issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 069 (2012)

21.02.2012

Judgments concerning Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Republic of

Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania and Turkey

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

judgments, of which Braun v. Turkey (no. 10655/07) is a Committee judgment and is

final. The others are Chamber judgments and are not final¹.

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 (*).

Abil v. Azerbaijan (application no. 16511/06)

The applicant, Baybala Alibala oglu Abil, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1952

and lives in Baku. He stood as an independent candidate for the elections to the National

Assembly (parliament) of 6 November 2005. His registration as a candidate was

cancelled in October 2005 by the Court of Appeal which found that he had offered money

to voters in exchange for their votes in his favour. Relying in particular on Article 3 of

Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr

Abil complained that his registration as a parliamentary elections candidate had been

cancelled arbitrarily.

Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,600

(costs and expenses)

Khanhuseyn Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 19554/06)

The applicant, Khanhuseyn Gulhuseyn oglu Aliyev, is an Azerbaijani national who was

born in 1958 and lives in Baku. Having stood for the elections to the National Assembly

of November 2005, his registration as a candidate was cancelled by the courts in October

2005 on request of the electoral commission, finding that he had offered money to

voters in exchange for their votes. Relying in particular on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1

(right to free elections) of the Convention, he complained that his registration had been

cancelled arbitrarily and had been based on fabricated evidence. He further maintained

that he had been informed of the electoral commission’s request only on the day of the

relevant court hearing.

Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 (non-pecuniary damage)

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

Buzilo v. Republic of Moldova (no. 52643/07)

The applicant, Serghei Buzilo, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1972 and lives in

Chişinău. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment; right to

an effective investigation), he complained that, in November 2006, the police had beaten

him severely in a police station to which he had been taken on suspicion of theft, and

that there had been no effective investigation into his related complaints.

Violation of Article 3 (investigation)

Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage)

Boucke v. Montenegro (no. 26945/06)

The applicants, Snežana Boucke and Kristina Boucke, are mother and daughter (born out

of wedlock) who are both dual Serbian and German nationals born respectively in 1951

and 1988 and living in Kruševac (Serbia). Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1

(enforcement of a final judgment), they complained that two judgments, which became

final in 1998 and 2005 respectively, and which had ordered the father of Kristina Boucke

to pay child maintenance, had never been enforced.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: The applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.

Gąsior v. Poland (no. 34472/07)

The applicant, Wanda Gąsior, is a Polish national who was born in 1931 and lives in

Kraków (Poland). In August 2006 she was found guilty of defamation, and ordered to

publish an apology, because of having written two letters in which she complained that a

prominent politician had not paid her son-in-law’s company for the construction of his

villa. She relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression and information).

No violation of Article 10

Ruprecht v. Poland (no. 39912/06)

The applicant, Marek Ruprecht, is a Polish national who was born in 1969 and is

currently detained in Sztum Remand Centre (Poland). Arrested in May 1998 on suspicion

of homicide and robbery, he complained in particular under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty

and security) that he had been detained awaiting trial for too long.

Violation of Article 5 § 3

Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage)

Antonescu v. Romania (no. 31029/05)*

The applicant, Ion Antonescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in

Bucharest. He was appointed State Secretary for Culture in 2001. The case concerned a

circular letter written by him in January 2004 that had been the subject of newspaper

articles. In the letter the applicant asked the directors of the forty-two State-run

theatres in Romania to seek information from Mr I.C., former Minister of Culture and

President of the National Association for Theatre Professionals (“Uniter”), about the use

of funds collected by Uniter from those theatres and other public and private institutions

in connection with support programmes for the performing arts. I.C. filed a criminal

complaint for defamation, because it was alleged in the letter that Uniter was guilty of

embezzlement. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complained

about his conviction by the courts for impugning the honour of I.C.

No violation of Article 10

S.C. Bartolo Prod Com S.R.L. and Botomei v. Romania

(no. 16294/03)*

The applicants are a Romanian private limited-liability company set up in 1994, S.C.

Bartolo Prod Com. S.R.L., based in Bacău, and a Romanian national, Mr V. Botomei,

director and statutory representative of that company. Bacău town council authorised

the applicant company to sell food on commercial premises belonging to the company.

Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court), the applicants

complained about the subsequent refusal to renew the company’s operating

authorisation.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 500

(costs and expenses)

Length-of-proceedings cases

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

of (non-criminal) proceedings.

Nikolov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 44184/05, 22250/06 and 37182/07)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (concerning applications nos. 44184/05 and 22250/06)

Braun v. Turkey (no. 10655/07)

Violation of Article 6 § 1

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

www.echr.coe.int. 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

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

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

Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)

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

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 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.