A. c. TURQUIE Application No: 36368/18
The applicant is a Turkish. He bought a share from the real estate on 11 February 2015. The property purchased was turned into a "commercial recreation" area with the innovation made in the zoning plan in 2011, while it was "unbuildable" in the zoning plan since 1984. In this case, the area has become a "buildable" area. The applicant made a request for expropriation of the immovable property to the administration on 24 March 2015. Upon the administration's refusal to respond, the applicant filed a lawsuit for the transfer of the property to the administration and determination of the expropriation value on 18 June 2015. The relevant administrative court stated that the long-lasting uncertainty about the fate of the immovable that was not seized by the administration put the owner in a difficult position. In the present case, when the applicant owned the immovable, he dismissed the case, arguing that the immovable property was allocated to the public service, that he put the former owners in a difficult situation during this period but that the applicant did not fall into a difficult situation in the period since the date of acquisition. Having exhausted all the remedies he could apply under Turkish law, the applicant cited Article 1 of Protocol No.1 and Article 6 of the Convention, stating that his right to respect for his property was violated due to the inability to build on his land and said that the national courts did not accept the request for expropriation of his property. He applied to the European Court of Human Rights on 26 July 2018. The European Court of Human Rights examined the application within the framework of Article 1 of the Additional Protocol No. 1. The Court found that the applicant's land had never been seized by the administration and that, taking into account the date of the applicant's purchase of the property, the duration of the intervention did not put the applicant in an excessive situation and that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 required. The Court concluded that he could not be said to disturb the fair balance. The European Court of Human Rights therefore decided the application inadmissible.
CASE OF V. v. UKRAINE Application No: 22273/12
The applicant is a Ukrainian. The applicant, who is disabled and HIV-positive, was arrested on 22 October 2010 for theft. The applicant, who received the necessary medical treatment in the place of detention, was diagnosed with HIV, hepatitis C and a number of other diseases. Prescriptions for diseases have been written, but antiretroviral therapy (ART) has not been done. As the applicant's situation deteriorated, his criminal trial was suspended and he was transferred to the detention hospital for necessary treatment. In line with the information given by the court, the applicant was offered ART and chemotherapy in this place to prevent tuberculosis, but the applicant refused to take it. The applicant was also diagnosed with other diseases during the treatment process. However, when the applicant, who was staying in the detention center, refused the outpatient antiretroviral treatment offered to him on 24 June 2011, the court decided on 16 August 2011 to continue because considering that the applicant had deliberately tried to prevent the criminal case. The applicant, who was transferred to a detention center, also refused antiretroviral treatment there. He applied to Ukraine Human Rights Committee on 8 November 2011. The answer to this application is unknown. On 1 December 2011 the applicant requested the relevant court to convert instead of detention to an obligation not to escape pre-trial detention. In this request, the applicant stated that an alternative preventive measure was required to allow her inpatient treatment in a private AIDS hospital. The court ordered the applicant to being treated. The applicant complained that he could not receive antiretroviral treatment. He was then transferred to another observatory for further judicial review. As more diseases were detected than before, appropriate treatment methods were recommended for him. The applicant refused outpatient treatment. The applicant was arrested in the detention hospital where he was on 16 April 2012. No medical intervention was made to him at that time. On 23 April 2012, on the basis of the documents provided by the applicant, the court decided that appropriate inpatient treatment should be provided immediately in a hospital. On 28 April 2012, the treating doctor did not consider it appropriate to treat the applicant as an inpatient. In accordance with Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the applicant applied to the European Court of Human Rights due to the lack of medical treatment and the lack of an effective legal remedy in this regard. Thereupon, the court found it appropriate that the treatment offered to the applicant was rejected by the applicant as it was within prison conditions. In addition, the court interpreted that the applicant's complaint to the State about ART and his failure to receive a response to it was that the state did not provide medical assistance. It was established that the applicant did not undergo a medical examination between 25 June 2011 and 16 May 2012. The Court considered that, given the seriousness of the applicant's condition, the applicant's refusal to previous treatment could not be considered as a reason for terminating his positive obligation to provide him with medical treatment and prevented the domestic authorities from offering the necessary treatment for medical treatment. Consequently, it held that there had been a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention on account of the insufficient medical care in detention. It held that the applicant's complaints concerning the failure of the applicant to provide adequate medical care to the applicant, who was detained between 25 June 2011 and 16 May 2012, were admissible.
CASE OF G. J. AND R. H. H. v. ICELAND Applications nos. 68273/14 and 68271/14
The applicants are citizens of Iceland. In March 2012, the applicants were appointed as advocates of the two defendants in a criminal proceeding in the context of the 2008 global financial crisis and its effects on the Icelandic financial sector. On 08 April 2013, the two lawyers requested the removal of their assignments. The applicants submitted to the Supreme Court that they had not been informed of the deadline for submitting their defense, the prosecutor had not sent them a copy of their opinion and that the defense had not had sufficient access to important documents. They also stated that their client's rights had been severely violated and that their clients also approved their decision to withdraw from further involvement in the case. On the same day, the relevant court rejected the claim, holding that it was possible that this would delay the trial. The applicants informed the court that they would not attend the hearing on 11 April 2013. The defendants attended the trial day with new attorneys. The prosecution maintained that the applicants had withdrawn from the case in order to delay the trial and requested that they be fined for disobedience to the court. The applicants were ordered to pay a fine for disobedience to the court, which was ordered in their absence. The applicants were not informed about this. On 28 May 2014 the Supreme Court upheld the domestic court's decision in respect of the fines imposed on the applicants. The Supreme Court found that the fines imposed on the applicants amounted to a penalty “according to the qualification”. The applicants alleged that the domestic court had tried and punished them in absentia, in breach of Articles 6 (1) and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and they also applied to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that the Supreme Court did not correct the procedural violations occurred before the local court. In addition, the applicants complained that they were found guilty of acts committed when they were not a lawyer and that the unforeseen amount of punishment imposed on them had violated Article 7/1 of the Convention. The European Court of Human Rights evaluates the criminal aspects of Article 6 regarding the proceedings of disobedience to the court or the misconduct of the legal profession on three criteria. According to the first criterion; qualified the offense in national law. Accordingly, although the aforementioned crime regulates that special prosecutions may be initiated due to the crimes of disobedience to the court with an offense in the Criminal Procedure Code of Iceland; As a general rule, the investigation of such behavior did not require the participation of the prosecutor, as defined elsewhere in this Law. The fine was imposed by the court itself that was handling a case. Consequently, the European Court of Human Rights noted that the offense in question was not demonstrated to be qualified as "criminal" under national law The Court determined the according to the qualification of the crime as the second criterion. According to this; The Supreme Court ruled that the applicants withdrew from the case with a view to delaying the trial and that they were fined for disobedience to the court. However, while the Supreme Court accepted that the nature of the offense was criminal; He made no specific reference to the nature of the applicants' misconduct. Consequently, it is unclear whether the applicants' guilt would be considered criminal or disciplinary in nature, given the gravity of the breach of their professional duties. Finally, the third criterion was examined. The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the high fines imposed on the applicants and the absence of a legal upper limit to be seen as "criminal" in the special sense of Article 6 of the Convention, as the severity and nature of the sanction. The European Court of Human Rights interpreted the high fines imposed on the applicants and the absence of a legal upper limit as not sufficient to see the severity and nature of the sanction as “criminal” in the particular sense of Article 6 of the Convention. Under these conditions and due to the consistency of the interpretation of the Convention as a whole, the European Court of Human Rights has considered that the fines complained under Article 7 cannot be seen as "punishment" in the sense of this article. Consequently, the European Court of Human Rights found the applicants' applications inadmissible.