"In the case of Ozdil and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 42305/18) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and
a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).
The case concerned the disguised extradition of five Turkish nationals sought by the Turkish authorities for alleged ties with the Fethullah Gülen movement.
In September 2018 seven teachers from the Orizont schools – among them the applicants – were arrested in the course of a joint operation conducted by the Moldovan and Turkish services. They were taken directly to Chişinău Airport, where a specially chartered aeroplane was waiting for them and which took them immediately to Turkey. The applicants’ families had no knowledge of their fate for several weeks.
The Court found in particular that arresting the applicants and extraditing them to Turkey had amounted to an extra-legal transfer from the territory of the respondent State to Turkey which had circumvented all the guarantees offered to the applicants by domestic and international law".
Publish on 11/7/2019
"Eu justice scoreboard 2019. Κύπρος: Το πιο αργό σύστημα δικαιοσύνης με τους περισσότερους δικηγόρους στην Ευρώπη"
"Τhe Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) urges the Slovak Republic to strengthen the effectiveness of its legal framework and policies to prevent corruption among persons with top executive functions (ministers and other senior government officials) and the police force".
"Με εγκύκλιό του αρ. 128, , ο πρόεδρος του Ανωτάτου αναφέρει ότι οι υποθέσεις που ορίζονται για ακρόαση πρέπει κατά κανόνα να εκδικάζονται την ημέρα που είναι ορισμένες και σε περίπτωση κατά την οποία κατ’ ανάγκη αναβάλλονται λόγω έλλειψης χρόνου, πρέπει να καταβάλλεται κάθε δυνατή προσπάθεια για αποπεράτωσή τους κατά τη νέα ημερομηνία ακρόασης".
"Statement by the President of the Congress on the recent suspension of local elected mayors in Turkey and their replacement by appointed officials.-lack of Democracy"
Judgment of the Assize Court
"The sentenced persons may be transferred to serve their sentence to the State of their nationality or residence, within EU borders . With the above judgment general principles of equality, fairness and reasonableness are respected".
"Με το νεο τροποιητικο νομοσχεδιο του Υπουργειου δικαιοσυνης, που κατατεθηκε τον Ιουνιο του 2019, καταργειτε το δικαίωμα της ανώμοτης δηλωσης από το εδώλιο του μάρτυρα για ενα κατηγορουμενο., Έτσι οι επιλογές του κατηγορουμένου θα είναι πλέον να δώσει ένορκο μαρτυρία και να υπόκειται σε αντεξέταση, είτε να μην πει οτιδήποτε ( Σιωπη)"
"Fair trial-Recent developments-ECHR
The European Court of Human Rights, in 30/07/2019 had notified in writing two Chamber judgments where it found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention by Turkey, in two separate occasions
(a) Harun Gürbüz v. Turkey (application no. 68556/10). The applicant complained in particular that his right to a fair trial had been infringed by the use of statements given as the result of coercion while in police custody without access to a lawyer. The Court examined this complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance of own choosing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
(b)Ürek and Ürek v. Turkey (no. 74845/12). The applicants,relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial and right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses), alleged, in particular, that they had been convicted despite the fact that they had not been involved in any violence, that the first-instance court had failed to conduct a proper enquiry and that they had been deprived of the opportunity to question police officers
whose statements had been taken in court in the applicants’ absence".
Germany is criticised for lack of progress by Council of Europe's anti-corruption experts.
"Brzeziński v. Poland (application no. 47542/07), 25/05/2019-freedom of expression:
In the case of Brzeziński v. Poland the Court found a violation of freedom of expression on account of the conviction of the applicant, who had been running for election as a municipal councillor in Koziegłówki in 2006, for publishing a brochure criticising the way in which the municipality was run.
After reiterating that there was little scope under the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on the debate of questions of public interest, the Court found that the applicant had been subjected to a penalty that could have an inhibiting effect, although he had been taking part in a political debate".
ΕΑW-Area of Freedom, Security and Justice:
"In the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-268/17 the Court decided that the judicial authority of the executing Member State is require to adopt a decision on any EAW forwarded to it, even when, in that Member State, a ruling has already been made on a previous EAW concerning the same person and the same acts, but the second EAW has been issued only on account of the indictment, in the issuing Member State, of the requested person.
Also id have been decided that the execution of a European arrest warrant cannot be refused on the ground that a decision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office has closed a criminal investigation when, during that investigation, the requested person was interviewed as a witness only"
The execution of a European arrest warrant cannot be refused on the ground that a decision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office has closed a criminal investigation when, during that investigation, the requested person was interviewed as a witness only
"Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-327/18 PPU:
H κοινοποίηση από το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο της πρόθεσής της χώρας να αποχωρήσει από την ΕΕ δεν έχει ως συνέπεια την άρνηση ή την αναβολή της εκτέλεσης ευρωπαϊκού εντάλματος σύλληψης που έχει εκδοθεί από το εν λόγω κράτος μέλος"
The notification, by the United Kingdom, of its intention to withdraw from the EU does not have the consequence that execution of a European arrest warrant issued by that Member State must be refused or postponed
"Court of Justice of the European Union - Judgment in Case C-369/17
Α person cannot be excluded from eligibility for subsidiary protection if he is deemed to have ‘committed a serious crime’ on the basis of the sole criterion of the penalty provided for under the law of the Member State concerned"
A person cannot be excluded from eligibility for subsidiary protection if he is deemed to have ‘committed a serious crime’ on the basis of the sole criterion of the penalty provided for under the law of the Member State concerned
"Armenia has submitted the second request for the European Court of Human Rights to give an advisory opinion under Protocol No. 16 to the Convention.
Protocol No. 16 allows the highest courts and tribunals, as specified by member States which have ratified it, , to request the European Court of Human Rights to give advisory opinions on questions of principle relating to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention or its Protocols. The first such request was made by France and concerned surrogacy.
Specifically The Constitutional Court of Armenia has asked the European Court of Human Rights to provide anadvisory opinion on the Article of the country’s Criminal Code which penalises the overthrowing ofthe Constitutional order.
In its questions, the Constitutional Court has asked for guidance from the European Court on certain aspects of Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention, such as the concept of“law” within the meaning of that provision, the notions of a law’s certainty, accessibility, foreseeability, and stability, and on the principle of the non-retroactivity of a criminal law."
"In the recent judgment in the case of Cîrstea v. Romania the Court found a violation of the right to liberty and security.
The case concerned the pre-trial detention of the applicant, who at the time was a maternity nurse, following a fire in a neonatal intensive-care ward of which she was in charge. The fire, which broke out at the Giuleşti Maternity Hospital in Bucharest in August 2010, resulted in the death of five newborn babies and injuries to six others.
The Court reiterated that the courts were required to give specific reasons for finding that public order would in fact be threatened if a defendant were not to be detained before his or her trial. A defendant’s pre-trial detention had to serve the needs of the criminal investigation, rather than a possible thirst for revenge and punishment on the part of the general public".