issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 109 (2015)  
07.04.2015  
Judgments of 7 April 2015  
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven judgments1:  
four Chamber judgments are summarised below; for one other, Cestaro v. Italy (application  
no. 6884/11), a separate press release has been issued;  
one Chamber judgment and one Committee judgment, concerning issues which have already been  
submitted to the Court, can be consulted on Hudoc; they do not appear in this press release.  
The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).  
Veretco v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 679/13)  
The applicant, Fiodor Veretco, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1963 and lives in Seliște  
(the Republic of Moldova). His case concerned the lawfulness of his detention and his access to  
medical treatment whilst in detention.  
Mr Veretco was arrested in 2012, charged with child trafficking and detained. At the Prosecutor’s  
request he spent approximately two months in custody based on an assessment of the risk of him  
absconding, interfering with the investigation or reoffending. Mr Veretco and his lawyer objected to  
this decision but their request to see any evidence or documents supporting the prosecutor’s  
request was denied. Mr Veretco also submitted medical records to the domestic courts explaining  
that he needed hospitalisation for pre-existing broken ribs and pneumonia, this requirement was  
confirmed by a doctor. However Mr Veretco claimed that he received no medical treatment whilst  
he was in detention. This claim was disputed by the Government, which alleged that he did not  
complain about his health or request medical assistance whilst he was in custody.  
Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and on  
Article 5 §§ 4, and 5 (right to liberty and security / right to have lawfulness of detention decided  
speedily by a court / right to compensation) of the European Convention on Human Rights,  
Mr Veretco complained in particular that he had not received adequate medical care whilst in  
detention and that, contrary to domestic law, he had not been able to examine the evidence used to  
support the Prosecutor’s request to detain him which had served as the basis for justifying his  
detention.  
Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)  
Violation of Article 5 § 4  
Violation of Article 5 § 5  
Just satisfaction: 9,800 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 650 (costs and expenses)  
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber  
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  
Adrian Radu v. Romania (no. 26089/13)*  
The applicant, Adrian Radu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971 and is currently  
imprisoned in Jilava prison.  
The case concerned the conditions of Mr Radu’s detention in Giurgiu prison where he had been held  
from 21 January 2009, before being recently transferred to Jilava.  
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Radu complained about  
the material conditions of his detention, in particular the lack of sufficient space, overcrowding in  
the prison, and a lack of food and drinking water.  
Violation of Article 3 – on account of prison overcrowding  
Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage)  
Raguž v. Serbia (no. 8182/07)  
The applicant, Vinko Raguž, is a Croatian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Dubrovnik  
(Croatia). His case concerned the difficulties he had encountered in enforcing a judgment concerning  
the repayment of a debt owed to him.  
In 2003 the Municipal Court in Gornji Milanovac ordered a debtor to pay a sum of money, including  
interest, to Mr Raguž. Later that same year the Court ordered the seizure and sale of the debtor’s  
assets in order to enforce the judgment. Three attempts to seize assets failed, and in 2007 the  
Municipal Court stayed proceedings because the debtor had died. Mr Raguž then tried to persuade  
that Court to enforce the judgment by seizure and sale of the debtor’s estate but this request was  
eventually rejected in 2009.  
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of  
property) Mr Raguž complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.  
Violation of Article 6 § 1  
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage)  
O’Donnell v. the United Kingdom (no. 16667/10)  
The applicant, Matthew O’Donnell, is an Irish national who was born in 1980. He is currently  
detained at HMP Maghaberry (Northern Ireland, UK).  
Mr O’Donnell is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for a murder committed in 2004.  
Mr O’Donnell’s I.Q places him amongst the bottom 1% of the population and his understanding of  
spoken English is equivalent to that of a six year old child. Witnesses provided evidence that  
Mr O’Donnell had spent most of the day before the murder drinking with the victim and another  
man, Samuel Houston. Following the murder the police found two sets of blood stained clothes and  
a knife in the flat where Mr O’Donnell was staying at the time. Mr Houston admitted to the killing  
and was sentenced. Mr O’Donnell was arrested in the Republic of Ireland, interviewed by Irish police  
officers about the murder and extradited to Northern Ireland in 2007. During his trial and at the  
request of the defence lawyer, the videotapes of the interviews conducted by the Irish police were  
excluded from evidence. The defence asked the judge to rule that it was undesirable for  
Mr O’Donnell to give evidence because of his mental condition. The judge refused, stating that he  
could manage the process in such a way that no unfairness would result and that he would tell the  
jury that they could draw an adverse inference if Mr O’Donnell did not give evidence. Mr O’Donnell  
decided not to testify although a clinical psychologist was permitted to give evidence to the jury as  
to his vulnerability and the difficulties he would have faced if he had testified. However, the  
2
psychologist was not allowed to share conclusions he had drawn from watching the videotaped  
interviews as these had been excluded from the evidence. Mr O’Donnell was convicted by the jury  
and his requests for an appeal have been dismissed.  
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr O’Donnell complained that his trial had been unfair  
because the judge had not allowed the clinical psychologist to share his observations on the  
videotaped interviews and because of the judge’s direction to the jury about drawing adverse  
inferences from his decision not to give evidence without regard to whether there was a case to  
answer.  
No 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)  
Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)  
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)  
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
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.  
3