DignITA Database

DATA: 21/12/2023

STRUMENTI CORRELATI:

NOTE:

Ruling:

The Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 1(2) and (3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 24(2) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
must be interpreted as precluding the executing judicial authority from refusing to surrender the person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant on the ground that that person is the mother of young children living with her, unless, first, that authority has available to it information demonstrating that there is a real risk of breach of that person’s fundamental right to respect for her private and family life enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of disregard for the best interests of her children, as protected by Article 24(2) and (3) of that charter, on account of systemic or generalised deficiencies in the conditions of detention of mothers of young children and of the care of those children in the issuing Member State, and second, there are substantial grounds for believing that, in the light of their personal situation, the persons concerned will run that risk on account of those conditions.

Reference to human dignity:

Paragraphs 39, 42-48, 57

DATA: 14/12/2021

STRUMENTI CORRELATI:

NOTE:

Ruling:

The Court declares the application admissible and holds that there has been a violation of Art. 8 of the Convention.

Reference to obligations of criminalization:

(Paragraph 49) The States have a positive obligation to establish and apply effectively a system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for the victims. The positive obligation applies to all forms of domestic violence, whether occurring offline or online. The Court has found that this positive obligation – in some cases under Articles 2 or 3 and in other instances under Article 8 taken alone or in combination with Article 3 of the Convention – includes in particular: (a) the obligation to establish and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against violence by private individuals; (b) the obligation to take the reasonable measures in order to avert a real and immediate risk of recurrent violence of which the authorities knew or ought to have known, and (c) the obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the acts of violence.

Reference to human dignity:

Reference to human dignity are made in the Court’s observations on the particular vulnerability of victims of domestic violence and the need for active State involvement in their protection, emphasised both in international instruments and in the Court’s case-law.
(Paragraph 50) “There is no dispute as to the applicability of Article 8 in the instant case: the Court has found in the first judgment that the publication of the applicant’s intimate photographs “undermined her dignity, conveying a message of humiliation and disrespect” (see Volodina, cited above, § 75). The non-consensual publication of her intimate photographs, the creation of fake social-media profiles which purported to impersonate her, and her tracking with the use of a GPS device interfered with her enjoyment of her private life, causing her to feel anxiety, distress and insecurity.”

DATA: 05/07/2021

STRUMENTI CORRELATI:

NOTE:

Ruling:

The court:
Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 4 of the Convention;
Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

Reference to obligations of criminalization:

Article 2 (EU Directive 2011/36) – Offences concerning trafficking in human beings
“1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the following intentional acts are punishable: The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or reception of persons, including the exchange or transfer of control over those persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation […]”

Article 18 (Anti-Trafficking Convention) – Criminalisation of trafficking in human beings
Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences the conduct contained in article 4 of this Convention, when committed intentionally.

Reference to human dignity:

(Paragraph 202) trafficking threatens the human dignity and fundamental freedoms of its victims and is not compatible with a democratic society and the values expounded in the Convention (see Rantsev, cited above, § 282), in the absence of any such assessment any waiver of rights by the applicants would have run counter to the important public interest in combating trafficking and protecting its victims.
(Paragraphs 157-161) The “non-punishment” provisions in Article 26 of the Anti-Trafficking Convention, Article 8 of the Anti- Trafficking Directive and Article 4 § 2 of the 2014 Protocol to the ILO Forced Labour Convention (see, respectively, paragraphs 103, 106 and 98 above) all contain two important qualifications: the victim of trafficking must have been compelled to commit the criminal activity; and, where that is the case, the national authorities should be entitled, but are not obliged, to decide not to prosecute. The ECtHR considers that the criminal prosecution of victims (or potential victims) of trafficking may breach the State’s obligation under Article 4 of the Convention to protect them and support their recovery. The Court reiterates that, in cases involving potential victims of trafficking—especially children—their heightened vulnerability and the State’s duty to safeguard their best interests require that any decision to pursue criminal proceedings be preceded by a proper trafficking assessment conducted by a qualified professional. Their status significantly affects both the availability of evidence and the public interest in prosecution, making criminalization even less justifiable. Such prosecution risks seriously undermining their human dignity, which the State is obliged to protect under Article 4 of the Convention.

DATA: 11/06/2020

STRUMENTI CORRELATI:

NOTE:

The Court holds that there has been a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention on account of the failure to comply with the positive obligations arising from these provisions.

Reference to obligations of criminalization:

(paragraph 39) Articles 33 and 34 of the Istanbul Convention, which are relevant to the present case, are worded as follows:
Article 33 – Psychological violence
“Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the intentional conduct of seriously impairing a person’s psychological integrity through coercion or threats is criminalised.
Article 34 – Stalking
“Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the intentional conduct of repeatedly engaging in threatening conduct directed at another person, causing her or him to fear for her or his safety, is criminalised.
…”
(Paragraph 60) “Those positive obligations, which often overlap, consist of: (a) the obligation to take reasonable measures designed to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities knew or ought to have known; and (b) the (procedural) obligation to conduct effective official investigation where an individual raises an arguable claim of ill-treatment.”
(Paragraph 61) ”In addition, the Court has held that States have a positive obligation to establish and apply effectively a system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for the victims”
(Paragraph 62) “It also reiterates that while the essential object of Article 8 of the Convention is to protect individuals against arbitrary interference by public authorities, it may also impose on the State certain positive obligations to ensure effective respect for the rights protected by Article 8.”
(Paragraph 73) The Court observes that the Romanian Criminal Code specifically criminalises the offence of breach of the secrecy of correspondence.

Reference to human dignity:

(paragraph 60) “…The Court reiterates that the obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, even administered by private individuals. Children and other vulnerable individuals – into which category fall victims of domestic violence – in particular are entitled to State protection, in the form of effective deterrence, against such serious breaches of personal integrity.”

DATA: 13/06/2019

STRUMENTI CORRELATI:

NOTE:

Ruling:

The Court holds, by six votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Reference to human dignity:

(paragraph 113) “The Court also reiterates that it would be incompatible with human dignity forcefully to deprive a person of his freedom without striving towards his rehabilitation and providing him with the chance to regain that freedom at some future date. It has specified that “[a] whole life prisoner is entitled to know … what he must do to be considered for release and under what conditions” (see Vinter and Others, cited above, § 122)”;

(paragraph 136) “The Court reiterates that it would be incompatible with human dignity – which lies at the very essence of the Convention system – forcefully to deprive a person of his freedom without striving towards his rehabilitation and providing him with the chance to someday regain that freedom (see Vinter and Others, cited above, § 113)”.

DATA: 10/04/2019

STRUMENTI CORRELATI:

NOTE:

Ruling:

Violation of articles 6, 8, 10 ECHR → the guarantees of a fair trial have been violated; the right to privacy has been breached because cameras were introduced in a private and intimate space; the right to freedom of expression has been breached because the applicant was enabled to exercise her profession as a journalist.

Reference to obligations of criminalization:

Indirect reference
Par. 115 → The court recommends that States must adopt efficient criminal law provisions in order to safeguard the individual’s physical or moral integrity.

Reference to human dignity:

Par. 116 →The Court considers that the acts complained of were grave and an affront to human dignity.

DATA: 29/01/2019

STRUMENTI CORRELATI:

NOTE:

Ruling:

For these reasons, the Court, […] Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation by Turkey of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb, on account of the failure to cooperate.

Reference to obligations of criminalization:

Paragraph 188. In the light of the above-mentioned case-law it appears that if the investigative or judicial authorities of a Contracting State institute their own criminal investigation or proceedings concerning a death which has occurred outside the jurisdiction of that State, by virtue of their domestic law (e.g. under provisions on universal jurisdiction or on the basis of the active or passive personality principle), the institution of that investigation or those proceedings is sufficient to establish a jurisdictional link for the purposes of Article 1 between that State and the victim’s relatives who later bring proceedings before the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Markovic and Others, cited above, §§ 54-55).

Paragraph 189. The Court would emphasise that this approach is also in line with the nature of the procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation under Article 2, which has evolved into a separate and autonomous obligation, albeit triggered by acts in relation to the substantive aspects of that provision (see Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 159, 9 April 2009, and Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 132, ECHR 2013). In this sense it can be considered to be a detachable obligation arising out of Article 2 and capable of binding the State even when the death occurred outside its jurisdiction (see, mutatis mutandis, Šilih, § 159, in relation to the compatibility ratione temporis).
190. Where no investigation or proceedings have been instituted in a Contracting State, according to its domestic law, in respect of a death which has occurred outside its jurisdiction, the Court will have to determine whether a jurisdictional link can, in any event, be established for the procedural obligation imposed by Article 2 to come into effect in respect of that State. Although the procedural obligation under Article 2 will in principle only be triggered for the Contracting State under whose jurisdiction the deceased was to be found at the time of death, “special features” in a given case will justify departure from this approach, according to the principles developed in Rantsev, §§ 243-44. However, the Court does not consider that it has to define in abstracto which “special features” trigger the existence of a jurisdictional link in relation to the procedural obligation to investigate under Article 2, since these features will necessarily depend on the particular circumstances of each case and may vary considerably from one case to the other.

DATA: 26/10/2017

STRUMENTI CORRELATI:

Azzolina et autres c. Italie (Fr)

Azzolina e altri c. Italia (It)

NOTE:

DATA: 26/10/2017

STRUMENTI CORRELATI:

Blair et autres c. Italie (Fr)

Blair e altri c. Italia (It)

NOTE:

DATA: 30/06/2017

STRUMENTI CORRELATI:

NOTE:

Ruling:

The court declares the application admissible and holds that there has been a violation of Article 4.2 of the Convention.

Reference to obligations of criminalization:

Arts. 2, 3, 4 Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA.ù

Reference to human dignity:

Indirect reference.
Forced labour and human trafficking violate fundamental human rights, including human dignity.
In the case at hand the applicants worked in greenhouses for twelve hours every day, picking strawberry under the supervision of armed overseers; they lived in makeshift shacks made of cardboard, nylon, without toilets or running water; their employers did not pay them and warned them that they would only receive their wages if they continued to work. In addition, the applicants did not have a residence permit or work permit. Consequently, the employer abused his power and took advantage of the vulnerability of his workers in order to exploit them. The prior consent of the victims is not sufficient to exclude the characteristic of such conducts as forced labour.