More than a third of ECHR's judgments since its establishment concerned Turkey, Russia & Italy

The document "The ECHR in facts and figures 2020" has been published on the Court’s website. Αccording to the report, approximately 62,000 applications were pending before a judicial formation of ECHR at 31 December 2020. Neerly a quarter of these applications had been lodged against the Russian Federation. The number of applications allocated to a judicial formation in 2020 exceeded the number disposed of judicially during the year.

Almost half the judgments concerned 3 of the 47 member States, namely the Russian Federation (185), Turkey (97) and Ukraine (86). Nearly a quarter of all the judgments delivered by the Court concerned the Russian Federation. Of the total number of judgments delivered in 2020, the Court found at least one violation of the Convention by the respondent State in 87% of the cases.

Since the Court was established in 1959, the Court has delivered 23,406 judgments. More than a third of them have concerned 3 member States: Turkey (3,742), the Russian Federation (2,884) and Italy (2,427).

In 2020 the Court delivered 871 judgments concerning 1,901 applications. In 2020 the Court completed its examination of a total of 39,190 applications with a judgment or decision or by striking the case out of the list.

In the judgments delivered by the Court in 2020, nearly a quarter of the violations concerned Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), whether on account of the fairness or the length of the proceedings. In addition, more than 20% of the violations found concerned serious breaches of the Convention, namely the right to life or the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Articles 2 and 3).

The document is available here

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld her find
Read more

The Lawyer's right to refuse the defense of an accused person for ethical reasons

Image
by Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer LL.M. Lawyers have the right to refuse to undertake a case when it conflicts with their moral principles, their dignity and conscience. Both the Code of Lawyers in Greece and the Code of Lawyers 'Ethics in Cyprus provide the legal framework to support this choice.   The Greek Legislation The lawyer's right to refuse the defense of a specific defendant in a criminal trial clearly follows from the wording of article 37 of the Lawyers' Code (Law 4194/2013). According to paragraph 1 of this article, the lawyer has an obligation to undertake any case, unless it is manifestly unfounded, not amenable to defense, conflicts with the interests of other clients or goes against his/her principles. According to paragraph 2, the lawyer must undertake the defense of any accused, if requested by the judicial authorities, subject to paragraph 1. The reasons for refusing to undertake a case are expanded by article 6 of the Greek Code of Ethics of the Legal Pro
Read more

Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs): What and Why?

Image
By Christina Poursanidou, Lawyer Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) are considered as high-risk individuals for financial institutions and obliged entities, which justifies the application of additional Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorist Financing (CFT) preventive measures with respect to business relationships with them. But who is considered as a PEP and why being a PEP poses a risk? The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has defined a PEP as an individual who is or has been entrusted with a prominent public function, while the Article 3 par. 9 of the 4th EU AML Directive (AMLD) repeats the definition of the FATF and provides a list of particular political positions, which make somebody a PEP. It is crucial to note that both FATF and EU have included in the scope of PEPs, the family members and close associates of PEPs, which means that not only the persons with have been entrusted with prominent public function are considered as high-risk, but also their family member
Read more

Sanction imposed on judge for Facebook posts concerning matters of public interest infringed his freedom of expression (ECtHR)

Image
In Chamber’s judgment   in the case of Danileţ v. Romania (application no. 16915/21) the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority (four votes to three), that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned a disciplinary sanction imposed on a judge by the National Judicial and Legal Service Commission for posting two messages on his Facebook account. The Court found that the domestic courts had failed to give due consideration to several important factors, in particular concerning the broader context in which the applicant’s statements had been made, his participation in a debate on matters of public interest, the question whether the value judgments expressed had been sufficiently based in fact and, lastly, the potentially chilling effect of the sanction. In addition, the existence of an attack on the dignity and honour of the profession of judge had not been sufficiently demonstrated. In the
Read more

Gigantic fine for unfair practices imposed on Booking.com by the Competition Authority of Hungary

Image
One of the highest fines for violation of unfair competition law has been imposed (28/4/2020) on online hotel booking platform ‘’Booking.com’’ by the Hungarian Competition Authority. The amount of the fine (approximately EUR 6 million / HUF 2.5 billion) imposed by the Authority illustrates the seriousness of the Dutch company's violations. The Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH) imposed a fine of HUF 2.5 billion on the operator of the online booking portal booking.com, and at the same time banned the Dutch company from continuing its aggressive sales methods. According to the decision of the competition authority, Booking.com B.V. engaged in unfair commercial practices against consumers by, among other things, misleadingly advertising some of its accommodations with a free cancellation option and exerting undue psychological pressure on consumers to make early bookings. As a result of the Competition Authority’s competition supervision proceeding  initiated in 2018, the autho
Read more

First judgment of the ECHR: Lawless v. Ireland

Image
60 years ago, on 14 November 1960, the Court delivered its first judgment, Lawless v. Ireland, with René Cassin as its President. The judgment concerned preliminary objections and procedural questions regarding the application, on which a judgment on the merits was delivered the following year. Since its inauguration the Court has delivered 23,291 judgments on just over 51,650 applications. The case was filed by Gerard Richard Lawless, who had been an IRA member, although he claimed to have left the IRA. He was arrested on 11 July 1957, as he was about to travel to Great Britain from Ireland, and subsequently detained under the special powers of indefinite detention without trial under the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1940. The case was filed by Lawless for violation, by the Irish Government, of Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights, providing rights to liberty and security, fair trial and the principle of 'no punishment without law'
Read more

The rules of UEFA on ‘homegrown players’ could be contrary to EU law (ECJ)

Image
According to the Judgment of the Court of Justice (21.12.2023) in Case C-680/21 (Royal Antwerp Football Club),  the rules of UEFA and the Belgian football association on ‘homegrown players’ could be contrary to EU law. A footballer and a Belgian club are challenging UEFA’s rules and those of the Belgian football association that require a minimum number of ‘home-grown players’ to be included in teams. The Court holds that that requirement could infringe both competition rules and the free movement of workers. However, the national court in charge of the case will have to verify whether or not that is the case. UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) requires football clubs to have a minimum number of ‘home-grown players’ in their teams. The Belgian football association (URBSFA) has adopted similar rules. In both cases, those rules define ‘home-grown players’ as players who are trained at national level, although UEFA’s rules also refer to players trained within a given club. A p
Read more