issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 180 (2013)

18.06.2013

Judgments concerning Hungary, Lithuania, Romania, Spain,

and Turkey

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

Chamber judgments¹, none of which are final. The judgments in French are indicated

with an asterisk (*).

The Court has also delivered today its judgment in the case of Nencheva and Others v. Bulgaria

(application no. 48609/06), for which a separate press release has been issued.

Bor v. Hungary (application no. 50474/08)

The applicant, László Bor, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in

Zalaegerszeg (Hungary). His house is situated across the street from a railway station.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home) of the

European Convention on Human Rights, he complained of the extreme noise disturbance

caused by the trains ever since steam engines had been replaced by diesel engines in

1988, and of the authorities’ failure to enforce, in an effective and timely manner, the

railway company’s obligation to keep the noise level under control. In particular, even

though Mr Bor had brought proceedings in 1991 to oblige the company to construct a

noise barrier, the first noise-reduction measures were only actually implemented in

2010. Mr Bor further complained that the length of the related proceedings had been in

breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Violation of Article 8

Just satisfaction: 9,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,500 (costs

and expenses)

Banel v. Lithuania (no. 14326/11)

The applicant, Venata Banel, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1970 and lives in

Vilnius. Her son, aged 13 at the time, died in June 2005 from injuries he sustained when

part of a balcony which had broken off a building fell on him while he was playing with

other children. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Banel complained that the

authorities had failed to protect her son’s life, as they had not fulfilled their duty to

inspect buildings to ensure their safety, and that the investigation of her son’s death had

not been effective, in particular because it had been excessively long, as a result of

which prosecution had become time-barred.

Violation of Article 2

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 8,135 (pecuniary damage), EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary

damage)

Constantin Tudor v. Romania (no. 43543/09)

The applicant, Constantin Aurelian Tudor, is a Romanian national who was born in 1975

and is currently detained in Rahova Prison (Romania), where he is serving a 12-year

prison sentence imposed in 2004 for human trafficking. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition

of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained of the material conditions in Jilava

Prison, where he had been detained for almost ten months in 2008, in particular

overcrowding and poor hygiene conditions.

Violation of Article 3 (conditions of detention)

Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)

Pleşca v. Romania (no. 2158/08)*

The applicant, Mihai Pleşca, is a Romanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in

Hârlău (Romania). The case concerned a complaint he had lodged alleging shortcomings

in the investigation into his daughter’s death. Shortly after reporting her missing, the

applicant found his daughter lying dead on the balcony of their apartment, with a belt

around her neck and traces of mud on her legs. The police investigation revealed high

levels of alcohol in the girl’s blood. Two of her friends subsequently testified that they

had been on an outing with her to a dam on the evening of her disappearance. They also

stated that the applicant’s daughter had been depressed because of her poor school

results and conflict with her father. The police therefore concluded that she had

committed suicide and the public prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings in

December 2005. However, the investigation was reopened at the request of Mr Pleşca

and his wife. In August 2006 the public prosecutor again discontinued the proceedings.

Mr Pleşca appealed against that decision to the Romanian courts, but his appeal was

dismissed in July 2007 by a final judgment of the Court of Appeal. He relied, in

substance, on Article 2 of the Convention (right to life).

Violation of Article 2 (investigation)

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

satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.

S.C. Complex Herta Import Export S.R.L. Lipova v. Romania

(no. 17118/04)*

The applicant, S.C. Complex Herta Import Export S.R.L. Lipova, was a fuel distribution

company incorporated under Romanian law. The case concerned the allegedly excessive

fines of around 14,000 euros (EUR) and EUR 850 imposed on it for failing to comply with

certain legal requirements regarding the display of information. In February 2003

inspectors from the fraud squad imposed two fines on the applicant company, the first

for failing to display, in accordance with a 2003 order, the name of the fuel producer and

supplier, and the second for not recording a payment relating to a sale of fuel in its

accounts. The applicant challenged the fraud squad report before the courts, which

replaced the fines with a warning. The fraud squad appealed against that judgment and

the fines were upheld in a final judgment dated September 2003. The applicant company

paid the sums in question in November 2003, before being wound up and removed from

the companies register in 2011 because it had ceased trading. Relying on Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained of interference with its

right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, arguing that the fine imposed on it for

failure to display information had been incompatible with the principle of proportionality.

No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Sereny v. Romania (no. 13071/06)

The applicant, Ştefan Sereny, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in

Vienna. In a judgment which became final in November 2005 he was convicted of a

number of offences, in particular fraud, and sentenced to three years and six months’

imprisonment. Suffering from a serious heart condition, he complained of a lack of

adequate medical care while in detention and of the length of the proceedings

concerning his request for a temporary suspension of the execution of his sentence on

account of his medical condition. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial

within a reasonable time), he complained that the criminal proceedings against him –

which had been brought in June 1998 – had been unreasonably long.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 1,800 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,000 (costs and

expenses)

R.M.S. v. Spain (no. 28775/12)*

The applicant, R.M.S., is a Spanish national who was born in 1979 and lives in La

Porrosa, Chiclana de Segura, Jaén (Spain). The case concerned her daughter’s

placement with a foster family by social services against the wishes of the applicant, an

agricultural worker living in extreme poverty. While the applicant and her daughter were

living together within their extended family, the girl was taken away from her mother at

the request of a social worker and was placed in a children’s home. The applicant’s visits

to her daughter were discontinued because of her allegedly violent behaviour and the

child was transferred to a second children’s home, the location of which was not

disclosed to the applicant. In February 2006 the authorities declared the child to have

been abandoned and set about finding a foster family with a view to her subsequent

adoption. In the meantime, the applicant lodged unsuccessful appeals against the

declaration of abandonment, the discontinuation of her visits and the decision to place

her daughter in a foster family. The adoption procedure was initiated in 2011 but the

Court has not been informed of its subsequent progress. According to information

provided to the Court on 5 February 2013, the child had not yet been adopted. Relying in

particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), R.M.S. complained

mainly of being deprived of all contact with her daughter and being separated from her

without good reason.

Violation of Article 8

Just satisfaction: EUR 30,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 188 (costs and

expenses)

Gün and Others v. Turkey (no. 8029/07)*

The applicants, Ravşan Gün, Özlem Güven, Behice Tanrıverdi, Abdurrazzak Tül,

Bahaeddin Yağarcık, Ali Güven, Sabri Dal, Seyfeddin Didmin and Hüseyin Afşar, are

Turkish nationals who were born in 1986, 1982, 1964, 1980, 1944, 1978, 1982, 1979

and 1945 respectively and live in Cizre (Turkey). The case concerned the prison

sentence and fine imposed on each of them for taking part in an illegal demonstration to

mark the anniversary of the arrest of the head of the PKK terrorist organisation.

Although the authorities had suspended all demonstrations between 14 and 20 February

2005, a group of people gathered outside the offices of the party in power at the time

and one of them read out in public a statement paying tribute to the former PKK leader.

According to a report drawn up by the security forces, clashes then took place between

the demonstrators and the police officers at the scene, two of whom were slightly injured

when stones were thrown at them. The police officers concerned lodged a complaint

against the organisers of the demonstration. After being taken into custody and

interviewed by the police, the applicants were sentenced in 2005 to one year and six

months’ imprisonment and to payment of a fine. In a 2006 judgment the Court of

Cassation reduced the amount of the fine but upheld the length of the prison term.

Relying, among other provisions, on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association),

the applicants alleged in particular a breach of their right to freedom of expression and

freedom to protest. They also complained that their sentence was disproportionate.

Violation of Article 11

Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and

expenses)

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 here:

www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_Press.

Press contacts

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

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

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

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)

Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)

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.