issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 118 (2016)

31.03.2016

Judgments and decisions of 31 March 2016

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing nine judgments¹and 20 decisions²

four Chamber judgments are summarised below; for five others, in the cases of Alexey Petrov v.

Bulgaria (application no. 30336/10), Petrov and Ivanova v. Bulgaria (no. 45773/10), Stoyanov and

Others v. Bulgaria (no. 55388/10), Dimitar Yanakiev v. Bulgaria (no. 50346/07) and Seton v. the

United Kingdom (no. 55287/10), separate press releases have been issued.

for two decisions, in the cases Ursulet v. France (no. 56825/13) and I.A.A. and Others v. the United

Kingdom (no. 25960/13), separate press releases have been issued;

the remaining 18 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.

The judgments below are available only in English.

Karen Poghosyan v. Armenia (application no. 62356/09)

The applicant, Karen Poghosyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Yerevan.

The case concerned the quashing of a final judgment which had recognised his ownership right in

respect of a building and his right of use in respect of the plot of land where the building had been

located.

Mr Poghosyan had constructed the building in 1991 without permission on a plot of land of

1000 sq. m. in a suburb of Yerevan. In 2001 he brought court proceedings seeking the recognition of

his ownership right in respect of the building and of his right to use the plot of land. In June 2001, a

district court granted his request. The judgment became final, as no appeal was lodged within the

prescribed time-limit. In 2002 a certificate was issued by the authorities confirming Mr Poghosyan’s

ownership of the building and stating that he had a right of lease in respect of the plot of land.

Following his payment of the cadastral value of the plot of land in 2003 his right of ownership of the

land was registered and a relevant ownership certificate was issued. During the following years he

regularly paid property tax on the building and the land.

In May 2009 the Deputy Prosecutor General and the Yerevan Mayor’s office lodged separate appeals

against the June 2001 judgment recognising Mr Poghosyan’s ownership rights. They argued in

particular that the district court had erred in its interpretation of the relevant provisions and that,

since the court had failed to involve the Mayor’s office and the local branch of the Real Estate

Registry as parties to the proceedings, they had not been aware of the judgment. They therefore

requested the appeal court to restore the time-limit for appeal.

In July 2009 the appeal court granted the appeals, and quashed the judgment of June 2001.

Mr Poghosyan’s appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible in September 2009.

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

Committee judgments, as well as inadmissibility and strike-out decisions, are final.

In subsequent proceedings his ownership rights in respect of the building and the plot of land were

annulled.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, Mr Poghosyan complained

that the renewal of the time-limit for appeal and the quashing of the final judgment of June 2001

had violated the principle of legal certainty and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his

possessions.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: The Court reserved the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction)

of the Convention for decision at a later date.

Dzhabarov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 6095/11, 74091/11, and 75583/11)

The applicants, Deyan Dzhabarov, Vaska Nikolova and Stanislav Petkov (now deceased), are

Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1975, 1962, and 1981 respectively. Mr Dzhabarov lives in

Burgas and Ms Nikolova lives in Sandanski (both in Bulgaria). Following Mr Petkov’s death in 2014,

his mother has continued the application on his behalf. The case concerned the applicants’

complaints that they had been unlawfully detained by the police and that they had been unable to

obtain damages in that respect.

Travelling together in a car, Mr Dzhabarov and Mr Petkov were stopped by the police, arrested and

taken to a police station in the early hours of the morning on 20 December 2007. The police issued

orders for their detention for 24 hours on 20 December 2007 at 12 noon and 1.30 pm respectively,

under the provisions of the Criminal Code criminalising burglary and theft (in Mr Dzhabarov’s case)

and robbery (in Mr Petkov’s case). They were released on 21 December 2007 at 12 noon. In early

2008 both applicants brought proceedings for judicial review of the orders for their detention. In

each case, the administrative court quashed the respective order, finding that at the relevant time

the police had not had a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed an offence.

The judgments were upheld on appeal. Both applicants then brought claims for damages against the

police in respect of their unlawful detention. In each case, their claims were dismissed on the

ground, in particular, that they had failed to prove that they had suffered any non-pecuniary damage

as a result of their detention.

Ms Nikolova, head of the audit unit of a local division of the National Revenue Agency, was taken to

a police station on the morning of 9 September 2006 – a Saturday – after the police had found her in

her office that morning with an acquaintance of hers, checking the personal data of certain

individuals in the Agency’s database. After being interviewed by the police – without being given any

explanation for the reasons for her detention – she was released at about 3.40 pm the same day.

Subsequent criminal proceedings against her, on charges that she had knowingly divulged

confidential information to which she had access by virtue of her position as a tax administration

official, were eventually discontinued. In 2010 Ms Nikolova brought a claim for damages against the

police in respect of her allegedly unlawful detention. As in the case of the other two applicants, her

claim was dismissed on the grounds, in particular, that she had failed to prove that she had suffered

any non-pecuniary damage as a result of her arrest and detention.

Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained that their detention

had been unlawful and had been carried out without a reasonable suspicion that they had

committed an offence. They further complained that the courts had dismissed their claims for

damages in respect of their police detention, in breach of Article 5 § 5 (right to compensation for

unlawful detention).

Violation of Article 5 § 1 – in respect of all three applicants

Violation of Article 5 § 5 – in respect of all three applicants

Just satisfaction: 1,000 euros (EUR) each to Mr Dzhabarov and Mr Petkov and EUR 700 to

Ms Nikolova in respect of non-pecuniary damage; and EUR 1,016 to Mr Dzhabarov, EUR 699 to

Mr Petkov or his heirs, and EUR 2,429.47 to Ms Nikolova in respect of costs and expenses

A, B and C v. Latvia (no. 30808/11)

The applicants, Ms A and Ms B, British nationals, and Ms C, a Latvian national, were born in 1992,

1995, and 1993 respectively and live in Latvia. The case concerned their complaint that the Latvian

authorities had failed to investigate their complaints of alleged sexual abuse by a sports coach.

According to the applicants, while enrolled in a State sports school in Riga, in 2008 and 2009, all of

them minors at the time, they were sexually abused by one of the coaches with whom they trained.

In particular they submit that: the coach requested that they attend the sauna fully undressed; he

massaged two of them, touching their intimate body parts; he entered the changing room, touching

– as if accidentally – the girls’ intimate body parts; and, during a trip to a competition in Lithuania, he

told one of the applicants that she would sleep in the same bed with him, which she refused to do.

Following a complaint by the mother of Ms A and Ms B, who are sisters, the police opened a criminal

investigation in January 2010. In the course of the investigation, the police took statements from

various individuals, including the applicants and their parents and other former students of the

sports coach and their parents. In October 2010 the investigation was closed, the investigator

concluding that it had revealed that the sauna sessions had been voluntary. The female students had

attended the sauna fully undressed, either on their own initiative or because that was the general

practice. The coach had massaged them at their request. The investigator could not establish that

the coach had acted with a sexual purpose within the meaning of the relevant section (sexual abuse)

of Latvian criminal law.

The appeal of the applicants’ parents against that decision was dismissed, and their subsequent

appeals to higher prosecutors were also rejected, the closure of the investigation being eventually

confirmed by the chief prosecutor in February 2011. Two requests by the applicants’ mothers to

reopen the investigation – arguing that a psychologist’s report, which found that two of the

applicants had or might have suffered psychological trauma, constituted newly discovered facts –

were dismissed. In the meantime, in civil proceedings the coach was ordered to pay the applicants

the equivalent of between 140 and 430 euros’ compensation for having violated their right to

privacy.

Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants

complained that the authorities had failed to investigate their complaints of sexual abuse by their

coach.

No violation of Article 8

Šantare and Labazņikovs v. Latvia (no. 34148/07)

The applicants, Lilija Šantare and Vladimirs Labazņikovs, are Latvian nationals who were born in 1960

and 1956 respectively and live in Riga. The case principally concerned their complaint about the

covert interception of their telephone conversations in the context of an anticorruption

investigation.

In April 2005 Mr Labazņikovs, who at the time was the owner of a chain of pharmacies, was

questioned by two investigators of the Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption in

the context of an investigation into allegedly unlawful activities of officials of the State Pharmacy

Inspectorate. He subsequently arranged several meetings with one of the investigators outside the

Bureau’s premises. On one of those occasions he offered the investigator a one-time bribe and

monthly payments in return for the cessation of any investigative activities concerning his business

and the State officials connected with it. Mr Labazņikovs then called Ms Šantare, who was a board

member of his company, asking her to withdraw cash from the company’s account, which would be

spent on “protection”. Subsequently he gave the money to the investigator. The telephone

conversations between Mr Labazņikovs and Ms Šantare were intercepted and recorded.

The Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption brought criminal proceedings for

bribery against Mr Labazņikovs. It informed the prosecutor that Mr Labazņikovs’ phone had been

tapped and asked for the recordings to be included in the case file. Ms Šantare was later charged

with abetting bribery. A request by Mr Labazņikovs’ representative to have disclosed a document

proving the lawfulness of the telephone interception was dismissed by the prosecutor, stating in

particular that such a decision was not a procedural document and that it had been classified as a

State secret.

In November 2005 the trial court acquitted Ms Šantare and convicted Mr Labazņikovs – who had

pleaded guilty – of bribery. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended. In October

2006 the judgment was partially quashed on appeal. Ms Šantare was found guilty and given a

suspended sentence of one year’s imprisonment, and the suspension of Mr Labazņikovs’ prison

sentence was revoked. Ms Šantare’s appeal on points of law, arguing that the phone recordings

should not have been admitted as evidence, was dismissed.

The applicants complained in particular that the covert interception of their phone conversations

had been in violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, the home, and the

correspondence).

Violation of Article 8

Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage) to Ms Šantare and Mr Labazņikovs and

EUR 800 to Mr Labazņikovs (costs and expenses)

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)

Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)

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.