Alapjogi jogesetek – a strasbourgi Emberi Jogok Európai Bírósága

Absztrakt

In the period between 1 June and 31 December 2017 the European Court of Human Rights adopted a number of decisions with relevance to many actual or potential Hungarian applicants. It reviewed the system of legal remedies introduced as a response to the Court’s pilot judgment concerning inhuman or degrading prison conditions, and accepted it as an avenue to be exhausted. The Grand Chamber adopted its judgment concerning the prohibition on the simultaneous disbursement of salaries and pensions in the public sector; as well as another one concerning the Hungarian courts’ refusal to deal with a pecuniary claim stemming from ecclesiastical law. The Court further adopted a decision in respect of applications taking issue with a pack of legislation on foreign-currency-based consumer loan agreements. It also heard a complaint concerning segregation of Roma pupils in a school maintained by the Greek Catholic Church and examined the role of public interest litigation in such cases. Moreover, it adjudicated cases concerning the overhaul of disability benefits, ill-treatment in police proceedings, freedom of assembly and fair trial. The subject matters of reviewed cases concerning other countries included the applicability of Article 5 § 4 to a period when the applicant had not been in detention; the right to informational self-determination under Article 8; the limits on employers’ right to monitor employees’ communications including e-mail exchanges; the application of Article 18 concerning the limitation on the use of restrictions on rights guaranteed by the Convention; the respective roles of the Court and the Committee of Ministers concerning the nonexecution of a pilot judgment by the respondent State; domestic remedies to be exhausted following the attempted coup in Turkey in 2016; the interpretation of “relevant new information” under Article 35 § 2 (b) and the possibility of invoking a change in the Court’s case-law as such; and the applicability of the right to free elections in case of secession referenda.