Jurisprudenţa Curţii Europene a Drepturilor Omului (martie-iulie 2014)
European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence (March-July 2014)

Summary/Abstract: 1. The right to fair trial. Interdiction of discrimination. The right to private and family life Article 6, 14 and 8 of the Convention, Chamber Decision April 2014 Dhahbi v. Italy The applicant, a Tunisian citizen, was the owner of residence and work permits in Italy, and was ensured with INPS - Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale by paying contributions in the same manner and under the same conditions as workers in the European Union. The Court found a violation of Article. 14 (interdiction of discrimination) combined with art. 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life), since the applicant was treated in a manner different than workers of Member States of the European Union, without any objective and reasonable justification, citizenship cannot be an exclusive criterion for the difference. 2. The right to a fair trial. The Freedom of Expression Art. 6 and Art. 10 of the Convention, Chamber Decision of 27 May 2014 Baka v. Hungary The applicant, András Baka, President of the Supreme Court of Hungary, elected by the Hungarian Parliament, publicly criticized the several reforms initiated by Fidesz. Baka was fired in January 2012, three and a half years before the end of the mandate. The European Court found that is not only the right of the complainant, but also his duty as President of the National Council of Justice to express an opinion on legislative reforms affecting the judiciary. Thus the Court concluded in violation of Art. 10 of the Convention. 3. The right to privacy and family life Article 8 of the Convention, Chamber judgment June 2014 Mennesson v. France The effects, in French law, of refusal to recognize the parental relationship between children born as a result of surrogate pregnancy abroad and the couple who received treatment were not limited to parents, but were extended to children. The right to respect for their private life was significantly affected. The Court concluded that France went beyond what allowed the national margins of assessment and taking into account the prevailing principle of the best interest of the child, the Court considered that it violated art. 8 of the Convention. 4. Proprietary Rights Art. 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention. Camera, Case July 2014, OAO Yukos Neftyanaya Kompaniya v. Russia The applicant company complained that Russian authorities have imposed Yukos fictive fiscal taxes, and subsequently, illegally alienated the assets of the company and sold them at auction. The Court held that the authorities were obliged to pay attention to all relevant explicit enforcement proceedings; The Court concluded that there was a violation of art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the enforcement proceedings concerning the applicant company.

• Details
• Contents