PIL (2019) Case Law Appendix I CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS RELATED TO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW prepared by the Public International Law Division Directorate of Legal Advice and Public International Law (DLAPIL) Strasbourg, 31 December 2018 This document contains press releases and legal summaries of relevant cases of the European Court of Human Rights related to public international law. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its website (http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int). 1 CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS RELATED TO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW Table of Contents (PRESS RELEASES) 1. ECtHR, X v. Sweden, No. 36417/16, Chamber judgment of 9 January 2018 (Article 3, Prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment - Violation). The applicant, a Moroccan national living in Sweden, successfully claimed that he would face torture if Sweden deported him to Morocco. ............................................................................................................................................. 8 2. ECtHR, Milić and Others v. Croatia, No. 38766/15, Chamber judgment of 25 January 2018 (Article 2, Right to life - No violation). The applicants, the members of a Croatian family, unsuccessfully complained that the national authorities had not carried out a proper investigation into the death of their relative who was killed in August 1995 during a Croatian army operation to retake the Krajina area. ......... 9 3. ECtHR, J.R. and Others v. Greece, No. 22696/16, Chamber judgment of 25 January 2018 (Article 3, Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment - No violation; Article 5-1, Right to liberty and security - No violation; Article 5-2, Right to be informed promptly of the reasons for arrest - Violation; Article 34, Right of individual application - No violation). The applicants, three Afghan nationals, complained about the conditions in which they were held in the Vial reception centre, on the Greek island of Chios and about the circumstances of their detention. ............................................. 10 4. ECtHR, M.A. v. France, No. 9373/15, Chamber judgment of 1 February 2018 (Article 3, Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment - Violation; Article 34, Right of individual application - Violation). The applicant, an Algerian national convicted in France for involvement in a terrorist organisation, successfully claimed that his expulsion to Algeria had exposed him to a real and serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, since his conviction for terrorist offences had been known to the Algerian authorities. He successfully further claimed that the way in which the French authorities prepared his expulsion violated his right of individual application. In its judgment the Court relied, amongst others, on the reports of the United Nations Committee against Torture and of several NGOs, describing the alarming situation in Algeria. ................................................................................... 13 5. ECtHR, Tsezar and Others v. Ukraine, Nos. 73590/14, 73593/14, 73820/14, 4635/15, 5200/15, 5206/15, and 7289/15, Chamber judgment of 13 February 2018 (Article 6-1, Right of access to court - No violation; Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Protection of property - Inadmissible). The applicants, seven residents of Donetsk, complained that they had not been able to bring cases before a court in the city where they lived. The Court noted that because of the conflict in eastern Ukraine the authorities had moved the Donetsk courts to neighbouring regions which were under Government control but there was no evidence that the applicants’ personal circumstances had prevented them from travelling to the area where the courts were relocated to file claims. Therefore, the Government’s actions had not impaired the very essence of their right of access to a court. ............................................................................................ 16 6. ECtHR, Stern Taulats and Roura Capellera v. Spain, No. 51168/15, Chamber judgment of 13 March 2018 (Article 10, Freedom of expression - Violation). The applicants, two Spanish nationals, successfully claimed that their conviction for setting fire to a photograph of the royal couple at a public demonstration held during the Spanish King’s official visit to Girona in September 2007 violated their freedom of expression. In its judgment the Court relied, among others, on Recommendation No. R (97) 20 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Hate Speech and decided that the prison sentence served on the applicants had been neither proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued nor necessary in a democratic society. ....................................................................................................................................... 19 2 7. ECtHR, A.E.A. v. Greece, No. 39034/12, Chamber judgment of 15 March 2018 (Article 3, Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, in conjunction with Article 13, Right to an effective remedy - Violation). The applicant, a Sudanese national who was born in the Darfur region and belongs to a non-Arab tribe, successfully alleged deficiencies in the system operated by the Greek authorities for examining asylum applications, complaining inter alia that his asylum application had not been registered for three years. .............................................................................................................................................. 22 8. ECtHR, Nait-Liman v. Switzerland, No. 51357/07, Grand Chamber judgement of 15 March 2018 (Article 6-1, Right of access to a court - No violation). The applicant, a Swiss national of Tunisian origin, unsuccessfully complained that the refusal by the Swiss courts to examine his civil claim for compensation for the non-pecuniary damage arising from acts of torture allegedly inflicted on him in the premises of the Ministry of the Interior of Tunisia violated his right of access to court. The Court considered that international law had not imposed an obligation on the Swiss authorities to open their courts with a view of ruling on the merits of the applicant’s compensation claim, on the basis of either universal civil jurisdiction in respect of acts of torture or a forum of necessity. .......................................... 23 9. ECtHR, Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, No. 13237/17, Chamber judgment of 20 March 2018 (Article 5-1, Right to liberty and security - Violation; Article 5-4, Right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention - No violation; Article 10, Freedom of expression - Violation). The applicant, a Turkish national, an economics professor and a journalist, was arrested on suspicion of having links to the media wing of the “Gülen movement” and placed in pre-trial detention on the grounds that articles drafted by him had promoted the “Gülen movement”. The Court found that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty and security as well as his right to freedom of expression but no a violation of his right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention. ......................................................................... 27 10. ECtHR, Sahin Alpay v. Turkey, No. 16538/17, Chamber judgment of 20 March 2018 (Article 5- 1, Right to liberty and security - Violation; Article 5-4, Right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention - No violation; Article 10, Freedom of expression - Violation). The applicant, a Turkish journalist, suspected of belonging to the “Gulen movement”, was arrested and was placed in pre-trial detention on the grounds that articles drafted by him had promoted the “Gülen movement”. The Court found that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty and security as well as his right to freedom of expression but no violation of his right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention. ..... 34 11. ECtHR, Ireland v. The United Kingdom, No. 5310/71, Chamber judgment of 20 March 2018 (Article 3, Prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment - Revision request - Dismissed). Ireland made a revision request regarding a 1978 judgment asking the Court to find that men detained by the United Kingdom during Northern Ireland’s civil strife suffered torture and not just inhuman and degrading treatment. This request was based on the grounds that new evidence had emerged. The Court found that Ireland had not demonstrated the existence of facts that were unknown to the Court at the time or which would have had a decisive influence on the original judgment. Therefore, there was no justification to revise the judgment. ........................................................................................................ 41 12. ECtHR, Berkovich and Others v. Russia, Nos. 5871/07, 61948/08, 25025/10, 19971/12, 46965/12, 75561/12, 73574/13, 504/14, 31941/14, and 45416/14, Chamber judgment of 27 March 2018 (Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, Freedom of movement - Violation). The applicants, Russian nationals who had been prevented from going abroad on the grounds that they had previously had access to State secrets during their employment, successfully claimed that their right to free movement had been violated. In its judgment the Court relied, amongst others, on relevant Council of Europe documents concerning the membership of the Russian Federation in the Organisation. ........................................................................ 44 13. ECtHR, Guliyev and Sheina v. Russia, No. 29790/14, Chamber judgment