27 June 2018
Support our work: become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.
Death of man after restraint by police: authorities found negligent (press release, pdf):
"In todays Chamber judgment in the case of Semache v. France (application no. 36083/16) 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, in its substantive aspect, and
no violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
The case concerned the death of the applicants father, Mr Ziri, following his arrest by the police and his detention in Argenteuil police station.
The Court found in particular that the restraining of Mr Ziri by a double-seated embrace technique, during his transfer by car to the police station, had been justified and strictly proportionate to the aim pursued. However, Mr Ziris situation at the Argenteuil police station had been dealt with negligently by the authorities, which had not done what could have been reasonably expected of them to prevent the risk of death.
While there had been certain deficiencies failure to hold a reconstruction of events and the total length of the proceedings the Court found that having regard to the measures taken, and in particular the medical assessments, the effectiveness of the investigation could not be called into question."
See the judgment: Semache v France (application no. 36083/16, pdf, French only)
"In todays Chamber judgment1 in the case of Gîrleanu v. Romania (application no. 50376/09) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights
The case concerned the arrest and conviction of a journalist for possessing and trying to verify classified information on national security, namely documents belonging to a Romanian military unit based in Afghanistan.
The Court found in particular that Mr Gîrleanu had been arrested, a criminal investigation brought against him and a fine imposed on him, without him ever actually having published the secret information.
It was not convinced that Mr Gîrleanu, in trying to verify the information he had been given on a CD and then sharing it with other people, had risked causing considerable damage to national security. The documents in question had been de-classified just before the investigation against him had come to an end and, as observed by the prosecuting authorities in their decision not to indict Mr Gîrleanu but fine him, the information was in any case outdated and not likely to endanger national security.
The Court found that the domestic courts should have weighed those elements along with the fact that Mr Gîrleanu had not obtained the information unlawfully and had been carrying out a journalistic investigation in the public interest."
See the judgment: Gîrleanu v. Romania(application no. 50376/09, pdf)
"In todays Chamber judgment in the case of Lakatos v. Hungary (application no. 21786/15) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights
The case concerned the applicants complaint about being held in pre-trial detention for more than three years without any reasonable suspicion against him.
The Court found in particular that the courts decisions on Mr Lakatoss detention had been lacking as they had failed to make a proper assessment of the reasons for continuing to hold him. They had also failed to give due consideration to alternative measures, such as house arrest.
Despite a large number of people being held in pre-trial detention in Hungary, the Court decided not to launch a pilot-judgment procedure, which is used to address structural problems raising concerns under the European Convention.
The Government had taken steps to resolve issues related to the use of pre-trial detention and the Court urged the State to continue along those lines. If such efforts proved to be insufficient, it would again reassess the need for the pilot-judgment procedure."
See the judgment: Lakatos v. Hungary (application no. 21786/15, pdf)
Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.
Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Registered UK charity number: 1154784. Registered UK company number: 08480724. Registered company name: The Libertarian Research & Education Trust. Registered office: MayDay Rooms, 88 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1DH. © Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals "fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.