issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 105 (2019)

26.03.2019

Judgments of 26 March 2019

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 12 judgments¹:

five Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one

Chamber judgment in the case of Berdzenishvili and Others v. Russia (applications nos. 14594/07,

14597/07, 14976/07, 14978/07, 15221/07, 16369/07, and 16706/07) – just satisfaction;

a separate press release has also been issued for one Committee judgment in the case of Anoshina v.

Russia (no. 45013/05);

five other 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 (*).

Haghilo v. Cyprus (application no. 47920/12)

The applicant, Mustafa Haghilo, is an Iranian national who was born in 1973 and is currently living in

Armenia.

The case concerned his detention pending deportation for over 18 months in three Cypriot police

stations.

Mr Haghilo left Iran in March 2011 and entered Cyprus unlawfully. Shortly after, he was arrested at

Larnaca airport when trying to take a flight to London on a forged passport and was placed in

detention.

In April 2011 the Ministry of the Interior informed him of a decision to deport him because he was

an illegal immigrant. From then, he was kept in holding facilities for immigration detainees at three

different police stations. He was released in October 2012 because he had not been deported within

the 18-month time-limit under the relevant European Union directive, as transposed into domestic

law.

He had previously been briefly released after a court hearing by the Supreme Court in December

2011 because it found that his detention had been unlawful as of October 2011, but was

immediately rearrested when leaving the court and detained on the same grounds as the previous

deportation orders against him.

Mr Haghilo challenged the lawfulness of the new detention and deportation orders with the

Supreme Court, but his recourse was dismissed in July 2012. The Supreme Court upheld that

judgment in 2018 on appeal, noting that he had in the meantime left Cyprus for Armenia of his own

free will and no longer had any legitimate interest in pursuing his appeal.

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

Convention on Human Rights, Mr Haghilo complained that he had been held in inadequate

conditions in facilities which had not been designed for prolonged detention.

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

Also relying, in particular, on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), he alleged that his detention

from April 2011 to October 2012 had been unlawful and that he had not had an effective remedy at

his disposal to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.

Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment) – concerning the conditions of detention

Violation of Article 5 § 1

Just satisfaction: 30,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,124 for costs and

expenses

Velečka and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 56998/16, 58761/16, 60072/16, and

72001/16)

The applicants, Saulius Velečka, Norbertas Tučkus, Audrius Petkauskas, and Tadas Petrošius, are

Lithuanian nationals who were born in 1971, 1975, 1974, and 1981 respectively. They are currently

serving prison sentences in Marijampolė and Kybartai Correctional Facilities (Lithuania) for their

involvement in organised crime and drugs offences.

The case principally concerned the four applicants’ complaints about their pre-trial detention for

almost five years.

They were arrested in January 2013 on suspicion of possessing and distributing large amounts of

narcotic and psychotropic substances via organised crime.

They were placed in detention on remand, which was extended every two or three months by the

courts because of the risk of the applicants absconding and/or reoffending. The courts based these

decisions on the seriousness of the charges against them, taking into account any prior convictions

or connections abroad and whether they were unemployed. During the pre-trial investigation, which

lasted for almost a year and six months, the courts also relied on the need to carry out additional

investigative actions, which included multiple requests for assistance from abroad to obtain

evidence.

Their case was sent for trial in July 2014. Following 41 hearings involving 13 accused and 85

witnesses and including numerous adjournments or cancellations mainly for procedural reasons, the

applicants were convicted in December 2017 of, in particular, organising or leading a criminal

organisation and various drugs offences. Mr Velečka was sentenced to 14 years and six months’

imprisonment, while the other three applicants were given 13-year sentences.

The proceedings are still pending on appeal.

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

reasonable time or to release pending trial), the applicants complained that the length of their

pre-trial detention had been excessive.

Violation of Article 5 § 3

Just satisfaction: EUR 6,600 to each of the applicants for non-pecuniary damage

Valyuzhenich v. Russia (no. 10597/13)

The applicant, Mikhail Valyuzhenich, is a Russian national who was born in 1985 and is currently

detained in St Petersburg (Russia).

The case concerned his complaint about his confinement in a metal cage during criminal proceedings

against him.

In March 2012 the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan found the applicant guilty of involvement in

large-scale drug dealing. During the trial, which consisted of 16 hearings, Mr Valyuzhenich was

confined in a metal cage in the courtroom. There was no desk inside the cage, which made it

impossible for him to take notes during the hearings. His lawyer could only approach him with the

court’s permission. Any conversations between them had to take place in the presence of the

guards.

The Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic upheld Mr Valyuzhenich’s conviction on appeal. In the

hearing he participated by video-conference. He was placed behind a metal partition in the remand

prison where he was being detained and communicated with the judges via a video-link.

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

complained that his confinement in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against him had

violated his rights.

Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment) – concerning Mr Valyuzhenich’s confinement in a metal

cage during the criminal proceedings

Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 (non-pecuniary damage)

Revision

Gümrükçüler and Others v. Turkey (no. 9580/03)

The 34 applicants are Turkish nationals who were born between 1922 and 1996 and live in Turkey.

The case concerned the annulment of titles to land belonging to the applicants and the registration

of the land in the name of the State Treasury, without payment of compensation, on the grounds

that the land had previously been part of the public forest estate.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing

within a reasonable time), the applicants complained about being deprived of their plots of land,

classified as forest areas, without compensation. They also complained about the length of the

proceedings.

In its principal judgment of 26 January 2010 the Court held that there had been a violation of

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 6 § 1.

In a judgment on just satisfaction delivered on 7 February 2017 the Court decided to award the

applicants jointly 17,000 euros (EUR) for the non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of the

violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and EUR 2,500 in respect of costs and expenses.

On 23 August 2017, under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the applicants’ representative lodged a

request for revision of the judgment on just satisfaction. He requested that the names of five

applicants who had died, and the heir of one of the applicants who had died previously, be replaced

by the names of their legal heirs.

In its judgment today the Court decided to revise its judgments of 21 November 2017 in so far as it

concerns the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention. For further details, please

see the full text of the judgment.

Revision

Kar v. Turkey (no. 25257/05)*

The applicant, Hasan Kar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Trabzon. He

complained of the annulment of his title to a plot of land and its transfer to the State Treasury

without compensation. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

In its principal judgment of 29 March 2011 the Court found a violation of that provision.

In its judgment of 21 November 2017 on just satisfaction the Court decided to strike out the part of

the application concerning Mr Kar’s claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage. It also

held that Turkey was to pay the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

On 9 April 2018 the representative of the applicant’s heirs informed the Court that the applicant had

died on 22 December 2016. Under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court he requested that the judgment on

just satisfaction be revised and that the applicant’s name be replaced by the names of his heirs.

In its judgment today the Court decided to revise its judgment of 21 November 2017 in so far as it

concerns the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention and held that Turkey was

to pay Mr Kar’s heirs, namely Keziban Kar, Derya Deniz, Mustafa Kar, Birol Kar and Necmettin Kar,

jointly, EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

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)

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.