EU: Human rights round-up
01 September 1996
This issue's round-up contains decisions from 1994 and 1995 (from recently published reports) as well as recent decisions from 1996.
Among cases declared inadmissible were:
* Taylor, Crompton, Gibson and King v UK: protection of right to life (Art 2): death and serious injury of children in public hospital at hands of mentally ill nurse: no failure of State to protect.
* AB v Switzerland (20872/92): compulsory urine-sampling of prisoners for drug testing is not inhuman or degrading treatment (Art 3).
* Patrick Martin v Switzerland (25099/94): while storing personal data on police files interferes with respect for private life, if files are to be archived for 50 years with no access, there is no interference. Despite the authorities' refusal to disclose the full file to its subject, Swiss law contains sufficient guarantees against abuse to make any interference proportionate to the legitimate aim of the collation of information (Art 8).
* Younes el Maziani v France (25439/94): deportation of Algerian citizen who has lived in France since age 11 and has all his family there, and is married to a French citizen, after conviction for rape and 12 years imprisonment, did not violate Art 8 as interference with family life proportionate.
* Hacisüleymanoglu v Italy (23241/94): refusal to transfer sentenced prisoner to serve sentence near family in home country: sentencing state under no obligation, so interference with family life not in breach of Art 8.
* Walendy v Germany (21128/92): seizure of magazine denying holocaust: no violation of Art 10 (freedom of expression) since Art 17 prevents rights being used to deny those of others. The Commission's reasoning was the same in the cases of David Irving v Germany (26051/95) (conviction by Munich court for holocaust denial) and Marais v France (31159/95).
Cases declared admissible included:
* Ursula Balmer-Schafroth v Switzerland (22110/93): Licence granted to nuclear power plant despite 28,000 objections on safety and environment grounds. Complaint of lack of access to court (Art 6.1) and no effective remedy to establish right to life (Arts 13, 2).
* Sakik and others v Turkey (23883/94): Kurdish MPs had parliamentary immunity withdrawn, were arrested and detained under anti-terrorist laws for 12-14 days without court review, and charged with inciting terrorism, for speeches condemning the offensive against the Kurds. Complaints on the length of detention and lack of judicial supervision (Art 5) admissible.
Cases referred to the Court included:
* Aydin v Turkey: Allegations of detention of Applicant and family and torture by Turkish security forces. Turkey denied the allegations. Commission delegation went to Ankara to take oral evidence, and held that there were violations of Arts 3 (freedom from torture) and 6 (fair trial), and that intimidation and harassment of Applicant and family after petition submitted constituted interference with right to petition (Art 25).
* HLR v France (24573/94): Colombian drug trafficker who fears reprisals in Colombia for assisting French police. Commission held expulsion would violate Art 3 (exposure to inhuman or degrading treatment) despite French government claim that Art 3 did not cover exposure to private vengeance.
* DB v France (25404/94), AEB v France (25613/94): cases of double jeopardy. Both applicants have lived in France for most of their life, have family there and a French partner or child. Commission held in each case that proposed expulsion after serious criminal offence did not violate Art 8 (family life).
* Lukanov v Bulgaria: six-month detention of former deputy prime minister on charges of misappropriation of funds: Commission found violation of Art 5 (liberty)
* Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v Greece: refusal to recognise Jehovah's Witness ministers as exempt from military service on religious grounds, and consequent four-year sentence for insubordination: Commission