No animal rights campaign instrumentalising the Holocaust image (at least in Germany), PETA v Germany, 43481/09

PETA Deutschland (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) tried to organize an advertising campaign under the head “The Holocaust on your plate” in Germany but it was banned, and the European Court of Human Rights confirms the ban. The posters had to make a photo parallel between Holocaust and the pain of animals. PETA intended to use the text “Between 1938 and 1945, 12 million human beings were killed in the Holocaust. As many animals are killed every hour in Europe for the purpose of human consumption” (§ 7).

PETA tried to explain that they do not trivialize the suffering of human beings, neither they have any anti-Semitic background. In the USA and Austria, this campaign did not meet such obstacles (§ 28).

The ECtHR replied that the ban is necessary in a democratic German society because of the German past, because they deem themselves under a special obligation towards the Jews (§ 49). The ban is proportional, since PETA remains free to find other means of drawing public attention to the issue of animal protection (§ 50).

ECtHR makes Slovenia liable for Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo debts of € 175 million, Alisic et al v 5 ex-Yugoslavian States

Before the collapse of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Mr Alisic and Mr Sadzak had foreign currency savings in Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo (respectively DEM 4 715.56 and DEM 129 874.30, § 7). After the collapse, the savings were frozen (disappeared). The issue raised is who is liable for the debts of Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo? The Slovenian perspective is to apply the principle of territoriality and to accept all liabilities in all domestic branches of all ex-Yugoslavian banks, but not in the Bosnian branches (§ 36).

In 1990 Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo became a branch, without legal personality, of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana. On 31/12/1991 the amount of foreign-currency savings at the Sarajevo branch was DEM 250 000 000 with a valid annual interest of 12 %. However only DEM 350 000 were present in Sarajevo (§ 21). The Slovenian Government stated that part of the money that came from Sarajevo was forwarded to National Bank of Yugoslavia, and the remaining funds sent back to Bosnia (§ 61). European Court of Human Rights replies that the Slovenian Government failed to provide any proof in that regard, and according to its information from 1984 and 1991 only 17 % of the money was shipped back from Slovenia to Bosnia (§ 11). The Chamber majority writes: “While it is unclear what happened with the remaining sum, it is likely that most of it ended up in Slovenia” (§ 21 and then § 68). 

This means that now Slovenia will have to find € 175 million unless the Grand Chamber will set aside the Chamber judgment on appeal.

It is remarkable that 5 of the ECtHR judges who considered the case were from the former Yugoslavia States. Four of them voted against Slovenia, and the Slovenian one supported his country. Four is already a clear majority in a Chamber of seven.

Serbia is also found liable for other aspects of the same problem, and its debt is about € 60 million.

ECtHR Grand Chamber sets aside Chamber judgment for errors in appraisal of proportionality in compensation for expropriation, Vistiņš et al v Latvia, 71243/01

Mr. Jānis Vistiņš had a land with a value of € 900 000 that was expropriated for € 850, and Mr Genādijs Perepjolkins had a land valued at € 5 million expropriated for € 13 500 (§§ 116-117) for purposes of the Riga Port expansion. The Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found this proportional, since the expropriation price should correspond to that of the year 1940 (§ 70), but the Grand Chamber annulled this judgment on appeal and supported the applicants.

The Chamber considered that, since the applicants got this land from the heirs of the people who owned this land in 1940 (Latvia lost independence in 1940 and got it back in 1990), the increase in price of the land that took place from 1940 to 1997 (date of expropriation) was independent of any contribution of the applicants. The Grand Chamber agreed that the price may be lower than the market one, but argued that the Court cannot equate individuals who had not yet recovered their property with those who were already in possession of a valid title deed.

The Chamber thought that the price of 1940 was proportional, since the applicants owned the land only for 3 years before the expropriation, and got the title as a donation. The Grand Chamber corrected in showing that according to the contracts they got the land for certain services, which is not free of charge (§ 121).

Mr. Vistiņš received from the Riga Port € 85 000 as rent arrears for the period before expropriation, and Mr. Perepjolkins got € 593 150. This makes the expropriation price proportional according to the Chamber. According to the Grand Chamber, this is exactly what shows disproportion of the expropriation price. The rent arrears were not calculated as if they were in 1940 (§ 128).

ECtHR enforces the restitution of Kentbank SA, Süzer et al. v Turkey, 6334/05

Mr. Mustafa Süzer and Eksen Holding SA owned by him controlled 99 % of the Kentbank capital (§ 5). It was 22^nd biggest Turkish bank employing 2000 people in its 93 branches. On 01/02/2001 the Turkish Agency for Regulation and Supervision of Banks accused the bank of $ 680 750 000 debt (active/capital ration of –56,67 %). On 09/07/2001 Kentbank was taken from the owners by the Agency and transferred to FADE (a savings insurance foundation, §§ 11-12).

Already at the national level, the Turkish State Council judged that the transfer was illegal (§ 63) but the administration was not enthusiastic about the restitution. Thus I wouldn’t call the proceedings difficult. The ECtHR reconfirmed the property rights and the right to restitution. The pecuniary damage proceedings will continue.

Mr. Süzer asked an official excuse from the Government as a non-pecuniary redress. The Court replied that it cannot give this kind of directives to the State and dismissed the request (§§ 177, 179).

The Applicant claimed € 722 711 for legal costs but the Strasbourg Court reduced it by € 241 136.94 (§ 193).

Suing State for the right of a doctor to refuse making abortion is declared admissible by the European Social Rights Committee, IPPF EN v Italy, 87/2012

The International Planned Parenthood Federation – European Network sued Italy before the European Social Rights Committee for violation of Articles 11 (right to health) and E (non-discrimination) of the European Social Charter due to the existing in Italy right of a doctor to refuse making abortion for the reasons of consciousness.

The Italian Government argued that the State couldn’t limit the number of medical personnel on the ground of their beliefs (§ 7). The Committee dismissed this argument as relating to merits, and declared the action admissible (§ 8).