European Rights Watch

Akdağ v. Turkey: Right to a Lawyer While in Police Custody

By: Mujtaba Ali Tirmizey

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

ANKARA, Turkey — On September 17, 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) held that the Turkish government unfairly restricted a citizen from gaining access to a lawyer, thus violating Article 6 §1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Hamdiye Akdağ was arrested in November 2003 and while in police custody, she confessed to being a member of the PKK/KADEK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organization. On her statement form, in the “no lawyer sought” section, she printed an “X” next to it, and was not provided a lawyer subsequently. However, once she was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, she instantly retracted her statement.

Before the trial court, Akdağ maintained her position, claiming that she was forced into signing her statement. She also noted that she was illiterate. Ultimately in 2009, Akdağ was found guilty of membership in a terrorist organization and sentenced to over six years in prison. In 2010, the Court of Cassation upheld the conviction.

Here, the Government argued that Akdağ had specified on her statement form that she did not require legal assistance. Therefore, the Government noted that she justifiably waived her right to a lawyer. However, the Court held that Akdağ did not waive her right to a lawyer because she immediately withdrew her statement before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, and also asserted that position before the trial court. In addition, her statement form just had a printed “X” next to the type-written “no lawyer sought.” With regards to her contention that she was illiterate, the trial court did not perform a proper assessment. Lastly, the Government failed to show that Akdağ had explicitly been advised about the consequences of not requesting the assistance of a lawyer.

The Court stated that while Akdağ had been allowed legal representation during the trial, the national courts had failed to examine the validity of the waiver or of the statements she had made to the police in the absence of a lawyer. As a result, the Court found the Government violated Article 6 §1 of the ECHR and the trial was unjust because the insufficiency of close scrutiny had not been resolved by any other procedural measures.

The ECHR dedicates an entire section of the Convention to rights to access court, the right to a fair trial, and the right to access a lawyer. In this decision, the ECHR ensured that Akdağ was not deprived of this fundamental right after the lower courts failed her. This decision will help set the precedent for citizens from member states who find themselves in a similar situation.

For further information, please see:

European Court of Human Rights – Case of Akdag v. Turkey – 17 Sept. 2019

ECHR Case Law – Invalid Resignation of an Illiterate Accused of the Right to a Lawyer, Infringement of Fair Trial – 17 Sept. 2019

European Court of Human Rights – Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights – 30 Apr. 2019

Russian Film Producer’s Freedom of Expression Rights Violated

By: Mujtaba Ali Tirmizey

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

MOSCOW, Russia — On September 10, 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held that the refusal to grant a film reproduction license is a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights which concerns freedom of expression. 

Russian national, Sergey Pryanishnikov, is a producer who owns the copyright for over 1,500 erotic films. After receiving approval for public distribution of his films, Pryanishnikov’s application for a film reproduction license was rejected by the Russian Ministry of the Press in 2003 because he was deemed to be “involved in illegal production, advertising and distribution of erotic and pornographic material and films.”

In 2004, Pryanishnikov contested the rejection before the Commercial Court of Moscow, but the court upheld the decision. The court reasoned that while Pryanishnikov had never been officially charged with the distribution of pornography and had only been interrogated by the police as a witness, since no determination had yet been made in the criminal proceedings, “it could not be ruled out that he was involved in the illegal production of pornographic films.”

Later in 2004, the Appeal Court and Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the lower courts with both courts using similar reasoning to make their decision. In 2005, relying on Article 10, Pryanishnikov filed a complaint with the ECHR.

The Court concluded that the refusal to issue a film reproduction license interfered with Pryanishnikov’s freedom of expression. The Court conceded that protecting morals and the rights of others, in particular shielding children from access to pornographic material, were justifiable goals. However, when determining whether the interference was also “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court noted that the lower court decisions had been based on assumptions rather than reasoned findings of fact. More specifically, the Russian courts did not rely on any document from the criminal case file indicating that Pryanishnikov was suspected of that offense. As a matter of fact, they had explicitly mentioned that he had been involved in the investigation as a witness rather than a suspect.

Additionally, the Court stated that the lower courts did not weigh either the impact their decision would have on Pryanishnikov’s ability to distribute all the films for which he had distribution certificates or his freedom of expression in general. In particular, they failed to perform a balancing test between the right to freedom of expression and the need to protect public morals and the rights of others, resulting in an unjustifiable restriction of freedom of expression. 

This decision is significant because it overturned four consecutive domestic judgments suppressing freedom of expression in Russia. Ideally, following this ECHR decision, citizens’ rights to freedom of expression in other member states will be respected more. By applying the suggested balancing test, future freedom of expression decisions might be more uniform and proportionally reasoned to reach sound judgments. 

For further information, please see:

European Court of Human Rights – Film Reproduction License Refused Because of Mere Suspicions: Violation of the Right to Freedom of Expression – 10 Sept. 2019

BAILII – Case of Pryanishnikov v. Russia – 10 Sept. 2019

ECHR Says Ex-Brother and Sister-in-Law Have Right to Marry in Greece

By: Mujtaba Ali Tirmizey

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

ATHENS, Greece — On September 5, 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) decided that legislation preventing marriage between ex-siblings-in-law is a violation of the right to marry.

Georgios Theodorou and Sophia Tsotsorou were married in 2005, just one year after George was divorced from his previous marriage to Tsotsorou’s sister. After George and Sophia wed, Sophia’s sister complained about the union to a local prosecutor, arguing nullity on the grounds of prohibited kinship between two spouses. In 2010, the marriage was annulled by the Regional Court on the basis of Article 1357 of the Greek Civil Code, which forbids marriage between persons related by collateral descent up to the third degree. The court reasoned that since Theodorou and Tsotsorou were second-degree relatives, their marriage was barred for reasons of decency and respect for the institution of the family. Theodorou and Tsotsorou’s subsequent appeals were dismissed, and their marriage was ultimately annulled in June 2015.

In 2015, Theodorou and Tsotsorou lodged a complaint with the ECHR, citing a violation of Article 12, which proscribes the right to marry. Placing particular importance to this point, the Court noted that a consensus had developed in the marriage of ex-sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law among the member states of the Council of Europe. Only Italy and San Marino had introduced barriers to such a marriage, but these obstacles were not absolute.

The Court also noted that Theodorou and Tsotsorou had not faced any problems prior to getting married and the national authorities had not raised any objections. Tsotsorou’s sister had not complained about the marriage until approximately a year and a half later, and the prosecutor filed a formal complaint two years after the marriage. Relevant authorities only issue a marriage license after certain legal conditions have been met. Here, these authorities did not express any doubts prior to issuing this license, and for more than ten years, the couple enjoyed legal and social recognition of a married relationship and the protection provided exclusively to married couples. Lastly, the Court also observed that the Government’s arguments concerning “biological considerations” and the risk of confusion were unconvincing.

As a result, the Court held that Article 12 had been violated because the annulment of the marriage had disproportionately restricted Theodorou and Tsotsorou’s right to marry.

This decision bodes well for Italy and San Marino, the remaining members of States of the Council of Europe where such a marriage is still forbidden. Other regions of the world may also benefit from this decision, where ex-brothers and sisters-in-law’s right to marry is taboo. Lastly, a broad interpretation of this case can help other parties under Article 12 as well, which states that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.”

For further information, please see:

European Court of Human Rights – Judgement Theodorou and Tsotsorou v. Greece – legislation preventing the marriage of former brothers- and sisters-in-law – 5 Sept. 2019

Law and Religion UK – Marrying a Non-Deceased Wife’s Sister? Theodorou and Tsotsorou – 5 Sept. 2019

EHCR Condemns Greece for Inhumane Treatment of Underage Migrants

By: Brianna Ferrante
Impunity Watch News, Europe

PARIS, France – The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has condemned Greece for their treatment of children refugees in a series of cases dating back as early as 2016.

Unaccompanied minors awaiting processing at detainment center in central Greece. Photo courtesy of Socrates Baltagiannis Photo

In its February 28th decision, the ECHR’s judgment ordered Greece to pay a total of €4,000 to each of nine migrants who were between the ages of 14 and 17 at the time of their detainment. Six of the individuals were from Syria, two were from Iraq, and one was from Morocco.

Investigation discovered the police and border cells that underage migrants and refugees were being held in post-arrival were entirely unsustainable and isolated living conditions, particularly for the period of time they were held there which ranged from 21 to 33 days.

Complainants alleged that while in this period of “protective custody,” they were subjected to overcrowding within cells, a lack of heating, adequate ventilation or lighting, poor food quality, no outside time, and having to sleep on the floor. There was additionally little to no medical care. The migrants were later transferred to the Diavata refugee camp, and later to separate special facilities for minors.

The ECHR determined that given the length of the holding period, the conditions were degrading and constituted unlawful detention.

In its judgment of this matter: H.A. and Others v. Greece, the ECHR unanimously held Greece liable for violations of: 1) Article 3 prohibition on inhumane or degrading treatment; 2) Article 13 ensuring a right to effective remedy for Article 3 violations; and 3) Articles 5 §§ 1 and 3 ensuring a right to liberty and security / a right to speedy decision on the lawfulness of a detention measure.

The complainants also sought remedy on allegations the Diavata camp was similarly uninhabitable. However, the Court concluded the living conditions at the camp had not exceeded the threshold of seriousness necessary for being actionable under Article 3.

The court gave significant deference to a statement from the National Service of Social Solidarity (“EKKA”), a European committee against the torture and detainment of unaccompanied minors. The statement was in regards for living conditions for minority aged refugees: “holding minors for several days or weeks without providing adequate psychological or social assistance was unacceptable and an actionable deprivation of liberty protected under Article 5 § 1.

In rendering this judgment, the court’s reasoning parallels to its 2012 decision in which it condemned Italy for breaching fundamental human rights when the country’s coastguards intercepted Eritrean and Somali migrant vessels and mandated their recourse. This decision communicated that the facets of the European Convention are expected to be applied in the realm of migration control and treatment.

For more information, please visit:

The National Herald- ECHR Orders Greece’s Payment of Judgment to Migrants- March 1, 2019.

INFOMigrants- ECHR Slams Greece & France for its Treatment of Migrant Children- March 1, 2019.

DPA International- France & Greece Condemned For Treatment of Minor Refugees- February 28, 2019.

The Globe Post- Migrant Containment at All Costs- What is Left of European Humanity?- Feb. 14, 2019.

EHCR Rejects Said Mansour’s Request to Block Denmark Deportation

By: Brianna Ferrante
Impunity Watch News Reporter

RABAT, MOROCCO- The European Court of Human Rights has unanimously rejected Moroccan Said Mansour’s appeal against being deported from Denmark for his terror-related convictions in fear of being subjected to torture.

 

Said Mansour prior to his deportation from Denmark. Photo courtesy of Carl Redhead

A court in Denmark had previously convicted Mansour in July of 2015 on charges related to the editing and publishing of three books and multiple Facebook posts considered to be terrorist propaganda.

The works were written and distributed by Mansour for the purposes of praising Osama Bin Laden and encouraging readers and followers to join an al-Queada affiliate in Syria known as the al-Nursa Front. Mansour was sentenced to four years in prison and had his Denmark citizenship revoked.

Additionally, the Moroccan ambassador to Denmark has previously stated Mansour is suspected for his alleged involvement in a 2003 terror attack that claimed the lives of 42 people in Casablanca. Since his release from prison, he was deported to Morocco on January 4th.

Mansour’s appeal to the ECHR was premised on Article Three of the European Convention on Human Rights, which he alleged his deportation would directly conflict with.

Article 3 prohibits anyone from being subjected to torture, inhumane or degrading treatment of punishment. Mansour argued that he would be in danger in the north African country, due to his publicized criticisms of its king and the government.

The ECHR rejected this claim unanimously, relying  on international reports that the human rights situation in Morocco has generally improved over several years, and that the authorities have been working to improve and increase compliance with internationally mandated human rights standards.

For more information, please see:

The Local Denmark- European Court of Human Rights Upholds Danish Deportation of Former Citizen Who Incited Terror. February 14, 2019. 

Morocco World News- ECHR Rejects Said Mansour’s Request Against Deportation. February 15, 2019.

Yaabiladi English- European Court of Human Rights Endorses Mansour’s Deportation. February 15, 2019.