issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 199 (2018)

05.06.2018

Judgments of 5 June 2018

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 17 judgments¹:

seven Chamber judgments are summarised below;

ten 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 below are indicated with an asterisk (*).

Khani Kabbara v. Cyprus (application no. 24459/12)

The applicant, Hani Abdul Khani Kabbara, is a Canadian national who was born in 1984 and lives in

Canada.

The case concerned an allegation of police ill-treatment.

On 27 February 2011, Mr Khani Kabbara was arrested by the police in front of a bank in Limassol. He

was suspected, among other things, of having withdrawn money with a fake credit card from the

bank and was immediately taken to the Limassol central police station. Still on the same day, he was

examined by doctors at Limassol General Hospital who found various injuries.

Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of

the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Khani Kabbara alleged that he had been ill-treated

by police officers during his detention at the police station and that no effective investigation had

been carried out by the national authorities into his complaint.

Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment and investigation)

Just satisfaction: 25,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,000 (costs and expenses)

Sultan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 17047/07)*

The applicant, Alexei Sultan, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1960 and lives in Holercani (the

Republic of Moldova).

The case concerned the refusal of the Supreme Court of Justice to examine his appeal.

Mr Sultan brought a civil action for damages against the Holercani mayor’s office and the local

council, seeking payment of his unpaid salary, together with compensation and reimbursement of

his court costs.

The Dubăsari District Court dismissed the applicant’s action as unfounded. Mr Sultan appealed to

the Chișinău Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal on the same grounds. He lodged a further

appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice, which rejected the appeal without examining it and

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

informed Mr Sultan that the Court of Appeal’s decision had become final at the time of its delivery,

in accordance with Article 421 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Relying in particular on Article 6 (right of access to court) of the European Convention, the applicant

alleged that the refusal of the Supreme Court of Justice to examine his appeal had breached his right

to a court.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)

Artur Ivanov v. Russia (no. 62798/09)

The applicant, Artur Germanovich Ivanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and lives in

Novocheboksarsk (Russia).

The case concerned Mr Ivanov’s complaint that he had not been awarded enough compensation in

domestic proceedings for a breach of his rights under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading

treatment).

The domestic courts established that a police officer had punched Mr Ivanov on the ear while he was

in custody in April 2007, causing bleeding and rupturing the eardrum.

He was ultimately awarded 20,000 Russian roubles (about 440 euros) in compensation in April 2009,

a decision that was upheld in May 2009 after an appeal against the amount by Mr Ivanov. The

appeal court explicitly rejected his argument that such compensation should be determined by

amounts awarded by the European Court of Human Rights in similar situations.

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) he complained that he

remained a victim of a violation of his Convention rights because the amount of compensation had

been too low and had not provided him with proper redress. He also raised a complaint under

Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 3.

Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)

No violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3

Just satisfaction: EUR 11,000 (non-pecuniary damage)

Štvrtecký v. Slovakia (no. 55844/12)

The applicant, Miroslav Štvrtecký, is a Slovak national who was born in 1968 and lives in Senica

(Slovakia).

The case concerned Mr Štvrtecký’s complaint about being held on remand for more than three and a

half years.

He was remanded in custody in October 2006 on charges of extortion committed in cooperation

with others. The charges against him were expanded on several occasions. The authorities justified

his detention by the risk that he may put pressure on witnesses, tamper with evidence or contact

other perpetrators and the risk of reoffending. He was kept in detention throughout the further

proceedings, which included the investigation and the trial itself. He was convicted of establishing,

masterminding and supporting a criminal group, several acts of extortion, aggravated coercion and

fraud and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment in June 2010.

Mr Štvrtecký complained, in particular, of excessive length of detention under Article 5 § 3 (right to

liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial).

No violation of Article 5 § 3

Amerkhanov v. Turkey (no. 16026/12)

Batyrkhairov v. Turkey (no. 69929/12)

The cases essentially concerned the deportation of two asylum-seekers to Kazakhstan.

The applicant in the first case, Samat Amerkhanov, is a Kazakhstani national who was born in 1989

and is currently detained in Atyrau, Kazakhstan. He arrived in Turkey in May 2011. Shortly

afterwards he was detained with a view to his deportation because he was considered a national

security risk. He was transferred to the Foreigners’ Removal Centre in Kumkapı in June 2011. While

there, he claimed asylum, and was released in September 2011 pending the outcome of his claim.

His asylum claim was however rejected in March 2012 and he was deported to Kazakhstan. After his

deportation, he brought proceedings before the administrative courts challenging the rejection of

his asylum application and the decision to deport him, without success.

The applicant in the second case, Arman Batyrkhairov, is a Kazakhstani national who was born in

1980 and is also detained in Atyrau. He arrived in Turkey in June 2011. The Kazakh authorities

subsequently requested his extradition on terrorism-related charges and he was arrested in January

2012 while trying to leave the country. A month later the domestic courts rejected the extradition

request and ordered his release from prison. He was, however, immediately transferred to the

Foreigners’ Removal Centre in Kumkapı where he was held until his deportation in March 2012. He

had in the meantime applied for asylum, but the courts rejected his claim as well as his objection to

this decision.

Throughout the asylum/extradition proceedings both applicants claimed before the domestic

authorities that they feared ill-treatment or even death if sent back to Kazakhstan.

The applicants brought a number of complaints under Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of

inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 4, and 5 (right to liberty and security) about

their deportation to Kazakhstan and detention at the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre.

In particular, they alleged that they had been unlawfully deported without any assessment of their

asylum claims, despite the risk of them being subjected to torture and other ill-treatment.

As concerns their detention, they alleged that it had been unlawful, that they had not been informed

of the reasons for it, and could not have it reviewed by a court or request compensation under the

domestic law. They further complained that they had been held in poor conditions at the Foreigners’

Removal Centre on account of overcrowding and lack of outdoor exercise.

Lastly, they alleged under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that they had no effective

remedies to complain about most of allegations.

In the case of Amerkhanov:

Violation of Article 3 - on account of Mr Amerkhanov’s deportation to Kazakhstan on 19 March

2012;

Violation of Article 5 § 1

Violation of Article 5 § 2

Violation of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5

Violation of Article 3 - on account of the conditions of Mr Amerkhanov’s detention at the Kumkapı

Foreigners’ Removal Centre;

Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 - on account of the absence of effective

remedies to complain about the conditions of detention at the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre

Just satisfaction: EUR 6,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,370 (costs and expenses)

In the case of Batyrkhairov:

Violation of Article 3 - on account of Mr Batyrkhairov’s deportation to Kazakhstan on 12 March

2012;

Violation of Article 5 § 1

Violation of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5

Violation of Article 3 - on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention at the Kumkapı

Foreigners’ Removal Centre;

Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 - on account of the absence of effective

remedies to complain about the conditions of detention at the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre;

Just satisfaction: EUR 6,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,345 (costs and expenses)

Fatih Çakır and Merve Nisa Çakır v. Turkey (no. 54558/11)

The applicants, Fatih Çakır and Merve Nisa Çakır, a father and daughter, are Turkish nationals who

were born in 1979 and 2007 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey).

The case concerned a car accident which had killed their wife and mother.

On 25 October 2008, while Mr Çakır was driving in İzmir with his wife and daughter in the back seat,

he lost control of his car when the road curved into a sharp bend. The car dropped into an empty

concrete canal. Mr Çakır’s wife, Yeşim, died and Ms Çakır was slightly injured.

Mr Çakır brought compensation proceedings against the local authorities, claiming in particular that

a damaged crash barrier, which could have prevented the car from dropping into the canal, had not

been repaired. However, his claims were rejected in 2011. Relying essentially on a traffic accident

report, the administrative courts found that Mr Çakır was responsible for the accident as he had lost

control of the car, despite a warning sign about the sharp bend ahead.

Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complained that the domestic

authorities had failed to take the necessary safety measures on the road, which had led to the death

of their wife and mother. They further alleged that the ensuing judicial proceedings had been

inadequate, and had not established whether the authorities had been responsible for the death as

the courts had based their decisions solely on the traffic accident report. The applicants argued in

particular that a technical expert opinion had been required to be able to ascertain whether

Mr Çakır had lost control of his car as a result of a problem with the road.

Violation of Article 2 (investigation)

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

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)

Somi Nikol (tel: + 33 3 90 21 64 25)