Avenue de l'Europe
Rummi v. Estonia 
| 2015
… the Court is bound to conclude that the confiscation of the gold and silver items and diamonds was an arbitrary measure …
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, January 2015
Karol Rummi’s husband was a geologist. He had a valuable collection of precious metals. When he died, the rights to his property passed to Mrs Rummi and her two sons. However, the precious metals were confiscated by the police.
Mrs Rummi tried to get them back, but she was not allowed to make her case in court. She was told that the precious metals now belonged to the state and she would never see them again.
The court ruled that the authorities had violated Mrs Rummi’s right to property by confiscating the precious metals without a properly-justified reason. By refusing to let her make her case in front of a judge, they had also breached her right to access a court.
The Court reiterates that an oral, and public, hearing constitutes a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, January 2015
Mrs Rummi and her sons were given compensation equivalent to the value of the precious metals taken from Mrs Rummi’s late husband.
The Estonian parliament drafted legislation to make sure that similar problems would not happen again. It ensures that people are able to access a court in similar circumstances, to prove the property belongs to them and to recover it.
Anatoliy Burdov was exposed to radiation whilst working on the emergency response to the Chernobyl disaster. He was entitled to certain social benefits, but the authorities refused to pay - even when ordered to do so by Russian courts. The European court said that this violated Mr Burdov’s rights. As a result, reforms were introduced to improve the enforcement of judgments.
Ruža Jeličić was a citizen of the former Yugoslavia. She worked in Germany in the 1970s and 80s and kept savings of German marks in a bank in the former Yugoslavia. However, along with thousands of others with foreign currency savings, she was banned from withdrawing the money after moving back home. After Mrs Jeličić stopped working and her husband died, she had no money to live on.
The government evicted the inhabitants of a small village for counter-terrorism purposes. They were not allowed to return for over 10 years. In the meantime, they were given no alternative housing or money, and they lived in extreme poverty. The Strasbourg court ruled that their rights had been violated. A new law introduced compensation for damages suffered during anti-terrorist activities.
Estonia
Russian Federation*
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Türkiye