Avenue de l'Europe
Koky and Others v. Slovakia 
| 2012
Where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated … there should be an effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 12th June 2012
One night in the village of Gánovce-Filice, a group of non-Roma residents forcibly entered three Roma houses. They beat the inhabitants with baseball bats and iron bars, whilst allegedly shouting racist slogans.
The victims identified a number of people who they said were responsible for the attack. However, the authorities refused to charge anyone with a crime.
The Strasbourg court found that the authorities had failed to properly investigate the incident or punish those responsible. The court said it was particularly important for attacks with racist overtones to be properly investigated.
In 2014 the offence of extremism was created, to make it easier for the authorities to prosecute racially-motivated crimes. Specialised police units were set up to deal with such crimes, and new regulations were introduced covering the actions of the authorities.
Further legal changes in 2017 banned a wider range of extremist activities and made it easier for the authorities to prosecute violent racism. A specialised court and prosecution service took over responsibility for prosecuting such crimes.
David Norris suffered from anxiety attacks and depression after realising that any open expression of his homosexuality could lead to a criminal prosecution. The Strasbourg court ruled that the criminalisation of his sexuality breached his basic rights. In 1993, this led to the full legalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults under Irish law.
Since the age of 14, Jeffrey Dudgeon experienced fear, suffering, and psychological distress because his sexuality was regarded as a crime. His house was raided by police and he was interrogated for hours. In a test case, the European court ruled that law violated the right to private life. In 1982, Northern Ireland legalised homosexual relationships – followed by many other European countries.
Two 21-year-olds absconded from military service and went to see their grandmother. When military police arrived, the men were unarmed and non-violent - and tried to run away. Nevertheless, they were shot dead. The Strasbourg court ruled that the military police had used grossly excessive force. This case, and others, led to changes in the rules on the authorities’ use of firearms.
All of the Roma inhabitants of a village had their houses burnt down by other locals. The authorities were warned, but refused to intervene. After the attack, the authorities did not investigate properly and the courts failed to give the victims a fair trial. Their application to Strasbourg led to compensation and local programmes to combat discrimination and exclusion.
Oleksandr Volkov was dismissed from his role as a Supreme Court judge. His lawyer argued that he had been the victim of political corruption, which sought to undermine the independence of the Ukrainian judiciary. The Strasbourg court ruled that his dismissal had been filled with bias and manipulation, in breach of his basic rights. Mr Volkov was reinstated as a Supreme Court judge in 2015.
Whilst in their parents’ care, four children were exposed to terrible neglect and emotional abuse. The Strasbourg court found that the local authority had known about the abuse, and had the power to take steps to protect the children, but it had not done so for four-and-a-half years. The children were awarded damages which provided funds for future psychological care.
When João Salgueiro da Silva Mouta got divorced, the Court of Appeal granted his wife custody of their daughter. A decisive reason was the fact that Mr Salgueiro da Silva Mouta was gay. The Strasbourg court ruled that this had been discriminatory, and without proper justification – leading to a change in Portuguese court practices.
Aleksandr Mihhailov claimed that he had been violently beaten by police officers – both in a public place and after regaining consciousness in a police station. The Strasbourg court ruled that the subsequent investigation was not independent and suffered from serious flaws, such as a failure to collect relevant evidence. Reforms were carried out to make investigations more independent.
Vladimir Kummer was a dental technician. One night he was allegedly found urinating in the street. Police officers put him in a cell, where he was shackled to a wall and allegedly beaten. The Strasbourg court ruled that Mr Kummer had been subjected to degrading treatment and that there had not been a proper investigation. The incident led to significant changes to avoid such treatment in future.
Artur Mrozowski was on the train home from work when the police arrived in response to disruption caused by other passengers. Mr Mrozowski was sober, peaceful and calm but an officer beat him in the face with a truncheon, knocking out three of his teeth. An investigation found that the police had done nothing wrong, but the European court ruled in his favour. Following this and other cases,...
DMD Group was involved in a valuable legal claim against other companies. A judge in charge of allocating cases arranged to hear the claim himself, then abruptly dismissed it. The DMD Group suspected the judge had deliberately arranged to reject their case. The European court said that the rules allowing the judge to control the case had been unfair – leading to reforms to the justice system.
After a row started in a bar in Štip, everyone present was taken into police custody. According to Pejrusan Jasar, once he was in a police cell he was severely beaten by a police officer. Mr Jasar lodged a criminal complaint but the public prosecutor took no steps to investigate. The European court ruled this had violated Mr Jasar’s basic rights – leading to a series of reforms.
Mrs M had her legal dispute presided over by a judge who was closely related to two of the lawyers representing the other side. The Strasbourg court ruled that Mrs M’s fears of impartiality had been justified and her right to a fair trial had been breached.
Two men were convicted of a robbery on the basis of evidence which had been manipulated by police. The Strasbourg court ruled that the defendants had an unfair trial. The law was changed to improve the identification of suspects and protect the right to a fair trial in Albania.
An NGO organised a series of demonstrations in Warsaw, to highlight discrimination against women and minorities. The gatherings were banned, after the city’s mayor said that he was against them because they included support for homosexual rights. The Strasbourg court ruled that the ban violated the right to public assembly. This led to changes to Polish law to protect the right to protest.
Miss B was registered as a man at birth. Later she adopted female behaviour, underwent feminising hormone therapy, and had genital surgery. However, the authorities refused to register her as a woman – causing her daily problems. The Strasbourg court ruled that her fundamental rights had been violated. French law was changed to properly recognise the identity of post-operative transgender.
Mrs Airey wanted to be legally separated from her husband, who was allegedly a violent alcoholic. However, there was no legal aid and she could not afford the lawyers’ fees. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the lack of legal aid effectively denied Mrs Airey access to a court, breaching her basic rights. Legal aid for such cases was introduced in Ireland in the following year.
Mr Millan wanted to appeal his case to the Constitutional Tribunal. However, the law said that a government body could refuse permission – which it did. Whilst the case was in Strasbourg, the government settled the case – agreeing that people should be able to appeal without government permission.
Hundreds of applicants complained of excessively long proceedings in Turkish courts. One was Fatma Ormancı, whose claim that the government had failed to protect her husband from terrorism was undecided for almost 6 years. The Strasbourg court found that applicants in over 280 cases faced excessively long delays in Turkish legal proceedings – leading to substantial reforms.
Vidadi Sultanov complained of a range of human rights violations, including ill-treatment in police custody. He died before his case could be decided upon, but his wife continued his application. The Azerbaijani government settled the case, agreeing to pay Mrs Sultanova 10,000 euros.
Slovak Republic
Ireland
United Kingdom
Bulgaria
Romania
Ukraine
Portugal
Estonia
Czech Republic
Poland
North Macedonia
Malta
Albania
France
Andorra
Turkey
Azerbaijan