ECtHR cases July–September 2019
| Author | Ben Wild |
| DOI | 10.1177/2032284419884745 |
| Published date | 01 December 2019 |
| Date | 01 December 2019 |
| Subject Matter | ECHR Update |
ECHR Update
ECtHR cases
July–September 2019
Ben Wild
Article 2
Vazagashvili and Shanava v. Georgia (application no. 50375/07)
The case concerned the shooting of the applicants’ son in a police operation and their complaint of
the lack of an effective investigation.
The Court found in particular that a first investigation into the killing had been flawed as it had
been carried out by the police officers involved in the shooting. The second investigation, which
had led to convictions, had only taken place several years after the crime and had been based to
some extent on investigative work carried out by the first applicant himself. The Court particularly
noted the fact that the first applicant’s efforts to disclose police crime and corruption had ultimately
led to him being murdered by a police officer, highlighting the consequence of the authorities’ lack
of diligence in pursuing the perpetrators of the original murder.
Outcome
Violation of Article 2 under both its procedural and substantive limbs
Just satisfaction
The Court held that Georgia was to pay the second applicant 50,000 EUR in respect of non-
pecuniary damage.
Romeo Castan˜o v. Belgium (application no. 8351/17)
In this case, the applicants compla ined that their right to an effective investigation had been
breached as a result of the Belgian authorities’ refusal to execute the European arrest warrants
issued by Spain in respect of N.J.E., the individual suspected of shooting their father, Lieutenant
Colonel Ram´on Romeo, who was murdered in 1981 by a commando unit claiming to belong to the
terrorist organisation ETA. The Belgian courts had held that N.J.E.’s extradition would infringe her
fundamental rights under Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court observed that a risk to the person whose surrender was requested of being subjected
to inhuman or degrading treatment could constitute a legitimate ground for refusing to execute a
European arrest warrant and thus for refusing the cooperation requested. However, the finding that
such a risk existed had to have a sufficient factual basis. The Court held, in particular, that the
scrutiny performed by the Belgian courts during the surrender proceedings had not been suffi-
ciently thorough for the Court to find that the ground they relied on in refusing to surrender N.J.E.,
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2019, Vol. 10(4) 408–420
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2032284419884745
njecl.sagepub.com
NJECL
NJECL
To continue reading
Request your trial