issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 175 (2018)

15.05.2018

Judgments of 15 May 2018

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 22 judgments¹:

nine Chamber judgments are summarised below;

13 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can be

consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.

The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).

Unifaun

Theatre

Productions

Limited

and

Others

Malta

(application no. 37326/13)

The applicants are Unifaun Theatre Productions Limited, a limited liability company, and four

Maltese nationals, Adrian Buckle, Christopher Gatt, Maria Pia Zammit and Mikhail Acopovich

Basmadjian who were born in 1971, 1960, 1968, and 1972 respectively.

The case concerned a complaint by the applicants about the authorities’ decision to ban the play

“Stitching”, written by the Scottish playwright Anthony Neilson.

In December 2008 the first applicant applied to the Board for Film and Stage Classification for a

rating certificate ahead of a planned staging of the play, which deals with a troubled relationship

between a man and a woman. However, the Board banned the play. The reasons for the decision

included the play being blasphemous, showing contempt for the victims of the Auschwitz death

camp, portraying dangerous sexual perversions and referring to the sexual assault of children.

The domestic courts rejected constitutional appeals under Article 10 and Article 6 of the Convention

in June 2010 and November 2012. In particular, the Constitutional Court found that any genuine aim

the play had in portraying relationships was submerged under the instances of blasphemy, the

vilification of the dignity of women and children, and the glorification of sexual perversion.

The applicants complained about the ban under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European

Convention on Human Rights.

Violation of Article 10 – in respect of Unifaun Theatre Productions Limited, Mr Gatt, Ms Zammit, and

Mr Acopovich Basmadjian

Just satisfaction: 10,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage), jointly, and EUR 10,000 (costs and

expenses), jointly, to Unifaun Theatre Productions Limited, Mr Gatt, Ms Zammit, and Mr Acopovich

Basmadjian.

Virgil Dan Vasile v. Romania (no. 35517/11)*

The applicant, Virgil Dan Vasile, is a Romanian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Paşcani

(Romania). He alleged that he had been the target of police incitement using an undercover agent.

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

In March 2007 a prosecutor with the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism

(DIICOT) authorised two officers and a collaborator to infiltrate an international drug-trafficking ring.

The individuals in question approached Mr Vasile. A procedure for the discovery of an offence while

being committed was organised and was carried out on 26 March 2007. On the same day a report

was drawn up by the authorities and signed by Mr Vasile. In May 2007 the DIICOT committed the

applicant for trial. The County Court heard evidence from the applicant and his co-accused.

On 23 April 2009 the County Court sentenced Mr Vasile to five years’ imprisonment for drug

trafficking. He appealed unsuccessfully. On 30 November 2010 the High Court of Cassation and

Justice dismissed a further appeal by the applicant as being unfounded. The High Court ruled that

Mr Vasile’s involvement in the drug trafficking had been corroborated by evidence that had been

duly examined by the lower courts and that there was no evidence to support the allegations of

police incitement.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that his conviction had been

the result of police incitement. Under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial and right to

question witnesses), he alleged that he had been convicted on the sole basis of the statements made

by the undercover agent, whom he had been unable to question or have questioned.

No violation of Article 6 § 1

No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)

Agarkova v. Russia (no. 29951/09)

The applicant, Zoya Agarkova, is a Russian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Kaliningrad

(Russia).

The case concerned her son, who was taken to hospital on 17 January 2007 with severe head

trauma, lapsed into a coma and died a few weeks later.

Criminal proceedings were instituted almost a month after he died. The investigating authorities

established that his head injuries had been inflicted by a certain V. during a fight. V. was then

charged with homicide and the case was referred for trial. However, the case has never been

examined on the merits as it was returned to the investigating authorities so they could re-draft the

bill of indictment and, since then, the criminal proceedings have been repeatedly discontinued and

resumed. Most recently, in December 2012, the authorities decided to resume the proceedings and

give a polygraph test to the police officers who took Ms Agarkova’s son to the police station after

the fight. The case has been pending since then.

In the meantime, Ms Agarkova, who was convinced that the police had been involved in her son’s

death, repeatedly challenged the adequacy of the investigation into her son’s death and tried to

have criminal proceedings brought against the officers allegedly involved, without success.

Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Agarkova alleged that the investigation into her

son’s death had been ineffective.

Violation of Article 2 (investigation)

Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,780 (costs and expenses)

Lutskevich v. Russia (nos. 6312/13 and 60902/14)

The applicant, Denis Lutskevich, is a Russian national who was born in 1992 and lives in Lobnya,

Moscow Region.

The case concerned his arrest, detention and conviction after taking part in a demonstration in

Moscow on 6 May 2012 on Bolotnaya Square and is one of a series of cases linked to that incident.

Mr Lutskevich stated that he was beaten by the police when the demonstration was dispersed and

that in the early hours of 7 May he was admitted to hospital. He was arrested in June and placed in

pre-trial detention. He was charged with taking part in acts of mass disorder and the use of violence

against a public official, in particular of pulling a policeman’s helmet off his head. Further charges

were later laid against him, including that of throwing pieces of tarmac at the police. He was kept in

detention until his conviction in February 2014, when he was sentenced to three years and six

months in jail.

Mr Lutskevich complained under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) about,

inter alia, the conditions of his detention in his remand prison, in the holding room at Moscow City

Court and during his transfers between the remand prison and court for hearings. In addition, he

complained under this provision about being held in glass cabins and metal cages during his court

hearings.

Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a

reasonable time or to release pending trial), he complained that his pre-trial detention had not been

based on a reasonable suspicion and had not been justified by relevant and sufficient reasons.

He also complained under in particular Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), of

disruptive security measures at the protest and that his prosecution and conviction had been

arbitrary and disproportionate.

No violation of Article 3 – in respect of the conditions of detention in the remand prison

Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) – in respect of the conditions of transfer

to and from court

Violation of Article 3 – on account of Mr Lutskevich’s confinement in a glass cabin in hearing room

no. 338 at the Moscow City Court

No violation of Article 3 – on account of Mr Lutskevich’s confinement in a glass cabin in hearing

room no. 635 at the Moscow City Court

Violation of Article 5 § 3

Violation of Article 11

Just satisfaction: EUR 12,500 (non-pecuniary damage)

Muruzheva v. Russia (no. 62526/15)

The applicant, Leyla Muruzheva, is a Russian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Moscow.

The case concerned Ms Muruzheva’s attempts to enforce a court order that her children should live

with her rather than her former husband.

Ms Muruzheva separated from her husband in January 2014 and he took their two children, without

her knowledge, to Ingushetiya to live with his parents, himself returning to Moscow. In June 2014

the Izamylovskiy District Court of Moscow granted Ms Muruzheva a residence order in respect of the

two children.

Bailiffs in both Ingushetiya and Moscow were involved in trying to enforce the order for the return

of the children to the applicant, in particular by visiting their place of residence in Ingushetiya,

restricting the husband’s movements, visiting the husband at his apartment in Moscow and by

imposing fines on him for failure to fulfil the court’s residence order. The judgment has remained

unenforced to date.

Ms Muruzheva complained about the failure to fulfil the court order under Article 8 (right to respect

for private and family life).

Violation of Article 8

Just satisfaction: EUR 12,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,000 (costs and expenses)

Pankov v. Russia (no. 52550/08)

The applicant, Vladislav Pankov, is a Russian national who was born in 1987 and lives in Perm.

The case concerned an allegation of police brutality. Stopped by the police late at night on 9 April

2007 for an identity check and taken to a police station, Mr Pankov alleges that he was beaten by a

police officer the following morning. He was questioned as a witness in a robbery the same day and

released. On being released he was examined by doctors who reported that he had head injuries. No

criminal proceedings were ever brought into his ensuing complaint to the prosecuting authorities of

ill-treatment because the investigator found that there was nothing to confirm that the injuries had

been inflicted by the police. The investigator’s refusal to initiate criminal proceedings was upheld by

the domestic courts in 2008.

Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Pankov alleged

that he had been ill-treated in police custody and that no effective investigation into his allegation

had ever been carried out.

Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)

Violation of Article 3 (investigation)

Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)

Sergey Ivanov v. Russia (no. 14416/06)

The applicant, Sergey Vladimirovich Ivanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1966. He is

currently serving a 15-and-a-half-year prison sentence in the Nizhniy Novgorod region (Russia)

following his conviction in 2006 of theft and armed robbery.

The case concerned his allegation that he had been repeatedly tortured into confessing to the

crimes which had led to his conviction, by the police and by convicted prisoners acting on police

instructions.

Mr Ivanov was taken into police custody on 8 June 2004 following a search of his flat as a robbery

suspect. He alleges that the police punched and kicked him, and blocked his nose and mouth with a

rag until he lost consciousness, thus forcing him into writing a confession. He was brought before a

judge the next day, and remanded in custody.

He submitted that, during his subsequent detention on remand, the police had taken him away to a

police station and ill-treated him on two further occasions, on 22 and 28 June 2004. A doctor

recorded injuries on 29 June which he concluded had been inflicted on Mr Ivanov the previous day.

A month later he was transferred to a correctional colony where he alleges that he was repeatedly

visited and beaten by the police and fellow prisoners. At some point while in the colony he again

signed a confession, which he reiterated in November 2004 during his questioning as an accused.

His complaints that he had only confessed under duress never led to a prosecution as the

investigating authorities, essentially relying on the police officers’ denials of ill-treatment, found that

there was a lack of evidence to prove that a crime had been committed.

When convicting Mr Ivanov, the trial court relied on the investigating authorities’ decisions and

rejected his request that his confessions be declared inadmissible, and his confessions thus formed

part of the evidence against him. It further rejected statements by two witnesses at trial, in

particular Mr Ivanov’s son and a former prisoner, who confirmed that they had seen Mr Ivanov with

bruises and having difficulty walking.

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Ivanov

complained that the violence to which he had been subjected in police custody and at the

correctional colony had amounted to torture, and that there had been no effective investigation into

his allegations. Also relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complained that his conviction

had been based on confessions extracted from him by torture.

Violation of Article 3 (torture)

Violation of Article 3 (investigation)

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 50,000 (non-pecuniary damage)

Sancaklı v. Turkey (no. 1385/07)

The case concerned proceedings brought against a hotel owner for facilitating prostitution.

The applicant, Rıfat Sancaklı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955. He lives in Istanbul (Turkey)

where he owns the Hotel Sancak.

In May 2005 the prosecuting authorities indicted Mr Sancaklı on charges of failing to obey an order

from an official authority on the grounds that he had provided premises for prostitution in his hotel.

Shortly afterwards the domestic court found him guilty as charged. Under new legislation which had

recently entered into force, his offence was found to be a misdemeanour and he was sentenced to

an administrative fine of 100 Turkish lira (62 euros at the time). He objected to this decision, arguing

that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had known about the prostitution. The

domestic court’s decision was however upheld in February 2006.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Sancaklı alleged that the proceedings against him had

been unfair because the domestic court had not held an oral hearing on his case and that, although

the fine had been low, it could seriously affect his reputation given the offence in question.

No violation of Article 6 § 1

Vatandaş v. Turkey (no. 37869/08)*

The applicant, Mehmet Uğraş Vatandaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in

Istanbul. The case concerned his allegations of ill-treatment in the course of his arrest.

On 6 April 2002 Mr Vatandaş was arrested by anti-riot police officers during a demonstration in

Istanbul. He was then handed over to police officers from the Beyoğlu district, who were instructed

to take him to the police station. He was released that night. The following day he lodged a criminal

complaint through his lawyer.

On 22 April 2004, on conclusion of the proceedings, the Criminal Court acquitted the police officers

on the grounds that there was no evidence that they had committed the alleged offences, and that

the anti-riot police officers concerned had not been identified. Eventually, on 14 June 2011, the

Court of Cassation closed the case, finding that prosecution of the offences was time-barred.

Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant

complained of being subjected to ill-treatment – including a fractured elbow – in the course of his

arrest.

Violation of Article 3

Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2 000 (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