On 10 December 2020, in a Chamber judgment^[3] in the case of Shiksaitov v. Slovakia (application no. 56751/16) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and 5 § 5 (enforceable right to compensation) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s arrest and detention with a view to his extradition to Russia, despite his having refugee status in Sweden. The Court found in particular that the applicant’s arrest and the individual detention orders had complied with Slovak law and the Convention. However, the overall length that the applicant had been held had been overlong and the grounds for his detention had ceased to be valid, breaching his rights. The Court also found that the applicant had not had an enforceable right to compensation for the above breach.

On 8 December 2020, in a Chamber judgment^[2] in the case of M.M. v. Switzerland (application no. 59006/18) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the applicant’s expulsion from Switzerland for a period of five years following the imposition of a 12-month suspended prison sentence for having committed acts of a sexual nature against a child and consumed narcotics. The Court recognised that the cantonal courts and the Federal Supreme Court had carried out a serious assessment of the applicant’s personal situation and the various interests at stake. These authorities had thus had very solid arguments in favour of the applicant’s expulsion from Switzerland for a limited duration. In consequence, the Court concluded that the interference had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and had been necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention.

On 3 December 2020, in a Chamber judgment^[1] in the case of Papachela and Amazon S.A. v. Greece (application no. 12929/18) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the occupation of a hotel for over three years by migrants and a group acting out of solidarity with them. The hotel belongs to Ms Papachela and to a limited company, of which she is the sole shareholder. The applicants complained that the authorities had remained inactive when asked to evict the squatters, who had remained in the hotel from April 2016 until July 2019, at which point they left the premises of their own accord. In the meantime, the applicants had lodged a number of complaints, which were either adjourned or not examined at all. A decision given by a Justice of the Peace, ordering the eviction and recovery of possession of the hotel, was never enforced. During that period Ms Papachela was forced to sell her house to cover the debts incurred as a result of the squatters’ occupation (taxes, water and electricity bills) in order to avoid criminal proceedings. The Court found in particular that, in view of the applicants’ interests, the authorities should have taken the necessary measures to secure their right to peaceful enjoyment of their property, while allowing for a reasonable period of time to find a satisfactory solution. By remaining inactive for over three years, faced with a situation which had significant repercussions for the applicants’ property rights, the national authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of protecting individual rights.