Tyrer Case
Art. 3 ECHR - The case is based on phisical punishment (birching) in the Isle of Man for an underage kid. The Court claimed that this was an issue violating Art. 3 on inhuman treatment. Indeed, even though the phisical punishment was actually minimal, the fact that it was in a public execution and it was carried out by State officials entailed a higher scrutiny by the Court. This also caused a lot of critiques becasue it was actively going against a tradition of high contracting party. Also, the Court described the convention as a living instrument, which develops alongside the tradition of high contracting parties and can change over time accoridng to costums.
Casteels Case
Art. 10 ECHR - the case is about a member of spanish senate which was persecuted for speaking out against the government for the treatment of Basque citizens. The Court found this a violation of freedom of speech, and it stressed the fact that given that this was a government official speaking out against the government, then a higher level of scrutiny was necessary. Hence, it is important also who is speaking to asses the level of protection. Finally, critique agianst a government are a foundation of democratic governance, and therefore are granted a wide margin of protection.
Soering Case:
Extradition under ECHR: migration is not enshrined under the provisions of the ECHR, however the case law has developed this area. The Soering case was about a convict who had to be extradited to the US for his crimes. However, that would have entailed a death sentece, which falls under the provisions of Art. 3 ECHR. HEnce, the High Contracting party, due to its duty to the ECHR, could not allow for the extradition to happen. Therefore, unless the receiving state cna grant that the level of protection will be allowed, extradition cannot allow for extradition under their jurisdiction.
Smith & Grady Case
Art. 10 ECHR: two soldiers in the UK army who were homosexuals, and after findinding out they were expelled from the army. The Court found a violation of Art. 10 on the basis that they were prevented from expressing themselves for who they were, and thus this provision of the ECHR enshrines provisions on the fact that imposing secrecy is violating freedom of speech.
Salesi Case
Art. 6 ECHR: the case opened the door to the concept of unde delays as a violation of Art. 6 on the right to access court and fair trial. The court found that in this very long process, the fact that there were long periods of inactivity and undue delays were preventing the applicant from receiving a fair trial. This caused a lot of similar cases to arrive to the Court, even sometimes about systemic failures of judicial systems of High Contracting Party (Gazso)
Salduz Case
Art. 6 ECHR: the applicant was arrested following : Mr Salduz was arrested for taking part in illegal demonstration, and was forced to make a statement under pressure (torture), but was convincted on the basis of that. The ECHR found a violation of Art. 6 since he was not given immediate access to a lawyer after arrest and sufficient protection during interrogation. Hence, The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction
Pretty Case
Art. 8 ECHR: The applicant was paralyzed and suffering from a degenerative incurable illness. To do so would be criminal under English law as assisted suicide is not recognized. She then goes to Strasburg and was presented the argument that within the provisions of Art.2, the right to life also enshrined the right to end their own life at your decision, sort of not to exercise this. The Court rejected this, as Art. 2 is strictly relating to the protection of the right to life. Same applied for the argument of Art. 3 on inhuman treatment, which the Court also rejected. Ultimately, under Art.8, the right to private life was found to be extended on the ground of self-determination, where the notion of personal autonomy is an important principle underlying the interpretation of tis guarantees. In par. 62, it was stated the Art.8 enshrines the ability to conduct one’s life in a manner of own choosing, even in pursue of potentially harmful behavior. This was contentious as it also touched upon issues of morality withing States.
Berrhab Case:
Migration in ECHR: this was the first case that opened the Convention to issues of migration. The case was aboutrevolved around a Maroccan national who was married to a Dutch national with a child. However, after a divorce, his residence permit expired and was denied. These sorts of cases were always rejected from the Court on the basis that Art. 8 would not cover these sorts of situations. However, in this case, the Court found a violation, and it stated that in issues of deportation, it needs to be considered the family ties and the connection between the individual and the States. This resulted in a violation of Art. 8
Szabo Case:
Art. 8 ECHR: the Hungarian government had created a law granting extansive power to the inteliggence to surveil on people for the interests of national security. The Court found that this legislation did not provide a high enough level of protection in regards to Art. 8, and it added that given the technological development that was an issue that had to be treated carefully. Indeed, interference with privacy must have some means of protection within national law to grant effective remedies. To this day Hungary has still not altered the legislation.
Loizidou Case:
Territorial application of the ECHR: the case was about the creation of the principle of effective control. The applicant had been displaced by the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and was seeking to regain its possessions. The COurt found that since Turkey was excercising effective control of that region, even if it was technically not in the jurisdiction of the country, it still fell under the obligations of Turkey to respect the provisions of the Charter and Art. 8 ECHR.
Al-Sadoon Case:
Territorial application ECHR: the case was about to citizens from Iraq in custody of british forces, which were about to be handed in to Iran, where they would have likely been sentenced to death. Given that they were in British custody, they were under teh effective control of the State, and thus were granted the rights under the Convention
Anguelova Case:
Art. 2/5/14 ECHR: the case was about a Roma kid who died while in costudy of the Bulgarian authority. The Court found violation in the context of Art. 2 and Art. 5 of the Convention, however no counts were found in regards to Art. 14 and the issue of discrimination. This was harsrhly criticised, as the Court was failing to consider how racial undertones played a role in this issue. This called for a revaluation of the burden of proof in later cases, where it was established how in cases regarding racial discriminations or violence, the burden of proof is on the Government to prove otherwise (Nachova case and Atabayeva)
Pafitis Case:
Relation EU/ECHR: the applicant brought a complaint due to delays on the basis of Art. 6. However, the national court replied that these delays were caused by the fact that they were referring questions to the ECJ for matters of EU law. The Strasburg Court stated that the period of time where the question was referred to the EU court cannot be taken into account in the assement of the lenght of a proceeding. Hence, the Court “helped” the EU. Also, the complaint could not be brought to the EU as its not a high contracting party.
McCann Case
Art. 2 ECHR: the case followed the death of 3 IRA operatives in GIbaltrar who were killed by British authorities on the suspected terrorist attack they were planning. The Court stated that this case the exceptions delineated in paragraph 2 indicate that this provision extends to, but is not concerned exclusively with, intentional killing. As the Commission has pointed out, the text of Article 2, read as a whole, demonstrates that paragraph 2 does not primarily define instances where it is permitted intentionally to kill an individual, but describes the situations where it is permitted to “use force” which may result, as an unintended outcome, in the deprivation of life. The use of force, however, must be no more than “absolutely necessary” . Also, the use of lethal force the force used must be strictly proportionate to the achievement of the exemptions of Paragraph 2. Finally, the Court ruled that altough it was not a premeditated killing and it was in pursuit of ensuring safety, the authoriteis carried out a disproportionate use of force which resulted in a violation of Art. 2
Golder Case
Art. 6 ECHR: this was a breakthrough case for the ECHR. Golder was in prison, and following a cell riot he was incriminated for it even thoough he claimed not to take part in it, and he was not allow access to a sollicitor to defend himself. The Court found that altough it may have not expressively mentioned in the Article, that the right of access constitutes an element which is inherent in the right stated by Article 6 para. 1. This is not an extensive interpretation forcing new obligations on the Contracting States: it is based on the very terms of the first sentence of Article 6 para. 1 read in its context and having regard to the object and purpose of the Convention. Hence, there was a wider reading of the Convention, finding rights within the wide principles.
Bosphorous Case:
Relation EU/ECHR: in the context of the war in Yugoslavia, Ireland seized an aircraft following UN sanctions that were being implemented at the EU level. The applicant lodged a complaint on the basis of Art. 1 on property. The Court ruled that as obligations from other international organizations can be allowed under the ECHR, as long as they provide the same level of protection of foundamental rights as the Convention. So, as long as there isnt a manifest breach of the ECHR principles, than such actions can comply with the Convention
Bankovic Case:
Territorial scope ECHR: the Case was about Nato carrying out airstrikes during war in Kosovo. The survivors of an attack to a newscasting station lodged a complaint on Art. 2, but unlike Loizidou, there was a problem to attribute effective control
