it violated privacy. - Art. 8 (Privacy): Even in a professional context (classroom), professors can claim a right to privacy. The measure must be proportionate and people must be informed.

Assanidze v. Georgia

A man was detained arbitrarily. To restore the situation, the state had no choice but to set him free. - Execution (Art. 46): The state has an obligation to put an end to the breach. In this specific case, the only possible execution was immediate release, limiting the state's usual choice of means.

Axel Springer AG v. Germany

A magazine was fined for publishing articles about the arrest of a well-known actor for cocaine possession.- Art. 10 (Press Freedom): The Court found a violation of Art. 10. The articles concerned public judicial facts about a public figure, obtained from official sources.

Baka v. Hungary

A high judicial official criticized new legislation and was subsequently dismissed (forced to retire). - Art. 10 & Independence: Violation of Art. 10. The dismissal was a sanction for exercising freedom of expression regarding judiciary reforms.

Baldassi and others v. France

Activists involved in a "boycott Israel" campaign were sanctioned for hate speech. - Political Speech (Art. 10): The boycott call was considered political speech on a matter of public interest, warranting high protection. The sanction was a violation.

Bankovic v. Belgium

Citizens sued NATO states for the bombing of Sarajevo. - Jurisdiction (Art. 1): The Court declared the case inadmissible. The acts (bombing) occurred outside the territory of the states and did not meet the criteria for extra-territorial jurisdiction (no effective control of the area).

Ben el Mahi v. Denmark

The "Danish cartoons" case. Moroccan applicants complained about cartoons published in Denmark. - Jurisdiction (Art. 1): A state is normally not responsible for acts committed on its territory that produce effects outside its territory (jurisdiction was not established).

Beyeler v. Italy

A man bought a Van Gogh painting. Years later, the state exercised a right of pre-emption at the original (lower) price, despite the painting's value increasing significantly. - Property (P1-1): Violation found. While the pre-emption had a legal basis, the huge discrepancy between the compensation paid and the market value constituted an excessive burden on the individual.

Borgers v. Belgium

The public prosecutor gave advice to the Court of Cassation and participated in deliberations without the accused being able to respond. - Fair Trial (Art. 6): Violation of the adversarial principle. The defense must have the opportunity to reply to the prosecutor's submissions.

Bosphorus Airways v. Ireland

An aircraft leased by a Turkish company was seized in Ireland under EU regulations implementing UN sanctions against Yugoslavia. - B* Presumption: When a state implements obligations from an international organization (like the EU), it is presumed to be in compliance with the ECHR, provided the organization protects human rights in a manner "equivalent" to the Convention.

Botta v. Italy

A person in a wheelchair complained that private beaches were inaccessible. - Positive Obligations (Art. 8): The Court found no violation. The right to private life does not necessarily imply a positive obligation to ensure universal access to all private beaches, though it touches on personal development.

Bouyid v. Belgium

Police officers slapped two minors during an ID check at a police station. - Art. 3 (Degrading Treatment): Even a "slap" can constitute a violation of Art. 3 if it diminishes human dignity, especially given the power dynamic (police vs. minors) and lack of necessity. The Grand Chamber lowered the threshold for what counts as degrading treatment by police.

Broniowski v. Poland

Polish citizens who lost property after WWII were promised compensation they never received. This affected thousands of people. - Pilot Judgment Procedure: This was a structural problem. The Court used the "pilot judgment" procedure to freeze similar cases and order the state to create a general compensation scheme for all victims.

Budayeva v. Russia

Mudslides destroyed homes and killed people; authorities knew of the risk but took no measures. - Pos. Obs. (Art. 2): Similar to Oneryildiz, the state has a positive obligation to take preventive measures against natural hazards if they are aware of the risk to life.

Burmych v. Ukraine

Addressed repetitive cases where the state failed to execute judgments. - Const. Role of Court: The Court emphasized it is not a breakage-repair machine for thousands of identical cases; once a pilot judgment establishes the violation, the Committee of Ministers should supervise execution.

Campbell v. UK

Corporal punishment in British schools. - Art. 3: Physical punishment in schools can violate Art. 3.

Carter v. Russia

Litvinenko was poisoned by Russian agents in the UK. - Extra-territorial Jurisdiction: The killing happened outside Russia, but because Russian state agents exercised "specific acts of violence" (poisoning), Russia had jurisdiction.

Castells v. Spain

A senator was imprisoned for criticizing the government's inaction regarding murders of political dissidents. - Art. 10 (Political Speech): Violation. Interferences with the freedom of expression of an opposition member of parliament call for the closest scrutiny.

Centro 7 v. Italy

Authorities delayed granting operational frequencies to a TV broadcaster, favoring Berlusconi's companies. - Pluralism (Art. 10): The state has a positive obligation to ensure media pluralism. The delay was a violation.

Chapman v. UK

A Gypsy (Roma) was refused permission to station caravans on her land. - Art. 8 (Lifestyle): The Court found no violation (margin of appreciation in planning), but acknowledged that the "traditional lifestyle" of minorities falls under Art. 8 protection.

Christine Goodwin v. UK

A post-operative transsexual woman was still legally classified as a man (e.g., for pension/insurance). - Art. 8 (Identity): Major breakthrough. The state failed its positive obligation to respect private life. There is a right to legal recognition of gender reassignment.

Classens v. Belgium

Prisoners were not allowed to shower during strikes by prison staff. - Art. 3: Prisoners must be guaranteed minimum standards of decency and hygiene; failure to do so is degrading treatment.

Delfi AS v. Estonia

A news portal was held liable for offensive comments posted by anonymous users. - Art. 10 (Internet): The Court found no violation in holding the portal liable, noting the commercial nature of the news site and the difficulty of pursuing anonymous authors. (Note: Highly debated case).

Demir and Baykara v. Turkey

A trade union was dissolved; the state claimed no right to collective bargaining existed. - Integrated Approach: The Court interpreted Art. 11 (Assembly) in light of other international instruments (like the European Social Charter), reading a right to collective bargaining into the Convention.

Dickson v. UK

Refusal of artificial insemination facilities for a prisoner. - Art. 8: Justification for interference cannot be based "solely on what would offend public opinion."

Dink v. Turkey

Journalist was prosecuted for "insulting Turkishness" and later murdered after authorities ignored death threats. - Pos. Obs. (Art. 2): Authorities failed to protect his life despite knowing of the real and immediate risk (positive obligation). Also, the "insulting Turkishness" law was too vague (Art. 10).

Dudgeon v. UK

A man in Northern Ireland complained about laws criminalizing homosexual acts, even though he had not been prosecuted. - Victim Status & Art. 8: 1) A person can be a "victim" if a law forces them to change their behavior, even without prosecution. 2) Criminalizing consensual homosexual acts violates Art. 8 (Right to Private Life).

El Masri v. FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)

A suspect was handed over to the CIA, detained in a hotel, beaten, and flown to Afghanistan ("extraordinary rendition"). - Art. 3 & Responsibility: The state was responsible for the acts of foreign agents (CIA) on its territory because it facilitated the transfer and failed to protect the individual from torture/ill-treatment.

Engel v. Netherlands

Soldiers were punished with disciplinary measures. - Engel Criteria (Art. 6): Established the criteria to determine if a "disciplinary" charge is actually "criminal" for Art. 6 protection: 1) Domestic classification, 2) Nature of the offense, 3) Severity of the penalty.

E.S. v. Austria

A woman was convicted for calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile. - Art. 10 (Blasphemy): No violation. The Court allowed the state a margin of appreciation to protect religious peace and the "rights of others" (believers) from gratuitously offensive attacks.

Eskelinen v. Finland

Civil servants complained about the length of proceedings regarding their wages. - Art. 6 (Civil Servants): Art. 6 applies to civil servants unless national law expressly excludes them for objective reasons related to state interest.

Evans v. UK

A woman wanted to use frozen embryos after her partner withdrew consent. - Right to Life / Art. 8: The embryo does not have an independent right to life. The Court prioritized the male partner's choice not to become a parent, granting the state a margin of appreciation.

Féret v. Belgium

A politician distributed racist leaflets during an election campaign. - Hate Speech (Art. 10): No violation. Political speech is protected, but incitement to racial hatred is not. The sanction was necessary to protect the rights of others and public order.

Fernández Martínez v. Spain

A married priest teaching religion was not renewed after his situation was publicized. - Art. 8 vs. Religion: No violation. The Court balanced the priest's privacy with the Church's autonomy. The Church can expect loyalty from those teaching its doctrine.

Former King of Greece v. Greece

The royal family's property was confiscated by the state without compensation. - Property (P1-1): Violation. A deprivation of property requires compensation reasonably related to the value; lack of any compensation violates the right to property.

Fuentes Bobo v. Spain

An employee was fired for offensive remarks about his employer. - Art. 10 (Workplace): Dismissal can be a violation of freedom of expression if disproportionate. The Court demands a balance between the employee's rights and the employer's interests.

Gäfgen v. Germany

Police threatened a kidnapper with torture to find the victim (who was already dead). - Art. 3 (Threats): Real threats of torture can amount to inhuman treatment (Art. 3 violation), even if the violence is not physically carried out.

Gardel v. France

A sex offender's DNA was kept in a database for 30 years. - Art. 8 (Data): No violation. Unlike S. and Marper, the applicant was convicted, the retention had a time limit, and it was restricted to specific serious offenses.

Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy

A protester was killed by police during the G8 summit in Genoa. - Art. 2 (Planning): Operations involving crowd control must be planned to minimize the risk to life. However, the Court accepted the use of lethal force in self-defense in this instance.

Golder v. UK

A prisoner was denied permission to contact a lawyer to sue a guard for libel. - Access to Court (Art. 6): Art. 6 implies a right of "access to court," even if not explicitly stated. Hindering a prisoner from contacting a lawyer violates this right.

Goodwin v. UK

A journalist was ordered to reveal his source. - Press Freedom (Art. 10): Protection of sources is a cornerstone of press freedom. Ordering a journalist to reveal a source is a violation unless there is an overriding requirement in the public interest.

Grootboom Case

A case about people living in squalid conditions demanding housing. - Socio-Economic Rights: The state has an obligation to implement a coherent housing program. It illustrates the "reasonable measures" approach to realizing social rights.

Grosaru v. Romania

Electoral control was done by the parliament itself, lacking impartiality. - Art. 13/Elections: Structural problem regarding the verification of election results. The state failed to fix the system despite previous issues.

Guja v. Moldova

A civil servant leaked a letter proving corruption (whistleblowing). - Whistleblowing (Art. 10): Established criteria for protecting whistleblowers: 1) Public interest, 2) No other effective remedy, 3) Authentic information, 4) Good faith, 5) Weighing the damage vs. benefit.

Gündüz v. Turkey

A sect member criticized democracy and called for Sharia on TV. - Art. 10 (Hate Speech): No violation of Art. 10 (by the speaker), so the prosecution violated his rights. The speech did not incite violence and was part of a pluralistic debate.

Handyside v. UK

The "Little Red Schoolbook" was banned for obscenity (sexual education for kids) - Margin of Appreciation: Freedom of expression extends to ideas that "offend, shock, or disturb." However, states have a margin of appreciation in protecting morals, which varies by country. The ban was found proportionate.

Hatton v. UK

Residents near Heathrow complained about noise from night flights - Art. 8 (Environment): No violation. The state has a wide margin of appreciation in economic policy. The Court checks if a fair balance was struck between individual rights and the community's economic interests.

Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy

Migrants were intercepted at sea by Italian ships and returned to Libya ("pushbacks") - Jurisdiction & Non-Refoulement: 1) Acts on the high seas on state vessels fall under jurisdiction. 2) Returning migrants to a country where they face torture violates Art. 3. 3) Collective expulsion is prohibited.

Hornsby v. Greece

Applicants won a court case for a permit, but the administration refused to comply - Execution (Art. 6): The right to a fair trial would be illusory if the domestic legal system allowed a final judgment to remain inoperative. Execution of judgment is part of "fair trial."

Hutten-Czopska v. Poland

Rent control laws froze rents at very low levels, making it impossible for landlords to maintain properties - Property (P1-1): Violation. While states can control rent, the burden was excessive because landlords could not cover maintenance costs or make a profit, and the situation lasted indefinitely.

Ibrahim v. UK

Terrorist suspects were interrogated without a lawyer to prevent further attacks - Salduz Exception: Art. 6 allows temporary restriction of access to a lawyer for "compelling reasons" (like saving lives). For some suspects, the restriction was justified; for another (treated as a witness first), it was not.

Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy

Landlords could not evict tenants even after lease expiration due to suspension of evictions by the state - Property (P1-1): Violation. The long delay and lack of police assistance to enforce eviction placed an excessive burden on the property owner.

Incal v. Turkey

A politician was convicted for a pamphlet criticizing measures against Kurds - Art. 10: Violation. The interference was disproportionate. Political speech requires high protection, especially for the opposition.

Ireland v. UK

The "Five Techniques" (hooding, wall-standing, noise, etc.) used in Northern Ireland - Torture vs. Inhuman Treatment: The Court defined the threshold of severity. It classified the techniques as "inhuman and degrading treatment" but not "torture" (at that time), though today they might be classified as torture.

James v. UK

Leasehold reform allowed tenants to buy their homes from landlords - Property (P1-1): No violation. A transfer of property from one private person to another can be in the "public interest" (social justice/housing policy).

Jersild v. Denmark

A journalist interviewed "Green Jackets" (racists) and was convicted for aiding hate speech - Art. 10 (Media): Violation. Journalists should not be punished for reporting on hate speech if their purpose is to inform the public, not to propagate the hate.

Kalifatstaat v. Germany

An association advocating for the Caliphate and Sharia was banned - Art. 17 (Abuse of Rights): A project (Sharia) incompatible with the democratic values of the Convention can be banned. Art. 17 prevents using rights to destroy rights.

Swedish Satellite Dish Case

Tenants were evicted for installing a satellite dish to watch Arabic channels - Info (Art. 10): Violation. The right to receive information (TV channels from home country) outweighed the landlord's aesthetic concerns.

Kleyn v. Netherlands

The Council of State had both advisory and judicial functions - Impartiality (Art. 6): No violation per se, but there must be a "Chinese wall" between the advisory and judicial tasks to ensure the same judges don't decide on laws they advised on.

Kopecky v. Slovakia

A claim for restitution of gold coins confiscated in the past - Property (P1-1): To be a "possession," a claim must have a sufficient basis in national law (legitimate expectation). A mere hope of restitution is not enough.

Korolev v. Russia

A dispute over a very small sum of money (less than 1 euro) - Admissibility (Art. 35): Introduced the "significant disadvantage" criterion. The Court can reject cases where the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage.

Koufaki and Adedy v. Greece

Austerity measures reduced public sector wages and pensions - Property (P1-1): No violation. States have a wide margin of appreciation in austerity/budgetary matters during a crisis.

Kress v. France

The "Government Commissioner" participated in Council of State deliberations - Fair Trial (Art. 6): The mere presence of the Commissioner in the deliberation room (even if silent) creates an appearance of unfairness/bias.

L.B. v. Hungary

Tax defaulters' personal data was published ("shaming") - Art. 8: Violation. While the aim (tax collection) was legitimate, publishing the list was disproportionate and violated privacy.

Lambert v. France

A man in a vegetative state; family disagreed on withdrawing life support - Right to Life (Art. 2): No violation in withdrawing treatment. States have a margin of appreciation in end-of-life decisions, provided the decision-making process is thorough and respects medical/legal standards.

Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. UK

Men were convicted for consensual sado-masochistic acts (SM) that caused injury - Art. 8 (Private Life): No violation. The state can interfere to protect health/morals. Extreme SM causing injury can be criminalized even if consensual.

L.C.B. v. UK

A child had leukemia; claimed it was due to father's exposure to nuclear tests - Pos. Obs. (Art. 2): The Court accepted the state has a positive obligation to protect life from environmental risks, but in this case, the causal link was not established.

Leander v. Sweden

A person was denied a job in the navy due to a secret police file labeling him a communist - Art. 8 / National Security: No violation. Security clearance checks are necessary for national security. The state has a margin of appreciation.

Lingens v. Austria

A journalist was fined for calling a politician's behavior "immoral." - Press Freedom (Art. 10): Violation. Politicians must tolerate more criticism than private individuals. Value judgments (opinions) cannot be subject to proof of truth like facts.

Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy

A professor at a Catholic university was denied tenure due to "unorthodox views" without explanation - Art. 10 & 6: Violation. While the university has religious freedom, the professor was denied a procedural chance to defend himself or know the specific reasons for his dismissal.

Lopez Ostra v. Spain

Fumes from a waste treatment plant caused health problems for a family - Environment (Art. 8): Severe environmental pollution can affect an individual's well-being and prevent them from enjoying their home, violating Art. 8.

M.N. v. Belgium

Syrian family applied for a visa at the Belgian embassy in Beirut - Jurisdiction (Art. 1): No jurisdiction. Mere application for a visa at an embassy does not bring the applicants under the state's jurisdiction for Art. 3 purposes.

M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece

An asylum seeker was transferred from Belgium to Greece under Dublin Regulation - Dublin & Art. 3: 1) Greece violated Art. 3 due to detention conditions. 2) Belgium violated Art. 3 by sending him back to Greece when they knew or should have known about the conditions.

Magyar Helsinki v. Hungary

An NGO was denied access to information about public defenders - Access to Info (Art. 10): Art. 10 includes a right of access to state-held information if it is necessary for the exercise of freedom of expression (e.g., for "public watchdogs" like NGOs/press).

Makaratzis v. Greece

Police used excessive force during a car chase - Art. 2 (Regulatory Framework): Violation. States must have a clear legislative and administrative framework defining when police can use firearms.

Marckx v. Belgium

Belgian law discriminated against "illegitimate" children regarding inheritance/family ties - Art. 8 & 14: Landmark case for positive obligations. The state must actively alter its laws to ensure legal recognition of family life and equality between legitimate and illegitimate children.

Mastromatteo v. Italy

A prisoner on leave committed murder - Pos. Obs. (Art. 2): No violation. While states must protect society, zero risk is impossible. The system of rehabilitation (prison leave) is legitimate if reasonable checks are made.

McCann v. UK

SAS soldiers shot suspected IRA terrorists in Gibraltar who turned out to be unarmed - Use of Force (Art. 2): Violation. The use of lethal force must be "strictly necessary." The operation was planned negligently (failure to allow for possibility they were unarmed), leading to unnecessary killing.

ML v. Poland

A woman was denied abortion despite fetal defects, due to legal uncertainty - Art. 8: Violation. The lack of clear legal procedures and certainty regarding access to legal abortion violated her private life.

Mortier v. Belgium

A case concerning euthanasia of a depressed woman - Art. 2: The Court found a violation of the procedural aspect because the commission reviewing euthanasia lacked independence, but did not rule against the act of euthanasia itself.

Öcalan v. Turkey

The leader of the PKK was arrested in Kenya by Turkish agents - Jurisdiction (Art. 1): An individual is within the jurisdiction of a state from the moment they are under the authority/control of its agents (even overseas). Also, Art. 6 issues regarding the independence of the security court.

Oneryildiz v. Turkey

A methane explosion at a rubbish tip killed slum dwellers - Pos. Obs. (Art. 2): Violation. The state knew of the "real and immediate risk" and failed to take preventive measures or inform the population.

Opuz v. Turkey

A woman and her mother were victims of severe domestic violence; the mother was eventually killed by the husband - Domestic Violence (Art. 2, 3, 14): Landmark case. Domestic violence is not just a private matter. The state failed its positive obligation to protect the victims despite repeated warnings. The failure was also discriminatory against women (Art. 14).

Paposhvili v. Belgium

A seriously ill foreigner was to be deported to Georgia where care was unavailable - Art. 3 (Medical): Clarified the threshold for "medical" expulsion cases. Deportation is prohibited if it causes a "rapid decline" in health or intense suffering due to lack of treatment in the receiving country.

Parrillo v. Italy

A woman wanted to donate frozen embryos to science; Italian law forbade it - Art. 8: No violation. The state has a wide margin of appreciation regarding sensitive ethical issues like the status of the embryo.

Perinçek v. Switzerland

A Turkish politician denied the Armenian genocide in Switzerland and was convicted - Genocide Denial (Art. 10): Violation of Art. 10. Unlike Holocaust denial (often Art. 17 abuse), denying the Armenian genocide was not deemed an automatic incitement to hatred in this context. It was protected speech.

Piersack v. Belgium

The presiding judge had previously worked on the same case as a prosecutor - Impartiality (Art. 6): Violation. A judge cannot be impartial if they have previously acted as a prosecutor in the same case.

Pressos Compania Naviera v. Belgium

The "Loodsenarrest". A retroactive law exempted the state from liability for ship pilot errors.

Pretty v. UK

A paralyzed woman sought immunity for her husband to assist her suicide - Right to Die: Art. 2 (Right to Life) does not imply a "right to die." The refusal to allow assisted suicide did not violate Art. 2 or Art. 8, falling within the margin of appreciation.

Rekvényi v. Hungary

Police officers were banned from political activities - Art. 10 (Police): No violation. The ban was justified by the need to ensure a depoliticized police force during the transition from communism to democracy.

Ribitsch v. Austria

A person was injured while in police custody - Burden of Proof (Art. 3): If a person is taken into custody in good health and released with injuries, the burden is on the State to provide a plausible explanation.