issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 113 (2012)
20.03.2012
Judgments concerning the Republic of Moldova and Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three
judgments, none of which are final1. All judgments are in English except Koç and Demir
v. Turkey, which is in French.
Arseniev v. Republic of Moldova (applications nos. 10614/06 and
10620/06)
The applicant, Igor Arseniev, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1959 and is serving
a 20-year prison sentence for murder in a prison in Chişinău. Relying on Article 3
(prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human
Rights, he complained about the inhuman conditions of his detention since 2003, notably
on account of severe overcrowding, quantity and quality of food and hygiene. He alleged
in particular that, detained in those conditions for up to 23 hours per day, his psychiatric
health had suffered.
Violation of Article 3
Just satisfaction: 15,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 100 (costs
and expenses)
Koç and Demir v. Turkey (no. 26793/08)
The applicants, Coşkun Koç and Turgay Demir, are Turkish nationals who were born in
1972 and 1977 respectively and live in Istanbul. At the relevant time they were
respectively a non-commissioned officer and a sergeant in the armed forces. On different
dates they were placed in detention as a disciplinary measure. They complained that
those sanctions had been imposed by their military hierarchy and not by an independent
and impartial tribunal. They relied in particular on Articles 5 (right to liberty and
security).
Violation of Article 5 § 1 (unlawful detention)
Just satisfaction: The applicants did not, in particular, submit their claims for just
satisfaction within the time-limit.
Pekaslan and Others v. Turkey (no. 4572/06 and 5684/06)
The applicants, Nihal Pekaslan, Refika Meltem İspir, Kıvanç Pekaslan, İbrahim Bozay and
Leyla Bozay, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1961, 1972, 1985, 1956 and 1962
respectively and live in Malatya (Turkey). The case concerned the applicants’ complaint
that the police had used tear gas to disperse a demonstration, in which they had been
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:
