issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 003 (2014)

07.01.2014

Judgments concerning Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Switzerland,

and Turkey

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

which two (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 (*).

The Court has also delivered today judgments in the cases of Cusan and Fazzo v. Italy (application no. 77/07), Ringier Axel

Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2) (no. 21666/09), and Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 3)

(no. 37986/09), for which separate press releases have been issued.

Reformed Church Foundation for Student Housing and Stanomirescu

v. Romania (applications nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07)*

The first applicant, the Reformed Church Foundation for Student Housing, is an NGO which was set

up in 1992 and has its registered office in Odorheiul Secuiesc. The second applicant, Marinică

Stanomirescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1929 and died in 2009. In the first case, the

applicant association, whose main activity is to promote pupils’ education in line with the doctrines

of the Reformed Church, had obtained a final judicial decision on 5 October 2000, ordering the

administrative authorities to destroy six buildings on its land (they had been put up to provide

temporary homes for workers on a construction site then in progress). 12 years later, and after

numerous attempts at enforcement, the administrative authorities refused to execute the final

judicial decision in the applicant association’s favour. In the second case, Mr Stanomirescu had

obtained a court order which obliged a legal entity under State authority – the regional centre of the

Gorj forestry estate - to assess, mark and evaluate trees on his forest for the purpose of using the

timber, and another which ordered that damages and interest be paid to the applicant. Although the

first decision was executed with more than a year’s delay, the second decision is currently still

unexecuted. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(protection of property), the applicants complained about the authorities’ failure to execute binding

and enforceable judicial decision issued in their favour.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: 8,000 euros (EUR) (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,500 (costs

and expenses) to the applicant Foundation and EUR 300 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage) and

EUR 60 (costs and expenses) jointly to the heirs of Mr Stanomirescu.

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.

Lakatoš and Others v. Serbia (no. 3363/08)

The applicants, Slavko Lakatoš, Lajči Dimović, Ivica Dimović, Maćaš Dimović (now deceased) and

Ramajana Ametov, are Serbian nationals who were born in 1974, 1980, 1980, 1957 and 1979

respectively. The case essentially concerned the five applicants’ complaints that they had been

ill-treated by the police when arrested on suspicion of carrying out a series of robberies, targeting

elderly people, in northern Serbia. They alleged in particular that they had been beaten by the police

both during their arrest on 6 November 2007 and then when taken to Novi Sad police station. The

Government contended that the applicants had been injured because the police had had to resort to

force when the applicants had resisted arrest and/or tried to escape. On 10 July 2009 the first three

applicants were found guilty of 13 robberies and four attempted robberies. The first and second

applicants were sentenced to 14 years and six months’ imprisonment. The third applicant was also

found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to a police officer when resisting arrest and sentenced

to 15 years’ imprisonment. Their convictions were ultimately upheld by the Appeals Court in June

2012. Their constitutional complaint is still pending. Most recently, in December 2012, the applicants

were released under a general amnesty granted by the Serbian Parliament. The last two applicants

were never indicted as the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute. Relying in particular on

Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), all five applicants alleged that they had

been ill-treated during police custody and that the investigation into their allegations had been

inadequate. Further relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the first three applicants

complained that the severity of the potential sentence and the nature of their alleged crime could

not justify their being held in pre-trial detention for more than one year and eight months (from

their arrest on 6 November 2007 until their initial conviction on 10 July 2009).

Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) – in respect of S. Lakatoš, L. Dimović, I.

Dimović, and M. Dimović

Violation of Article 3 (investigation) – in respect of S. Lakatoš, L. Dimović, I. Dimović, and M. Dimović

Violation of Article 5 § 3 in respect of S. Lakatoš, L. Dimović, and I. Dimović

Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 each to S. Lakatoš, L. Dimović, I. Dimović, and M. Dimović’s daughter

(non-pecuniary damage); and EUR 2,750 to I. Dimović and EUR 1,800 to S. Lakatoš, L. Dimović, I.

Dimović, and M. Dimović’s daughter jointly (costs and expenses).

A.A. v. Switzerland (no. 58802/12)

The case concerned the threatened expulsion of a failed asylum seeker from Switzerland to Sudan.

The applicant, A.A., is a Sudanese national who claims that he was born in 1985 in Zalingei, a village

near the town of Kutum in the region of North Darfur, Sudan. He arrived in Switzerland in August

2004, claiming that he had had to flee his village in Sudan when it had been attacked by Janjaweed,

the local militia, during which his father and many other villagers had been killed and he had been

mistreated. Since his arrival in Switzerland he has become an active member of the Sudan Liberation

Movement-Unity and was appointed its human rights officer in 2009. The Swiss authorities

dismissed his asylum requests twice, in 2004 and in 2012, because they had doubts about his origins

(notably they were not convinced that he came from Darfur), because they found that his story

about his flight from Sudan lacked credibility and because he was not at any great risk of persecution

if returned as he did not have a high profile as a political activist. Moreover, the Government

believed that he had only become a political activist in Switzerland to avoid being expelled to Sudan.

The applicant currently lives in the Canton of Zurich (Switzerland) pending an expulsion order against

him, the enforcement of which was stayed following an interim measure granted by the European

Court (under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court) in which it requested the Swiss Government to not expel

the applicant pending the outcome of the proceedings before it.

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleged that, if

expelled to Sudan, he would be detained, interrogated and tortured on account of his political

activities in Switzerland. He also complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in

combination with Article 3 that he had no effective remedy before the Swiss courts to assert his

claims that he originated from Darfur.

Violation of Article 3 – in the event of the applicant’s being expelled to Sudan

No violation of Article 13 in combination with Article 3

Interim measure (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) – not to expel the applicant to Sudan – still in force

until judgment becomes final or until further order

Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for any just satisfaction. The Court awarded

him EUR 8,500 (costs and expenses)

Kaçak and Ebinç v. Turkey (no. 54916/08)*

The applicants, Nebi Kaçak and Ömer Ebinç, are Turkish nationals who were both born in 1980 and

live in Van (Turkey). They were arrested by the police during a demonstration in Van and placed in

police custody. According to the police report of the same day, which was signed by them, they had

been arrested on the fringes of an unlawful demonstration, involving the use of force; Mr Kaçak was

accused of having thrown stones and lightly wounded a police officer. Relying on Article 3

(prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants alleged that they had been

subjected to brutality by police officers during their arrest, and that the authorities had not complied

with their obligation to conduct an effective investigation.

Two violations of Article 3 (ill-treatment + investigation)

Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 to each applicant (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,325 to the

applicants jointly (costs and expenses)

Repetitive cases

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

Karabin v. Poland (no. 29254/06)

The applicant in this case complained about the conditions throughout his detention on remand and

imprisonment between October 2002 and July 2007 in Mysłowice Remand Centre. He relied in

particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).

Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment)

Prăjină v. Romania (no. 5592/05)*

The applicant in this case alleged that his right to a fair trial had not been respected, in particular in

that he had been unable to examine a witness whose statement had been essential in securing his

conviction. He relied in particular on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 6 § 3 (d) (right to examine

witnesses).

Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)

Length-of-proceedings cases

In the following cases, 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.

Maxian and Maxianová v. Slovakia (no. 43168/11)

Violation of Article 6 § 1