Jurisprudenţa Curţii Europene a Drepturilor Omului – Aprilie-Iunie 2016
The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights – April-June 2016

Summary/Abstract: 1. The right to a fair trialArt. 6 of the ConventionLetinčić v. CroatiaThe applicant lives in Zagreb. In 1993 the applicant's father, a war veteran, killed his mother and his parents, and later committed suicide.In 1996 the applicant, represented by his grandmother, asked a family allowance for disability, claiming that his father's suicide was a result of mental illness caused by participation in the war.The solution ECHR: the right to a fair trial was violated art. 6 para. 1 of the Convention.2. The right to life. Prohibition of discriminationArt. 2 and 14 of the ConventionHalime Kilic v. TurkeyThe applicant lives in Diyarbakir. In 2008, his daughter Fatma Babatlı, was killed by her husband, S. B., who committed suicide. Fatma Babatlı was the mother of seven children, all minors at the material time; in 2009, the applicant, mother Fatma, filed a complaint to the prosecution for a breach of the duties of the authorities and asking for identification and prosecution of officials who, despite complaints his daughter did not carry out an effective investigation and whose deficiencies have resulted his daughter's death. The prosecutor issued a decision terminating the procedure.The solution ECHR: Prohibition of discrimination (art. 14) in conjunction with the right to life (art. 2)The Court considered it unacceptable that the victim be left without resources or protection when faced with violence the husband, saying that such a violation of Article. In conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. 2.3. Freedom of expressionArt. 10 of the ConventionRadobuljac v. CroatiaThe applicant, Mr. Radobuljac lives in Zagreb. As a lawyer in civil proceedings he could not attend one of the meetings in question because her car had broken. The judge decided to suspend the proceedings for three months. Mr. Radobuljac then filed an appeal on behalf of his client challenging the judge's decision. Citing art. 10 (freedom of expression), Mr. Radobuljac has complained about the decision to fine him for contempt of court, stressing that he only criticized the conduct of judges in a particular case and made no allusion to the judicial system as a whole.Motivation and solution Court:National courts have failed to strike a balance between the need to protect the authority of the judiciary and the need to protect freedom of expression of the applicant. The applicant has not exceeded the limits of acceptable criticism. The interference at issue cannot be regarded as "necessary in a democratic society" and breached art. 10 of the Convention.

• Details
• Contents