This week in Strasbourg - A roundup of the European Court of Human Rights' case law - 2014 week 22

WAR CRIMES - In the Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Marguš v. Croatia the Court held that Croatian courts were right to bring war crime charges against an army commander nearly nine years after terminating first trial against him unanimously  (no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights/ Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) to the Convention not applicable. The case of Marguš v. Croatia (application no. 4455/10) concerned the conviction, in 2007, of a former commander of the Croatian army of war crimes against the civilian population committed in 1991. He complained in particular: that his right to be tried by an impartial tribunal and to defend himself in person had been violated; and, that the criminal offences of which he had been convicted were the same as those which had been the subject of proceedings against him terminated in 1997 in application of the General Amnesty Act. 

This week in Strasbourg - A roundup of the European Court of Human Rights' case law - 2014 week 21

HEALTH CARE ALLOWANCE - In the case of McDonald v. the United Kingdom the case concerned a lady with severely limited mobility who complained about a reduction by a local authority of the amount allocated for her weekly care. The reduction was based on the local authority’s decision that her night-time toileting needs could be met by the provision of incontinence pads and absorbant sheets instead of a night-time carer to assist her in using a commode. Relying on Article 8, Ms McDonald alleged that the decision to reduce her care allowance on the basis that she could use use incontinence pads at night, even though she was not incontinent, amounted to an unjustifiable and disproportionate interference with her right to respect for private life, and exposed her to considerable indignity.

Sexual Orientation and the European Convention on Human Rights: Voices and Perspectives

On Friday 16th 2014, Dr. Paul Johnson hosted the seminar 'Sexual Orientation and the European Convention on Human Rights: Voices and Perspectives' at the University of York. The event, well attended by delegates from the UK and across Europe, aimed to facilitate dialogue between a range of stakeholders with different perspectives on human rights litigation about sexual orientation discrimination brought under the Convention. Read more here

This week in Strasbourg - A roundup of the European Court of Human Rights' case law - 2014 week 20

In the case of Taranenko v. Russia the European Court of Human Rights held that the extended detention and severe sentencing of participant in non-violent anti-Government protest in Russia was unjustified (violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security - entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in the light of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). The case concerned the detention and conviction of a participant in a protest against the politics of President Putin in 2004, organised by the National Bolsheviks Party. The Court underlined that the protest, although involving some disturbance of public order, had been largely non-violent and had not caused any bodily injuries. The Court found in particular that while a sanction for Ms Taranenko’s actions might have been warranted by the demands of public order, her detention pending trial of almost one year and the suspended prison sentence of three years imposed on her had not been proportionate and had to have had a deterring effect on protesters.

This week in Strasbourg - A roundup of the European Court of Human Rights' case law - 2014 week 19

Arrested refugees - Fylakio Detetntion Center, Thrace, Evros, Greece.

Safaii v. Austria – Asylum – Greece - (No violation of Article 3) - The applicant, Hanif Safaii, is an Afghan national who was born in 1983. His current place of residence is unknown. The case concerned his transfer from Austria to Greece. Having travelled from Afghanistan via Iran to Greece, Mr Safaii arrived in Austria with his wife in August 2008 and applied for asylum. He stated that the couple had stayed for a few months in Greece, spending part of the time in public parks. He had attempted to apply for asylum but had been beaten by police when queuing to submit an application. He further submitted that he was threatened in Afghanistan by the Taliban, who had kidnapped two of his brothers. In October 2008, the Austrian Federal Asylum Office rejected Mr Safaii’s asylum application and ordered his transfer back to Greece, on the grounds that under Austrian and European Union law (the “Dublin II Regulation”), Greece was responsible for examining his asylum application as it was the first EU state that he had entered. The office did not consider credible his account of his treatment in Greece. Mr Safaii’s appeal against the decision was dismissed by the Asylum Court and the Constitutional Court refused to deal with his complaint. On 8 April 2009 he was expelled to Greece.

Nieuwsbrief Rechtspraak Europa no. 5 - mei 2014 (European Courts' newsletter in Dutch)

Klik hier voor de nieuwsbrief Rechtspraak Europa verzorgd door het gerechtshof Amsterdam met een overzicht van de rechtspraak van de afgelopen maand van het Europese Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens in Straatsburg en het Hof van justitie van de Europese Unie in Luxemburg.

This week in Strasbourg - A roundup of the European Court of Human Rights' case law - 2014 week 18

A plea bargain is an agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence. A plea bargain allows both parties to avoid a lengthy criminal trial and may allow criminal defendants to avoid the risk of conviction at trial on a more serious charge. Plea bargaining can present a dilemma to defense attorneys, in that they must choose between vigorously seeking a good deal for their present client, or maintaining a good relationship with the prosecutor for the sake of helping future clients. In charge bargaining, defendants plead guilty to a less serious crime than the original charge. In count bargaining, they plead guilty to a subset of multiple original charges. In sentence bargaining, they plead guilty agreeing in advance what sentence will be given; however, this sentence can still be denied by the judge. In fact bargaining, defendants plead guilty but the prosecutor agrees to stipulate (i.e., to affirm or concede) certain facts that will affect how the defendant is punished under the sentencing guidelines. (Source)

In the case of Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia the Court held that plea bargain in Georgian misappropriation case did not breach the accused’s right to a fair trial (no violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) and no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property))In this case the Court for the first time examined in detail the compatibility of plea-bargaining arrangements with the right to a fair trial.