issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 087 (2018)

06.03.2018

Judgments of 6 March 2018

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three Chamber judgments¹, which

are summarised below.

The judgments are available only in English.

Royer v. Hungary (application no. 9114/16)

The applicant, Patrick Royer, is a French national who was born in 1969 and lives in Gaillard (France).

The case concerned his complaint about the Hungarian authorities’ refusal to order the return of his

son to France. His son was taken by the mother, a Hungarian national, to Szombathely in Hungary in

January 2014 when he was just a few months old.

Over the next few years a number of parallel proceedings ensued before the French and Hungarian

courts. The French courts found that the child had been taken illegally from France, and, awarding

the parents joint custody, granted the mother contact every other Saturday for two hours. However,

the Hungarian courts ruled out enforcing the French court judgments, concluding that the return of

the child, who was less than two years old, under the circumstances envisaged by the French

judgments, would cause him serious psychological harm. In particular the Hungarian courts pointed

out that it would not be in the child’s best interests to take him away from Hungary, where he was

very well integrated, to an unknown environment in France. Furthermore, given the father’s work

schedule, he would be looked after by his aunt, also unknown to him, whilst allowed very limited

contact with his mother.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on

Human Rights, Mr Royer alleged that, by refusing to order the return of his son to France, the

Hungarian courts had confused what was in the child’s best interests and what was in the mother’s.

No violation of Article 8

Chumak v. Ukraine (no. 44529/09)

The applicant, Sergiy Chumak, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Stryzhavka

(Ukraine).

The case concerned the banning and dispersal of a protest outside an official building.

Mr Chumak arranged the protest outside the buildings of the regional authority of Vinnytsia in

September 2006 in the form of a picket for an indefinite period. The action, organised by him on

behalf of a youth association, was aimed at protesting about what the association called the

unhealthy social and economic situation in the region.

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

Vinnytsia city council went to court for an order to end the picket, which had included the setting up

of two small tents by the walls of the regional authority building. The District Court upheld the city

council’s action and ordered the tents to be taken down. It found in particular that protestors had

obstructed the pavement and endangered road users, and that further breaches were possible given

the indefinite nature of the protest. It also banned any further peaceful assemblies by the

Association in the streets and squares of the town. The police later the same day dispersed the

protestors.

The court’s decision was upheld on appeal in November 2006. The appeal court found that a blanket

ban on peaceful assemblies was not allowed under the Constitution and replaced the word

“assembly” with “picket” in its judgment.

Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European

Convention, Mr Chumak complained of an artificial and disproportionate restriction on his right to

freedom of assembly.

Violation of Article 11

Just satisfaction: 4,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)

Mikhaylova v. Ukraine (no. 10644/08)

The applicant, Olena Mikhaylova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Nova

Kakhovka (Ukraine).

The case concerned her conviction for contempt of court.

Ms Mikhaylova, who is not a lawyer, was involved in litigation with the local municipal utilities

company either as a party or as a representative. On 1 June 2007, at a preliminary hearing in a case

concerning utilities arrears, she challenged the presiding judge’s impartiality and told her, among

other things, that “I know of no case where you have given a lawful decision” and “the law will mean

absolutely nothing to you”.

The presiding judge adjourned the hearing and, within the next hour, an administrative offence

report was drawn up for contempt of court, the case was transmitted to another judge and a hearing

was held. Having examined Ms Mikhaylova and the evidence in the report, the judge found her

guilty as charged and sentenced her to five days’ administrative detention, which she served

immediately.

Ms Mikhaylova made a number of complaints, in particular under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) (right to a

fair trial). She complained, inter alia, that there had been no party for the prosecution at the hearing

on her case, meaning that the judge who had convicted her for contempt of court had to assume

this role, thus undermining her impartiality. She further alleged that she had not been given time to

prepare her defence.

She also complained under Article 10 (freedom of expression) that sentencing her to detention had

been excessive and had breached her freedom of expression. Lastly, relying on Article 2 of Protocol

No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), she complained that Ukrainian law had not provided for a

right of appeal in administrative-offence proceedings.

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (impartial tribunal)

Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) – in that Ms Mikhaylova was not afforded adequate time and

facilities to prepare her defence

Violation of Article 10

Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7

Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,200 (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)

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)

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

Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)

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.