ECHR fines Turkey 184,000 euros in expropriation case

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) fined Turkey 184,000 euros today following a family’s complaint that they were not paid compensation for their land on which a primary school was built without a formal expropriation order in Ankara’s İncesu neighborhood.

Four people from the same family, Fidan Ayangil, Fatma Ayangil, Mehmet Ayangil and Vildan Tatlı, filed a complaint to the ECHR in the land dispute, saying their house had been left within the garden of a public school and that the state had failed to make an official expropriation and pay compensation.

In its principal judgment on Dec. 6, 2011, the ECHR decided that there had been a violation of the protection of property. The judgment concerned the question of just satisfaction and ordered the four applicants to be paid 180,000 euros jointly in pecuniary damages, and 4,000 euros jointly in non-pecuniary damages.

Read more: EUROPE - ECHR fines Turkey 184,000 euros in expropriation case

Armenia - Freedom of Expression Curbed: Armenian University in Political Row - by Vahe Harutyunyan

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan

Armenia’s most prestigious university has become embroiled in a scandal after a lecturer said he had been sacked for upholding students’ right to protest.

Ararat Mirzoyan, 33, has lectured at Yerevan State University since last year. This March, he discovered that his contract was not being renewed.

He said the dean of his faculty – history and art theory – had approved another year’s tenure, and the contract had been duly sent off to the rector’s office for processing. “Yet in mid-March, when I was supposed to start, it turned out my contract had not been agreed,” Mirzoyan said.

The university denies ever agreeing to renew the contract, which it says expired in December. But Mirzoyan points out that he continued working into this year, and no one said anything about it.

He believes university officials had a change of heart when he posted comments on Facebook criticising staff for trying to stop students from protesting against the re-election of Serzh Sargsyan as Armenia’s president in February.

Mirzoyan said the university’s rector, Aram Simonyan, was keen to avoid any fuss over the election result. President Sargsyan is chair of the university’s council. “When they saw the student protests, the university heads decided that the situation might run out of control and cause them problems,” Mirzoyan said.

According to Anna Khechoyan of Armenia’s National Academy of Sciences, “What’s happened to Ararat Mirzoyan is an attempt to crush freedom of thought.”

She says the true sequence of events began with “an attempt to prevent student protests, even though they have the right to express themselves. Then a lecturer tried to defend the students.”

“The situation is now terrible,” she added. “A significant number of the lecturers are criticising what happened, but many are afraid to speak out because they could lose their jobs, just like Ararat.”

Read more: Armenian University in Political Row - Institute for War and Peace Reporting - P212

Christians win and lose at European human rights court - by Whitney Williams

Religious freedom is a right, but not without limits, Europe’s top human rights court said Tuesday after issuing two religious liberty rulings.  

In the first case, the court ruled British Airways (BA) discriminated against a Christian employee by making her remove her crucifix. But in the second case, the court stood behind a U.K. charity that fired a marriage counselor who refused to provide sex therapy to same-sex couples.

In judgments applauded by civil liberties groups but condemned by advocates for religious freedom, the European Court of Human Rights said freedom of religion is “an essential part of the identity of believers and one of the foundations of pluralistic, democratic societies.” 

But religious freedom has limits, the court said: “However, where an individual’s religious observance impinges on the rights of others, some restrictions can be made.”

The court’s judges, by a five-to-two margin, backed a claim by BA check-in clerk Nadia Eweida, who sparked a national debate in Britain over religion when supervisors sent her home in November 2006 for refusing to remove the small silver cross from around her neck. The company has rules banning employees from wearing visible religious symbols.

BA eventually changed its policy, and Eweida went back to work. But she continued to pursue a claim of religious discrimination, seeking damages and compensation for lost income.

British courts backed BA, but Eweida went to the European Court of Human Rights. The Strasbourg, France-based court ruled Tuesday that the airline’s policy “amounted to an interference with her right to manifest her religion.” Eweida’s cross was discreet and could not have detracted from her professional appearance, the court said.

“I was jumping for joy and saying ‘Thank you, Jesus,’” Eweida, 60, said when the court announced the verdict. "It's a vindication that Christians have a right to express their faith on par with other colleagues at work visibly and not be ashamed of their faith."

But vindication did not come for all.

After deciding Eweida’s case, the judges struck down claims by Lillian Ladele, a local authority registrar who said her Christian faith stopped her from overseeing same-sex civil partnerships, and marriage counselor Gary McFarlane, who refused to offer sex therapy to same-sex couples.

The court's rulings are binding on the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, the continent's human rights watchdog. The losing claimants can appeal to the court's Grand Chamber, a higher panel of five judges.

In both cases, the court said employers were entitled to strike a balance between claimants’ rights to live out their religious beliefs and the rights of others not to suffer discrimination.

But according to religious groups, the rulings make it clear sexual orientation trumps religion when it comes to rights. Europeans now live within a hierarchy of rights, said Dave Landrum, director of advocacy for the Evangelical Alliance.

Read more: WORLD | Christians win and lose at European human rights court | Whitney Williams | Jan. 15, 2013

Macedonia : Human rights court rules on CIA rendition

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has found that Macedonia violated the European Convention on Human Rights when it detained Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen, tortured him and handed him over to the United States authorities. The Court awarded el-Masri €60,000 in compensation for his ordeal.

Read more: European Voice | An independent voice on EU news and affairs

RIA Novosti - Why did Poland accuse the EU of the "herd instinct"? - by Yelena Shesternina

For the complete report from RIA Novosti click on this link

Why did Poland accuse the EU of the "herd instinct"? - by Yelena Shesternina

In the last few days, the Polish government has managed to provoke two scandals in major European institutions - the Organization of European Security and Cooperation (OESC) over the parliamentary elections in Poland, scheduled for late October, and the European Union over a much more important issue - capital punishment. Last week, Poland again resorted to veto, its traditional way of dealing with the EU. This time, Warsaw vetoed the proposal of the European Commission and European Parliament to mark October 10 as an EU day against death penalty. "We do not consider ourselves supporters of the herd instinct," explained Wladyslaw Stasiak, minister of Interior and Administration, and voted against the proposal. He said a general right to life day would be more appropriate.

Note EU-Digest:In June of this year, the Polish government appealed the ruling of a European Human Rights Court that ordered the largely pro-life nation to pay restitution to a woman who was not permitted to obtain an abortion under strict Polish abortion law. According to the Irish Times, the court yesterday rejected Poland's appeal and confirmed the previous ruling. Poland is starting to show an obstructionist pattern against established EU rules and regulations, and seems to forget that membership in the EU does not only include economic benefits, but also solidarity among the partner members and respect for established EU laws.