ECtHR Cases January–March 2020
| Date | 01 June 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2032284420920034 |
| Published date | 01 June 2020 |
| Author | Ben Wild |
| Subject Matter | ECHR Update |
ECHR Update
ECtHR Cases
January–March 2020
Ben Wild
Senior Crown Prosecutor, Crown Prosecution Service, United Kingdom
Article 2
Soares Campos v Portugal (application no 30878/16)
The case concerned the death of Mr Soares Campos’s son, who was swept out to sea while taking
part on a beach in a gathering linked to Praxe (a student tradition that includes hazing activities).
Mr Soares Campos alleged that his son’s death had been caused by the lack of a legal framework
regulating hazing activities at Portuguese universities and complained that the investigation into
the circumstances of his son’s death had been ineffective.
The Court found in particular that the criminal investigation had not satisfied the requirements
of Article 2 of the Convention. It noted that a number of urgent measures could have been ordered
in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. However, the Court found that there did not exist an area
outside the law or a legal vacuum with regard to hazing activities in Portugal, observing that
domestic legislation in fact laid down a series of criminal, civil and disciplinary provisions
designed to prevent, suppress and punish offences endangering individuals’ lives or their physical
or psychological integrity. While acknowledging the undoubtedly tragic nature of the present case,
the Court did not find it established that the State had failed in its positive obligations under Article
2 and could therefore be held responsible for the death of Mr Soares Campos’s son.
Outcome
Violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 (right to life)
No violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2
Just satisfaction. The Court held that Portugal was to pay the applicant EUR 13,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 7118.51 in respect of costs and expenses.
Zinatullin v Russia (no 10551/10)
The applicant, Ramazan Zinatullin, is a Russia n national who was born in 1993 and lives in
Tolyatti (Samara region, Russia). The case concerned an accident on a construction site near the
applicant’s school, which had left him disabled at the age of 14.
Mr Zinatullin was seriously injured in 2008 when he fell through a hole in the floor of an
unfinished building near his school. The building, owned by the Tolyatti mayor’s office, was freely
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2020, Vol. 11(2) 240–257
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2032284420920034
njecl.sagepub.com
NJECL
NJECL
accessible from the school. Construction work on it had been on hold for years for lack of funding.
Criminal proceedings against officials from the mayor’s office were never instituted as the inves-
tigating authorities found the accident had happened because of the applicant’s own lack of care. In
civil proceedings brought by the applicant, the courts established that the mayor’s office, as owner
of the unfinished building, had primary responsibility for the accident for failing to close off the
unfinished building and awarded the applicant EUR 600 in compensation.
Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), Mr Zinatullin complained about the authorities’
refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the officials from the mayor’s office who had been
responsible for taking safety measures at the construction site. He also complained that the
compensation awarded to him in the civil proceedings had been inadequate.
Outcome
Violation of Article 2
Just satisfaction. EUR 7000 for non-pecuniary damage
Saribekyan and Balyan v Azerbaijan (application no 35746/11)
The case concerned the death of the applicants’ son, an Armenian citizen, while in military police
detention in Azerbaijan.
The Court found in particular that the applicants had made a prima facie case that their son,
Manvel Saribekyan, had died as a result of the violent actions of others, notably personnel at the
Military Police Department in Baku, where he was being held. It could not accept the Azerbaijani
authorities’ version of events that he had hanged himself. Furthermore, Azerbaijan had not pro-
vided any evidence to question Armenian forensic findings on injuries suffered by Mr Saribekyan
before his death, including signs of beating and a head trauma, ill-treatment, which had to be
classified as torture.
Outcome
Violation of Article 2 (right to life) owing to the applicants’ son’s death in detention in
Azerbaijan
Violation of Article 2 owing to the lack of an effective investigation into the son’s death
Violation of Article 3 because the applicant’s son had been tortured before his death
Just satisfaction. The Court held by six votes to one that Azerbaijan was to pay the applicants
EUR 60,000 jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2200 in respect of costs and
expenses.
Sakvarelidze v Georgia (application no 40394/10)
The applicant, Mariam Sakvarelidze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1949 and lives in
Tbilisi. The case concerned the death of her son and sister in 2003 when an armoured military
vehicle (AMV) hit their car.
The applicant and members of her family were driving along a street in Tbilisi in November
2003, at a time of widespread protests known as the Rose Revolution, when their car was hit by an
AMV driven by either a law-enforcement or military officer. The applicant’s son and her sister
Wild 241
To continue reading
Request your trial