issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 093 (2023)
28.03.2023
Judgments of 28 March 2023
The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of three Chamber
judgments1 which are summarised below.
The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Saure v. Germany (no. 2) (application no. 6091/16)
The applicant, Hans-Wilhelm Saure, is a German national who was born in 1968 and lives in Berlin.
He is a journalist and works for the daily newspaper Bild.
The case concerns his right of access to information held by the Ministry of Justice of the Land of
Brandenburg concerning judges and a public prosecutor who had previously worked for the Ministry
of Security of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). Upon the reunification of Germany,
the judges and public prosecutors who had worked in the former GDR were given the opportunity to
apply to be integrated into the judiciary of the new Länder.
Relying on Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) and 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European
Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains about the domestic courts’ refusal to order
the Ministry of Justice of the Land of Brandenburg to provide him with certain information. He also
complains that the proceedings did not begin promptly and took too long. Furthermore, he alleges
that the domestic courts were not impartial.
Violation of Article 10 on account of the decision to refuse disclosure of additional information on
the incriminating findings available against the thirteen judges and the public prosecutor
No violation of Article 10 on account of the refusal to disclose the names and places of service of
the thirteen judges and the public prosecutor, as well as on account of the refusal to disclose the
involvement of the judges concerned in certain types of proceedings
Just satisfaction: the Court dismissed the claim for just satisfaction
Sârbu v. Romania (no. 34467/15)*
The applicant, Mihail-Ioan Sârbu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Lancrăm
(Romania).
The case concerns the fairness and length of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant
for bribe-taking. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and
family life) of the European Convention, the applicant complains, in particular, of the time taken to
prepare the final judgment and the use in evidence against him of recordings made by a co-accused
using a miniature video camera.
No violation of Article 8
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s
delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five
judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,
judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
