Özel and Others v. Turkey (applications nos. 14350/05, 15245/05 and 16051/05)
 
Proceedings failed to establish responsibilities for death of earthquake victims
 
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Özel and Others v. Turkey (applications nos. 14350/05, 15245/05 and 16051/05) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights under its procedural head.
The case concerned the deaths of the applicants’ family members, who were buried alive under buildings that collapsed in the town of Çınarcık in an earthquake on 17 August 1999, one of the deadliest earthquakes ever recorded in Turkey.
The Court found in particular that the national authorities had not acted promptly in determining the responsibilities and circumstances of the collapse of the buildings which had caused the deaths.

A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia (application no. 44095/14)
 
Expulsion of criminal suspect to China would expose him to risk of facing the death penalty, in violation of the Convention
 
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia (application no. 44095/14) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously:
that the applicant’s forcible return to China would give rise to a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and
that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in a detention centre for aliens and on account of the conditions of his detention at a police station.
The case concerned, in particular, the complaint by a man residing in Russia and wanted as a criminal suspect in China that if forcibly returned to China, he would be at risk of being convicted and sentenced to death.
The Court considered that, given that the exclusion order against the applicant mentioned explicitly that he would be deported if he did no leave Russia before the stated deadline and that his Russian passport had been seized, he was at imminent risk of deportation to China where he might be sentenced to death. Russia was bound by an obligation, under the Convention, not to expose him to such risk.

R.E. v. the United Kingdom (application no. 62498/11)
 
Legal safeguards regarding covert surveillance of a detainee’s consultations with his lawyer were insufficient at the time of his custody
 
The applicant in the case of R.E. v. the United Kingdom (application no. 62498/11), who was arrested and detained in Northern Ireland on three occasions in connection with the murder of a poliçe officer, complained in particular about the regime for covert surveillance of consultations between detainees and their lawyers and between vulnerable detainees1 and “appropriate adults”2.
In today’s Chamber judgment3 in the case 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, home and correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights as concerned the covert surveillance of legal consultations; and,
no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention as concerned the covert surveillance of consultations between detainees and their “appropriate adults”.
The case was considered from the standpoint of the principles developed by the Court in the area of interception of lawyer-client telephone calls, which call for stringent safeguards. The Court found that those principles should be applied to the covert surveillance of lawyer-client consultations in a police station. The Court noted that guidelines arranging for the secure handling, storage and destruction of material obtained through such covert surveillance have been implemented since 22 June 2010. However, at the time of Mr. R.E.’s detention in May 2010, those guidelines had not yet been in force. The Court was not therefore satisfied that the relevant domestic law provisions in place at the time had provided sufficient safeguards for the protection of Mr R.E.’s consultations with his lawyer obtained by covert surveillance.
As concerned consultations between a vulnerable detainee and an “appropriate adult”, the Court found that they were not subject to legal privilege and therefore a detainee would not have the same expectation of privacy as for a legal consultation. Furthermore, the Court was satisfied that the relevant domestic provisions, insofar as they related to the possible surveillance of consultations between detainees and “appropriate adults”, were accompanied by adequate safeguards against abuse.

Sher and Others v. the United Kingdom (application no. 5201/11)
 
UK courts struck right balance between the fight against terrorism and suspects’ procedural rights
 
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Sher and Others v. the United Kingdom (application no. 5201/11) the European Court of Human Rights held:
by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to take proceedings to challenge lawfulness of detention) of the European Convention on Human Rights;
and unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.
The case concerned the arrest and detention of three Pakistani nationals, the applicants, in the context of a counterterrorism operation. The applicants were detained for 13 days, before ultimately being released without charge. During that period they were brought twice before a court with warrants for their further detention being granted. They were then taken into immigration detention and have since voluntarily returned to Pakistan. In their complaints before the European Court, they complained in particular about the hearings on requests for prolongation of their
detention because certain evidence in favour of their continued detention had been withheld from them and that one such hearing had been held for a short period in closed session. They also complained about the search of their homes during their detention.
The Court accepted that the UK authorities had suspected an imminent terrorist attack and had launched an extremely complex investigation aimed at thwarting it. Reiterating that terrorism fell into a special category, it held that Article 5 § 4 could not be used to prevent the use of a closed hearing or to place disproportionate difficulties in the way of poliçe authorities in taking effective measures to counter terrorism. In the applicants’ case, the threat of an imminent terrorist attack and national security considerations had justified restrictions on the applicants’ right to adversarial proceedings concerning the warrants for their further detention.
Similarly, the Court found that the fight against terrorism and the urgency of the situation had justified a search of the applicants’ homes pursuant to a search warrant framed in relatively broad terms.
Moreover, there had been sufficient safeguards against the risk of arbitrariness both in respect of the proceedings for warrants of further detention, in the form of a legal framework setting out clear and detailed procedural rules, as well as in respect of the search warrants, which had been issued by a judge, without the applicants suggesting that there had been no reasonable grounds for doing so.

L.M. and Others v. Russia (application nos. 40081/14, 40088/14, and 40127/14)
 
Expulsion from Russia to Syria would violate the European Convention on Human Rights
 
The case of L.M. and Others v. Russia (application nos. 40081/14, 40088/14, and 40127/14) concerned the impending expulsion of three men to Syria from Russia and their detention pending expulsion in Russia.
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously:
that the applicants’ forced return to Syria would give rise to a violation of Article 2 (right to life)
and/or Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights;
that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) (right to liberty and security) and Article 5 § 4
(right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court); and
that Russia had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 (right of individual petition).
This was the first time that the Court addressed in a judgment the issue of returns to Syria in the current situation. The Court found that, in view of international reports about the crisis in Syria and additional information about the applicants’ individual situation, the applicants had put forward a well-founded allegation that their return to Syria would expose them to a real risk to their lives and personal security.
Having regard to its finding that the applicants’ detention, since the last decision by the Russian courts confirming their expulsion order in May 2014, had been in breach of Article 5, the Court held, in application of Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments), that Russia was to ensure the immediate release of two of the applicants who had so far remained in detention.

The Court delivers its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland
 
In today’s Grand Chamber judgment1 in the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland (application no. 27510/08) 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 criminal conviction of a Turkish politician for publicly expressing the view, in Switzerland, that the mass deportations and massacres suffered by the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 and the following years had not amounted to genocide.
Being aware of the great importance attributed by the Armenian community to the question whether those mass deportations and massacres were to be regarded as genocide, the European Court of Human Rights held that the dignity of the victims and the dignity and identity of modernday
Armenians were protected by Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention. The Court therefore had to strike a balance between two Convention rights – the right to freedom of expression and the right to respect for private life –, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the proportionality between the means used and the aim sought to be achieved.
The Court concluded that it had not been necessary, in a democratic society, to subject Mr Perinçek to a criminal penalty in order to protect the rights of the Armenian community at stake in the case.
In particular, the Court took into account the following elements: Mr Perinçek’s statements bore on a matter of public interest and did not amount to a call for hatred or intolerance; the context in which they were made had not been marked by heightened tensions or special historical overtones in Switzerland; the statements could not be regarded as affecting the dignity of the members of the Armenian community to the point of requiring a criminal law response in Switzerland; there was no international law obligation for Switzerland to criminalise such statements; the Swiss courts appeared to have censured Mr Perinçek simply for voicing an opinion that diverged from the established ones in Switzerland; and the interference with his right to freedom of expression had taken the serious form of a criminal conviction.

A university’s right to reputation under the European Convention is more limited than that of an individual’s
 
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Kharlamov v. Russia (application no. 27447/07) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned a civil action in defamation brought against Mr Kharlamov, a university professor, by his employer, Orel State Technical University, after he expressed the view that the University’s governing body could not be considered legitimate due to shortcomings in the election procedure.
The Court found that the domestic courts, in their decisions against Mr Kharlamov, had notably failed to take into account the specific features of academic relations. In particular, the protection of a university’s authority or reputation under the Convention could not be equated to that of an
individual’s. Focusing their attention entirely on Mr Kharlamov’s description of the elected senate as illegitimate, the domestic courts had therefore failed to strike a fair balance between the need to protect the University’s reputation and Mr Karlamov’s freedom to express his opinion on the organisation of academic life.