April/Avril 2010 No./N
o129
Information Note on the Court’s case-law
Note d’information sur la jurisprudence de la Cour
Provisional version/Version provisoire
CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
on the Court. In the provisional version the summaries are normally drafted in the language of the case concerned, whereas the final single-language version appears in English and French respectively. The Information Note may be downloaded at <www.echr.coe.
int/echr/NoteInformation/en>. A hard-copy subscription is available for 30 euros (EUR) or 45 United States dollars (USD) per year, including an index, by contacting the publications service via the on-line form at <www.echr.coe.int/echr/contact/en>.
The HUDOC database is available free-of-charge through the Court’s Internet site (<www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/hudoc>) or in a pay-for DVD version (<www.echr.coe.int/hudoccd/en>). It provides access to the full case-law and materials on the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the decisions, judgments and advisory opinions of the Court, the reports of the European Commission of Human Rights and the resolutions of the Committee of Ministers.
Cette Note d’information, établie par la Division des publications et de l’information sur la jurisprudence, contient les résumés d’affaires dont le greffe de la Cour a indiqué qu’elles présentaient un intérêt particulier. Les résumés ne lient pas la Cour. Dans la version provisoire, les résumés sont en principe rédigés dans la langue de l’affaire en cause ; la version unilingue de la note paraît ultérieurement en français et en anglais et peut être téléchargée à l’adresse suivante : <www.echr.coe.int/echr/NoteInformation/fr>.
Un abonnement annuel à la version papier comprenant un index est disponible pour 30 euros (EUR) ou 45 dollars américains (USD) en contactant le service publications via le formulaire : <www.echr.coe.int/echr/contact/fr>.
La base de données HUDOC disponible gratuitement sur le site Internet de la Cour (<www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/FR/hudoc>) ou en version DVD payante (<www.echr.coe.int/hudoccd/fr>) vous permettra d’accéder à la jurisprudence complète de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, qui se compose des textes suivants : décisions, arrêts et avis consultatifs de la Cour, rapports de la Commission européenne des droits de l’homme et résolutions du Comité des Ministres.
European Court of Human Rights Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Council of Europe) (Conseil de l’Europe)
67075 Strasbourg Cedex 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
France France
Tel: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 20 18 Tél. : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 20 18
Fax: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 30 Fax : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 30
www.echr.coe.int www.echr.coe.int
© Council of Europe/Conseil de l’Europe, 2010
3 ARTICLE 2
Life/Vie
Positive obligations/Obligations positives
* Accidental death of civilian through explosion of anti-personnel mine: communicated
* Décès accidentel d’un civil à la suite de l’explosion d’une mine antipersonnel : affaire communiquée Avcı – Turkey and Greece/Turquie et Grèce - 45067/05 ... 7
ARTICLE 3
Degrading treatment/Traitement dégradant
* Failure to provide detainee with defective eye sight with glasses: violation
* Manquement à fournir des lunettes à un détenu atteint de myopie : violation
Slyusarev – Russia/Russie - 60333/00 ... 7 Extradition
* Proposed extradition of convicted mercenary to Colombia: extradition would constitute violation
* Projet d’extradition vers la Colombie d’un mercenaire condamné : l’extradition emporterait violation Klein – Russia/Russie - 24268/08 ... 7
ARTICLE 5 Article 5 § 1 (e)
Persons of unsound mind/Aliéné
* Fourteen days’ confinement in psychiatric hos pital to enable psychiatric reports to be prepared in connection with malicious-prosecution charge: violation
* Internement psychiatrique de quatorze jours en vue de l’accomplissement d’une expertise psychiatrique d’un homme accusé de dénonciation calomnieuse : violation
C.B. – Romania/Roumanie - 21207/03 ... 8
ARTICLE 6
Article 6 § 1 (criminal/pénal) Applicability/Applicabilité
* Transfer of a sentenced foreigner to his native country, under the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, following assurance by the public prosecutor: Article 6 applicable
* Transfèrement d’un étranger vers son pays natal, en vertu de la Convention sur le transfèrement des personnes condamnées, à la suite des assurances données par le procureur : article 6 applicable
Buijen – Germany/Allemagne - 27804/05 ... 9 Access to court/Accès à un tribunal
* Inability to challenge decision to transfer a sentenced foreigner to his native country in so far as it related to an assurance given by the public prosecutor: violation
* Impossibilité de contester la décision de transférer un étranger condamné vers son pays natal pour autant qu’elle concernait les assurances données par le procureur : violation
Buijen – Germany/Allemagne - 27804/05 ... 10
4
Fair hearing/Procès équitable
* Conviction on basis of unfairly conducted identification parade: violation
* Condamnation fondée sur une parade d’iden tification inéquitable : violation
Laska and/et Lika – Albania/Albanie - 12315/04 and/et 17605/04 ... 10 Independent and impartial tribunal/Tribunal indépendant et impartial
* Order for continued pre-trial detention based on preconceived notion of defendant’s guilt: violation
* Maintien en détention provisoire motivé par l’idée préconçue de la culpabilité du requérant : violation Chesne – France - 29808/06 ... 11
* Criminal trial in defamation case presided over by same judge as had sat in prior civil pro ceedings:
violation
* Procès pénal en diffamation présidé par le juge qui avait siégé lors de la procédure civile antérieure : violation
Fatullayev – Azerbaijan/Azerbaïdjan - 40984/07 ... 12 Article 6 § 2
Presumption of innocence/Présomption d’innocence
* Statement by Prosecutor General prior to formal charges being brought indicating that a material element of suspected offence had been made out: violation
* Déclaration d’un procureur général avant inculpation formelle, indiquant qu’un élément matériel d’une infraction présumée a été découvert : violation
Fatullayev – Azerbaijan/Azerbaïdjan - 40984/07 ... 12
ARTICLE 8
Family life/Vie familiale
* Custody order effectively preventing siblings spending time together: violation
* Décision sur le droit de garde empêchant en pratique un frère et une sœur de passer du temps ensemble : violation
Mustafa and/et Armağan Akın – Turkey/Turquie - 4694/03 ... 12
* Failure to ensure father’s right of contact during proceedings for return of son who had been taken abroad by the mother: violation
* Droit de visite d’un père non-assuré durant la procédure de retour de son fils déplacé par la mère dans un autre pays : violation
Macready – Czech Republic/République tchèque - 4824/06 and/et 15512/08 ... 13 Family life/Vie familiale
Positive obligations/Obligations positives
* Failure to examine request for adoption by foster parents before declaring child free for adoption:
violation
* Demande d’adoption introduite par une famille d’accueil non examinée avant la décision ayant déclaré l’enfant adoptable : violation
Moretti and/et Benedetti – Italy/Italie - 16318/07 ... 13 Positive obligations/Obligations positives
* Inability to change registration of ethnic origin in official records: violation
* Impossibilité de faire modifier l’inscription de l’origine ethnique dans les registres officiels : violation Ciubotaru – Moldova - 27138/04 ... 15
5 ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression/Liberté d’expression
* Conviction of editors for publishing information on the female friend of public official: violation
* Rédacteurs en chef condamnés pour avoir publié des informations sur l’amie d’un haut fonc- tionnaire : violation
Flinkkilä and Others/et autres – Finland/Finlande - 25576/04 ... 15
* Criminal convictions of newspaper editor for articles calling into question official version of events and government policy: violations
* Rédacteur en chef condamné au pénal pour des articles remettant en cause la version officielle de certains événements et la politique du gou vernement : violations
Fatullayev – Azerbaijan/Azerbaïdjan - 40984/07 ... 16
* Conviction of elected representative for her response to remarks made by public servant at demonstration on a particularly sensitive national issue: violation
* Condamnation d’une élue pour des paroles proférées en réponse aux déclarations d’un fonctionnaire, lors d’une manifestation sur une question d’ordre national particulièrement sensible : violation
Haguenauer – France - 34050/05 ... 18 ARTICLE 11
Freedom of association/Liberté d’association
* Liability of non-member to pay contribution to private industrial federation: violation
* Obligation faite à un non-adhérent de verser une cotisation à une fédération industrielle privée : violation
Vörður Ólafsson – Iceland/Islande - 20161/06 ... 19 ARTICLE 14
Discrimination (Article 8)
* Prohibition under domestic law on the use of ova and sperm from donors for in vitro fertilisation:
violation
* Interdiction en droit interne d’utiliser des ovules et du sperme provenant de donneurs en vue d’une fécondation in vitro : violation
S.H. and Others/et autres – Austria/Autriche - 57813/00 ... 20 ARTICLE 34
Victim/Victime
* Domestic court judgment acknowledging and affording appropriate and sufficient redress for Convention violation: loss of victim status
* Reconnaissance et réparation appropriée et suffisante de la violation de la Convention par les juridictions internes : perte du statut de victime
Floarea Pop – Romania/Roumanie - 63101/00 ... 22
ARTICLE 35 Article 35 § 3
Competence ratione personae/Compétence ratione personae
* Application lodged on behalf of minor child by foster parents: inadmissible
* Requête présentée au nom d’une enfant mineure par une famille d’accueil : irrecevable
Moretti and/et Benedetti – Italy/Italie - 16318/07 ... 23
6
ARTICLE 37 Article 37 § 1
Respect for human rights/Respect des droits de l’homme
Special circumstances requiring further examination/Motifs particuliers exigeant la poursuite de l’examen de la requête
* Doubts about mental state of applicant who wished to withdraw his application to the Euro pean Court: request to withdraw application dismissed
* Doutes quant à la santé mentale d’un requérant qui souhaitait retirer sa requête devant la Cour européenne : rejet de la demande de retrait de la requête
Tehrani and Others/et autres – Turkey/Turquie - 32940/08, 41626/08 and/et 43616/08 ... 23
ARTICLE 46
Execution of a judgment – Measures of a general character/
Exécution des arrêts – Mesures générales
* Respondent State required to take action to afford applicants opportunity to have domestic proceedings reopened or their cases re-examined
* Etat défendeur tenu de prendre des mesures pour permettre aux requérants de faire rouvrir une procédure interne ou réexaminer leur cause
Laska and/et Lika – Albania/Albanie - 12315/04 and/et 17605/04 ... 23 Execution of a judgment – Individual measures/Exécution des arrêts – Mesures individuelles
* Respondent State required to secure immediate release of newspaper editor whose conviction and prison sentences had violated his right to freedom of expression
* Etat défendeur tenu de libérer sans délai un rédacteur en chef ayant subi la violation de son droit à la liberté d’expression en raison de sa condamnation et de peines d’emprisonnement
Fatullayev – Azerbaijan/Azerbaïdjan - 40984/07 ... 24 ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 / ARTICLE 3 DU PROTOCOLE No 1
Stand for election/Se porter candidat aux élections
* Inability of persons with multiple nationality to stand as candidates in parliamentary elections:
violation
* Impossibilité pour les citoyens possédant plusieurs nationalités de se porter candidats aux élections législatives : violation
Tănase – Moldova [GC] - 7/08 ... 24
* Exclusion of certain categories of convicted prisoners from voting in elections: violation
* Interdiction de voter faite à certaines catégories de détenus condamnés : violation
Frodl – Austria/Autriche - 20201/04 ... 26
* Failure by domestic authorities to adequately investigate complaints of electoral irregularities: violation
* Manquement des autorités nationales à mener une enquête adéquate sur des plaintes pour irré- gularités lors d’élections : violation
Namat Aliyev – Azerbaijan/Azerbaïdjan - 18705/06 ... 27
RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT / ARTICLE 39 DU RÈGLEMENT DE LA COUR Interim measures/Mesures provisoires
* Extradition despite interim measure
* Extradition en dépit d’une mesure provisoire
Labsi – Slovakia/Slovaquie - 33809/08 ... 28
7 Article 2 – Article 3
ARTICLE 2
Life/Vie
Positive obligations/Obligations positives Accidental death of civilian through explosion of anti-personnel mine: communicated
Décès accidentel d’un civil à la suite de l’explosion d’une mine antipersonnel : affaire communiquée
Avcı – Turkey and Greece/
Turquie et Grèce - 45067/05 [Section II]
Les requérants, ressortissants turcs, sont respecti- vement la mère, le frère et les sœurs de la victime, qui en 2004 trouva la mort sur le territoire grec, près de la frontière turque, à la suite de l’explosion d’une mine antipersonnel. En 2005, les requérants sollicitèrent une indemnisation auprès du ministère de l’Intérieur grec puis du ministère de l’Intérieur turc. Aucune suite n’a été donnée à leurs demandes.
Cette requête fait partie d’une série de six affaires dirigées contre la Turquie (ainsi que la Grèce pour la présente requête) qui concernent l’exposition accidentelle de civils à des mines antipersonnel ou à d’autres engins explosifs ayant tué ou mutilé les victimes (voir aussi les requêtes nos 16197/06, 20349/08, 58255/08, 29725/09 et 48888/09).
Communiquée aux gouvernements turc (sous l’angle de l’article 2, volets matériel et procédural) et grec (sous l’angle de l’article 2, volets matériel et procédural, et de l’article 13).
ARTICLE 3
Degrading treatment/Traitement dégradant Failure to provide detainee with defective eye- sight with glasses: violation
Manquement à fournir des lunettes à un détenu atteint de myopie : violation
Slyusarev – Russia/Russie - 60333/00 Judgment/Arrêt 20.4.2010 [Section III]
Facts – The applicant was arrested in July 1998 on suspicion of armed robbery. At some point during the arrest, his glasses were damaged. They were subsequently confiscated by the police. According to the applicant, although both he and his wife made several requests for their return, he did not
recover his glasses until December 1998. In the interim, following an order by the competent prosecutor, he had been examined by an ophthal- mologist in September 1998, who had concluded that his eyesight had deteriorated and prescribed new glasses, which the applicant received in January 1999.
Law – Article 3: The applicant suffered from medium-severity myopia. Accordingly, being without his glasses for several months must have caused him considerable distress in his everyday life and given rise to feelings of insecurity and helplessness. Although the Government had main- tained that it had not been until early December 1998 that the applicant had requested the return of his glasses, the investigation authorities seemed to have been aware of the applicant’s eyesight problems well before then, since they had given instructions in September for him to be examined by an ophthalmologist. The applicant’s wife had also requested the return of his old glasses.
Notwithstanding their awareness of his problems with his eyesight, it had taken the authorities two and a half months to return the glasses. Nor had the Government explained why, after the ophthal- mologist had prescribed new glasses, it had taken another two and a half months to provide him with a pair. In conclusion, the treatment complained of had to a large extent been attributable to the authorities and, given the degree of suffering it had caused and its duration, had been degrading.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: No claim made in respect of damage.
Extradition
Proposed extradition of convicted mercenary to Colombia: extradition would constitute violation Projet d’extradition vers la Colombie d’un mercenaire condamné : l’extradition emporterait violation
Klein – Russia/Russie - 24268/08 Judgment/Arrêt 1.4.2010 [Section I]
Facts – In 2001 the applicant was convicted by a Colombian criminal court of teaching military and terrorist tactics and given a lengthy prison sentence.
In 2007 he was arrested in Russia. Colombia requested his extradition. A Russian newspaper then published an article in which the Colombian Vice-President was reported as saying that “it should be ensured that [the applicant] rot in jail”. Following
8 Article 3 – Article 5 § 1 (e) assurances from the Colombian Government that
the applicant would not be given the death penalty or ill-treated and would be indicted only in respect of the acts mentioned in the extradition request, the Prosecutor General of Russia ordered his extradition to Colombia. The applicant’s appeals to the Russian courts were dismissed, inter alia, on the basis of the diplomatic assurances given by the Colombian Government and the fact that the Colombian judiciary was independent of the executive. The applicant’s extradition was, however, stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings before the European Court.
Law – Article 3: Reports from reliable sources indicated that the overall human-rights situation in Colombia was far from perfect. In particular, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United States Department of State had noted many recent instances of suspected human- right violations by State representatives, including extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances and arbitrary detentions. The UN Committee against Torture had also expressed concerns that people suspected of terrorism and illegal armed activities risked torture in Colombia. As to the applicant’s personal situation, the Colombian Vice-President’s statement that the applicant should “rot in jail”
could be regarded as an indication that the applicant ran a serious risk of ill-treatment if extradited there. In addition, the Colombian Gov- ernment’s assurances had been rather vague and were insufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment. Lastly, the Russian courts had limited their assessment of the situation to a mere observation that, as the Colombian judiciary were independent of the executive, they would not be affected by the Vice-President’s statement. In so doing, they had not duly addressed the applicant’s concerns.
Conclusion: extradition would constitute a violation (five votes to two).
Article 41: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non- pecuniary damage.
ARTICLE 5
Article 5 § 1 (e)
Persons of unsound mind/Aliéné
Fourteen days’ confinement in psychiatric hos- pital to enable psychiatric reports to be prepared
in connection with malicious-prosecution charge: violation
Internement psychiatrique de quatorze jours en vue de l’accomplissement d’une expertise psy- chiatrique d’un homme accusé de dénonciation calomnieuse : violation
C.B. – Romania/Roumanie - 21207/03 Judgment/Arrêt 20.4.2010 [Section III]
En fait – Le 4 septembre 2002, à 6 h 30 du matin, la police pénétra en force au domicile du requérant et l’arrêta. Cette mesure fut prise en exécution d’une ordonnance du parquet délivrée la veille, dans le cadre de la procédure en cours contre le requérant pour dénonciation calomnieuse, et ordonnant l’internement psychiatrique de ce dernier pour expertise. Le requérant fut interné quatorze jours en pavillon de sûreté maximale à l’hôpital psychiatrique. A une date non précisée, le requérant porta plainte contre la mesure d’inter- nement. Le 24 avril 2003, le parquet lui retourna sa plainte. Il fut finalement acquitté en novembre 2004 des poursuites engagées contre lui.
En droit – Article 5 § 1 e) : les modalités de mise à exécution de l’ordonnance d’internement psychiatrique ont été à l’évidence disproportionnées et constatent le caractère forcé de l’internement.
L’ordonnance du procureur ayant établi la nécessité de l’internement s’appuyait sur les doutes que les enquêteurs nourrissaient à l’égard de la santé psy- chique du requérant et sur une attestation d’un médecin généraliste qui n’avait jamais vu ni examiné le requérant et avait inscrit un diagnostic non-conforme à la réalité indiquant qu’il souffrait de schizophrénie. L’évaluation par un psychiatre, préalable à tout internement forcé, était indis- pensable, sachant que le requérant n’avait pas d’antécédents de troubles psychiatriques. Par ailleurs, en l’absence de comportement violent de la part de ce dernier et sans démonstration de l’existence d’un risque pour lui-même ou pour des tiers, il ne s’agissait pas de toute évidence d’un internement au titre de l’urgence. D’ailleurs, il ne ressortait nullement de la notice de renvoi du service de médecine légale que le requérant présenterait le moindre symptôme de maladie mentale ou qu’il serait dangereux. De surcroît, les poursuites pénales contre lui visaient une accusation de dénonciation calomnieuse et non pas une infraction d’une gravité qui aurait pu révéler un certain état de dangerosité de ce dernier. S’il est vrai que l’internement du requérant avait précisément pour objet l’obtention d’un avis médical, afin d’apprécier s’il avait le discernement
9 Article 5 § 1 (e) – Article 6 § 1 (criminal/pénal)
requis pour engager sa responsabilité pénale, et que lors de son internement il a été conduit dans un centre psychiatrique où il a été vu par des médecins, rien n’indique toutefois que l’on ait demandé à ces derniers qui l’ont admis à l’hôpital psychiatrique si il avait besoin d’être nécessairement interné en vue d’un examen médicolégal. A plus forte raison, le rapport de la commission médicale, rendu après deux semaines d’internement, a conclu que le requérant ne présentait pas de troubles psychiques.
En outre, le Gouvernement n’a aucunement expliqué pourquoi d’autres mesures, moins sévères, n’ont pas été considérées et, si tel a été le cas, pourquoi elles ont été jugées insuffisantes pour sauvegarder l’intérêt personnel ou public exigeant la privation de liberté du requérant. Par ailleurs, il n’y a aucun indice dans le dossier qui puisse montrer que le requérant aurait refusé de se soumettre de son propre gré à des examens psychiatriques et que les médecins experts aient tenté d’établir sur la base du dossier l’aliénation de l’intéressé. En conséquence, la privation de liberté du requérant pendant une période de quatorze jours n’était pas justifiée et n’était pas conforme à l’article 5 § 1 e).
Conclusion : violation (unanimité).
Article 5 § 4 : la plainte portée par le requérant contre la mesure d’internement lui a été retournée par le parquet près le tribunal de première instance, au motif qu’il avait déjà été renvoyé en jugement et pourrait faire valoir ses droits devant le tribunal.
Dès lors, la mesure d’internement en vue d’effectuer une expertise psychiatrique, prévue par le code de procédure pénale, n’a été soumise à aucun contrôle juridictionnel, quant à la nécessité de l’internement.
Conclusion : violation (unanimité).
Article 41 : 20 000 EUR pour dommage matériel et préjudice moral.
ARTICLE 6
Article 6 § 1 (criminal/pénal)
Applicability/Applicabilité
Transfer of a sentenced foreigner to his native country, under the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, following assurance by the public prosecutor: Article 6 applicable Transfèrement d’un étranger vers son pays natal, en vertu de la Convention sur le transfèrement
des personnes condamnées, à la suite des assurances données par le procureur : article 6 applicable
Buijen – Germany/Allemagne - 27804/05 Judgment/Arrêt 1.4.2010 [Section V]
Facts – In 2001 the applicant, a Dutch national, was arrested in Germany on suspicion of trafficking in and importing narcotic substances. He was subsequently remanded in custody. Following negotiations with the applicant’s legal represen- tatives, the public prosecutor gave the applicant an assurance that the prosecution service would institute proceedings under Article 11 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (“the Transfer Convention”) if he confessed to the alleged crimes and would refrain from requesting a sentence exceeding eight years’ imprisonment. In 2002, relying on this assurance, the applicant confessed in writing to the crimes specified in the arrest warrant and was convicted as charged. The applicant having waived his right to appeal, the judgment became final on the same day. Subsequently, the head of the chief public prosecutors refused to endorse a transfer under Article 11 of the Transfer Convention and suggested a transfer under Article 10 instead, in accordance with the State practice in relation to the Netherlands. When invited to comment, the public prosecutor who had given the assurance to the applicant stated that he had not known the difference between Articles 10 and 111 of the Transfer Convention and had only expected the applicant to be allowed to serve his sentence in his home country. Accordingly, the head of public prosecution concluded that the applicant could not claim that he had been promised a transfer under Article 11 with binding effect. The applicant unsuccessfully applied to a court of appeal and the Federal Constitutional Court. In 2003 he was handed over to the Dutch authorities under Article 10 of the Transfer Convention and served the remainder of his sentence in a Dutch prison.
Law – Article 6 § 1
(a) Applicability: From a technical point of view, the applicant’s conviction had become final in
1. Articles 10 and 11 provide for different means of serving the sentence in the State to which the sentenced person is transferred. Under Article 10 the sentenced person will continue to serve the sentence determined by the sentencing State. Under Article 11 he will serve a sentence converted under the procedures applying in the State to which he has been transferred.
10 Article 6 § 1 (criminal/pénal) 2002 when he had waived his right to appeal.
However, under the particular circumstances of this case it had to be taken into account that the proceedings relating to the applicant’s transfer request had been very closely related to the criminal proceedings and to the final determination of the sentence. Although the German court had imposed a criminal sentence, this was not to be considered as final having regard to the possibility of converting the sentence following a transfer to the applicant’s home country. It would therefore be too formalistic to limit the scope of application of Article 6 under its criminal head to the proceedings which took place before the delivery of the judgment in 2002.
The Court was aware of the fact that the decision taken by the Ministry of Justice on the transfer request did not solely depend on the public prosecutor’s recommendations and on consider- ations regarding the execution of sentence, but also on considerations of foreign policy which fell within the core area of public law. It was therefore acceptable if this part of the decision was not subject to judicial review. Accordingly, the Court had previously held that Article 6 § 1 was not applicable to proceedings under the Transfer Convention. However, in the cases concerned the Transfer Convention had not prospectively influenced the course of the trial and the fixing of the sentence, because no assurance had been given by the public prosecution before or during the criminal proceedings. It followed that Article 6 § 1 under its criminal head was, under the specific circumstances of the present case, applicable to the proceedings concerning the applicant’s transfer request in so far as they related to the assurance given by the public prosecution during the criminal proceedings.
(b) Access to court: The German courts had not reviewed the substance of the applicant’s complaint about the refusal to institute transfer proceedings under Article 11 of the Transfer Convention. The applicant’s complaint primarily fell to be examined in the light of his right of access to court. There was a dispute between the parties as to whether the applicant had had at his disposal an effective remedy which would have allowed him to challenge the refusal to initiate transfer proceedings under Article 11 of the Transfer Convention. The Gov- ernment had not indicated exactly any such remedy. Neither the Government nor the Federal Constitutional Court had referred to any case-law in this respect. In the decision given on the applicant’s complaint the Federal Constitutional Court had acknowledged that the possibility to appeal against the decision of the Ministry of
Justice had been in dispute. Moreover, the applicant had lodged a request for review with the court of appeal which had been declared inadmissible.
Consequently, in the particular circumstances of the present case, it had not been shown that there had been a possibility of bringing an action for review of the refusal to institute transfer proceedings in accordance with the relevant assurance. The applicant had therefore been denied access to a court with regard to the part of the decision on his transfer request which did not concern considerations of public policy.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also Smith v. Germany, no. 27801/05, 1 April 2010)
Access to court/Accès à un tribunal
Inability to challenge decision to transfer a sentenced foreigner to his native country in so far as it related to an assurance given by the public prosecutor: violation
Impossibilité de contester la décision de transférer un étranger condamné vers son pays natal pour autant qu’elle concernait les assurances données par le procureur : violation
Buijen – Germany/Allemagne - 27804/05 Judgment/Arrêt 1.4.2010 [Section V]
(See above/Voir ci-dessus – page 9) Fair hearing/Procès équitable
Conviction on basis of unfairly conducted identification parade: violation
Condamnation fondée sur une parade d’iden- tification inéquitable : violation
Laska and/et Lika – Albania/Albanie - 12315/04 and/et 17605/04 Judgment/Arrêt 20.4.2010 [Section IV]
Facts – The applicants were convicted, inter alia, of armed robbery after being picked out in an identification parade at which they had been forced to wear blue and white balaclavas, similar to those used in the robbery, while the other two participants in the parade had worn black balaclavas. The
11 Article 6 § 1 (criminal/pénal)
applicants’ lawyer had not been present either during questioning or at the identification parade.
Law – Article 6 § 1: The applicants had been found guilty essentially on the strength of eyewitness submissions obtained during the identification parade. As the applicants had been made to wear blue and white balaclavas, similar to those worn by the robbers and in stark contrast to the black balaclavas worn by the other persons in the line, the identification parade had amounted to an open invitation to the witnesses to pick out the applicants.
Even though the trial court had accepted that there had been irregularities at the investigation stage, in convicting the applicants it had relied on their positive identification at the identification parade.
Neither the assistance provided subsequently by a lawyer nor the adversarial nature of the ensuing proceedings could cure the defects which had occurred during the investigation. There had been no independent oversight of the fairness of the procedure or opportunity for the applicants to protest against the blatant irregularities. The manifest disregard of the rights of the defence at the investigation stage had seriously undermined the fairness of the trial.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 46: A retrial or the reopening of the case, if requested by the applicants, would be the most appropriate form of redress. However, since the Albanian criminal legal system did not allow cases to be re-examined in the event of a finding by the European Court of a serious violation of an applicant’s right to a fair trial, the Court ruled that the Albanian authorities should introduce a new remedy affording redress or remove any obstacles to redress in the domestic legal system. The member States’ duty to organise their judicial systems in a way that enabled their courts to meet the re- quirements of the Convention applied also to the reopening of the applicants’ case.
Article 41: EUR 4,800 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Independent and impartial tribunal/Tribunal indépendant et impartial
Order for continued pre-trial detention based on preconceived notion of defendant’s guilt:
violation
Maintien en détention provisoire motivé par l’idée préconçue de la culpabilité du requérant : violation
Chesne – France - 29808/06 Judgment/Arrêt 22.4.2010 [Section V]
En fait – Le requérant fut mis en examen pour infraction à la législation sur les stupéfiants, en état de récidive, et placé en détention provisoire. Il interjeta appel de son placement en détention provisoire devant la chambre de l’instruction de la cour d’appel composée de trois magistrats. En avril 2003, la chambre de l’instruction jugea qu’une mesure de contrôle judiciaire serait inefficace et confirma sa détention provisoire. Bien qu’admettant que l’enquête révélait à ce stade des discordances, elle estima que le requérant « agissait en véritable professionnel du trafic de stupéfiants, dont il tirait très largement bénéfice » et était considéré comme
« l’un des principaux trafiquants ». En juin 2004, le tribunal correctionnel déclara le requérant coupable de récidive d’acquisition non autorisée de stupéfiants et le condamna à treize années d’emprisonnement. Après avoir interjeté appel, les conseils du requérant apprirent que la cour d’appel serait notamment composée d’une magistrate qui avait participé à l’adoption de l’arrêt d’avril 2003 susmentionné et d’un magistrat qui avait statué, en juillet 2003, sur la prolongation de la détention provisoire de la compagne du requérant en la désignant comme la « concubine d’un des prin- cipaux trafiquants qu’elle remplaçait dans son trafic lorsqu’il était absent ». Ils demandèrent leur récusation pour défaut d’impartialité mais leur action fut rejetée. En décembre 2004, la chambre des appels correctionnels confirma le jugement de première instance mais ramena la peine à dix ans d’emprisonnement. En novembre 2005, la Cour de cassation rejeta le pourvoi du requérant.
En droit – Article 6 § 1 : la motivation retenue par la chambre de l’instruction de la cour d’appel dans ses deux arrêts litigieux d’avril et de juillet 2003 constitue une idée préconçue de la culpabilité du requérant. S’il ne peut être reproché à la chambre de l’instruction d’avoir repris le fait, mis en exergue par l’instruction du dossier, que le seul trafic reconnu par le requérant apparaissait effectivement comme étant « des plus conséquents », en revanche en s’exprimant en des termes clairs et non équivoques quant au rôle exact du requérant et à sa place dans le réseau délictueux, ainsi que sur l’étendue de son implication dans ce trafic, les magistrats sont allés au-delà d’un simple état de suspicion à son encontre. En adoptant une telle motivation, et notamment en tirant des conclusions catégoriques de discordances apparentes relevées dans l’arrêt d’avril 2003 entre les déclarations du requérant et certains éléments matériels recueillis
12 Article 6 § 1 (criminal/pénal) – Article 8 lors des investigations, la chambre de l’instruction
ne s’est pas limitée à une appréciation sommaire des faits reprochés pour justifier la pertinence d’un maintien en détention provisoire, mais s’est au contraire prononcée sur l’existence d’éléments de culpabilité à la charge du requérant. Dès lors, les décisions litigieuses ne comportent aucune motivation ou appréciation quelconque de culpa- bilité au regard des faits reprochés au requérant.
L’impartialité objective des deux magistrats de la chambre des appels correctionnels de la cour d’appel, qui ont fait partie de la chambre de l’instruction de la cour d’appel ayant rendu les arrêts litigieux, pouvait ainsi paraître sujette à caution.
Conclusion : violation (unanimité).
Article 41 : constat de violation suffisant en lui- même pour le préjudice moral.
Criminal trial in defamation case presided over by same judge as had sat in prior civil pro- ceedings: violation
Procès pénal en diffamation présidé par le juge qui avait siégé lors de la procédure civile antérieure : violation
Fatullayev – Azerbaijan/Azerbaïdjan - 40984/07 Judgment/Arrêt 22.4.2010 [Section I]
(See Article 10 below/Voir l’article 10 ci-dessous – page 16)
Article 6 § 2
Presumption of innocence/Présomption d’innocence
Statement by Prosecutor General prior to formal charges being brought indicating that a material element of suspected offence had been made out:
violation
Déclaration d’un procureur général avant inculpation formelle, indiquant qu’un élément matériel d’une infraction présumée a été découvert : violation
Fatullayev – Azerbaijan/Azerbaïdjan - 40984/07 Judgment/Arrêt 22.4.2010 [Section I]
(See Article 10 below/Voir l’article 10 ci-dessous – page 16)
ARTICLE 8
Family life/Vie familiale
Custody order effectively preventing siblings spending time together: violation
Décision sur le droit de garde empêchant en pratique un frère et une sœur de passer du temps ensemble : violation
Mustafa and/et Armağan Akın – Turkey/Turquie - 4694/03 Judgment/Arrêt 6.4.2010 [Section II]
Facts – Following divorce proceedings, the first applicant was awarded custody of the couple’s son (the second applicant) and his wife custody of their daughter. Under the terms of the court order, the parents were to exchange the children during school holidays and certain religious festivities. The first applicant appealed against that decision requesting that the children be allowed to spend some time together with one of the parents, but his request was refused.
Law – Article 8: The decision of the domestic courts interfered with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, in that the second applicant was never able to spend time with his sister and the first applicant was unable to enjoy the company of both his children at the same time.
It was therefore necessary to examine whether the respondent State had complied with its positive obligations and whether the authorities had acted with a view to maintaining and developing the applicants’ family ties. The Court was struck by the lack of reasoning justifying the separation of the children, in particular since neither parent had requested such an arrangement. Further, it could not accept the argument that, since they lived in the same neighbourhood, the children were able to see each other, because maintaining family ties between them was too important to be left to the discretion of their parents. The domestic courts had concluded that regular contact between the applicants and their daughter and sister would amount to an unacceptable change of environment for the latter. However, it was unclear how the siblings spending time together on weekends could have had such an impact, especially as they lived in the same area. Finally, the domestic courts had not sought the opinion of the children or based their decision on any psychological or other expert assessment. In conclusion, they had failed to have due regard to the best interests of the family.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 8 13 Article 41: EUR 15,000 jointly in respect of non-
pecuniary damage.
Failure to ensure father’s right of contact during proceedings for return of son who had been taken abroad by the mother: violation
Droit de visite d’un père non-assuré durant la procédure de retour de son fils déplacé par la mère dans un autre pays : violation
Macready – Czech Republic/République tchèque - 4824/06 and/et 15512/08 Judgment/Arrêt 22.4.2010 [Section V]
En fait – Le requérant, ressortissant américain, vivait aux Etats-Unis avec sa femme et leur fils, né en décembre 2002. En mai 2004, à la suite de la demande de divorce du requérant, une mesure provisoire de cotutelle des parents à l’égard de l’enfant fut mise en place, mais la mère emmena celui-ci en République tchèque sans le consentement du requérant. En juin 2004, cette dernière obtint la garde de l’enfant par une décision d’un tribunal tchèque qui n’était pas informé du déplacement illicite du garçon. Le requérant engagea en octobre 2004 une procédure en République tchèque, et le retour de l’enfant aux Etats-Unis fut ordonné en avril 2005. A la suite de l’appel interjeté par la mère, le tribunal ordonna une expertise et, se basant sur ses conclusions, il réforma le jugement de première instance en juin 2006 considérant qu’un retour aux Etats-Unis de l’enfant pourrait provoquer chez lui des troubles irréversibles susceptibles d’aggraver sa maladie mentale. Les pourvois du requérant furent rejetés en février et septembre 2007. Enfin, le requérant fit à partir d’octobre 2004 plusieurs demandes de mesures provisoires l’autorisant à rencontrer son fils durant ses séjours en République tchèque. La mère fit appel de la plupart des décisions mais quelques rencontres purent néanmoins être organisées entre père et fils jusqu’en janvier 2006.
En droit – Article 8 : le lien entre le requérant et son fils relève de la vie familiale au sens de l’article 8.
En outre, la Convention de La Haye sur les aspects civils de l’enlèvement international d’enfants – à la philosophie de laquelle la Cour souscrit entiè- rement – s’applique au déplacement de l’enfant par sa mère en République tchèque en mai 2004. En l’espèce, plus de vingt mois se sont écoulés avant l’adoption par les tribunaux inférieurs de la décision tranchant définitivement la question du retour de l’enfant aux Etats-Unis. Or l’écoulement d’un tel laps de temps ne rendait pratiquement plus
envisageable le rétablissement du statu quo ante.
En effet, l’enfant aurait du être ramené dans un milieu dont il a été enlevé à l’âge d’un an et demi et qui ne lui était plus connu, ce qu’il aurait vécu d’autant plus mal qu’il présentait des troubles autistes appelant à une stabilité et au respect de certains stéréotypes. De plus, les tribunaux tchèques devaient attendre la fin de la procédure sur le retour de l’enfant avant de pouvoir statuer sur l’exercice de l’autorité parentale à l’égard de ce dernier.
Pendant toute cette période, le requérant ne pouvait donc réaliser ses droits parentaux qu’en vertu des mesures provisoires lui accordant un droit de visite pendant ses séjours en République tchèque, séjours qui ne pouvaient être qu’occasionnels vu qu’il résidait et travaillait aux Etats-Unis. A cet égard, force est de constater que même s’ils ont été, certes a posteriori, informés des difficultés que le requérant rencontrait lors de ses visites, les tribunaux n’ont pris de leur initiative aucune mesure appropriée pour créer pro futuro les conditions nécessaires à la réalisation dudit droit de visite. Dans le contexte de l’affaire, les tribunaux auraient en effet pu envisager de prendre des mesures coercitives à l’encontre de la mère ou de chercher le concours de services sociaux, voire de pédopsychiatres ou de psychologues, pour faciliter le contact entre les intéressés. Ces éléments suffisent pour conclure que le droit au respect de la vie familiale du requérant n’a pas été protégé de manière effective.
Conclusion : violation (unanimité).
Article 41 : 15 000 EUR pour préjudice moral.
Family life/Vie familiale
Positive obligations/Obligations positives Failure to examine request for adoption by foster parents before declaring child free for adoption:
violation
Demande d’adoption introduite par une famille d’accueil non examinée avant la décision ayant déclaré l’enfant adoptable : violation
Moretti and/et Benedetti – Italy/Italie - 16318/07 Judgment/Arrêt 27.4.2010 [Section II]
En fait – Le premier requérant et la deuxième requérante sont un couple marié. En juin 2004, une fillette d’un mois, laissée par sa mère biologique peu après sa naissance, fut placée à titre provisoire auprès des requérants. En décembre 2005, elle fut confiée à une nouvelle famille adoptive choisie par le tribunal. En janvier 2006, la demande d’adoption
Article 8 14
spéciale que les requérants avaient déposée en mars 2005 au sujet de la petite fille fut examinée et rejetée par le tribunal pour enfants. Par la suite, la cour d’appel annula cette décision. Cependant, s’appuyant sur une expertise, elle rejeta la solution d’une nouvelle séparation. L’adoption devint définitive.
En droit – Article 8 :
a) Recevabilité – Le gouvernement défendeur soulève trois exceptions préliminaires : i. en premier lieu, il estime que les requérants n’ont pas qualité pour représenter l’enfant devant la Cour ; ii. en second lieu, il excipe du non-épuisement des voies de recours internes au motif que les requérants auraient pu se pourvoir en cassation ; iii. enfin, il considère que les requérants ne sauraient se prévaloir de l’existence d’une « vie familiale » susceptible de protection dans le cas d’espèce.
i. Concernant la partie de la requête présentée au nom de l’enfant : s’il convient d’éviter une approche restrictive ou purement technique en ce qui concerne la représentation des enfants devant la Cour, en l’espèce les requérants n’exercent aucune autorité parentale sur la petite fille, ne sont pas ses tuteurs et n’ont aucun lien biologique avec elle, et aucune procuration n’a été signée pour qu’ils puissent représenter ses intérêts. Par ailleurs, dans la procédure interne l’enfant était représentée par un tuteur. Dans ces circonstances, les requérants n’ont pas qualité pour agir devant la Cour pour le compte de celle-ci.
Conclusion : exception préliminaire retenue (unanimité).
ii. Concernant le non-épuisement des voies de recours internes : un éventuel recours en cassation n’aurait pas eu pour effet de redresser les griefs des requé- rants ; en effet, compte tenu de ce que les moyens de recours présentés par les requérants auraient porté essentiellement sur le fond de l’affaire, la Cour de cassation aurait déclaré le recours irrecevable.
Conclusion : exception préliminaire rejetée (unanimité).
iii. Concernant l’existence d’un lien constitutif d’une vie familiale : les requérants ont accueilli la fillette alors qu’elle était âgée d’un mois et, dix-neuf mois durant, ont vécu avec elle les premières étapes importantes de sa jeune vie. Pendant cette période, l’enfant a vécu avec une sœur et un frère. Les expertises ont montré qu’elle était bien insérée dans cette famille et était profondément attachée aux requérants et à leurs enfants. De plus, les requérants ont assuré le développement social de la fillette,
notamment en l’inscrivant à la crèche et en l’emmenant en voyage. Ces éléments suffisent pour dire qu’il existait entre les requérants et l’enfant un lien interpersonnel étroit, et que les requérants se sont comportés à tous égards comme les parents de la petite fille, de sorte que des liens familiaux existaient de facto entre eux. Au demeurant, si les requérants avaient déjà accueilli temporairement des enfants qui avaient ensuite été adoptés par d’autres familles, ils ont déposé une demande d’adoption concernant la fillette, démarche qui constitue un indice supplémentaire de la force du lien instauré. Dès lors, la relation entre les requérants et l’enfant relève de la vie familiale, au sens de l’article 8.
Conclusion : exception préliminaire rejetée (majorité).
b) Fond – Dans cette affaire concernant la procédure d’accès à l’adoption, on se trouve en présence d’intérêts difficilement conciliables, à savoir ceux de l’enfant et des deux familles en cause.
Or, dans la recherche d’un équilibre entre ces différents intérêts, l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant doit être une considération primordiale. En outre, la question se pose de savoir si la procédure débouchant sur la mesure d’ingérence a garanti aux requérants la protection de leurs intérêts. En l’espèce, il était capital que la demande d’adoption spéciale formée par les requérants fût examinée attentivement dans un bref délai. Or le tribunal pour enfants n’a nullement motivé le rejet de la demande en question et, de plus, n’a pas examiné celle-ci avant de déclarer l’enfant adoptable et de choisir la nouvelle famille. Quant à la cour d’appel, elle n’a pas réparé cette défaillance. Après avoir ordonné une expertise, elle a estimé que la fillette semblait bien intégrée dans sa nouvelle famille et qu’une nouvelle séparation potentiellement traumatisante était inopportune. Aussi le passage du temps a-t-il eu pour effet de rendre définitif la décision du tribunal pour enfants. Il est regrettable que celui-ci n’ait pas examiné la demande d’adoption introduite par les requérants avant de déclarer l’enfant adoptable, et qu’il ne l’ait pas fait par un jugement motivé. Sans substituer son appréciation à celle des juridictions nationales, lesquelles dans le cadre des mesures prises se sont appliquées de bonne foi à préserver le bien-être de l’enfant, la Cour considère néanmoins que le non- respect par le tribunal de la loi et des règles de procédure a eu un impact direct sur le droit à la vie familiale des intéressés. Les carences constatées dans le déroulement de cette procédure ont impliqué une méconnaissance de l’obligation
15 Article 8 – Article 10
positive d’assurer le respect effectif du droit des requérants à leur vie familiale.
Conclusion : violation (six voix contre une).
Article 41 : 10 000 EUR aux requérants conjoin- tement pour préjudice moral.
Positive obligations/Obligations positives Inability to change registration of ethnic origin in official records: violation
Impossibilité de faire modifier l’inscription de l’origine ethnique dans les registres officiels : violation
Ciubotaru – Moldova - 27138/04 Judgment/Arrêt 27.4.2010 [Section IV]
Facts – During the period that the Moldovan territory formed part of the Soviet Union, the Soviet authorities recorded people’s ethnic origin in their identity papers. Most representatives of the main ethnic group of the Moldovan Republic were registered as Moldovans. In 2002 the applicant wrote to the local civil-registration authority requesting that his ethnicity entry be changed from Moldovan to Romanian. In reply, he was informed that this was impossible since neither of his parents had been recorded as ethnic Romanians in their birth or marriage certificates. He was advised to search the National Archives for traces of Romanian origin among his grandparents and other ancestors.
The applicant then initiated proceedings against the State, but his claim was dismissed on the grounds that he had failed to prove that his parents had been of Romanian ethnic origin.
Law – Article 8: Being aware of the highly sensitive nature of the applicant’s case, the Court considered it acceptable for States to require objective evidence when registering an individual’s ethnic identity.
When such a claim was based on purely subjective and unsubstantiated grounds, it was open to the authorities to refuse it. However, the applicant’s claim had been based on more than the subjective perception of his own ethnicity; he had been able to provide objectively verifiable links with the Romanian ethnic group such as language, name, empathy and others. However, under domestic law, the applicant was required to provide evidence that his parents had belonged to the Romanian ethnic group. Given the historical realities of Moldova, such a requirement had created an insurmountable barrier to registering an ethnic identity other than the one recorded in respect of his parents by the
Soviet authorities. In preventing the applicant from having his claim examined in the light of objectively verifiable evidence, the State had failed to comply with its positive obligation to secure to the applicant effective respect for his private life.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression/Liberté d’expression Conviction of editors for publishing information on the female friend of public official: violation Rédacteurs en chef condamnés pour avoir publié des informations sur l’amie d’un haut fonction- naire : violation
Flinkkilä and Others/et autres – Finland/Finlande - 25576/04 Judgment/Arrêt 6.4.2010 [Section IV]
Facts – The applicants worked on two nationwide magazines which in 1997 published articles about an incident involving A., who at the time was the national conciliator. The incident had concerned an altercation between A., a female friend B., and A.’s wife that had taken place outside the matri- monial home. As a consequence, B. had been fined and A. had been given a suspended prison term and dismissed from service. He and his wife had later divorced. The first article contained an interview with A. concerning the incident, his conviction and dismissal. It mentioned B.’s full name and carried a photograph of her. The second article dealt with A.’s feelings about his divorce and dismissal and mentioned B.’s name in connection with the incident. Following a complaint by B., criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants, who were ultimately convicted and ordered to pay a fine and compensation.
Law – Article 10: The Court first noted that there was no evidence or even allegation of factual misinterpretation or bad faith on the part of the applicants. Nor was there any suggestion that the details about B. had been obtained by subterfuge or other illicit means. Even though B. was a private person, through her involvement in a widely publicised incident in front of a public figure’s house, she had inevitably entered the public domain. Moreover, her active involvement in the
Article 10 16
incident leading to A.’s dismissal and divorce had created a continuing element of public interest in her. The information in the two articles had mainly focused on A.’s behaviour and was voluntarily disclosed by him in the course of an interview. No details of B.’s private life were mentioned, except for her involvement in the incident and the fact that she was A.’s friend, both circumstances which were already common knowledge before the publication of the impugned articles. Notwith- standing that the event may have been presented in a somewhat colourful manner in order to boost sales of the magazines, that fact in itself could not suffice as justification for the applicants’
convictions. Finally, given that B. had already been awarded amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the disclosure of her identity in a television programme and in respect of other articles published in other magazines stemming from the same facts, the penalties imposed on the applicants had been disproportionate.
Conclusion : violation (unanimously).
In view of its finding that the interference had been prescribed law, the Court also held that there had been no violation of Article 7.
Article 41: EUR 22,000 jointly in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also the following judgments, adopted by the Court on the same date: Tuomela and Others v. Finland, no. 25711/04; Jokitaipale and Others v. Finland, no. 43349/05; Iltalehti and Karhuvaara v. Finland, no. 6372/06; Soila v. Finland, no. 6806/06;
and Ruokanen and Others v. Finland, no. 45130/06)
Criminal convictions of newspaper editor for articles calling into question official version of events and government policy: violations
Rédacteur en chef condamné au pénal pour des articles remettant en cause la version officielle de certains événements et la politique du gou- vernement : violations
Fatullayev – Azerbaijan/Azerbaïdjan - 40984/07 Judgment/Arrêt 22.4.2010 [Section I]
Facts – The applicant, a newspaper editor, was prosecuted in connection with two articles he had published.
In the first (and in separate postings that subsequently appeared on the Internet), he discussed a massacre that had taken place at the town of Khojaly in 1992
during the war in Nagorno-Karabakh. He made statements that could be construed as differing from the commonly accepted version according to which hundreds of Azerbaijani civilians had been killed by Armenian armed forces with the reported assistance of the Russian army. A civil action was then brought against him, which culminated in his being ordered to publish a retraction and an apology and to pay compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In separate, criminal, pro- ceedings four Khojaly survivors and two former soldiers involved in the battle also brought a private prosecution against the applicant accusing him of defamation and of falsely accusing Azerbaijani soldiers of an especially grave crime. The trial was presided over by the same judge who had sat in the civil action. The applicant was convicted of two counts of defamation and sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment.
The second article was entitled “The Aliyevs Go to War”. In it, the applicant expressed the view that, in order for President Ilham Aliyev to remain in power in Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijani Government had sought the support of the United States in exchange for Azerbaijan’s support for the US
“aggression” against Iran. He speculated about a possible US-Iranian war in which Azerbaijan could also become involved, and provided a long and detailed list of strategic facilities in Azerbaijan that would be attacked by Iran if such a scenario developed. He concluded that the Azerbaijani Government should have maintained neutrality in its relations with both the US and Iran, and had not realised all the grave consequences its support of the US position entailed. The article also discussed the issue of possible unrest, in the event of a conflict with Iran, in the southern regions of Azerbaijan populated by the Talysh ethnic minority.
As a result of the publication of this article, the applicant was prosecuted for the offences of threat of terrorism and inciting ethnic hostility. Before he had been formally charged, however, the Prosecutor General made a statement to the press in which he stated that the article constituted a threat of terrorism. The applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to a total of eight and a half years’ imprisonment.
Law – Article 10: (a) First conviction – The Court began by explaining that its judgment was not to be understood as containing any factual or legal assessment of the Khojaly events or any arbitration of historical claims relating thereto. It acknowledged the very sensitive nature of the issues that had been raised and that the loss of hundreds of innocent civilian lives had been a source of deep national
Article 10 17 grief; it also found it understandable that the
statements made by the applicant might have been considered shocking or disturbing by the public.
However, it reiterated that freedom of information applied not only to information or ideas that were favourably received, but also to those that offended, shocked or disturbed. Likewise, it was an integral part of freedom of expression to seek historical truth. Various matters related to the Khojaly events still appeared to be open to ongoing debate among historians, and as such should have been a matter of general interest in modern Azerbaijani society.
It was essential in a democratic society that a debate on the causes of acts of particular gravity possibly amounting to war crimes or crimes against humanity should be able to take place freely, while the press also had a vital role of “public watchdog”
with a duty to impart information and ideas on political issues and on other matters of general interest.
The first article had been written in a generally descriptive style with the aim of informing Azerbaijani readers of the realities of day-to-day life in the area in question. The public had been entitled to receive information about what was happening in the territories over which their country had lost control in the aftermath of the war. The applicant had attempted to convey, in a seemingly unbiased manner, various ideas and views of both sides of the conflict. Although the article contained remarks that some of the Azerbaijani military units had shared a degree of responsibility with the perpetrators of the mass killings, it did not contain any statements directly accusing the Azerbaijani military or specific individuals of committing the massacre and deliberately killing their own civilians. Further, as the role and responsibility of the Azerbaijani authorities in either failing to prevent or con- tributing to the Khojaly events was the subject of ongoing debate, the applicant as a journalist had had a right under Article 10 to impart ideas con- cerning that matter.
In contrast, the Internet postings had contained very specific allegations that Azerbaijani fighters had killed some of the victims (though perhaps not intentionally) and mutilated the bodies. By making those statements without relying on any relevant factual basis, the applicant may have failed to comply with the journalistic duty to provide accurate and reliable information. Be that as it may, the Court did not need to reach any definitive conclusions on that issue as it found that, in any event, the domestic courts had failed to provide sufficient and relevant reasons for finding that the
persons allegedly defamed (four Khojaly refugees and two former soldiers) had in fact suffered damage to their reputation. The dignity of the Khojaly victims and survivors in general and of the four refugees in particular had not been undermined as there was nothing to suggest that the applicant had sought to deny the fact of the mass killing, to exculpate the perpetrators, or to humiliate or debase the victims. On the contrary, he had expressed sympathy with their plight. As regards the two former soldiers, it had not been convincingly established that the applicant had directly accused them of having personally committed grave crimes as the statements had related to unidentified
“provocateurs”.
Lastly, the imposition of a prison sentence for a press offence was compatible with journalists’
freedom of expression only in exceptional circum- stances, notably where other fundamental rights had been seriously impaired as, for example, in cases of hate speech or incitement to violence.
There had been no justification for the imposition of a prison sentence in the applicant’s case.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(b) Second conviction – The article “The Aliyevs Go to War” had focused on Azerbaijan’s specific role in the dynamics of international politics relating to US-Iranian relations and so had been part of a political debate on a matter of general and public concern. The applicant had criticised the Azerbaijani Government’s foreign and domestic political moves and, in common with a number of other media sources at the time, had suggested that, in the event of a war, Azerbaijan was likely to be involved; he had also speculated about possible targets for Iranian attacks. He had not, however, revealed any State secrets or increased or decreased the chances of an attack, but had sought to convey a dramatic picture of the specific consequences of Azerbaijan’s involvement in a possible future war.
The opinions he had expressed were about hypo- thetical scenarios and, as such, were not susceptible of proof.
As regards the conviction for threat of terrorism, the applicant, as a journalist and private individual, had clearly not been in a position to influence or exercise any degree of control over any of the hypothetical events discussed in the article. Nor had he voiced any approval or argued in favour of any such attack. It had been his task, as a journalist, to impart information and ideas on the relevant political issues and to express opinions about the possible future consequences of specific decisions taken by the Government. The domestic courts’
