issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 310 (2013)  
24.10.2013  
Judgments concerning Croatia, Greece, Monaco, Russia, Slovenia and Ukraine  
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16 judgments, of  
which four (in italics) are Committee judgments and are final. The others are Chamber judgments1  
and are not final.  
Repetitive cases2 and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be  
found at the end of the press release. The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).  
Damjanac v. Croatia (application no. 52943/10)  
The applicant, Borisav Damjanac, is a Croatian and Serbian national who was born in 1926 and lives  
in Belgrade. The case concerned the payment of his pension. Mr Damjanac served as a military  
officer in the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA) between 1941 and 1979, and between 1992 and 2003 he  
received his pension from the Croatian pension authorities in Dubrovnik. However, after  
Mr Damjanac informed the Croatian authorities that he intended to move to Belgrade, his pension  
payments were halted in October 2003. Croatia and Serbia were signatories to an international  
treaty stating that the right to payment of a pension abroad existed regardless of whether the  
pension recipient lived in one of the signatory states. However, the Croatian authorities explained  
that this treaty did not apply to YPA pensions. Mr Damjanac appealed the decision in December  
2003 and lodged a constitutional complaint, but these were unsuccessful. He changed his place of  
residence to Dubrovnik in October 2004, and once again started to receive his pension. Relying in  
particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on  
Human Rights, Mr Damjanac complained notably that the stopping of payment of his pension had  
been arbitrary.  
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time-limit fixed.  
Housein v. Greece (no. 71825/11)*  
The applicant, Ali Housein, is an Afghan national who was born in 1994 and has no fixed address. The  
case concerned the conditions in which Mr Housein was held in a detention centre. While he was  
still a minor, Mr Housein was arrested in 2011 for entering Greece illegally and was placed in  
detention in a detention centre for adults pending his deportation. His lawyer applied for the  
detention order to be lifted and for the applicant to be placed in a special centre for unaccompanied  
minors. Shortly afterwards, Mr Housein lodged an objection against his detention with the Greek  
courts, complaining of being detained together with adults in unacceptable conditions. His objection  
was dismissed and an order was made for his continued detention. In July 2011 he was transferred  
to a youth hostel. The decision ordering his detention and deportation was subsequently set aside  
and Mr Housein later left the youth hostel. Under in particular Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty  
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  
2
In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.  
and security and right to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the  
Convention, he complained notably that his arrest and placement in detention had infringed his  
status as an unaccompanied minor.  
Violation of Article 5 § 1  
Violation of Article 5 § 4  
Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage)  
Ioannis Papageorgiou v. Greece (no. 45847/09)*  
The applicant, Ioannis Papageorgiou, is a Greek national who was born in 1962 and lives in Athens.  
Mr Papageorgiou was convicted in his absence under the procedure applicable to persons of  
unknown address, although he claimed that the Greek judicial authorities had been informed of his  
address. The applicant was charged with several offences, including forgery and using forged  
documents, and supplied his address to the investigating authorities. He was summoned to appear  
in 1995. After failing to find him at the address given, the authorities responsible for serving  
summonses initiated the procedure applicable to persons of unknown address. In 1996  
Mr Papageorgiou was sentenced in his absence to a prison term, which was commuted to a fine. The  
applicant appealed in 2007, submitting that he had found out about the judgment simply by chance  
in 2006. After his appeal was dismissed as being out of time, he lodged an appeal on points of law. In  
a 2009 judgment the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. The applicant complained of a  
violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a), (c) and (d) (right to a fair trial/right of access to a court).  
No violation of Article 6  
Navone and Others v. Monaco (nos. 62880/11, 62892/11 and 62899/11)*  
The applicants, Davide Navone, Guglielmo Lafleur and Danilo Re, are Italian nationals who were born  
in 1981, 1980 and 1979 respectively. Mr Navone lives in Canale and Mr Lafleur and Mr Re live in  
Savona (Italy). The case concerned the details of their time in police custody. The three applicants  
were arrested in Monaco in December 2010. On 5 December 2010, at the end of their respective  
periods in police custody, they were made the subject of a judicial investigation concerning several  
offences, including theft and handling stolen goods. All three applicants were charged and taken into  
detention on the same day. Arguing that their police custody should be declared null and void, they  
lodged pleas of nullity and applications for release with the Court of Appeal, without success. In  
January 2011 they lodged a notice of appeal on points of law with the general registry. The Court of  
Revision rejected the first two applicants’ appeals; in the case of Mr Re, it set aside the record of his  
first interview in police custody. The applicants were subsequently sentenced by the Criminal Court  
to 18 months’ imprisonment and the sentence was upheld by the Court of Appeal in June 2011.  
Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to be assisted by a lawyer),  
Mr Navone and Mr Lafleur alleged that they had not been informed of their right to remain silent  
and that they had been deprived of their right to be assisted by a lawyer while in police custody.  
Mr Re complained that he had not had the assistance of a lawyer from the beginning of his police  
custody, despite his request to that effect, and of the fact that this circumstance had not resulted in  
the proceedings as a whole being declared null and void.  
Violation of Article 6 § 1 – Mr Navone and Mr Lafleur not having been informed of their right to  
remain silent during their custody  
Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) – the three applicants having been deprived of their right to be assisted  
by a lawyer while in police custody  
Just satisfaction: The applicants did not submit claims for just satisfaction.  
2
Dovletukayev and Others v. Russia (nos. 7821/07, 10937/10, 14046/10 and  
32782/10)  
The applicants are seven Russian nationals who live in various districts of Chechnya (Russia). They  
are close relatives of five men – Aslan Dovletukayev, Khizir Gulmutov, Islam and Abubakar  
Tazurkayevy and Supyan Khutsayev, born between 1936 and 1982 – who disappeared, between  
2001 and 2004, after having been taken away by armed men in uniforms whom the applicants took  
to be Russian servicemen. The bodies of four of the applicants’ relatives were subsequently  
discovered. One of the men remains missing and his family has had no news of him since his  
disappearance in September 2003. The investigations into the circumstances of the disappearance  
and the death of the applicants’ relatives remain pending. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the  
applicants complained that their relatives had been abducted and killed by Russian State officials,  
and that the authorities had failed to carry out effective investigations into their deaths. Further  
relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), they complained of their relatives’  
unacknowledged detention. They also complained, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy),  
that no remedy had been available to them in respect of these complaints. Finally, the family of  
Abubakar Tazurkayev relied on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading  
treatment), complaining that the disappearance of Abubakar caused them mental suffering.  
Violation of Article 2 (right to life) – in respect of the applicants’ relatives  
Violation of Article 2 (investigation) – in respect of the failure to investigate effectively the  
abductions and deaths of the applicants’ relatives Aslan Dovletukayev, Khizir Gulmutov, Islam  
Tazurkayev and Supyan Khutsayev and the disappearance of Abubakar Tazurkayev  
Violation of Article 3 – in respect of the relatives of Abubakar Tazurkayev, on account of their  
mental suffering  
Violation of Article 5 – in respect of the applicants’ relatives on account of their unlawful detention  
Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 – in respect of the relatives of Aslan  
Dovletukayev, Khizir Gulmutov, and Supyan Khutsayev)  
Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 – in respect of the relatives of Islam and  
Abubakar Tazurkayevy  
Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 to the mother of Islam and Abubakar Tazurkayevy in respect of  
pecuniary damage, between EUR 40,000 and EUR 120,000, per application, in respect of  
non-pecuniary damage; and between EUR 3,000 and EUR 4,000, per application, in respect of costs  
and expenses  
Lapshov v. Russia (no. 5288/08)  
The applicant, Zakhar Lapshov, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and is serving a prison  
sentence in Kaliningrad (Russia). The case concerned the conditions of his pre-trial detention, before  
his conviction for robbery. On numerous occasions between 26 July 2006 and 7 August 2007  
Mr Lapshov was kept in a temporary detention centre in Bagrationovsk. He alleged that the  
conditions of this detention had been inappropriate in a number of ways; in particular, that his cell  
had no window or bedding, and that he had had no access to a private toilet or outdoor exercise. He  
therefore complained that his detention conditions at this time had been incompatible with the  
standards established by Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).  
Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment)  
Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 850 (costs and expenses)  
3
Pakhomova v. Russia (no. 22935/11)  
The applicant, Natalya Pakhomova (formerly Natalya Baranova), is a Russian national who was born  
in 1975 and lives in Novosibirsk (Russia). The case concerned the custody of her son. Ms Pakhomova  
married her former husband in 1997, and their son was born in 2001. She later applied for a divorce.  
On 24 February 2009, while the proceedings were still pending, her former husband picked up their  
son from school, and the child has not been seen since. The divorce was granted in March 2009, and  
Ms Pakhomova was granted custody of the couple’s child. However, her former husband did not  
comply with the judgment, and Ms Pakhomova persistently sought to have the judgment enforced  
by making numerous applications and complaints. However, bailiffs have not succeeded in returning  
her son to her. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Pakhomova  
complained that the Russian authorities had failed to enforce the judgment granting her custody of  
her son.  
Violation of Article 8  
Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.  
Shcherbakov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 34959/07)  
The applicant, Igor Shcherbakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Tula  
(Russia). Between his arrest on 16 November 2004 and his conviction for extortion and fraud on  
28 February 2008, he was held in pre-trial detention. His appeals against this detention were  
dismissed. Mr Shcherbakov relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment),  
Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable  
time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). He complained in particular that the conditions of  
his pre-trial detention had been inappropriate, in particular because of overcrowded cells, that both  
this detention and the criminal proceedings had lasted for an unreasonably long time, and that an  
appeal of November 2006 against his pre-trial detention had not been heard in good time.  
Violation of Article 13 – on account of the lack of effective remedy in respect of the applicant’s  
complaint under Article 3 about the conditions of his detention  
Violation of Article 3 – on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention from November  
2004 to May 2008  
Violation of Article 5 § 3 – on account of the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention  
Violation of Article 5 § 4 – on account of the domestic court’s failure to examine speedily the  
applicant’s appeal against the detention order of November 2006  
No violation of Article 6 – on account of the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant  
Just satisfaction: EUR 16,000 (non-pecuniary damage)  
Sedminek v. Slovenia (no. 9842/07)  
The applicant, Milan Sedminek, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Polzela  
(Slovenia). The case concerned a civil suit brought by Mr Sedminek and insolvency proceedings  
pending against the opposite party. In August 1996 Mr Sedminek bought some business premises  
from a company, but soon realised that they were smaller than had been agreed in the contract.  
Mr Sedminek sued the company in September 1998. He was successful in obtaining a judgment in  
his favour in April 2004. The judgment was not enforced, because the company subsequently  
entered insolvency proceedings, which are still pending. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair  
hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Sedminek  
complained that the proceedings he had been involved in had been unreasonably lengthy, that this  
had meant that he had not been able to recover his loss from the company, and that he had had no  
access to an effective remedy in respect of this complaint.  
4
Violation of Article 6 § 1  
Violation of Article 13  
Just satisfaction: EUR 16,000 (non-pecuniary damage)  
Baklanov v. Ukraine (no. 44425/08)  
The applicant, Mikhail Baklanov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Gorlivka in  
the Donetsk region (Ukraine). The case concerned his allegations that he had suffered ill-treatment  
during his military service, in particular beatings and bullying. Mr Baklanov was drafted into the army  
in May 2003, with no prior psychological concerns. He was discharged in April 2004 after it was  
found that psychological problems he had developed made him unfit for military service. Following  
Mr Baklanov’s allegations of ill treatment, the authorities conducted investigations but found no  
grounds to launch criminal proceedings. Mr Baklanov’s claims aiming to acquire compensation and  
an increase to his monthly disability allowance were unsuccessful. In July 2011, the Higher  
Administrative Court rejected his final appeal. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or  
degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Baklanov complained that the  
treatment to which he had been subjected during his military service had caused a permanent  
psychological illness, and that he had had no access to an effective remedy in respect of these  
complaints.  
No violation of Article 3 (Ill-treatment)  
No violation of Article 3 (investigation)  
No violation of Article 3 – in respect of the psychiatric illness the applicant acquired during his  
mandatory military service  
No violation of Article 13  
Sergey Savenko v. Ukraine (no. 59731/09)  
The applicant, Sergey Savenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1975. When lodging his  
application, he was serving a prison sentence in the Kharkiv region (Ukraine). The case concerned his  
allegations that he had been ill-treated in prison. According to him, following his placement in a  
disciplinary cell he had been taken to a storage room of the prison and asked for information about  
the activities of other inmates. Mr Savenko claimed that he had refused to answer, and that in reply  
he had been ill-treated. He complained that this had amounted to a violation, in particular, of  
Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article 3, he also  
complained that there had been no effective investigation of the incident.  
Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment + procedure)  
Just satisfaction: EUR 7,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)  
Repetitive cases  
The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.  
Bousiou v. Greece (no. 21455/10)*  
The applicants in this case, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), complained of the Greek  
authorities’ refusal to enforce a judgment in their favour concerning the expropriation of their land.  
Violation of Article 6 § 1  
Zakharova v. Russia (no. 17030/04)  
5
The applicant in this case complained of the lengthy non-enforcement of a judgment in her favour  
concerning repairs in her flat and of the domestic courts’ refusal to examine her claim. She relied on  
Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).  
Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (non-enforcement of the judgment + access to court)  
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Dmitriyev v. Russia (no. 40044/12)  
The applicant in this case complained of the conditions of his detention and also that he had been  
denied a fair hearing when making a resulting claim for compensation in the Russian courts. He  
relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair  
hearing).  
Violation of Article 3  
Violation of Article 6 § 1  
Necheporenko and others v. Ukraine (no. 72631/10 and 249 other applications)  
The applicants in this case complained mainly of the lengthy non-enforcement of decisions in their  
favour and of the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints. They relied on  
Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective  
remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).  
Violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of 244 applications (the six others applications have been  
declared inadmissible)  
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of 244 applications (the six others applications  
have been declared inadmissible)  
Violation of Article 13 in respect of 244 applications (the six others applications have been declared  
inadmissible)  
Length-of-proceedings cases  
In the following case, 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.  
Mavredaki v. Greece (no. 10966/10)*  
Violation of Article 6 § 1  
Violation of Article 13  
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  
echrpress@echr.coe.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)  
6
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.  
7