issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 049 (2018)
08.02.2018
Judgments and decisions of 8 February 2018
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 24 judgments1 and 57 decisions2:
one Chamber judgment is summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one
other Chamber judgment in the case of Ben Faiza v. France (application no. 31446/12);
separate press releases have also been issued for five decisions, in the cases of Smajić v. Bosnia and
Herzegovina (no. 48657/16), Balta v. France (no. 19462/12), Charron and Merle-Montet v. France
(no. 22612/15), Cacciato v. Italy (no. 60633/16) and Guiso and Others v. Italy (no. 50821/06);
22 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court,
including excessive length of proceedings, and the 52 other decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc
and do not appear in this press release.
The judgment below is available only in English.
Ramkovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (application
no. 33566/11)
The applicants are Velija Ramkovski, born in 1947, and Emel Ramkovska, born in 1971. They are
Macedonian nationals who are respectively a father and his daughter. They live in Skopje.
The case concerned the applicants’ complaints about their pre-trial detention, which had lasted over
a year.
The applicants were arrested in December 2010. An investigating judge subsequently opened an
investigation into 20 people, including the applicants, on suspicion of criminal conspiracy and tax
evasion. In particular, it was alleged that the first applicant had created an organised group for the
commission of various offences through a network of companies founded and owned by the
suspects. Nineteen suspects, including Mr Ramkovski and Ms Ramkovska, were placed in pre-trial
detention for 30 days. The applicants’ detention order was extended several times, with their
appeals being dismissed. They were convicted by the trial court in March 2012, a decision which was
upheld on appeal in February 2013.
The applicants relied in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial
within a reasonable time or to release pending trial) and Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of
the European Convention on Human Rights.
Violation of Article 5 § 3
No violation of Article 6 § 2
Just satisfaction: 780 euros (EUR) to each applicant (non-pecuniary damage)
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.
