Dear readers,

In February, we presented you with this year’s edition of our annual Strasbourg Observers Best & Worst Poll, where we asked you to vote for your preferred candidates as shortlisted for the categories of Best Judgment of 2024, Worst Judgment of 2024, and Best Separate Opinion of 2024. This year we received the highest ever number of votes in our poll and we would like to thank everyone who participated in the voting. The votes have been counted and we are excited to announce the results.

BEST JUDGMENT OF 2024

First up, in the category of Best Judgment of 2024, the winner is…  M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus!

M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus concerned the interception of Syrian nationals at sea by the Cypriot authorities and their immediate return to Lebanon without their asylum claims being processed. In a strong and well-reasoned judgment, the Court found a violation of Articles 3, 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion), and 13, on account of the applicants’ return to Lebanon, as well as an additional violation of Article 3 due to how they were treated by the Cypriot authorities during the two days they remained on the boat.

M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus’ ‘victory’ suggests that our readers were impressed by the Court’s approach, its thorough engagement with the evidence before it, and its willingness to shift the burden of proof onto the State in a situation where the events at issue lay wholly, or in a large part, within its exclusive knowledge.

For those of you who have not yet done so, check out Isabel Kienzle and Jonathan Kießling’s analysis here.

The overall top three in this category were:

First place: M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus

Second place: Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland

Third place: Wa Baile v. Switzerland

It bears mention that the category ‘other’ received the most votes this year. If you were one of the people who voted for that category we would be very interested in hearing more about the judgment you would have liked to see win in the comments section.

WORST JUDGMENT OF 2024

In the category of Worst Judgment of 2024, with a landslide victory, the overwhelming winner is… Yasak v. Türkiye!

The Court’s judgment in Yasak v. Turkiye has been highly criticised for appearing to negate many of the conclusions the Court reached in its landmark judgment in  Yüksel Yalçinkaya v. Türkiye last year. In the judgment, the Court upheld the applicant’s conviction for membership of a terrorist organisation, the Gülen movement. This membership largely amounted to his involvement as a senior student supervisor. The Court largely endorsed the Turkish government’s arguments, thereby overlooking concerns about the manner in which witness statements were delivered and the fact that his involvement with the movement predated the movement’s designation as a terrorist organisation following the 2016 coup attempt. The applicant’s complaint about the extensive interpretation of domestic law on membership of a terrorist organisation was left unaddressed.  Since this ruling was delivered, Turkish courts have invoked the judgment to uphold other convictions for membership of a terrorist organisation, despite the standards set out in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye.

Yasak v. Türkiye’s landslide ‘victory’ in the category of Worst Judgment of 2024 indicates that our readers concur with Yasir Gökçe’s conclusion that with this ruling, the Court has ‘contributed to the continuation of severe human rights violations and the entrenchment of authoritarian policies in Türkiye’ and Kerem Altiparmak and Rumeysa Budak’s arguments that this judgment ‘gives the green light to convictions for membership of an armed terrorist organisation for non-violent acts, contrary to the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law.’

The overall top three in this category were:

First place: Yasak v. Türkiye

Second place: Dian v. Denmark

Third place: Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom

BEST SEPARATE OPINION OF 2024

Finally, in the category of Best Separate Opinion, Judge Serghides retains his 2023 title for his separate opinions in Adamčo v. Slovakia (no. 2), Grande Oriente d’Italia v. Italy, and X and Others v. Slovenia!

In three separate opinions, Judge Serghides addressed the same issue: namely, the Court’s practice of declaring certain arguments ‘not necessary to review.’ He argued that when a complaint is raised by an applicant, the Court has a duty to examine it. This duty is derived from the principle of effectiveness which requires that the rights enshrined in the Convention be ‘practical and effective’ rather than ‘theoretical and illusionary.’

The results of this year’s poll suggest that there is support for Judge Serghides’ conclusion that ‘it is not compatible with the duty of the Court, as the guardian of human rights in Europe, to first select certain complaints as worthy of consideration, and after deciding on them, to be content that it has sufficiently performed its duty and therefore opt out of considering the remainder.’

When the poll was initially published we promised you, dear reader, that an analysis of these separate opinions was forthcoming on the blog. As promised, you can now read Alan Greene’s thoughts here.

The overall top three in this category were:

First place: Partly Dissenting Opinion by Judge Serghides in Adamčo v. Slovakia (no. 2), Grande Oriente d’Italia v. Italy, and X and Others v. Slovenia

Second place: Dissenting Opinion by Judge Mits in Verhoeven v. France

Third place: Partly Dissenting Opinion by Judge Răduleţu, joined by Judges Vehabović and Guerra Martins in Zăicescu and Fălticineanu v. Romania

Here again, it bears mention that the category ‘other’ received the most votes. We warmly invite those of you who voted for this option to share your opinions in the comments section.  Once again, we would like to thank everyone for participating in the voting! It is wonderful to see such active engagement and participation amongst our readership. We will be back with a new ‘Best and Worst’ voting poll next year and until then we will continue in our mission to keep you updated and informed on the most recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights.