ECtHR Cases January–March 2022
| Author | Ben Wild |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/20322844221100055 |
| Published date | 01 September 2022 |
| Date | 01 September 2022 |
| Subject Matter | ECHR Update |
ECHR Update
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2022, Vol. 13(3) 346–363
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20322844221100055
journals.sagepub.com/home/nje
ECtHR Cases
January–March 2022
Ben Wild
Crown Prosecution Service, United Kingdom
Article 2
Edzgveradze v. Georgia (no. 59333/16)
The applicant, Zizi Edzgveradze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Tbilisi.
The case concerns the suicide of the applicant’s husband, after questioning by the police as a witness
after one of his friends had been arrested on suspicion of possessing cannabis. Prior to committing
suicide, he had alleged that he had been beaten by the police officers, who, according to him had
forced him to give a statement incriminating his friend. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the
European Convention, the applicant complains that the authorities failed to prevent her husband’s
suicide, and that no effective investigation was carried out into the suicide.
Outcome
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
Just satisfaction. non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3000. The applicant did not submit a claim in
respect of costs and expenses.
A and B v. Georgia (application no. 73975/16)
The applicants, A and B, are Georgian nationals who were born in 1972 and 2013, respe ctively,
and live in Georgia. The case concerns the murder of C, A’s daughter and B’s mother, by B’s
father, a police officer, following a troubled relationship. It also concerns the ensuing in-
vestigation. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of
on the part of the authorities to protect C from domestic violence and to conduct an effective
investigation.
Corresponding author:
Ben Wild, Crown Prosecution Service, UN University for Peace, Ciudad Colon 138-6100, Costa Rica. E-mail:
benpaulwild@gmail.com
Outcome
Violation of Article 2 taken in conjunction with Article 14 (right to life and investigation)
Just satisfaction. non-pecuniary damage: 35,000 euros (EUR). The Court rejected the applicants’
claim for costs and expenses.
Gonçalves Monteiro v. Portugal (application no. 65666/16)
The applicant, Lu´
ıs Armando Gonçalves Monteiro, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1953
and lives in Valadares(Port ugal). The case concerns the disappearance of Mr Gonçalves Monteiro’s
daughter and the alleged absence of an effective investigation to locate the missing person and
establish the facts. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 5 (right to liberty) and Article 13 (right
complains that the authorities failed to order an urgent and effective search for his daughter, which
meant that they failed duly to protect her right to life, physical integrity and liberty. Under those
provisions, he also complains that the investigation initiated in order to determine the circumstances
of the disappearance was ineffective.
Outcome
No violation of Article 2 (right to life)
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
Just satisfaction. non-pecuniary damage: 26,000 euros (EUR), costs and expenses: EUR 17,000
Y and Others v. Bulgaria (application no. 9077/18)
The case concerned the complaints brought by the mother and daughters of a victim of marital
murder. Ms V. was shot dead in a caf´
einSofia by her husband just after leaving the district
prosecutor’soffice to complain that he owned a handgun and she feared for her life. She had made
several similar complaints in the years and months leading up to the killing concerning her
husband’s angry, violent and obsessive attitude towards her.
The Court found in particular that the authorities had failed to respond promptly to Ms V.’s
credible complaints and to carry out a proper assessment of the risk to her in view of the specific
context and dynamics of domestic violence. Had they done so, they would have appreciated that her
husband had posed a real and immediate risk to her life and they could have seized his handgun,
arrested him for breaching a restraining order and/or placed Ms V. under police protection. All such
steps to counter the risk to Ms V.would have been possible under Bulgarian domesti claw. However,
the Court found no evidence of complacency towards violence against women either generally in
Bulgaria or in the police’s handling of Ms V.’s case.
Outcome
Violation of Article 2 (right to life)
No violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 2
Wild 347
To continue reading
Request your trial