issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 323 (2013)

05.11.2013

Judgments concerning Albania, Italy, Lithuania, Romania, Serbia and Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13 judgments, of

which five (in italics) are Committee judgments and are final. The others are Chamber judgments¹

and are not final.

Repetitive cases²and 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 (*).

Izet Haxhia v. Albania (application no. 34783/06)

The applicant, Izet Haxhia, is an Albanian national who was born in 1966. At the time of the

introduction of the application, he was detained in Turkey pending the outcome of his extradition to

Albania. In January 2001, the Albanian prosecutor issued an arrest warrant in respect of Mr Haxhia,

who used to be the bodyguard of the then President of Albania, on suspicion of Mr Haxhia’s

involvement in the assassination of a Member of Parliament and his bodyguard in September 1998.

In March 2001, Mr Haxhia, who was declared fugitive after unsuccessful attempts to locate him, was

charged with having participated in the assassination. He was subsequently convicted in his absence

and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment in a judgment eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in

February 2003. In June 2006 Mr Haxhia was arrested in Turkey following a request by the Albanian

authorities for his extradition. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial) of the European

Convention on Human Rights, he complained that the criminal proceedings and conviction in his

absence had been unfair.

Violation of Article 6

Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for damages. The Court awarded him 1,400

euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.

JGK Statyba Ltd and Guselnikovas v. Lithuania (no. 3330/12)

The applicants in this case are JGK Statyba Ltd, a private construction company registered in

Lithuania, and Jurijus Guselnikovas, a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Vilnius.

Mr Guselnikovas is a shareholder and a member of the board of JGK Statyba Ltd. The case concerned

the length of two sets of civil proceedings relating to the ownership of two houses and restriction of

the company’s property rights by the domestic courts which had seized those houses in order to

secure satisfaction of civil claims lodged by private individuals. The applicant company, whose main

activity is construction and real estate, was prohibited for over ten years from selling or transferring

the disputed property until the cases had been examined. Initially, a final and binding court decision

of 1995 had recognised the company’s ownership of the same houses and dismissed the action by

several private individuals for attribution of ownership rights. In July 1996 the company lodged a civil

claim for the eviction of one of the unsuccessful claimants from one of the houses. The courts

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

In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.

eventually allowed the company’s claim and dismissed the counterclaim in a decision ultimately

upheld in February 2010, and the house was returned to the company in July 2010. The second set

of proceedings was brought in June 1996 by another unsuccessful claimant, seeking

acknowledgment of his ownership rights to one of the houses. The latter claim was eventually

dismissed by a final decision in January 2006. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a

reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the

applicants complained that the proceedings had been unreasonably long and that, as a result of the

prolonged seizure of the houses, they had been unable to use their property, leading to considerable

financial losses and an interference with the company’s activity.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction)

of the Convention was not ready for decision and reserved it.

Pauliukienė and Pauliukas v. Lithuania (no. 18310/06)

The applicants, Zita Pauliukienė and Vytautas Pauliukas, are Lithuanian nationals, wife and husband,

who were born in 1954 and 1953 respectively and live in Kaunas (Lithuania). Mr Pauliukas is an

official of the Kaunas city municipality. The case concerned an article published in November 2003

by the daily newspaper Respublika about disputes between the applicants and their neighbours after

Ms Pauliukienė had acquired a plot of land. Ms Pauliukienė was involved in a number of

administrative and civil proceedings with one of the neighbours and the municipal authorities

concerning the boundaries of the plot and the reconstruction of the applicants’ house. The article

stated in particular that the applicants were illegally building on their land and had occupied part of

the plot belonging to other owners and the State. Following the article’s publication, Mr Pauliukas

brought proceedings seeking rectification of part of the article, which he considered erroneous and

damaging to his reputation, and compensation for damages. His claim was rejected in a decision

ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in November 2005. Mr Pauliukas complained that the

article had tarnished his reputation and had thus breached his rights under Article 8 (right to respect

for private and family life).

No violation of Article 8

Branişte v. Romania (no. 19099/04)*

The applicant, Ion Branişte, is a Romanian national who was born in 1929 and lives in Bucharest. The

case concerned his inability to peacefully enjoy land of which he had become a joint owner. By a

final judgment of 2002 Mr Branişte and his brothers and sisters had been awarded title to land that

had formerly been nationalised; however, they were prevented from taking possession of the land

on account of the presence of buildings on it that had previously been erected by two cooperative

societies under a right of free use. On account of the dispute between the cooperatives and

Mr Branişte, the request to register the property in the land register was rejected by a final

judgment of 2006. In the meantime a counterclaim lodged by Mr Branişte for payment of rent for

occupation of the land had been dismissed and no appeal lodged. By two final judgments of 2007

and 2008, the Romanian courts respectively dismissed an application by the two societies to have

the property title annulled and upheld the validity of that title. Mr Branişte complained of a violation

of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – in respect of the period 2 October 2003 to 3 March 2005

Just satisfaction: EUR 13,000 (covering all heads of damage)

Ertuş v. Turkey (no. 37871/08)

The applicant, Cüneyt Ertuş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1993 and lives in Hakkari (Turkey).

The case concerned his alleged ill-treatment by the police on 22 March 2008 when he had been

arrested in Hakkari for taking part in an unlawful demonstration in support of an illegal organisation

(the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan – PKK). He was 15 years old at the time. Mr Ertuş submitted a video,

where he is seen crying in the street, as a police officer holds his arm behind his back and then twists

it so that he bends forward. His parents filed a criminal complaint against the officers involved in the

arrest, but the Hakkari public prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings. An objection by

Mr Ertuş against this decision and a claim for compensation were both dismissed. In June 2010, he

was acquitted of the charges of taking part in an illegal demonstration, brought against him in May

2008, due to a lack of evidence. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or

degrading treatment), Mr Ertuş complained that he had been ill-treated during his arrest, and that

his allegations had not been properly investigated by the Turkish authorities.

No violation of Article 3 (treatment)

Violation of Article 3 (procedure)

Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)

Mesut Deniz v. Turkey (no. 36716/07)

The applicant, Mesut Deniz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and is currently detained in

Sincan prison (Turkey). The case concerned ill-treatment allegedly inflicted on him, following his

arrest on 5 October 1999. Medical reports undertaken on the same day and during the following

days all record a large number of injuries on Mr Deniz’s body. Mr Deniz alleged that the police

subjected him to ill-treatment, including giving him electric shocks, hanging him by his arms, beating

him severely, twisting and squeezing his penis and making him lie on an icy surface. An investigation

was launched by a prosecutor in 2000, and a police officer was charged, but he was eventually

acquitted in September 2007. Mr Deniz attempted to appeal the decision, but the Turkish courts

refused to allow him to do so because he had not made himself a civil party to proceedings. This

refusal was upheld by Court of Cassation in May 2012. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition

of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Deniz

complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody, that the authorities

had failed to carry out an effective investigation into these allegations and that he had therefore

been denied the opportunity to claim compensation.

Violation of Article 3 (torture)

Violation of Article 3 (procedure)

Violation of Article 13

Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)

Nezir Adıyaman v. Turkey (no. 6042/09)

The applicant, Nezir Adıyaman, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Istanbul. The

case concerned his complaint that he had been ill-treated by police, after having been arrested on

suspicion of using explosives in a demonstration. Mr Adıyaman maintained that he had been taken

into police custody while running an errand in the course of his business. He subsequently made a

complaint to the Istanbul public prosecutor that he had been ill-treated by officers following his

arrest. In March 2008 the prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute. Mr Adıyaman lodged an

objection to this decision, but this was rejected in May 2008. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of

inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Adıyaman complained that he had been punched, slapped and

pushed against a wall by ten to 15 officers for about 20 minutes, and that there had not been a

proper investigation into this allegation.

No violation of Article 3

Tüzün v. Turkey (no. 24164/07)

The applicant, Kamuran Tüzün, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and lives in İzmir (Turkey).

In May 2006 police conducted a drugs search of the house of the brother of Mr Tüzün’s fiancée,

while Mr Tüzün was present. According to the police report, he injured two police officers while

resisting arrest and then injured himself by falling into a door. Mr Tüzün denied that he had resisted

arrest, claiming that he had been beaten and injured by officers when they had arrested him during

the search. In June 2006 he was charged with resisting police, insulting public officials and

possessing a firearm without a license, of which he was convicted, and sentenced to two years and

nine months’ imprisonment, in March 2010. The judgment was eventually upheld in May 2012. In

July 2006 Mr Tüzün made an application to the public prosecutor, complaining that the officers who

arrested him had used excessive force. The prosecutor decided not to issue proceedings against the

officers, and Mr Tüzün’s objection to this decision was dismissed in January 2007. Relying in

particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Tüzün complained that

during his arrest officers had hit his head with a weapon, and that he had been beaten with

truncheons and guns.

No violation of Article 3 (treatment)

Violation of Article 3 (procedure)

Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (costs and expenses)

Repetitive cases

The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.

Brany and Jugokoka v. Serbia (no. 60336/08)

Jovčova v. Serbia (no. 49198/10)

Majs Eksport-Import v. Serbia (no. 35327/09)

These cases concerned the applicants’ complaints about non-enforcement of judgments given in

their favour against socially/State-owned companies. The applicants relied in particular on Article 1

of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing / access to court).

Violation of Article 6 – in the three cases

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – in the cases Jovčova and Majs Eksport-Import

Length-of-proceedings cases

In the following cases, relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable

time), the applicants complained of the length of the main proceedings and of the inadequacy of the

“Pinto” compensation.

Ascierto and Buffolino v. Italy (nos. 20619/03 and 23751/03)*

Bencivenga and Others v. Italy (nos. 15015/03, 19419/03, 19436/03, 19448/03, 19469/03 and

19470/03)*

Violation of Article 6 § 1 – in both cases