issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 185 (2012)  
26.04.2012  
Judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Slovenia and  
Ukraine  
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five  
judgments, of which two (in italics) are Committee judgments and are final. The others  
are Chamber judgments1, only one of which is final (Diallo v. the Czech Republic – just  
satisfaction).  
Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at  
the end of the press release. The judgments are available only in English.  
Just satisfaction  
Diallo v. the Czech Republic (application no. 20493/07)  
The applicants, Ibrahima Diallo and Mamadou Dian Diallo, are two Guinean nationals  
who were born in 1980 and 1985, respectively. In the autumn of 2006, they arrived at  
Prague airport by plane from Dakar (Senegal), having transferred in Lisbon. They both  
applied immediately for asylum claiming they would be detained, and possibly even  
killed, if they returned to Guinea, where the police had been searching for them. In its  
principal judgment of 23 June 2011, the Court found a violation of Article 13 in  
conjunction with Article 3 concerning their complaint that their asylum applications had  
been rejected by the Czech authorities without examining the merits of their claim,  
resulting in their forced return to Guinea. Ms Diallo was awarded 5,000 euros for non-  
pecuniary damage but the Court reserved the question of the application of Article 41  
(just satisfaction) as concerned Mr Diallo. The Court took formal note that the parties  
had reached an agreement on the question of just satisfaction and decided to strike the  
remainder of the case out of the list.  
Butolen v. Slovenia (no. 41356/08)  
The applicant, Boris Butolen, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1974 and lives in  
Žetale (Slovenia). Mr Butolen alleges that he was kicked and punched on 18 February  
2001 by police officers who had been called to a bar where he was accused of  
threatening the customers with a gun. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or  
degrading treatment), he complained about both his ill-treatment at the hands of the  
police as well as the inadequacy of the ensuing investigation into his allegations.  
Violation of Article 3 (treatment)  
Violation of Article 3 (investigation)  
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  
Just satisfaction: EUR 5,847 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 8,500 (costs and  
expenses)  
Molotchoko v. Ukraine (no. 12275/10)  
The applicant, Pavel Molotchko, is a German national who was born in 1964 in Belarus.  
On business in Ukraine in February 2010, Mr Molotchko was arrested on the basis of an  
arrest warrant issued against him in Belarus where he stood accused of organised crime,  
abuse of power, smuggling and bribery. He was released in May 2011 and left for  
Germany a few months later. He alleged that, if extradited to Belarus, he would be at  
real risk of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment as the authorities would try to  
coerce him into changing previous statements he had made in the criminal case against  
him. He also complained about the unlawfulness, lack of judicial review and conditions of  
his detention pending extradition. He relied in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of  
inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 (right to liberty and  
security).  
Article 3: application struck out from the list of cases in so far as this complaint is  
concerned  
Violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) - as regards the applicant’s detention from 23 February  
to 23 June 2010 and from 29 July 2010 to 19 May 2011  
No violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) - as regards the applicant’s detention from 23 June to  
29 July 2010  
Violation of Article 5 § 4 - as regards the applicant’s detention from 23 February 2010  
to 19 May 2011  
Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 15,000 (costs and  
expenses)  
Length-of-proceedings cases  
In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right  
to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of civil  
proceedings.  
Gobec v. Slovenia (no. 28275/06)  
Blinova v. Ukraine (no. 2248/06)  
Violation of Article 6 § 1 – in both cases  
Violation of Article 13 - in case of Gobec v. Slovenia  
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)  
2
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.  
3