I threw virtual documents onto a virtual blaze to keep warm during the recent freezing temperatures, but I saved one to read: the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) summary of key cases from 2024. It diverted me for an evening.
There is only one UK case reported as key from last year: Nealon and Hallam v the United Kingdom (32483/19, 35049/19). This involved a miscarriage of justice, where two men were wrongfully imprisoned for years, and denied compensation under the existing UK scheme. The court had to juggle the right to the presumption of innocence with the wording of a UK scheme which requires claimants effectively to prove that they are innocent beyond reasonable doubt. The court came down on the side of the UK government, and the men lost.
Curiously, there was another case involving the actions of UK authorities, but it was brought against France: A.L. and E.J. v France - 44715/20 et 47930/21. This was another in the long line of cases filed by defendants after the Encrochat secret communications system was penetrated, and evidence from it used to prosecute crime. Back in 2020, EncroChat was a hub for criminals to trade drugs and guns, but was successfully infiltrated in a cross-European operation involving French and Dutch police, Europol and the UK National Crime Agency. There were up to 10,000 UK users of EncroChat, which was based in France and closed itself down shortly afterwards. There were 746 immediate arrests in the UK. Unsuccessful cases to prevent the use of EncroChat as evidence were brought before the UK Court of Appeal and the Court of Justice of the European Union. This one (A.L. and E.J. v France) was an attempt by British defendants to use the ECtHR to the same end, but their case failed because they had not attempted any domestic remedies in France before coming to the ECtHR.
Of more resonance to a current public debate in the UK was a Hungarian case on assisted dying: Daniel Karsai v. Hungary (32312/23). A 47-year-old lawyer with motor neurone disease (MND) brought a case against the Hungarian government for its complete restriction on assisted dying. He claimed a breach of Article 8 (respect for private life) and of Article 14 (discrimination). The Article 14 claim was based on alleged discrimination between patients who are dependent on life-sustaining treatment and those patients – like an MND sufferer - who are not, and who consequently cannot hasten their death by refusing such treatment. He lost on both articles.
Much cited in the Karsai case was a UK case from just over 20 years earlier, Pretty v the United Kingdom (2346/02). This involved another MND sufferer, a woman in her forties. She had written to the Director of Public Prosecutions asking for immunity from criminal prosecution for her husband if he assisted her with an early death. This had been refused, and the refusal backed all the way up to the House of Lords. The ECHR similarly denied her case on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman treatment), 8 (respect for private life), 9 (freedom of thought) and 14 (discrimination).
The obvious cases included for 2024 were the significant climate change decisions in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (53600/20) and Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others (39371/20). These probably garnered the most publicity last year, including in the Gazette. Although the case against Portugal failed, since the claimants had not exhausted domestic remedies and could not make claims against any jurisdiction other than Portugal, and although the case against Switzerland only partially succeeded (the association was found to have a case, but not the individuals), the general feeling is that these cases have paved the way for more climate change cases in the future based on the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
The Council of Europe is considering a further instrument to make the right to a healthy environment an incontestable part of the ECHR, and has produced a document with background and arguments.
The 2024 case with the most human interest was Dian v. Denmark (44002/22), concerning a Romanian national of 61, who was found guilty of begging on a pedestrian street in Copenhagen and also of insulting a police inspector in the exercise of her functions. He was sentenced to 20 days’ imprisonment, since he had a previous conviction for begging. He called in aid a previous ECtHR decision which found that a sentence for begging could be a breach of Article 8 (respect for private life). But the court said that there was no absolute right to beg, and that each case depended on its circumstances. In this case, he had other sources of income, roughly €135 in his pocket, and a house back in Romania. His case failed.
I find myself looking forward to this time next year, when I can read the 2025 summary.
Jonathan Goldsmith is Law Society Council member for EU & International, chair of the Law Society’s Policy & Regulatory Affairs Committee and a member of its board. All views expressed are personal and are not made in his capacity as a Law Society Council member, nor on behalf of the Law Society
No comments yet