Below are set out certain final rulings delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (the Court), presented in a chronological order, which may be of particular interest to the GRECO community: Léotard c. France (application no. 41298/21, 14.12.2023) concerns criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, who was a former French Minister of Defence. The criminal proceedings resulted in the applicant’s conviction by the Court of Justice of the Republic (CJR) on charges of aiding and abetting the misuse, for personal advantage, of the property or credit of two companies. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), the applicant submits that he was not tried within a reasonable time and complains that his trial was unfair. In the latter regard, he complains more specifically of having been informed belatedly of his right to remain silent during the trial, of the circumstances in which the CJR dispensed with hearing absent witnesses and that the length of time that had elapsed since the events in question had undermined the rights of the defence. He further alleges that items of evidence apt to establish that the prosecution was out of time were concealed from him by the investigating judge and were subsequently misconstrued by the CJR. No violation. Tadić v. Croatia (application no. 25551/18, 28.11.2023) concerned criminal proceedings in which the applicant had been found guilty of conspiring – through payments of money – to influence the Supreme Court to give a decision favourable to a well-known politician who was being tried for a war crime. The applicant complained that the Supreme Court, the appellate court in his case, had not been impartial as its president had allegedly played a role in criminal offences for which he had been tried, and had testified as a witness for the prosecution. He also complained that the publication in the media of Security Intelligence Agency recordings of his telephone conversations, two months before the Supreme Court had adopted a decision in his case, had exerted pressure on that court to uphold his conviction and had breached the presumption of innocence. The Court found that the Supreme Court President’s involvement in the trial against Mr Tadić had not harmed the objective impartiality of that court. He had had very little real influence to impose his will on other judges, and in any case there had been no issue as to how the Supreme Court had upheld the first-instance judgment. The Court found furthermore that the appellate judgment had not been influenced by media publications. It had been given by professional, Supreme Court judges on the basis of the case file and dealing with the first-instance courts’ identification of facts and application of law. No violation. Wałęsa v. Poland (application no. 50849/21, 23.11.2023) concerned a civil suit that Mr Wałęsa had taken against a former friend and associate, who had accused him publicly of collaboration with the secret services under the communist regime. Although he had won the case, the final judgment in his favour had been overturned, nine years later, by the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs following an extraordinary appeal by the Prosecutor General. The applicant complained of various breaches of his rights under Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 18 (limitation on the use of restriction of rights) of the Convention. The Court found in particular, as it has done in previous cases, that the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs, which had examined the extraordinary appeal, was not an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law”. Therefore, Mr Wałęsa’s right to a fair hearing had been breached. As to whether the extraordinary appeal had violated the principle of legal certainty, as alleged by Mr Wałęsa, the Court noted that entrusting the Prosecutor General – a member of the executive who wielded considerable authority over the courts and exerted a strong influence on the National Council of the Judiciary – with the unlimited power to contest virtually any final judicial decision ran counter to the principles of judicial independence and separation of powers, with a risk that extraordinary appeals could turn into a political tool used by the executive. It held that the extraordinary appeal procedure was incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and res judicata (a case that has been resolved by a final judgment cannot be brought back to court for a second trial or a new appeal), finding that the extended time-limits for lodging an extraordinary appeal allowed to the Prosecutor General and operating retrospectively, were not only in breach of those principles but also failed to satisfy the requirement of foreseeability of the law for Convention purposes. It further found indications that the State authority had abused the extraordinary appeal procedure to further its own political opinions and motives. Violation. Gyulumyan and Others v. Armenia (application no. 25240/20, 21.11.2023) concerned the termination of the four applicants’ terms of office at the Constitutional Court in 2020, following constitutional amendments which had not been subject to judicial review. The context of those events was the “Velvet Revolution”, a new government and their efforts to combat corruption. The applicants brought complaints essentially under Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that even though the applicants’ claim had concerned an arguable right under Armenian law, namely their entitlement to serve their full terms of office until retirement, their exclusion from access to a court had been justified on objective grounds. In particular, their terms of office had been ended through a constitutional amendment, which had been part of broader reform and which had not been directed against them specifically. Furthermore, there had been no significant impact on their private lives. Inadmissible. Bild GmbH & Co. KG v. Germany (application no. 9602/18, 31.10.2023) concerned a court ruling ordering bild.de, a major news website, to take down CCTV footage (and any future use of the footage) of a police arrest, portraying the use of force by the police, at a nightclub in Bremen unless it blurred the face of one of the police officers involved. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant company complained that the injunction to take down the unpixellated video from its website had violated its freedom of expression. The Court found in particular that the reasoning of the German courts as regards the second and any future use of the footage had been insufficient. Without evaluating the contribution to a public debate, the German courts had stated in a general reasoning that neutral coverage of the police intervention, although it might not depict the police officer in a negative way, could not be considered to be portraying a general aspect of contemporary society and thus would be unlawful. This could lead to an unacceptable ban on any future publication, without their consent, of unedited images of police officers performing their duties and that the reasoning could lead to an unacceptable ban on any future publication, without the consent of the individuals concerned, of unedited images of police officers performing their duties. Violation. Manole v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 26360/19, 18.07.223) concerned the applicant’s dismissal from her duties as judge for having informed the press of the reasons for her dissenting opinion – the existence of which was already known – prior to publication of the full text of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeal in a case that she had heard. Relying, in particular, on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant submitted that her dismissal amounted to an illegitimate and disproportionate interference with her right to impart information on a matter of public interest. The Court specified that judges’ duty of discretion required them not to disclose the reasons for a decision before those reasons were available to the public. However, it reiterated that the procedural safeguards and the nature and severity of the penalty imposed were further criteria to be examined when assessing the proportionality of an interference with the exercise of freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. The Court observed, amongst other things, that the applicant’s dismissal had been the only sanction that could be applied at the material time. It was a very heavy penalty which had put a permanent end to her career after 18 years of successful service. Violation. Guliyev v. Azerbaijan (application no. 54588/13, 06.07.2023) concerns the applicant’s dismissal from the prosecution service, as the conduct in his private life was deemed to breach the Ethics Code. He was dismissed because “despite the [relevant] recommendations” he “failed to draw [the necessary] conclusions and to take steps to solve the problem stemming from his personal relationship [with his former girlfriend]”. The applicant complains, in particular, that his dismissal was unlawful and in breach of his right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court found that domestic courts had made an unforeseeable interpretation and application of domestic law failing to protect applicant against arbitrary interference. No factual or relevant legal grounds were established justifying the applicant’s dismissal. Violation. |
