issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 127 (2011)

26.07.2011

Judgments¹concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Poland,

Portugal, Russia and Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18

judgments.

Repetitive cases²and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding

indicated, can be found at the end of the press release. The judgments available only in

French are indicated with an asterisk (*).

Juričić v. Croatia (application no. 58222/09)

The applicant, Mirjan Juričić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1954 and lives in

Zagreb. An administrative court judge, she complained about the unfairness of

proceedings she brought to contest a decision in 2008 by Parliament on the election of

judges to the Constitutional Court and in which she was an unsuccessful candidate. She

relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (on account of the lack of an adversarial hearing)

No violation of Article 6 § 1 (on account of the lack of an oral and public hearing)

Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient

just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the applicant might have sustained

Choromidis v. Greece (no. 54932/08)*

The applicants, Efklidis Choromidis and Spyros Choromidis, are Greek nationals who

were born in 1960 and 1967 and live in Acharnes, Attiki (Greece). They owned plots of

land on which their commercial and agricultural company had been operating since

1950, and were affected by a State decision to expropriate a large part of their land, to

such an extent that some of the adjoining plots were allegedly rendered unusable.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained about the

Court of Cassation’s refusal to compensate them for the non-expropriated (but,

according to them, unusable) areas of their land. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair

hearing), they also complained about the fact that the Court of Cassation did not find it

necessary to consider some of the arguments that they had submitted.

No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

No violation of Article 6 § 1

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

2 In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the

Convention.

Karamanof v. Greece (no. 46372/09)*

The applicant, Mr Alexandros Karamanof, is a Greek national who was born in 1978 and

lives in Athens. He was compulsorily detained in hospital between November 2008 and

May 2009. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), he alleged

that the deprivation of liberty was unjustified and that certain conditions laid down by

the relevant domestic law were not complied with.

Violation of Article 5 § 1

Just satisfaction: No claim made by the applicant

Iwaszkiewicz v. Poland (no. 30614/06)

The applicants, Klara and Maria Iwaszkiewicz, mother and daughter, are Polish nationals

who were born in 1947 and 1987, respectively, and live in Zapolice (Poland). Their

husband and father, now deceased, was granted a veteran’s disability pension due to

ill-health caused by his deportation to a Soviet labour camp in the 1940s. The case

concerned the two women’s complaint about the authorities’ decision in March 2003 to

withdraw his pension and therefore their entitlement to it on his demise. They relied in

particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Musiałek and Baczyński v. Poland (no. 32798/02)

The applicants, Tomasz Musiałek and Jarosław Baczyński, are Polish nationals who were

born in 1966 and 1974, respectively. Mr Musiałek lives in Kamień (Poland) and,

convicted of murder, was detained from July 1995 to July 2004 and then from January

2006 to February 2009; Mr Baczyński is currently serving a prison sentence in Zaręba

Górna Prison (Poland). Both applicants complained about the inadequate conditions of

their detention in prisons in Wołów and Wrocław, essentially due to overcrowding.

Mr Musiałek, suffering from a serious medicial condition (Dupuytren’s contracture)

which, if untreated, prevents the fingers and toes from straightening, also complained

about the inadequacy of the medical care there. Both applicants relied in particular on

Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment).

Violation of Article 3 (in respect of Mr Musiałek’s first detention)

Just satisfaction: No claim made by the applicant

Larisa Zolotareva v. Russia (no. 15003/04)

The applicant, Larisa Zolotareva, is a Russian national who was born in 1932 and lives in

Moscow. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home), she

complained about her eviction in June 1999 from a flat she shared with her son and his

ex-wife following conflict with the latter. She alleged in particular that the eviction took

place despite the fact that the execution of the judgment against her had been stayed

before the Supreme Court. Furthermore, she was evicted at night and was not given the

chance to vacate the flat of her own will.

Violation of Article 8

Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,540 (costs and

expenses)

Liu v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 29157/09)

The applicants are Liu Jingcai, a Chinese national born in 1968, and his wife and

children, Yulia, Regina and Vadim Liu, Russian nationals born in 1973, 1996 and 1999,

respectively. They all live in the town of Sovetskaya Gavan in the Khabarovsk Region

(Russia). The case concerned the family’s complaint that Mr Jingcai was refused a

residence permit in Russia and expelled to China in November 2009. They relied in

particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).

Violation of Article 8

Just satisfaction: EUR 1,800 (non-pecuniary damage)

T.Ç. and H.Ç. v. Turkey (no. 34805/06)*

The applicants, H.Ç. and T.Ç., mother and daughter, are Turkish nationals who were

born in 1965 and 1995 and live in Biga (Turkey). H.Ç. and her husband divorced in

1998. He died in 1999, leaving shares and real property to his daughter. Believing that

their son was not T.Ç.’s real father, the parents of the deceased brought an action,

shortly after his death, successfully disputing her paternal affiliation. Relying on Article 6

§ 1 in particular (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants

complained that the proceedings before the national courts were affected by

arbitrariness and irregularities and lasted for an excessively long time. Relying on Article

8 (right to respect for private and family life), they also complained about the impact of

the proceedings on their private and family life. Finally, relying on Article 1 of Protocol

No. 1 (protection of property), the daughter complained of having been denied her

inheritance rights as a consequence of arbitrary proceedings.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Violation of Article 8

The Court also found that it was premature to examine if there had been a breach of

T.Ç.’s inheritance rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage, both applicants jointly) and

EUR 5,860 (costs and expenses)

Yavuz Çelik v. Turkey (no. 34461/07)

The applicant, Yavuz Çelik, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in

Istanbul. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Çelik

alleged that a police officer punched him in the face and squeezed his throat in the yard

of the local police station where he had been taken in October 2006 on charges of

insulting and assaulting the police. He also alleged that the ensuing investigation into his

allegation was inadequate.

Two violations of Article 3

Just satisfaction: EUR 11,700 (non-pecuniary damage)

Repetitive cases

The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.

Paleari v. Italy (no 55772/08)

Pozzi v. Italy (no 55743/08)

These cases concerned the compatibility of proceedings concerning the application of

preventive measures with the requirements of a fair trial. The applicants relied in

particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention.

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (both cases)

M.B. v. Poland (no. 11887/07)

This case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of her pre-trial

detention. She was charged with abuse of her powers and accepting a bribe.

Violation of Article 5 § 3

Length-of-proceedings cases

In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length

of legal proceedings.

Criminal

Dobosz v. Polond (no. 15231/08)

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Non-criminal

Hadzhinikolov v. Bulgaria (no. 24720/04)

Capriati v. Italy (no. 41062/05)

Leite de Oliveira v. Portugal (no. 51251/09)

Sousa Lello and Fernandes Borges v. Portugal (no. 28776/08)

Tomé Monteiro and Others v. Portugal (no. 43641/09)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (all five cases)

Violation of Article 13 (first, third and fourth case)

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.

Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its

Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS

feeds.

Press contacts

[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08

Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)

Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)

Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)

Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 88 41 41 09)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of

Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European

Convention on Human Rights.