European Court of Human Rights 2016 Report

January 27th, 2017 § 0 comments

The President of the ECHR, Guido Raimondi, presented yesterday the activity report of the Court for 2016. The incoming cases considerably increased in the last year which is largely the result of the situation in three countries: Hungary and Romania, for complaints about detention conditions, and Turkey, especially since the dramatic attempted coup d’état in July 2016.

The following cases which relate to the legal profession and lawyers’ rights are mentioned in the report:

Cazan v. Romania‘  – concerning a lawyer that suffered ill treatment while representing his client at a police station. The decision is of interest in that it applies to Article 3 of the Convention the general principles of case-law relating to the protection of a lawyer. The Court emphasised the right of lawyers to exercise their professional duties without being subjected to ill-treatment. It also ruled that the burden of proof regarding the treatment of a lawyer representing a client at a police station lay with the State.

Yaroslav Belousov v. Russiaconcerning the applicant’s confinement in a glass cabin during his trial. The Court noted that this arrangement also made it impossible for the applicant to have confidential exchanges with his legal counsel, to whom he could only speak through a microphone and in close proximity to the police guards.

The Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom – concerning delays in access to a lawyer during police questioning. The decision clarifies the two stages of the Salduz v. Turkey test: the Court must assess, in the first place, whether there were “compelling reasons” to restrict the right of access to a lawyer and, secondly, the impact of that restriction on the overall fairness of the proceedings. Restrictions on access to legal advice “[were] permitted only in exceptional circumstances, must be of a temporary nature and must be based on an individual assessment of the particular circumstances of the case”. The Court provided a non-exhaustive list of factors, drawn from the Court’s case-law, to be taken into account as appropriate when assessing the impact of the restriction on access to a lawyer on the fairness of the proceedings so as to guide operational decision-making.

For more information, see:

Annual report 2016 (provisional)

Press conference

Violation by article and state

Analysis of  statistics

Tagged , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *