On Tuesday, November 22, the European Court of Human Rights will hold a Chamber hearing in the case Fernández Martínez v. Spain (Application no. 56030/07) and release a number of decisions in applications against Georgia, Malta, Turkey, Azerbaijan, the United Kingdom, Spain, Montenegro and Estonia.
The Fernández Martínez v. Spain case concerns the decision not to renew a Spanish priest’s contract as a teacher, after a local newspaper identified him as a member of the optional celibacy movement [press release]. The applicant, who had received dispensation from celibacy from the Vatican, was married with children and his teaching contract with a public school had been renewed every year for approximately 20 years prior to the article’s publication in 1996. Although the Murcia Labour Tribunal had found the non-renewal discriminatory, and therefore null and void, on appeal the High Court found that “it was the bishop’s role to ensure that people in the applicant’s position carried out their duties with discretion, making sure that their personal lives were not a source of scandal” [as described in the press release]. The Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal, finding that the basis for non-renewal were purely religious, which was acceptable in the context of religious education. The applicant has alleged violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 8 (private and family life), Article 14 (non-discrimination), Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 10 (freedom of expression). To watch the hearing, which begins at 9:00 a.m. in Strasbourg, visit the webcasts page.
Among its forthcoming judgments to be released tomorrow, the ECHR will emit decisions on the following applications, summarized by the Court as follows:
Natig Mirzayev v. Azerbaijan (application no. 36122/06)
The applicant, Natig Farhad Oglu Mirzayev, is a stateless person who was born in 1971 and is currently serving a life sentence in Gobustan Prison (located outside Baku in Azerbaijan) for murder and theft, among other offences. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains about the harsh conditons of his detention, which resulted in him contracting tuberculosis, and the ensuing lack of adequate medical care. He also complains, under Article 6 (right to a fair trial), about the unfairness of the proceedings he brought against the prison authorities seeking compensation for the alleged inadequate medical care as the hearings on his case were held in his absence.
Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia (no. 35254/07)
The applicants are two Georgian nationals: Niko Makharadze, who died aged 41, and his wife, Dali Sikharulidze. The case concerns the spread of a fatal form of multidrugresistant tuberculosis in Georgian prisons and the authorities’ inability to provide effective treatment. Mr Makharadze, who suffered from tuberculosis, was arrested in March 2006 on suspicion of possessing drugs and placed in detention pending trial. He was convicted as charged in July 2006 and sentenced to seven years in prison. He requested that his prison sentence be suspended on account of his state of health and the fact that he was not being provided with effective anti-tuberculosis drugs in prison. He also subsequently went on hunger strike to protest about the failure to follow domestic court medical recommendations in his case. In November 2008 the European Court indicated to Georgia under Rule 39 (interim measures) of its Rules of Court that Mr Makharadze should be transferred to a hospital specialising in the treatment of tuberculosis. The Government refused as it considered such a measure unnecessary, Mr Makharadze having already been transferred to a new prison hospital where he had access to a programme for treating multidrug-resistant forms of tuberculosis.Mr Makharadze’s health deteriorated drastically during his detention and he died in the prison hospital in January 2009. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants allege that Georgia failed to take all reasonable steps to protect Mr Makharadze’s health and life. Further relying on Article 34 (right to individual petitition), Mr Makharadze complained – and his wife maintains this complaint – that the Government refused to transfer him to a specialised hospital despite the Court’s medical interim measure.
Curmi v. Malta (no. 2243/10)
The applicant, Helen Curmi, is a Maltese national who was born in 1922 and lives on the Isle of Man. The case concerns Ms Curmi’s complaint about the expropriation in 1988 of land she owned in Marsaxlokk (Malta). She notably alleges that the land was taken from her without any public interest and that, 21 years later, she has still not received any compensation. She relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). She also complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that even though it was found in constitutional proceedings that her rights had been breached, she still did not have the means to bring proceedings for compensation.Frendo Randon and Others v. Malta (no. 2226/10)
The case concerns a complaint by 46 Maltese nationals about the expropriaton of their land in 1969 to build the Malta Freeport (an international port). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain in particular that the expropriation of their land was not in the public interest as parts of it remain unused to date, and that they have still, some 42 years later, not been compensated. Moreover, they allege that it took the Maltese authorities 31 years to start compensation proceedings which, to date, remain pending, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court/right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).
Zammit Maempel v. Malta (no. 24202/10)
The applicants, Frederick and Suzette Zammit Maempel, and their children, Julian and Martina, are Maltese nationals who were born in 1949, 1956, 1984 and 1986 respectively and live in a house in a remote grassland area of San Gwann (Malta). The case concerns the family’s complaint about the risks they were exposed to by the letting off of fireworks during village feasts in fields close to their home and the ensuing damage to their property from debris. They also allege that they are the victims of discrimination on the basis of residence as people who live in inhabited areas are more protected from such risks than those, like them, who live in uninhabited areas. They rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Koprivica v. Montenegro (no. 41158/09)
The applicant, Veseljko Koprivica, is a Montenegrin national who was born in 1948 and lives in Podgorica (Montenegro). Former editor-in-chief of the Liberal, a Montenegrin weekly magazine, he complains about defamation proceedings brought against him for reporting in September 1994 that 16 Montenegrin journalists were going to be tried for incitement to war before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The courts found against him and ordered him to pay the plaintiff (one of the 16 journalists) EUR 5,000 in damages and EUR 2,677.50 for legal costs. He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression).
Erçep v. Turkey (no. 43965/04)
The applicant, Yunus Erçep, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Istanbul. Mr Erçep is a Jehovah’s Witness and a consciencious objector. As such, he refused to do military service. He was called up in 1998, but failed to appear, making him a deserter. Since then he has been called up several times for new periods of military service, which he refuses to do because of his convictions. He has, however, offered to do substitute civilian service, but there is no provision in Turkish law for that solution. As a result, every time he has refused to be conscripted criminal proceedings have been brought against him before the military court for failure to report for duty, and he has been sentenced to several terms of imprisonment. In 2006 a law was enacted under which military courts no longer had jurisdiction to try civilians, so the proceedings still pending against the applicant were transferred to the ordinary courts.Since 1998 more than 25 sets of proceedings have been brought against the applicant and there is a risk that he will continue to be called up and convicted for failure to report for duty in the future. Relying on Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), he complains about his successive convictions for refusing to report for military service.