issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 037 (2014)
06.02.2014
Judgments concerning “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Greece
and Russia
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four judgments, of
which one (in italics) is a Committee judgment and is final. The others are Chamber judgments1 and
are not final.
One length-of-proceedings case, 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 (*).
Vikentijevik v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (application
no. 50179/07)
The applicant, Aleksandar Vikentijevik, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1941 and lives in
Skopje (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). The case concerned the extraordinary
quashing of a final order for the restitution of property given in his favour. Mr Vikentijevik brought
restitution proceedings in 2000 in respect of property belonging to a company of which his late
grandfather had been a shareholder and which had been confiscated after the Second World War. In
September 2000, the Restitution Commission of the Ministry of Finance accepted his claims and
decided to restore to his possession some land belonging to the company as well as certain buildings
and shares in compensation for confiscated property. Following a request by the Solicitor General,
referring to defects in the restitution proceedings, the Restitution Commission quashed the
restitution order, in a decision eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in March 2007, and remitted
the case for re-examination. The renewed restitution proceedings are still pending. Mr Vikentijevik
complained that the quashing of the restitution order, years after its adoption, had breached his
rights under Article 1 (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on
Human Rights.
No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Semikhvostov v. Russia (no. 2689/12)
The applicant, Aleksandr Semikhvostov, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in the
Leningrad Region (Russia). In February 2001, he was convicted of torture and manslaughter and
sentenced to 13 and a half years’ imprisonment. After having initially served his sentence in other
facilities, he was transferred to correctional facility IK-11 in the Mordoviya Republic in January 2010,
where he stayed until his release in January 2013. Being paralysed from the waist down and
confined to a wheelchair, Mr Semikhvostov alleged that the premises of that facility were unsuitable
for his condition. In particular, he stated: that the toilets were not accessible for disabled people, so
that he had to ask other inmates for help to use them; that he needed assistance to use the
bathhouse; that during the last year of his detention he could not take exercise outside, as he could
not get into his wheelchair without assistance; and, that during this latter period his wheelchair had
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
