ECtHR Cases October–December 2019
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/2032284419900394 |
| Subject Matter | ECHR Update |
ECHR Update
ECtHR Cases
October–December 2019
Ben Wild
Crown Prosecution Service, United Kingdom
Article 2
Fountas v Greece (application no 50283/13)
The case concerned the police shooting and killing the applicant’s son in 2010. The Court found
that while the authorities had fulfilled their Convention duty to carry out a thorough investigation
into the killing, which had led to a finding that the police officers had acted in self-defence, they
had failed to involve the applicant in the case to the extent necessary. In particular, he had not had
access to documents in the criminal case file or a separate internal police inquiry and had only been
informed of his son’s death after an autopsy had taken place, even though the deceased’s body had
been identified earlier.
Outcome
Violation of Article 2
Just satisfaction. The Court held that Greece was to pay the applicant EUR 15,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
Article 3
Almaˇ
si v Serbia (no 21388/15)
The applicant, ˇ
Sandor Almaˇsi, is a Serbian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Male Pijace
(Serbia). The case concerned his alleged ill-treatment by the police and his complaint of a con-
viction on the basis of a confession made under duress.
Mr Almaˇsi was sentenced to 1 year in prison in September 2011 after being found guilty of
crossing the border illegally and of people smu ggling, along with an accomplice. During the
domestic proceedings, the defence alleged that Mr Almaˇsi had been coerced into a confession
while in custody after being slapped by a police officer, that witness testimony against him was
unreliable, particularly an identification procedure, and that the appointment of a legal-aid lawyer
during his police questioning had been irregular as he was not allowed to appoint his own lawyer.
The Constitutional Court rejected his final appeal in March 2015.
The applicant complained under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) that
he had been ill-treated by the police and that no proper investigation into his allegations of ill-
treatment had taken place. He also complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) of a lack of fairness in
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2020, Vol. 11(1) 93–109
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2032284419900394
njecl.sagepub.com
NJECL
NJECL
the criminal proceedings against him, in particular, that his conviction had been based on the
confession he had made in April 2011, itself obtained in breach of his right to legal assistance of his
own choosing.
Outcome
Violation of Article 3 (investigation)
No violation of Article 3 (treatment)
No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c)
Just satisfaction. EUR 3000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3500 (costs and expenses)
A v Russia (application no 37735/09)
The case concerned the applicant’s allegation that she had been traumatised by witnessing her
father’s violent arrest by the police when she was 9 years old.
The Court found that the applicant’s allegations were credible, but that the authorities’ only
response had been to carry out a pre-investigation inquiry, which was superficial and ineffective.
Moreover, the law enforcement officers, who had to have been well aware that the applicant was or
would be on the scene of the operation, had taken no account of her interests when planning and
carrying out their operation against her father, thus exposing her to a scene of violence. That had
very severely affected her, as she had suffered in particular from a neurological disorder and post-
traumatic stress disorder for several years afterwards. In the Court’s view, the applicant witnessing
such a violent incident had amounted to ill-treatment which the authorities had failed to prevent, in
breach of Article 3.
Outcome
Violation of Article 3
Just satisfaction. The Court held that Russia was to pay Ms A EUR 25,000 in respect of non-
pecuniary damage and EUR 3500 in respect of costs and expenses.
Jevtovic
´v Serbia (application no 29896/14)
The applicant, Maliˇsa Jevtovic´, is a Serbian national who was born in 1974 and lived in Belgrade.
He is currently serving a prison sentence. The case concerned his alleged ill-treatment by prison
guards, which he argued had amounted to torture.
Mr Jevtovic´ was arrested in 2005 on charges of committing sexual acts against a 3-year-old girl
which led to her death. He was convicted in 2009 and sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment, which
was upheld on appeal in 2011. During his pretrial detention in Belgrade District Prison from 2005
to 2011 and in Poˇ
zarevac-Zabela Correctional Institution between 2011 and 2013, there were four
incidents in particular – on 11 June 2007, 18 December 2009, 22 December 2011 and 24 December
2011 – when he alleged he had suffered injuries. In each case, prison guards used force, including
rubber truncheons, on the applicant. The prison authorities found in relation to the first three
incidents that the guards had used justified and lawful force to subdue the applicant, either after
an argument with another prisoner or because he had refused to obey prison regulations. The fourth
incident was not registered in any official records but was recorded by the Ombudsman after
94 New Journal of European Criminal Law 11(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial