issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 212 (2017)
22.06.2017
Judgments and decisions of 22 June 2017
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments1 and 24 decisions2:
two Chamber judgments are summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for three
others in the cases of Aycaguer v. France (application no. 8806/12), Barnea and Caldararu v. Italy
(no. 37931/15) and Bartesaghi Gallo and Others v. Italy (nos. 12131/13 and 43390/13);
separate press releases have also been issued for two decisions, in the case of Dagregorio and
Mosconi v. France (no. 65714/11) and in the case of Załuska v. Poland (no. 53491/10) and Rogalska
v. Poland (no. 72286/10) and 398 other applications;
six Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and
The judgments below are available only in English.
Petrović
v.
“the
former
Yugoslav
Republic
of
Macedonia”
(application no. 30721/15)
The applicant, Dušan Petrović, now deceased, was a Macedonian and Serbian national who was born
in 1926.
In 2002, Mr Petrović instituted restitution proceedings for confiscated property (a hotel in Skopje).
These proceedings are currently awaiting a decision from the Higher Administrative Court despite
the fact that, in July 2014, Mr Petrović applied to the Supreme Court and was granted a ruling that
the length of the restitution proceedings had been excessive.
Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human
Rights, Mr Petrović complained about the excessive length of the restitution proceedings.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)
Just satisfaction: The Court dismissed Mr Petrović’s claim for just satisfaction.
S.M.M. v. the United Kingdom (no. 77450/12)
The applicant, S.M.M., is a Zimbabwean national who lives in London. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (f)
(right to liberty and security) of the European Convention, he claimed that he had been detained
unlawfully between November 2008 and September 2011. He was detained during that time on the
basis that he was awaiting deportation from the UK. In September 2011 he was released on bail and
one year later he was granted asylum in the country. He argued that the authorities had detained
him unlawfully, by failing to apply regulations requiring the release of persons detained under
immigration rules who had been victims of torture or who had been suffering from a serious mental
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
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
