List of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Exterior view
Courtroom

The list of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights contains a selection of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Strasbourg , as an organ of the Council of Europe .

list

Germany

Respect for private life

  • from Hanover ./. Germany , judgment of June 24, 2004, no. 59320/00 The
    subject of the decision was the publication in the press of secret recordings of Caroline von Hannover's private life , which German courts found admissible. In the view of the ECHR, when it comes to the necessary balance between protection of private life and freedom of expression, the decisive factor is the extent to which the published photos contribute to a debate in which a general interest can be asserted. Since the photos only show the plaintiff in situations in which she does not exercise a public office but pursues purely private activities, the right to respect for private life according to Art. 8 is to be given priority here. The plaintiff was violated in this right by the admissibility of the publication of these images, established by the German courts.
  • from Hanover ./. Germany (No. 2), judgment of February 7, 2012, No. 40660/08 and 60641/08
    The case law from 2004 was put into concrete terms by the Grand Chamber of the ECHR in 2012 and thus the German case law that has changed since the ECHR judgment Developed in 2004, confirmed. The Grand Chamber emphasized that, depending on the circumstances of the individual case, a public interest in information could also exist in sports topics or performing artists, but not in the case of alleged marital problems of a president or financial problems of a well-known singer. The illness of the ruling Prince of Monaco should have been seen as an event from the field of contemporary history. In general, people unknown to the public require greater protection than people known to the public. The ECHR also found that Caroline and Ernst August von Hannover are public figures.
  • Axel Springer AG ./. Germany, judgment of 7 February 2012, No. 39954/08
    In this parallel procedure, the ECHR had to decide on the admissibility of reporting on drug use by a German actor. He emphasized that the public interest in reporting on criminal proceedings can vary. The weighing criteria for this question included: a. the familiarity and previous behavior of the person, the gravity and nature of the act, the circumstances of the arrest, the method of obtaining information, the truth of the information and the fact whether these facts were already publicly known.
  • Stübing ./. Germany, judgment of April 12, 2012, No. 43547/08
    The small chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously that the punishment of the plaintiff for sexual acts with his biological sister ( incest ) on the basis of Section 173 (2) StGB results in a prison sentence has not violated the right to respect for private and family life under Art. 8 ECHR. Although the conviction affects the plaintiff's family life, the interference is justified as there is an urgent social need for the measure. Since there is no consensus among the Member States regarding the criminal liability of consensual sexual acts between adult siblings, the States enjoy a wide margin of discretion in this regard.

Property protection

  • Jahn et al. a. ./. Germany, judgment of June 30, 2005, No. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01
    The obligation stipulated in the Second Property Rights Amendment Act to cede land reform land to the state without compensation, provided that the affected parties were made by March 15, 1990 or in the last ten years Years before, did not work in the agriculture, forestry or food industry or did not belong to any agricultural production cooperative (LPG) in the GDR , does not constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In view of the circumstances Against the unique background of German reunification, the requirement to strike a fair balance between the protection of property and the requirements of the general interest has been complied with. Art. 14 (prohibition of discrimination) is also not violated.

Prohibition of torture

  • Jalloh ./. Germany, judgment of July 11, 2006, No. 54810/00
    The forced administration of emetics in order to induce a potential dealer to vomit swallowed drugs violates the prohibition of torture in Art. 3. The conviction of the person concerned on the basis of the evidence thus obtained violates his freedom to incriminate himself (Nemo Tenetur principle) and therefore the right to a fair trial according to Art. 6 Para. 1.
  • Gäfgen ./. Germany , judgment of June 1, 2010, No. 22978/05
    The threat of willful mistreatment in a police interrogation is to be classified as inhuman treatment within the meaning of Art. 3 regardless of the behavior of the person concerned and the motives of the authorities. The victim status of the person concerned has not ceased despite the punishment of the police officers responsible, especially since the imposed sanction did not have the necessary deterrent effect to prevent comparable violations of the Convention, and therefore no adequate remedy for the treatment contrary to the Convention was granted. However, the use of the evidence obtained in this way does not violate the right to a fair trial, since this had no influence on the judgment and sentence, but the conviction was based on a new confession by the person concerned.

freedom of speech

  • Heinisch ./. Germany, judgment of July 21, 2011, No. 28274/08
    Courts that have to decide on the legality of the dismissal of an employee, which was issued because the employee had filed a criminal complaint against his employer in order to draw attention to irregularities, must give due consideration to the freedom of expression of the employee when assessing the legality of the conduct. In the specific case, the Berlin geriatric nurse Brigitte Heinisch had reported her employer for fraud. He has too few staff and is therefore not in a position to look after the residents of a nursing home as agreed. The labor courts concerned upheld the termination. However, the ECHR saw these judgments as violating the employee's freedom of expression and awarded her compensation.

Preventive detention

  • M ./. Germany, judgment of December 17, 2009, No. 19359/04
    The subsequent extension of preventive detention in the form of the elimination of the ten-year period in Section 67d (3) StGB, which was also applied to orders made before this new regulation, violates the right to freedom (Art . 5 para. 1) and the non-retroactivity clause (Art. 7 para. 1).
  • Big head ./. Germany, judgment of October 21, 2010, No. 24478/03 Placement in preventive detention
    , which is ordered in the judgment, does not constitute a violation of the right to freedom (Art. 5, Paragraph 1).
  • Haidn ./. Germany, judgment of January 13, 2011, No. 6587/04 Placement
    in prison for preventive purposes after serving the prison sentence, which was not specified in the original judgment, but only at a later date by the Penal Enforcement Chamber in accordance with the provisions of the Bavarian Accommodation Act and Section 66b of the Criminal Code (subsequent preventive detention) violates the right to liberty (Art. 5 Para. 1).

Custody and access rights

  • Görgülü ./. Germany , judgment of May 26, 2004, No. 74969/01
    In custody proceedings , the long-term effects that a permanent separation from one's biological father could have on a child must also be taken into account. As far as the refusal to deal with the child is concerned, the ECHR states that only exceptional circumstances can justify the dissolution of the child's family ties, since maintaining them serves the best interests of the child. Neither the first nor the second aspect was taken into account by the German courts, which is why Art. 8 (right to respect for private and family life) was violated.
  • Zaunegger ./. Germany , judgment of December 3, 2009, No. 22028/04
    The general exclusion of a judicial review of the sole custody of the mother, as it results from §§ 1626a paragraph 2, 1672 paragraph 1 BGB, is with regard to the purpose pursued , the protection of the interests of the illegitimate child, is not proportionate and, from the father's point of view, represents a violation of the prohibition of discrimination according to Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 8.
  • Anayo ./. Germany , judgment of December 21, 2010, no. 20578/07
    In the present case, the biological father was refused access to his children by the German courts because - although he tried to do so - he never had contact with his children after the birth and therefore had no social-family relationship within the meaning of Section 1685 Paragraph 2 BGB between him and the children. However, the desire to develop a family relationship may also fall within the scope of Article 8 if the fact that no family life has yet been established cannot be attributed to the complainant. Therefore, the concerns of the biological father should have been weighed up here. Since the courts have failed to examine whether contact between the children and the biological father would be in the children's interest in the particular circumstances of the case, Article 8 has been violated.

Unfair process

  • Hümmer ./. Germany, judgment of July 12, 2012, No. 26171/07
    In the present case, the defense was not allowed to question the witnesses at any point during the proceedings, but their statements were introduced into the main hearing by reading out the interrogation by the investigative judge and then in full Had contributed to reaching a judgment. The ECHR saw this as a violation of Art. 6 d HRC. German criminal law does not provide for a ban on the use of such statements and since the decision of the ECHR, the BGH has emphasized in its permanent case law that the use of statements that were made without the possibility of questioning by the defense is still permitted. (4 ARs 21/14) A corresponding change in the law to prevent further unfair proceedings for these reasons is not planned.

Long proceedings

  • Sürmeli ./. Germany, judgment of June 8, 2006, No. 75529/01
    German law does not provide for any legal remedies against excessive proceedings, as required by Art. Neither the constitutional complaint, the supervisory complaint according to § 26 Paragraph 2 DRiG, the so far not regulated but recognized by some courts complaint of inactivity, nor the official liability claim according to § 839 BGB i. V. m. Art. 34 GG meet the requirements set out in the Kudła judgment.
  • Kaemena and Thöneböhn ./. Germany, judgment of January 22, 2009, No. 45749/06 and 51115/06
    In criminal proceedings, the mitigation of sentences by the criminal courts and prosecuting authorities, the waiver of punishment and the cessation according to §§ 153–154a StPO are effective complaints within the meaning of Art. 13. Since the plaintiffs sentenced to life imprisonment for murder could not be granted compensation according to the sentencing solution then applied by the case law, Article 13 has been violated.
  • Trunk ./. Germany, judgment of September 2, 2010, No. 46344/06
    The excessively long duration of proceedings is a structural problem in Germany. The Federal Republic of Germany must introduce a legal remedy against excessively long proceedings at the latest one year after this judgment becomes final .

Austria

  • Nachtmann ./. Austria, admissibility decision of September 9, 1998, No. 36773/97
    1994, Herwig Nachtmann praised a book that denied the     Holocaust and was convicted under the Prohibition Act of 1947 . He justified his complaint with freedom of expression in accordance with Art. 10, but National Socialism was recognized as incompatible with the rights of the ECHR, so that an expression of opinion in favor of this totalitarian system constitutes an abuse of the rights of freedom and is not worth protecting. On this occasion it was again emphasized that the criminal prosecution of National Socialist statements was sufficiently legitimized by the Prohibition Act and was also a necessary part of democratic society.

Switzerland

  • Burghartz ./. Switzerland, judgment of February 22, 1994, No. 16213/90
    Inadmissible unequal treatment between men and women with regard to the possibility of combining one's own surname with the family name.
  • Jäggi ./. Switzerland, judgment of July 13, 2006, No. 58757/00,
    entitlement to a post-mortem DNA analysis. The ECHR specifies its case law on the right to knowledge of one's own descent from Art. 8 ECHR.
  • Glor ./. Switzerland, judgment of April 30, 2009, No. 13444/04
    determination of the incompatibility of the prohibition of discrimination set out in the ECHR with the compulsory military compensation charge in the event of unfit.
  • In 2015, the ECHR overturned a 2008 ruling by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, which saw no justification for covert video and audio recordings in investigative journalism.
  • Al-Dulimi ./. Switzerland, judgment of November 26, 2013, No. 5809/09, judgment of June 21, 2016, priority of the European Convention on Human Rights over Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations .

Belgium

  • Belgian language case ./. Belgium, judgment of 23 July 1968, no. 1474/62 and a.
    The fact that a law prescribes the language of the majority of the population in the corresponding region for school instruction does not constitute illegal discrimination. There is also no claim against the state to create certain educational institutions. However, he must guarantee access to existing facilities. Lessons must be held in at least one national language. Qualifications must be recognized by the state.
  • Coëme et al. a. ./. Belgium, judgment of 22 June 2000, no. 32492/96 and a.
    Art. 6 ECHR requires that the judicial procedure is so precisely defined by law that the person concerned can foresee how individual procedural acts will affect.

France

  • Foucher ./. France, judgment of February 17, 1997, no. 22209/93
    The accused in criminal proceedings who have not been defended by defense counsel has his own right to inspect the files.

Great Britain

  • O'Halloran and Francis ./. United Kingdom, judgment of 29 June 2007, nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02
    The obligation to inform the authorities of the driver of the vehicle after a speed violation does not constitute a violation of the right to remain silent. The ECHR changes its case law on Nemo tenetur principle .
  • Vinter u. a. ./. United Kingdom, judgment of 9 July 2013, nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10
    The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled 16-1 in favor of a life sentence without the possibility of a detention review and release against the prohibition inhuman or degrading treatment (Art. 3 ECHR).

Italy

  • Artico ./. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, no. 6694/74
    The Court recalls that the Convention does not intend to grant theoretical or apparent rights, but those that are practical and effective.
  • Hirsi Jamaa u. a. ./. Italy, judgment of 23 February 2012, no. 27765/09
    The judges of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights sentenced Italy to compensate 24 African boat refugees deported to Libya , each of the refugees captured by the Guardia Costiera on 6 May 2009 and brought to Tripoli immediately 15,000 euros in compensation. In the reasoning of the judgment, the judges refer to the violation of the prohibition under Article 3 of inhuman and degrading treatment. The collective expulsion of the boat refugees from Somalia and Eritrea also disregarded the right to effective appeal against additional protocols to the ECHR. The refugees were not given the opportunity to apply for asylum.

Poland

  • Kudła ./. Poland, judgment of October 26th, 2000, No. 30210/96 National
    law must provide for an effective remedy for complaints about the duration of the proceedings in violation of human rights.
  • Prussian Treuhand GmbH & Co. KG a. A. ./. Poland , admissibility decision of October 7, 2008, No. 47550/06
    Poland as a modern democratic state after 1989 and a member of the Council of Europe since 1993 is not obliged to compensate in any way for the injustice committed against displaced persons in the years 1944–1950 . A human rights violation committed before the Convention on Human Rights came into force does not generally need to be corrected.

Turkey

  • Sabri Güneş ./. Turkey, judgment of June 29, 2012, No. 27396/06
The deadline for a complaint is 6 months exactly to the day after the challenged national decision is served. The fact that the last day of the deadline for the complaint (here a Sunday) is not counted as the expiry date of the deadline according to the complainant's applicable national law is irrelevant for the deadline under the ECHR. The complaint could therefore only have been legitimately submitted if it had also been submitted on the expiry date (here Sunday).
After the attempted coup in Turkey in 2016 , according to press information, 18,000 complaints about the following actions by the Turkish government against alleged coupists had been received by the ECHR, only one case led the ECHR to ask Turkey to comment on the case. Observers criticized the fact that the ECHR ignored the inoperability of the Turkish legal system and insisted on the position that one can only take action in Turkey after exhaustion of the legal process. It was also assumed that the ECHR was deliberately showing consideration for the Turkish government in order not to annoy them and thus prevent Turkey from leaving the Council of Europe.

Lawsuits between States

  • Ireland c. England, judgment of the ECHR of January 18, 1978, No. 5310/71; Judgment of the ECHR of March 20, 2018, No. 5310/71
Since England, as a member of the IRA, tortured suspects in order to extort confessions, Ireland filed a complaint against England with the then ECMR on December 16, 1971, for violating the prohibition of torture under Article 3 of the ECHR. In its judgment, the ECHR stipulated that these torture methods (judgment of the ECHR, RZ 96 "five special interrogation techniques") were not torture, some were inhuman and degrading treatment in the sense of S. v. Art. 3 ECHR, some torture methods are not a violation of the prohibition of torture.
In its torture memos on the methods of torture in Guantanamo, etc., the USA relied on this judgment of the ECHR, as the USA had a reservation on inhuman and degrading treatment according to Art. Art. 7 IPbpR and Art. 16 FoK. From the judgment of the ECHR, the USA concluded that these torture methods ( five techniques of interrogation ) used by England are permissible under American law, since it is not torture, but only inhuman and degrading treatment, according to American law.
In the public perception this is perceived as torture. On December 4, 2014, Ireland requested the ECHR to revise the judgment that it was torture and not just inhuman and degrading treatment, the appeal was rejected by the ECHR.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ from Hanover ./. Germany , judgment of June 24, 2004, No. 59320/00; German translation by the Federal Government.
  2. ↑ from Hanover ./. Germany (No. 2) , judgment of 7 February 2012, No. 40660/08 and 60641/08; German translation by the Federal Government.
  3. ↑ Axel Springer AG ./. Germany , judgment of 7 February 2012, no. 39954/08; German translation by the Federal Government.
  4. ↑ Stübing ./. Germany , judgment of April 12, 2012, No. 43547/08; German translation by the Federal Government.
  5. ↑ Jahn et al. a. ./. Germany , judgment of 30 June 2005, nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01; German translation by the Federal Government.
  6. ↑ Jalloh ./. Germany , judgment of July 11, 2006, No. 54810/00; German translation by the Federal Government.
  7. ↑ Gäfgen ./. Germany , judgment of June 1, 2010, No. 22978/05; German translation by the Federal Government.
  8. ↑ Heinisch ./. Germany , judgment of July 21, 2011, No. 28274/08; German translation by the Federal Government.
  9. ↑ M ./. Germany , judgment of December 17, 2009, No. 19359/04; German translation by the Federal Government.
  10. ↑ large head ./. Germany , judgment of October 21, 2010, No. 24478/03; German translation by the Federal Government.
  11. ↑ Haidn ./. Germany , judgment of 13 January 2011, no. 6587/04; German translation by the Federal Government.
  12. ↑ Görgülü ./. Germany , judgment of May 26, 2004, no. 74969/01; German translation by the Federal Government.
  13. ↑ Zaunegger ./. Germany , judgment of December 3, 2009, no. 22028/04; German translation by the Federal Government.
  14. ↑ Anayo ./. Germany , judgment of December 21, 2010, no. 20578/07; German translation by the Federal Government.
  15. ↑ Case H. v DEUTSCHLAND (individual complaint No. 26171/07). Retrieved September 2, 2019 .
  16. ↑ Sürmeli ./. Germany , judgment of June 8, 2006, No. 75529/01; German translation in NJW 2006, 2389.
  17. ↑ Kaemena and Thöneböhn ./. Germany , judgment of January 22, 2009, nos. 45749/06 and 51115/06; German translation by the Federal Government.
  18. ↑ trunk ./. Germany , judgment of September 2, 2010, no. 46344/06; German translation by the Federal Government.
  19. ↑ Nachtmann ./. Austria , admissibility decision of September 9, 1998, No. 36773/97; Summary ( Memento of the original from December 3, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. at the ÖIM. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.menschenrechte.ac.at
  20. ↑ Burghartz ./. Switzerland , judgment of February 22, 1994, No. 16213/90; German translation in ÖJZ 1994, 559.
  21. ↑ Jäggi ./. Switzerland , judgment of July 13, 2006, No. 58757/00; German translation in FamRZ 2006, 1354.
  22. ↑ Glor ./. Switzerland , judgment of April 30, 2009, No. 13444/04; Summary at humanrights.ch.
  23. ↑ humanrights.ch
  24. ↑ Humanrights.ch / MERS: "ECHR judgment Al-Dulimi (Small Chamber): Precedence of the ECHR over resolution of the UN Security Council" Humanrights.ch of March 20, 2014
  25. ↑ Humanrights.ch / MERS: "ECHR judgment Al-Dulimi (large chamber): Switzerland should have checked the UN sanctions measure for arbitrariness" Humanrights.ch of June 21, 2016
  26. ↑ Katharina Fontana: "Knacknuss für die Schweiz" nzz.ch of June 21, 2016
  27. ↑ Belgian language case ./. Belgium , judgment of 23 July 1968, no. 1474/62 and a .; German translation in ECHR-E 1, 31 (PDF; 125 kB).
  28. ^ Coëme et al. a. ./. Belgium , judgment of 22 June 2000, no. 32492/96 and a.
  29. ↑ Foucher ./. France , judgment of 17 February 1997, no. 22209/93; German translation in NStZ 1998, 429.
  30. ↑ O'Halloran and Francis ./. United Kingdom , judgment of 29 June 2007, nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02; German translation in NJW 2008, 3549.
  31. ↑ Vinter u. a. ./. United Kingdom , judgment of 9 July 2013, nos 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10
  32. ↑ Artico ./. Italy , judgment of 13 May 1980, no. 6694/74; German translation in ECHR-E 1, 480 ( memento of the original from December 3, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 93 kB). @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.eugrz.info
  33. ↑ hudoc.echr.coe.int
  34. ↑ Kudła ./. Poland , judgment of 26 October 2000, no. 30210/96; German translation in NJW 2001, 2694.
  35. ↑ PREUSSISCHE TREUHAND GmbH & Co. KG aA ./. Poland , decision of 7 October 2008 on the admissibility, No. 47550/06; German translation in NJW 2009, 3775.
  36. ↑ Sabri Güneş ./. Turkey , judgment of June 29, 2012, no. 27396/06; German translation in NJW 2012, 2943.
  37. ↑ Criticism of inaction by the Court of Human Rights on Turkey , Der Standard, February 21, 2018.
  38. ↑ a b Judgment No. 5310/71 of the ECHR of January 18, 1978 in Ireland c. England. for violation of Art. 1; 3; 5; 6 and Art. 15 ECHR. In: HUDOC . Ed: ECHR , accessed on April 18, 2019 . German summary judgment EGMR Hrsg: EUGRZ
  39. ^ Diane E. Beaver: Legal Brief on Proposed Counter-Resistance Strategies. (pdf) In: Torture Memos . Published by: Department of Defense of the USA, October 11, 2002, accessed on April 18, 2019 (English): “S. 7, points 1 & 2 of the US to the reservation in the IPbpR and point 6 the reference to the judgment of the ECHR in Ireland c. England “ (Web Archive: Beaver Memo )
    wikisource: Beaver Memo of Oct 11, 2002, Legal Brief on Proposed Counter-Resistance Strategies
  40. ↑ General Jay S. Bybee: Memorandum for A. Gonzales: [Re] Standards for Conduct for Interrogation under 18 USC 2340-2340A. (pdf) In: Torture Memos . Published by: US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, August 1, 2002, accessed on April 18, 2019 (English): “S. 27 below European Court of Human Rights, p. 28 f, the judgment of the ECHR in Ireland c. England and the methods of torture applied by Engand - The European Court of Human Rights concluded that these techniques used in combination, and applied for hours at a time, were inhuman and degrading but did not amount to torture. ” Facsimile: Memorandum for A. Gonzales
  41. ↑ Steven G. Bradbury: Memorandum for John Rizzo N ° 13, Re: Application of 18 USc §§ 2340-2340A to the Combined Use of Certain Techniques in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees. (pdf) about waterboarding and other techniques. In: Torture Memos . Ed .: US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, May 10, 2005, accessed on April 18, 2019 : “S. 31 below, judgment of the ECHR in Ireland c. England - the torture methods used by England are based on America. Legally admissible as, according to the European Court of Human Rights, it is not torture but only inhuman treatment ” (Web Archive: Memorandum for John Rizzo )
  42. ↑ Steven G. Bradbury: Memorandum for John Rizzo N ° 11; Re: Application of 18 USC §§ 2340-2340A to the Combined Use of Certain Techniques in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees. (PDF) In: Torture Memos. Published by US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, May 30, 2005, accessed April 18, 2019 . (Web Archive: Memorandum for John Rizzo N ° 11 )
  43. ↑ Judgment No. 5310/71 of the ECHR of March 20, 2018 in Ireland c. England. Request for appeal by Ireland. In: HUDOC . Ed: ECHR , accessed on April 18, 2019 .