issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 021 (2019)
22.01.2019
Judgments of 22 January 2019
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 13 judgments1:
two Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one
other Chamber judgment in the case of Vazquez and Calleja Delsordo v. Switzerland (application
no. 65048/13);
ten Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court,
including excessive length of proceedings, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press
release.
The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).
Móry and Benc v. Slovakia (applications nos. 3912/15 and 7675/15)
The applicants, Marek Móry and Matúš Benc, are Slovak nationals who were born in 1973 and 1980
respectively and live in Horná Kráľová and Nitra respectively (both in Slovakia).
The case concerned their complaint of arbitrary pre-trial detention and insufficient compensation.
In March 2014 the Nitra District Court remanded the applicants in custody pending trial after they
were arrested for insurance fraud. They appealed against the remand decision, arguing that the
District Court had not relied on specific facts. The Regional Court dismissed their appeal, and they
complained to the Constitutional Court, which in September 2014 found a violation of their rights.
It held in particular that even though the ordinary courts had referred to specific facts, they had
failed to explain them in their decisions. It concluded that the applicants’ pre-trial detention had
been based on an arbitrary decision lacking proper and sufficient reasoning and awarded them 1,000
euros each in compensation. The men had meanwhile been released on probation in May 2014.
Relying on Article 5 § 1 (c) (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human
Rights, the applicants complained that their pre-trial detention had been arbitrary and that they had
not been given sufficient redress.
Violation of Article 5 § 1
Just satisfaction: 4,000 euros (EUR) each to Mr Móry and Mr Benc for non-pecuniary damage.
Taşkaya and Ersoy v. Turkey (no. 72068/10)*
The applicants, Ms Kader Taşkaya and Mr Tahsin Emir Ersoy, are two Turkish nationals, who were
born in 1964 and 1996 and live in Istanbul. The second applicant is the son of the first. At the
material time, Ms Taşkaya was practising as a lawyer. The case concerned a complaint of a breach of
the right to respect for their private life on account of an article published in a daily newspaper and
of the unfairness of the ensuing proceedings.
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
