Lack of space for a prisoner in Croatia was compensated for by him having access to sports facilities and sufficient time out of his cell
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Muršić v. Croatia (application no. 7334/13) the European Court of Human Rights held by majority (six votes to one) that there had been:
no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights
The case concerned an allegation of prison overcrowding and generally poor prison conditions in a Croatian prison.
The Court found in particular that, whilst there were some elements for concern with regard to Mr Muršić’s lack of personal space during certain short non-consecutive periods of his detention, his overall conditions of detention – including in particular three hours a day outside of his cell in an otherwise entirely appropriate facility – had not met the threshold of severity required to characterise his detention as inhuman or degrading.
The judgment is noteworthy in that it re-affirmed the general principles on the question of prison overcrowding and clarified the Court’s related case-law. In particular, whilst there is a strong presumption of inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention when a detainee disposes of less than 3 square metres of personal space, this could sometimes be compensated for by the cumulative effects of the conditions of detention, such as freedom of movement and the appropriateness of the detention facility.

The Court finds against Turkey on account of excessive length of proceedings despite the introduction of a remedy in domestic law
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Behçet Taş v. Turkey (application no. 48888/09) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the explosion of an antipersonnel mine, and the fairness and length of the compensation proceedings instituted by him. The Court declared the complaints alleging a violation of the right to life (Article 2) and the right to a fair hearing (Article 6 § 1) inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.
However, as regards the allegedly excessive length of the proceedings (Article 6 § 1), the Court applied the method it had laid down in the Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey pilot judgment of 20 March 2012 (no. 2420/07). Following that judgment, a new remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings had been introduced in Turkey. However, the Court had reserved the right to pursue the examination of similar complaints of which the Government had already been given notice in other cases. Carrying out an examination of this kind in the present case, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of proceedings lasting more than eight years

Refusal to authorise transsexual to have access to gender reassignment surgery breached right to respect for private life
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Y. Y. v. Turkey (application no. 14793/08) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights
The case concerned the refusal by the Turkish authorities to grant authorisation for gender reassignment surgery on the grounds that the person requesting it, a transsexual, was not permanently unable to procreate.
The Court reiterated that the possibility for transsexuals to have full enjoyment of the right to personal development and physical and moral integrity could not be regarded as a controversial question. It considered that, even supposing that the denial of the applicant’s initial request for access to such surgery had been based on a relevant ground, it was not based on a sufficient ground.
The resulting interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life could not be considered “necessary” in a democratic society.
In denying the applicant, for many years, the possibility of undergoing such an operation, the State had breached the applicant’s right to respect for his private life.

Conviction of journalists for an interview using a hidden camera infringed their freedom of expression
In its Chamber judgment issued today in the case of Haldimann and Others v. Switzerland (application no. 21830/09), the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:
A violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the conviction of four journalists for having recorded and broadcast an interview of a private insurance broker using a hidden camera, as part of a television documentary intended to denounce the misleading advice provided by insurance brokers.
In this case, the Court was for the first time called on to examine an application concerning the use of hidden cameras by journalists to provide public information on a subject of general interest, whereby the person filmed was targeted not in any personal capacity but as a representative of a particular professional category.
The Court considered that the interference in the private life of the broker, who had turned down an opportunity to express his views on the interview in question, had not been serious enough to override the public interest in information on malpractice in the field of insurance brokerage.

Remaining legacy prisoner voting cases: ECHR finds violation of the right to vote but awards no compensation or legal costs
In today’s Committee judgment in the case of McHugh and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 51987/08 and 1,014 others), which is final, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned 1,015 prisoners who, as an automatic consequence of their convictions and detention pursuant to sentences of imprisonment, were unable to vote in elections. The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 because the case was identical to other prisoner voting cases in which a breach of the right to vote had been found and the relevant legislation had not yet been amended. It rejected the applicants’ claim for compensation and legal costs.

Somali national seeking to avoid return from the Netherlands to Italy: application inadmissible
In its decision in the case of A.M.E. v. the Netherlands (application no. 51428/10), the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final.
The case concerned a Somali asylum-seeker’s claim that, if transferred to Italy, he would be subjected to harrowing living conditions.
The Court noted in particular that unlike the applicants in the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerlandi, who were a family with six minor children, the applicant was an able young man with no dependents and that the current situation in Italy for asylum seekers could in no way be compared to the situation in Greece at the time of the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece judgment. The structure and overall situation of the reception arrangements in Italy could not therefore in themselves act as a bar to all removals of asylum seekers to that country.

Court confirms: payment of compensation to torture victim does not constitute a sufficient remedy without effective investigation
The case of Razzakov v. Russia (application no. 57519/09) concerned the complaint of a man suspected of having committed an offence that he was tortured in police custody to make him confess to a murder.
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights, both on account of Mr Razzakov’s ill-treatment in police custody and on account of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation.
At the same time, the Court declared inadmissible Mr Razzakov’s complaint under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), as he had been awarded compensation for damages sustained as a result of his unlawful detention.
The Court found that Mr Razzakov’s ill-treatment by the police had amounted to torture. Given that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his ill-treatment and to prosecute those responsible, Mr Razzakov could still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3, even though he had been awarded compensation.