issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 302 (2012)  
17.07.2012  
Judgments concerning Austria, Greece, Italy, Malta, the  
Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Turkey and the United  
Kingdom  
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13  
judgments, none of which are final.  
The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).  
Wallishauser v. Austria (application no. 156/04)  
The applicant, Roswitha Wallishauser, is an Austrian national who was born in 1941 and  
lives in Vienna. A photographer for the United States of America embassy in Vienna, she  
complained about proceedings she had brought before the Vienna Labour and Social  
Court against the United States claiming salary payments from September 1996  
following her unlawful dismissal. In particular, she complained that she had been denied  
access to court because the United States’ authorities, relying on their immunity, had  
refused to be served with the summons to a hearing on the case and the Austrian  
authorities accepted this refusal, finding that they were obliged to do so under the rule  
of customary international law to respect a State’s sovereignty. She relied on Article 6 §  
1 (right of access to court).  
Violation of Article 6 § 1  
Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 15,000 (costs and  
expenses)  
Lica v. Greece (no. 74279/10)*  
The applicant, Arben Lica, is an Albanian national who was born in 1980 and lives in  
Skala (Laconia, Greece). He had been a lawful resident of Greece since 2003. His last  
residence permit was valid from 29 February 2008 to 27 February 2010. On 20 April  
2010 he applied for the renewal of his residence permit, belatedly as he had been in  
hospital. On presenting his expired permit he was arrested by the Greek authorities,  
then held at the police station, before his removal was ordered. Relying on Article 3  
(prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty  
and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Lica complained about the  
conditions of his detention in the police station and the absence of an effective remedy  
by which to complain about those conditions.  
Violation of Article 3  
Violation of Article 13  
Violation of Article 5 § 1  
Violation of Article 5 § 4  
Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (costs and  
expenses)  
Matthias and Others v. Italy (no. 35174/03)*  
Just satisfaction  
The applicants, Maurizio Matthias, Germana Matthias, Fabrizio Matthias, Maria Serena  
Buongiorno, Maria Nelly Buongiorno and Renato De Cesare, are Italian nationals. The  
case concerned a plot of building land owned by the applicants in Terracina and in  
respect of which an urgent measure of occupation was decided for the purpose of  
building social housing. In a judgment of 2 November 2006 the Court held that the loss  
of availability of the land, together with the inability to have that situation remedied, had  
entailed consequences that were serious enough to regard it as de facto expropriation,  
incompatible with the applicants’ right to respect for their property (Article 1 of Protocol  
No. 1). Today’s judgment concerned the question of just satisfaction (Article 41).  
Just satisfaction: EUR 2,645.000 (pecuniary damage), EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary  
damage) and EUR 15,000 (costs and expenses) to the applicants jointly.  
Scoppola v. Italy (no. 4) (no. 65050/09)*  
The applicant, Franco Scoppola, is an Italian national who was born in 1940. Aged 72, he  
has a number of health problems including heart conditions, diabetes, muscular  
weakening and depression. He has been confined to a wheelchair since 1987. He was  
sentenced to life imprisonment by the Assize Court in 2002 for killing his wife and  
wounding one of his sons, a sentence subsequently reduced to 30 years. The conditions  
of his detention in Rome prison, before his transfer to Parma prison on 23 September  
2007, were dealt with in a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Scoppola  
v. Italy, no. 50550/06, judgment of 10 June 2008). The present application concerned  
the conditions of his detention after that date. Following the indication to the Italian  
Government by the Court (under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court – interim measures) that  
he should be transferred urgently to a facility that was adapted to his state of health, in  
order to exclude any risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, the enforcement of Mr  
Scoppola’s sentence was suspended and he was placed under house arrest, as no  
appropriate facility could be found. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or  
degrading treatment), the applicant complained about his detention in Parma prison.  
Violation of Article 3  
Just satisfaction: EUR 9,333 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 6,000 (costs and  
expenses)  
Muscat v. Malta (no. 24197/10)  
The applicant, Paul Muscat, is a Maltese national who was born in 1970 and lives in  
Malta. Relying on Article 6 (access to court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy),  
Mr Muscat complained that he had been denied access to a court concerning a property  
dispute over a hotel. In particular, he complained that it had been excessively formalistic  
for the courts to declare his case deserted in November 2003 on the ground that no  
notification of his appeal could be served due to an incorrect address (with the result  
that the written procedure was not concluded within the legal time-limit).  
No violation of Article 6 § 1  
No violation of Article 13  
Fusu Arcadie and Others v. Republic of Moldova (no. 22218/06)  
The applicants, Arcadie Fusu, Petru Botezat, Tatiana Rusu, Svetlana Covalciuc, Galina  
Bujor, Vera Boţoc, Vladimir Ţurcanu and Iacob Ciobanu, are eight Moldovan nationals  
who were born in 1964, 1949, 1965, 1959, 1952, 1937, 1951 and 1930, respectively,  
2
and live in Floreşti (the Republic of Moldova). Relying in particular on Article 9 (freedom  
of thought, conscience and religion), the applicants complained about the authorities’  
failure to register their church, a religious denomination of the Christian Orthodox  
Church subordinate to the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. The applicant church’s  
complaint is part of an ongoing conflict with another denomination of the Orthodox  
Church in Floreşti, subordinate to the Metropolitan Church of Moldova.  
Violation of Article 9  
Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 880 (costs and  
expenses)  
Budaca v. Romania (no. 57260/10)*  
The applicant, Gheorghe Budaca, is a Romanian national was born in 1960 and lives in  
Mozzano (Italy). He was arrested in Italy and extradited to Romania to serve a three-  
year prison sentence for fraud and forgery. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition  
of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions of his detention  
in Botoşani prison (problems of overcrowding, hygiene and access to drinking water, in  
particular).  
Violation of Article 3  
Just satisfaction: EUR 4,900 (non-pecuniary damage). Claim for costs and expenses  
rejected by the Court.  
Iorgoiu v. Romania (no. 1831/02)*  
The applicant, Cristian Daniel Iorgoiu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1969 and  
lives in Bucharest. In 2001, he was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for fraud.  
Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he  
complained about the conditions of his detention (overcrowding, problems of hygiene, in  
particular), and about the lack of continuous medical treatment for his illnesses while he  
was in prison.  
Violation of Article 3  
Just satisfaction: EUR 5,100 (non-pecuniary damage). The applicant submitted no  
claim for costs and expenses.  
Radu Pop v. Romania (no. 14337/04)  
The applicant, Radu Pop, is a Romanian national who was born in 1967 and is currently  
serving a nine-year prison sentence in Gherla Prison (Romania) for the assault and  
attempted murder of a police officer. The incident for which he was convicted occurred  
on 18 August 2003 when police officers went to his home to arrest him so that he could  
serve a sentence handed down in another set of criminal proceedings against him.  
During his arrest he hit one police officer over the head with a stone, bit another officer’s  
fingers and tried to seize an axe. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of  
inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Pop alleged that he had been beaten by the police  
both during his arrest and questioning on 18 August 2003 and that the ensuing  
investigation into his allegations had been inadequate. He also complained under Article  
3 about the conditions of his detention in different prisons where he had been detained,  
notably on account of overcrowding, lack of hygiene and inadequate medical care for his  
chronic gastritis and mental health problems.  
Violation of Article 3 - conditions of detention  
3
No violation of Article 3 - medical treatment in Baia Mare and Gherla Prisons  
Just satisfaction: EUR 8,400 (non-pecuniary damage). The applicant submitted no  
claim for costs and expenses.  
Winkler v. Slovakia (no. 25416/07)  
The applicant, Róbert Winkler, is a Slovak national who was born in 1977 and lives in  
Žilina (Slovakia). Remanded in custody on 26 November 2004 for several criminal  
offences, he alleged that, as there had been no decision by a court to extend his  
detention from 26 May 2005, it had been unlawful from that date until 15 November  
2005 when he was convicted. He relied on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security). In  
2006 the Constitutional Court found that Mr Winkler’s detention from 26 May to 15  
November 2005 was unlawful and awarded him 1,970 euros.  
Violation of Article 5 § 1  
Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage). The applicant submitted no  
claim for costs and expenses.  
Ceviz v. Turkey (no. 8140/08)*  
The applicant, Haydar Ceviz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1945 and lives in  
Istanbul. Suspected of drug trafficking, he was arrested and remanded in custody on 30  
September 2007. After his arraignment before the Assize Court on 20 February 2008,  
and again on 21 July 2008, his detention on remand was extended, having regard to the  
offence in question and the risk that he might abscond and tamper with evidence.  
Relying in particular on Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr Ceviz  
complained about the length of his detention and the lack of remedies by which to  
challenge that measure and seek reparation.  
Violation of Article 5 § 4  
Violation of Article 5 § 5  
Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses). The finding of a violation  
constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non pecuniary damage suffered by the  
applicant.  
Tarhan v. Turkey (no. 9078/06)*  
The applicant, Mehmet Tarhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in  
Sivas (Turkey). The case concerns his refusal to do military service because of his  
pacifist beliefs. Having refused to wear a uniform, he was held in custody in the military  
prison, where he was subjected to disciplinary penalties for refusing to have his hair and  
beard cut, which was ultimately carried out forcefully by seven soldiers. Criminal  
proceedings were brought against him. Since his desertion in March 2006, the police  
have been looking for him; he faces fresh criminal proceedings and custody. Relying on  
Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained  
about the psychological violence that he had undergone and, under Article 9 (freedom of  
thought, conscience and religion), about the non-recognition of the right to conscientious  
objection and the proceedings against him on that basis.  
Violation of Article 3  
Violation of Article 9  
Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,300 (costs and  
expenses)  
4
Munjaz v. The United Kingdom (no. 2913/06)  
The applicant, C. Munjaz, is a British national who was born in 1947. Suffering from  
mental health problems, he has spent a number of periods in prison and hospital. The  
case concerned Mr Munjaz’s complaint about his placement in seclusion in Ashworth  
Special hospital (a high security hospital) where he was transferred in March 1994 as a  
result of his increasingly psychotic, aggressive and violent behaviour. Relying in  
particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he alleged that  
Ashworth’s in-hospital policy on seclusion, which had not complied with the Code of  
Practice under the Mental Health Act, had adversely affected his right to personal  
development and to establish and develop relationships with the outside world. Further  
relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he also claimed that his seclusion had  
amounted to a further deprivation of his liberty lacking any basis in law and without  
possibility of bringing an external appeal.  
No violation of Article 5  
No violation of Article 8  
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  
www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en.  
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.  
5