ECHR Case Law Monitoring 2024
In 2024, Victim Support Europe’s Policy & Advocacy team continued to regularly monitor case law stemming from the European Court of Human Rights, and to share updates and developments on relevant cases. This document presents a comprehensive summary of judgements, highlighting critical issues such as the protection of victims of sexual abuse, the safeguarding and dignity of migrants, and the upholding of the rights of victims with disabilities.
Ramadan v. France (Application no. 23443/23)
Underlying issue: The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for having disseminated information about the identity of the presumed victim of a rape for which he was facing trial. The Court examined what the balance between freedom of expression and the right to privacy of victims should be under European human rights law.
Legal matter: The Court rejected Mr. Ramadan’s application for a violation of Article 10 (Right to Freedom of Expression).
Summary of facts: Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss academic, was convicted in France for publicly disclosing the identity of a woman who accused him of sexual assault. French law prohibits revealing the identity of victims of sexual crimes without their written consent under Article 39 of the Freedom of the Press Act.
The applicant challenged his conviction at the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that it violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Himan Rights. He contended that the alleged victim’s identity had already been disclosed in other media, and his intent was to defend himself against serious accusations.
Legal reasoning: The Court found his complaint inadmissible, ruling that his conviction was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim – i.e. protecting the victim’s dignity and privacy – and was proportionate. The Court noted that the domestic courts had clarified the concept of a “victim” for the purposes of the Freedom of the Press Act, reaffirming that only written authorisation from the person who had lodged the criminal complaint and joined the proceedings as a civil party could have waved the applicant’s duty of secrecy.
It observed that the courts had considered the conduct of the victim, who had felt the need to discuss the events and had, in so doing, disclosed information enabling herself to be identified. In their assessment, the domestic courts had also weighed in the balance the applicant’s right to free expression as part of his public defence, in view of the serious and stigmatising accusations made against him.
The Court saw no reason to question the assessment by the domestic courts, which had weighed the applicant’s rights and those of the victim in the balance and had arrived at a solution based on relevant and sufficient grounds. Additionally, the relatively mild penalties imposed – a fine and reduced damages – also reflected the court’s consideration of proportionality in balancing his rights against those of the victim.
J.B. and Others v. Malta (application no. 1766/23)
Underlying issue: The case concerns six Bangladesh minors who arrived in Malta in November 2022 after being rescued at sea. Thereafter, they were held in detention centres with poor conditions for several months. Five of the applicants were released in May 2023 and accommodated in an open centre for minors, while the remaining applicant – J.B. – who was found to be an adult, left Malta in August that year after his application for asylum was rejected.
Legal matter: Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), violation of Article 5.1 (right to liberty and security), violation of Article 5.4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).
Summary of facts: The six applicants, Bangladeshi nationals, arrived in Malta in November 2022 after being rescued at sea. They claimed that they were minors, allegedly born in 2005 and 2006 respectively. For about two months they were held in a reception house (the Hal Far Initial Reception Centre) with other adults, and for another four months in the Safi detention centre with other minors. The lawfulness of their detention was confirmed by the Immigration Appeals Board. The applicants lodged appeals with the Board against the age-assessment decision finding that they were all adults. The first applicant’s appeal – J.B. – was dismissed and he left Malta in August 2023; those of the remaining applicants were upheld, and they were released around May 2023.
Legal reasoning: The Court noted – in respect of all applicants but J.B. – that despite being presumed minors, they had been hosted with adults for around two months in the Hal Far Initial Reception Centre. The Court found that the cumulative conditions of their detention, particularly given their age, the total length of their detention in both venues, as well as their vulnerability and the effects of detention on a minor’s psychological condition, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
The Court concluded that the first applicant, based on his final age assessment, could not be considered a “presumed minor” during his time at HIRC. While the detention conditions were regrettable, they did not meet the Article 3 threshold for inhuman or degrading treatment, nor did the duration at Safi detention centre suffice to establish such a violation.
The Court reaffirmed that constitutional redress proceedings in Malta are not an effective remedy for ongoing detention conditions under Article 3, as established in prior cases. Consequently, it unanimously found a violation concerning all the applicants.
Validity Foundation on behalf of T.J. v. Hungary (application no. 31970/20)
Underlying issue: The case concerns the death (2018) of a woman with severe intellectual disability, Ms T.J., in a State-run social-care home and the ensuing investigation on the allegation that she had died of neglect.
Legal matter: Two violations of Article 2 (right to life/investigation).
Summary of facts: Ms T.J., who was unable to communicate verbally and prone to aggressive behaviour, was placed at the age of ten in the State-run Topház social-care institution in Göd (Hungary). She died on 25 August 2018 in the hospital where she had been taken for treatment for pneumonia.
Legal reasoning: The Court noted that understaffing, insufficient medical and therapeutic care, inappropriate living conditions and excessive use of restraining measures against residents had been recorded at the care home in 2017. At least ten residents had died at the home that year. Ms T.J. had been reported as emaciated and constantly tied to her bed.
The authorities had therefore been aware of the alarming conditions before Ms T.J.’s death. Their response, however, both in terms of preventing the deterioration in her health and her untimely death as well as in terms of the ensuing investigation had been inadequate. In particular, the management of the home had voiced no concerns, and the authorities had taken no measures to improve the conditions at the home, while the investigation had purely focused on the direct cause of Ms T.J.’s death – pneumonia – without looking into the alleged serious shortcomings in the care system.
Daugaard Sorensen v. Denmark (application no. 25650/22)
Underlying issue: The case concerns the withdrawal of charges against the applicant’s alleged rapist, in view of errors that had occurred at the Regional State Prosecutor’s Office – in particular failure to comply with a statutory time-limit.
Legal matter: Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), and Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).
Summary of facts: On 7 June 2021 Ms Daugaard Sorensen reported to the police that she had been raped the previous night. The next day, her alleged rapist, A, was remanded in custody. The police investigated the case, which included interviewing the applicant and a number of individuals, examining the scene of the crime and the applicant’s clothes, and searching A’s home. A was released on 18 June 2021.
In July that year, the prosecution decided to drop the charges against A, finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was guilty of rape. Among other things, there were two opposing statements and no other evidence to conclusively corroborate the statement of either side.
In August 2021, Ms Daugaard Sorensen appealed against that decision, and it was overturned by the Regional State Prosecutor. The revised decision had to be served to A by September 30, but due to multiple errors in the prosecutor’s database and mailing process, the letter was not delivered. As the two-month notification deadline was missed, the charges were again dropped by a City Court on November 16, 2021.
Legal reasoning: The Court found that at least three consecutive errors had been committed – and acknowledged – by the prosecution service. Regardless of who had been responsible for failing to ensure compliance with the prescribed deadline, the result remained the same; the charges against the alleged perpetrator had been dismissed. As a result, Ms Daugaard Sorensen had been deprived of an effective prosecution or judicial review in respect of the alleged rape that she had reported to the police. Therefore, the Court concluded that there had been significant flaws in the procedural response to her allegations. Denmark had thus failed to fulfil its duties under those Articles of the Convention.
Haugen v. Norway (application no. 59476/21)
Underlying issue: The case concerned the suicide of Mr Haugen’s son while in Oslo Prison. He had been suffering from mental-health issues and had allegedly been at a suicidal risk.
Legal matter: Violation of Article 2 (right to life), and violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
Summary of facts: In 2019, the applicant’s son – X – who suffered from psychiatric disorders, was sentenced to compulsory mental-health treatment following an attempted murder and other criminal acts committed in a state of psychosis. He was admitted to a secure unit at an in-patient psychiatric department. X’s state of health improved as a result of his hospitalisation and treatment with antipsychotic injections.
In December 2019, he was transferred to a Municipal residential facility with fewer security restrictions, to live in shared housing with other patients. In January 2020, he killed a fellow patient there and was charged with murder. Owing to the risk of his committing suicide, X was placed in pre-trial detention in unit one of the Oslo Prison – where detainees in need of special health treatment are held under supervision. In view of the overall suicide risk, he was admitted in the hospital, where he was further diagnosed with an adjustment disorder. A month later, he was returned to Oslo Prison – as the acute risk of suicide was considered lower and was managed through follow-up counselling. After an overall assessment by the head of department, which concluded that no permanent supervision was needed anymore, X was moved to an ordinary prison unit. Two days later he committed suicide.
Legal reasoning: The Court concluded that the Norwegian authorities had not done all that could have been expected of them to protect the life of Mr Haugen’s son. It highlighted the lack of adequate medical follow-up care of Mr Haugen’s son after he was transferred from a hospital back to Oslo Prison and the decision to transfer him away from the close-supervision unit without any sort of in-depth medical assessment of his mental state.
