issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 362 (2013)  
10.12.2013  
Judgments concerning Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Republic of Moldova, the  
Netherlands, Romania, Serbia, and Turkey  
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16 judgments, of  
which three (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 (*).  
Hunvald v. Hungary (application no. 68435/10)  
The applicant, Gy. Hunvald, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Budapest. He  
is the former Mayor of the Budapest 7th District Municipality. The case concerned his pre-trial  
detention, after being arrested in February 2009 and charged with a number of crimes, including  
aggravated fraud. For almost all of the period from 12 February 2009 until his release on 29 October  
2011, Mr Hunvald was detained on remand. The Hungarian courts justified his continued pre-trial  
detention on the grounds that there was a risk that Mr Hunvald would interfere with the  
investigation, or that he would abscond. Mr Hunvald opposed and appealed his detention on  
numerous occasions, arguing that the courts’ fears were unsubstantiated. All of these applications  
failed. He was partially convicted at first instance, and his appeal of this decision is still pending.  
Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights,  
Mr Hunvald complained that his pre-trial detention had been unjustified, because the Hungarian  
courts had failed to present any concrete reasons for it.  
Violation of Article 5 § 3  
Just satisfaction: 2,700 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 in respect of  
costs and expenses  
Nekvedavičius v. Lithuania (no. 1471/05)  
The applicant, Christian Nekvedavičius, is a Lithuanian and German national who was born in 1946  
and lives in Münster (Germany). The case concerned the ownership of a plot of land with two houses  
on it in the city centre of Kaunas, Lithuania. The plot was nationalised following the Soviet  
occupation in the 1940s. Ownership of the houses was attributed to Mr Nekvedavičius’ father’s  
former wife, who continued living there until ownership was transferred to third persons in the  
1960s. After Lithuania regained independence in 1990, Mr Nekvedavičius started proceedings to  
regain ownership. The administrative and civil suits he brought attempting to repossess the buildings  
were unsuccessful, but he did obtain a judgment in his favour in relation to ownership of the plot of  
land in November 2001. However, the Lithuanian courts held that it was not possible to return the  
original land to him because it was being used by other people. Since then there have been a  
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.  
number of investigations and court hearings but Mr Nekvedavičius has not been compensated for  
the loss of the land. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and  
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, Mr Nekvedavičius complained  
that the court judgment of November 2001 ordering the authorities to restore his ownership rights  
to the land had not been enforced, and the Lithuanian authorities had failed to provide him with  
either the plot of land in its original form or equivalent compensation.  
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)  
was not ready for decision in so far as pecuniary damage was concerned and reserved it for  
examination at a later date. It further awarded the applicant EUR 7,800 in respect of non-pecuniary  
damage and EUR 8,770 in respect of costs and expenses.  
Ceachir v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 50115/06)*  
The applicant, Tamara Ceachir, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1941 and lives in Chișinău.  
On 17 October 2000 she had a dispute with a woman selling goods at Chișinău central market, which  
degenerated into a violent altercation during which blows were exchanged. Ms Ceachir was taken to  
hospital, where she was diagnosed with a head injury and concussion. She complained of the fact  
that the proceedings in her case had been discontinued by a judgment of 28 December 2005 on the  
ground that the prosecution had been time-barred. The Court examined the application under  
Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).  
Violation of Article 3 (procedure)  
Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage)  
Murray v. the Netherlands (no. 10511/10)  
The applicant, James Clifton Murray, is a Dutch national who was born in 1953. He is officially  
detained in a Correctional Institution on the island of Aruba, part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands  
in the southern Caribbean. As far as the Court is aware, however, he is currently in a nursing home  
on the island of Curaçao due to health issues.  
The case concerned the legality and conditions of Mr Murray’s imprisonment, which began following  
his conviction for murder in March 1980. Finding that he had killed a 6 year-old niece of a former  
girlfriend as revenge for her ending of their relationship, the court of the Netherlands Antilles  
imposed a life sentence on Mr Murray. He launched an appeal, filed a request for revision, and has  
submitted repeated requests for pardons; however, all of these have been unsuccessful. Mr Murray  
served his sentence in a state prison on Curaçao until around 2000, when he was transferred to the  
Aruba Correctional Institution. In September 2012 the Aruba courts submitted Mr Murray’s sentence  
to periodic review. Taking into account a number of psychological reports, which found that he  
suffered from mental health problems, the court decided that Mr Murray’s imprisonment should  
continue as it still served a purpose after 33 years.  
Mr Murray complained in particular that the imposition of a life sentence without possibility of  
regular review by a court and without hope of release had notably violated Article 3 (prohibition of  
inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment). He also relied on Article 3 to complain of the  
conditions of his detention; in particular, that the prison authorities did not protect inmates from  
inter-prisoner violence (which he had to witness), that he himself had been ill-treated by other  
prisoners, that he had not been placed in a special regime on account of his life sentence or mental  
condition, and that in late 2010 and early 2011 rainwater had flooded the prisoners’ cells.  
2
No violation of Article 3 – in respect of the life sentence  
No violation of Article 3 – in respect of the applicant’s conditions of detention  
Botea v. Romania (no. 40872/04)  
The applicant, Ștefan Lucian Botea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973 and lives in  
Bucharest. Mr Botea, a former police officer, complained about the fairness of his trial for conspiracy  
to commit bribery. In January 2004, Mr Botea was convicted and sentenced to two years’  
imprisonment for facilitating bribery, in an incident where a prosecutor was offered a bribe in order  
to revoke an international arrest warrant. Prior to his trial, Mr Botea had opposed the use of  
transcripts of phone conversations as evidence, because he claimed that the recordings had been  
made unlawfully. After the trial court had attempted and failed to obtain an expert report to  
establish the recordings’ authenticity, it held that they should not be given in evidence. The  
transcripts were nevertheless included in the case file, and the trial court’s judgment indicated that  
they provided firm evidence of the defendants’ guilt. Mr Botea appealed the judgment, but this was  
dismissed in May 2004. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Botea complained that his  
conviction had been based mainly on material that should not have been admitted as evidence, and  
that although he had raised this issue in his grounds of appeal, the appeal court had not addressed  
this problem in its decision to dismiss his complaint.  
Violation of Article 6 § 1  
Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)  
Oprea v. Romania (no. 26765/05)*  
The applicant, Constantin Oprea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in  
Strasswalchen (Austria). In October 1994 he was sentenced in absentia by a Romanian court to two  
years and ten months’ imprisonment for theft; he did not serve the sentence because he was living  
in Austria. In October 2006 the Romanian court found that enforcement of the sentence had  
become time-barred and revoked the writ of execution. On 23 December 2006 the applicant was  
arrested at the Romanian border on his way to visit his family in Romania and was imprisoned with a  
view to enforcement of the sentence passed in October 1994. He was released four days later and  
claimed to have returned to Austria immediately in a state of shock. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to  
liberty and security), Mr Oprea alleged that he had been detained from 23 to 27 December without  
any legal basis.  
Violation of Article 5 § 1  
Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time-limit fixed.  
Krstić v. Serbia (no. 45394/06)  
The applicant, Branimir Krstić, is a Serbian national who was born in 1939 and currently lives in Pirot  
(Serbia). The case concerned the non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour. In September 1990  
Mr Krstić began to receive a pension from the Serbian authorities. In May 1994 the Serbian Pensions  
Fund awarded an increased pension to him retroactively and ordered the authorities to pay him  
supplementary pension payments on the basis of the difference between the pension received as of  
1990 and the new pension granted retroactively by this decision. The Serbian authorities failed to  
pay the supplementary pensions. Mr Krstić attempted to obtain outstanding money in civil and  
enforcement proceedings before the civil courts, but the Serbian courts declined their jurisdiction.  
They instructed Mr Krstić to initiate administrative enforcement proceedings before the  
administrative authorities, that being the appropriate legal avenue for enforcement of the decision  
in question. Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Krstić  
3
complained that Serbia had failed to enforce the decision made in May 1994 to provide him with  
outstanding pension payments, and that he had had no effective remedy for this in the national  
courts.  
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Just satisfaction: As regards pecuniary damage, the Court held that Serbia should ensure the full  
execution of the final decision of the Serbian Pensions Fund of May 1994. It further awarded the  
applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of the costs incurred at national level.  
Gamze Uludağ v. Turkey (no. 21292/07)*  
The applicant, Gamze Uludağ, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in İzmir. She was  
arrested on several occasions and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of involvement in drug  
trafficking. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 4 (right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of  
detention), she notably complained that she had not been brought before a judge at any point  
during her detention.  
Violation of Article 5 § 4  
Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage)  
Hakan Toktaş v. Turkey (no. 45336/08)*  
The applicant, Hakan Toktaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in İzmir. In 1999 he  
purchased two plots of land in the municipality of Menemen which were designated as building land  
under the land-use plan in force at the time. In October 2000 the municipal authorities adopted a  
new urban development plan and classified the two plots of land as "green space". The District  
Court, followed by the Supreme Administrative Court, rejected Mr Toktaş’ application to have the  
authorities’ decision set aside. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a  
reasonable time), the applicant alleged that the length of the proceedings before the domestic  
courts – more than seven years over two levels of jurisdiction – had been in breach of the  
reasonable-time requirement.  
Violation of Article 6 § 1  
Just satisfaction: EUR 3,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)  
Leyla Alp and Others v. Turkey (no. 29675/02)*  
The 20 applicants, all women, are Turkish nationals who were being held in Çanakkale Prison in  
October 2000, when a hunger strike was staged in prisons to protest against plans to make  
prisoners’ cells smaller. Some prisoners had embarked on a "death fast" and were refusing medical  
treatment. On 19 December 2000 the security forces intervened in around 20 prisons. Violent  
clashes occurred during the operation, known as "Back to life". A gendarme and four prisoners died  
in Çanakkale Prison. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading  
treatment), the applicants complained notably of having been injured during the operation and  
alleged that the use of force had been excessive and disproportionate.  
No violation of Article 3 (substantive limb) – in respect of the applicants Leyla Alp, Süreyya Bulut, Elif  
Yaş, Filiz Uyan et Gülay İncesu (the Court further declared inadmissible the 15 other applicants’  
complaint under Article 3)  
Violation of Article 3 (procedure) – in respect of the applicants Leyla Alp, Süreyya Bulut, Elif Yaş, Filiz  
Uyan et Gülay İncesu  
No violation of Article 2 (right to life – substantive limb) – in respect of the applicant Meral Kıdır  
4
Violation of Article 2 (procedure) – in respect of the applicant Meral Kıdır  
Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 to Meral Kıdır and EUR 5,000 each to Leyla Alp, Süreyya Bulut, Elif Yaş,  
Filiz Uyan et Gülay İncesu (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 3,200 to these six applicants jointly  
(costs and expenses)  
Tekçi and Others v. Turkey (no. 13660/05)*  
The applicants, Halit Tekçi, Ayşan Tekçi, Süleyman Tekçi, Sara Tekçi, Havva Tekçi, Lokman Tekçi,  
Osman Tekçi, Salime Tekçi, Abdurrahman Tekçi, Asya Tekçi, Mehmet Tekçi and Ömer Tekçi, are  
Turkish nationals who live in Hakkari (Turkey). They are the father, mother, brothers and sisters of  
Nezir Tekçi, who disappeared following a military operation carried out on 28 April 1995 in an area  
close to the village of Yukarıölçek. He and other individuals were allegedly apprehended by soldiers  
and held prisoner in a stable. The others were released but Nezir Tekçi was reportedly handed over  
to a military unit based in the village of Muşan. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the  
applicants alleged that their relative Nezir Tekçi had disappeared while being detained by military  
personnel.  
Violation of Article 2 (right to life)  
Violation of Article 2 (procedure)  
Just satisfaction: EUR 65,000 to the applicants jointly (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,150 jointly  
(costs and expenses)  
Repetitive cases  
The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.  
Dkd-Union Doo v. Serbia (no. 42731/06)  
This case concerned the non-enforcement of an order issued against a socially/State-owned  
company to pay an invoice owed to the applicant company. The applicant company relied on  
Article 6 (right to a fair trial).  
Violation of Article 6  
Zarkov v. Serbia (nos. 65437/10 and 65443/10)  
This case concerned the applicants’ complaints about the non-enforcement of a decision given in his  
favour against a socially/State-owned company. The applicant 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 § 1  
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Tanbay Tüten v. Turkey (no. 38249/09)  
The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that Turkish law allows married men but not married  
women to use their own surname after marriage and that this amounts to discrimination based on  
sex. She relied in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14  
(prohibition of discrimination).  
Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8  
5
Length-of-proceedings cases  
In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of non-  
criminal proceedings.  
Limata and Others v. Italy (nos. 16412/03, 16413/03, 16414/03, 16415/03, 16416/03, 16417/03,  
22294/03, 22351/03, 22353/03, 22354/03, and 22355/03)*  
In these cases, in addition to complaining about the length of the proceedings, the applicants alleged  
that the compensation awarded to them under the "Pinto" Act had been inadequate.  
Violation of Article 6 § 1  
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Vilotijević v. Serbia (no. 26042/06)  
Violation of Article 6 § 1  
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)  
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.  
6