issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 039 (2014)

11.02.2014

Judgments concerning Hungary, Latvia, Malta, the Republic of Moldova,

Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 19 judgments, of

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

and are not final.

Repetitive cases², 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 Contrada v. Italy (no. 2) (application no. 7509/08) and

Grămadă v. Romania (no. 14974/09), for which separate press releases have been issued.

Gábor Nagy v. Hungary (application no. 33529/11)

The applicant, Gábor Nagy, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1990 and lives in Budapest. He

was placed in detention on remand on 6 December 2010 on charges of multiple thefts by breaking

into three cars. His appeals against the detention order and against the prolongation of his

detention were repeatedly dismissed until he was released on 13 April 2011. Relying in substance on

Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security – entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release

pending trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Nagy complained that his detention

had been unjustified and its prolongation undue, since the courts had failed to demonstrate its

necessity and because his lawyer had not been present at the first hearing concerning his detention

on remand. Mr Nagy also complained that the proceedings by which he had sought to challenge his

detention had been in breach of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of one’s detention decided

speedily by a court), as his application for release had been adjudged without the requisite oral,

adversarial procedure.

Violation of Article 5 § 3

Violation of Article 5 § 4

Just satisfaction: 3,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 1,100 (costs and expenses)

Cēsnieks v. Latvia (no. 9278/06)

The applicant, Valters Cēsnieks, is a Latvian national who was born in 1975 and is currently serving

his sentence in Matīsa Prison. The case concerned his conviction of murder on the basis of self-

incriminating statements allegedly made under duress. In March 2002 Mr Cēsnieks was asked to

come to a police station, where police officers accused him of a murder and used physical force

against him, as a result of which he made a written confession to having committed the murder in

question. Together with three other people he was charged with murder. In a first-instance

judgment of October 2004 he was acquitted, the court holding that his statements of March 2002

had been made under duress and could not be used to convict him. However, in April 2005 the

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.

Supreme Court overturned that judgment and found him guilty in a judgment eventually upheld in

August 2005. He was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair

trial), Mr Cēsnieks complained in particular that his conviction had been unfair as evidence obtained

in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) had been used at his trial.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,000 (costs and expenses)

Sapožkovs v. Latvia (no. 8550/03)

The applicant, Aleksandrs Sapožkovs, is a “permanently resident non-citizen” of the Republic of

Latvia, who was born in 1959 and is currently serving a prison sentence for a number of offences,

including murder, in Jelgava Prison. The case concerned the allegedly excessive use of force used

against him by prison officers. Mr Sapožkovs submitted that on 1 July 2009, when he was about to

be transferred from Daugavgrīva Prison to Jelgava Prison, a dispute had ensued between him and

three prison officers who had then brutally beat him until he fell to the ground unconscious. A prison

doctor subsequently recorded a number of haematoma on his body. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition

of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Sapožkovs complained that excessive force had been used

against him and that the subsequent investigation of the incident had been ineffective.

Violation of Article 3 (procedure)

Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage)

Vella v. Malta (no. 69122/10)

The applicant, Francis Vella, is a Maltese national who was born in 1939 and lives in Paola (Malta).

The case concerned an alleged breach of his right to be presumed innocent. Mr Vella is a collector of

antiques and was charged with multiple counts of theft and/or receiving stolen goods. In October

1992 the first-instance court convicted him of a series of offences of receiving stolen goods, while at

the same time acquitting him of the theft of those goods. In October 2001 the criminal appeal court

reversed part of the judgment and acquitted him also of most of the charges of receiving stolen

goods. His sentence was reduced from five years’ imprisonment to a two-year suspended sentence.

While the criminal appeal proceedings against Mr Vella were pending, a number of persons alleging

to be the owners of the goods in question brought civil proceedings to vindicate their ownership of

the items. In three separate judgments delivered in 2004, the appeal court in the civil proceedings

found that Mr Vella was not the owner of certain items. He was thus liable to pay damages for the

destruction of some of those items. Relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), Mr Vella

complained that the appeal court’s civil judgments, in particular statements to the effect that he had

been responsible for receiving certain stolen goods – despite the fact that he had been acquitted of

most of the charges in respect of the stolen goods – had been incompatible with his right to be

presumed innocent.

No violation of Article 6 § 2

Sandu v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 16463/08)

The applicant, Victor Sandu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1958 and lives in Chișinău. He

was the manager of a State-owned veterinary clinic. The case concerns Mr Sandu’s conviction of

soliciting and accepting a bribe from a man, C., in exchange for a vaccination document to allow C.’s

dog to travel abroad, without even having seen the dog. In convicting Mr Sandu in April 2007, the

criminal court relied on C.’s testimony and on the fact that money which had been previously

marked by the police and given to C. had been found in Mr Sandu’s pocket. He was ordered to pay a

fine and prohibited from working as a veterinary surgeon for two years. The judgment was

eventually upheld in October 2007. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Sandu

complained that he had been a victim of entrapment, as he had been incited to commit the crime of

accepting a bribe.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

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

Vasȋlca v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 69527/10)

The applicant, Elena Vasȋlca, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1965 and lives in Chișinău. The

case concerned Ms Vasȋlca’s complaint that the Moldovan authorities had failed to carry out an

effective investigation into the death of her 17-year old son, V., on 8 March 2008 when he fell from a

balcony in an apartment block. She contested in particular the investigating authorities’ conclusion,

some two and a half years’ later, that her son had committed suicide. She alleged that the

authorities had failed to examine evidence or question witnesses which would have led them to

looking at the possibility that her son had either been pushed or forced to jump from the balcony.

Ms Vasȋlca relied on Article 2 (right to life).

Violation of Article 2 (procedure)

Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 422 (costs and expenses)

Ziaunys v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 42416/06)

The applicant, Gintaras Ziaunys, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Vilnius.

The case concerned the seizure of old banknotes which Mr Ziaunys had bought for a numismatic

company. Having signed a contract with the Educational Coin Company, a numismatic company in

the USA, under which he was to deliver 8,500 kg of banknotes issued by the bank of the “Moldavian

Republic of Transdniestria” – which were no longer in circulation and had been replaced by new

banknotes – he bought more than 13,000,000 roubles of the old banknotes in January 2001. When

he submitted them to the Moldovan customs, asking for permission to ship them to the USA, the

banknotes were transferred to the tax authorities and have not yet been returned to Mr Ziaunys. He

unsuccessfully brought court proceedings seeking to have the banknotes returned. By a final

decision of May 2006, the Supreme Court rejected his claims. Mr Ziaunys complained that he had

been unlawfully deprived of his property, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (protection of

property).

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 1,900 (pecuniary damage), and EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)

Karoly v. Romania (no. 33682/05)

The applicant, Yozsef Karoly, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971 and was detained at the

time of lodging his application in Jilava Prison in Bucharest. He was arrested in October 2003 on

suspicion of aggravated homicide and robbery. He was convicted and sentenced to 23 years’

imprisonment in September 2005 and this was upheld in a final judgment of May 2006. Relying on

Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security – entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release

pending trial), Mr Karoly complained in particular about the repeated extensions of his related pre-

trial detention for a period of almost two years, without the national courts taking into consideration

his arguments for release such as the fact that he had a clean criminal record and that there was no

proof that, if set free, he would be a danger to the public.

Violation of Article 5 § 3 – due to the absence of sufficient reasons for the extension of the

applicant’s pre-trial detention

Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just

satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage.

Mihǎilǎ v. Romania (no. 66630/10)

Nicolae Augustin Rǎdulescu v. Romania (no. 17295/10)

Both cases concerned detention conditions in Jilava Prison near Bucharest. The applicants are Daniel

Claudiu Mihǎilǎ and Nicolae Augustin Rǎdulescu, Romanian nationals who were born in 1973 and

1966, respectively. Mr Mihǎilǎ lives in Iaşi and Mr Rǎdulescu lives in Bucharest. Both applicants

complained about the conditions of their detention in Jilava Prison following their convictions of

battery and threatening behavior (Mr Mihǎilǎ) and fraud (Mr Rǎdulescu). Mr Mihǎilǎ had served his

sentence from January 2010 to March 2011 and Mr Rǎdulescu from September 2008 to November

2010. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), both applicants

complained in particular about overcrowding and lack of hygiene.

Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment) – in both cases

Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) to Mr Rǎdulescu. Mr Mihǎilǎ did not submit a

claim for just satisfaction within the time-limit fixed.

Maširević v. Serbia (no. 30671/08)

The applicant, Milan Maširević, is a Serbian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Sombor. He is

a practicing lawyer. In July 1998 he filed a civil claim seeking payment of fees from a private

insurance company for services rendered. The case concerned the Supreme Court’s ensuing

dismissal of Mr Maširević’s appeal on points of law on the ground that he had not been entitled to

lodge it on his own behalf as the plaintiff, without being represented by an attorney, even though he

was himself an attorney. Relying on Article 6 (right of access to court), Mr Maširević complained that

the Supreme Court’s strict interpretation of the national law’s requirement of mandatory legal

representation had precluded his case from being examined by the highest court on the merits.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

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

Tešić v. Serbia (nos. 4678/07 and 50591/12)

The applicant, Sofija Tešić, is a Serbian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Ledinac. The case

concerned defamation proceedings against her. In April 2005 Ms Tešić was convicted of criminal

defamation and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, suspended, following the publication of an

article in a daily newspaper in December 2002 which was based on information she had provided

and which reported that her former lawyer had deliberately failed to represent her properly in a civil

case. At the same time, the sentencing court convicted the journalist who had written the article,

finding that the assertions in the article lacked any factual basis and only aimed at harming the

lawyer’s reputation. The appeal proceedings brought by Ms Tešić are still pending before the

Constitutional Court. In parallel civil proceedings brought against her by her former lawyer, Ms Tešić

was ordered to pay compensation of approximately 4,900 euros (EUR) by a judgment of January

2007, which was eventually upheld by the Constitutional Court in December 2011. Relying in

particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Ms Tešić complained notably of the defamation

judgment in the civil proceedings, and of the way the compensation payment had been enforced.

She stated in particular that the enforcement had caused her extreme financial hardship, as after

deduction of the monthly installments to pay the compensation, she had been left with only one

third of her pension amounting to approximately EUR 60. She also alleged interference by the State

with her correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights, in breach of Article 34

(individual applications).

Violation of Article 10 – as regards the civil and enforcement proceedings

No violation of Article 34

Just satisfaction: EUR 5,500 (pecuniary damage), EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 2,200

(costs and expenses)

Franek v. Slovakia (no. 14090/10)

The applicant, Ján Franek, is a Slovak national who was born in 1964 and lives in Liptovský Mikuláš.

He is an enforcement officer. The case concerned bankruptcy proceedings against a company whose

movable property Mr Franek had previously seized in the context of enforcement proceedings

against that company. On application by the administrator in the bankruptcy proceedings, Mr Franek

was ordered by a court in October 2003 and, after a remittal of the case, again in March 2006, to

transfer the property to the administrator. Mr Franek appealed – stating in particular that he had

been unable to attend a relevant hearing and that he had no standing in the case as a defendant –

but the judgment was upheld and his constitutional complaint was eventually dismissed in

September 2009. Mr Franek complained in particular that his rights under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair

trial) had been breached, notably because the Constitutional Court had rejected his complaint as

having been lodged out of time.

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court)

Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just

satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage. EUR 700 (costs and expenses)

Gülizar Tuncer Günes v. Turkey (no 32696/10)*

The applicant, Gülizar Tuncer Günes, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul.

In the present case Ms Günes complained mainly of assault by police officers during her arrest. In

2000, while she was taking part in a demonstration, Ms Günes was arrested and then taken into

police custody. After the incident she was found to have sustained several bruises and was

accordingly declared unfit for work for five days. In 2004, following a complaint lodged by Ms Günes,

three police officers were convicted of employing force in excess of the limits authorised in the

course of their duties. In 2006 the Court of Cassation set aside the conviction part of the judgment

on account of the entry into force of the New Criminal Code. In 2007 the three police officers

concerned were convicted again on the same grounds. Finding that the statutory limitation period

had expired, however, the Court of Cassation declared the proceedings statute-barred in 2009.

Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), she notably

complained of assault by police officers and of the ineffectiveness of the criminal proceedings

instituted against them.

Violation of Article 3 (excessive use of force + ineffectiveness of the criminal proceedings)

Just satisfaction: EUR 9,750 (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 3,265 (costs and expenses)

Revision

Nural Vural v. Turkey (no 16009/04)*

The applicant, Nural Vural, was a Turkish national born in 1935. He died in 2010. The case concerned

an application by his heirs for revision of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of May

2010 in which the Court had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)

and awarded Mr Vural 131,449 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage. As the applicant had died, his

heirs requested the Court to revise the judgment in question, under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court,

and to give them the sum he had been awarded.

The Court decided to revise the judgment of May 2000 and held that Turkey should pay to the

heirs of Mr Vural, jointly, the sum of EUR 131,449.

Repetitive cases

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

Burczy v. Poland (no. 43129/04)

Czyż v. Poland (no. 21796/05)

Hajduk v. Poland (no. 6210/05)

These three cases concerned in particular the applicants’ complaints about the reopening of social

security proceedings with regard to their right to an early-retirement pension, which had resulted in

the quashing of final decisions granting them the right to a pension. They relied on Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – in all three cases

Şiray v. Turkey (no. 29724/08)

The case mainly concerned the applicant’s complaint of having had no access to a lawyer while in

police custody. He relied in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial).

Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with 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.