issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 054 (2020)

11.02.2020

Judgments of 11 February 2020

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

four Chamber judgments are summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for four

other Chamber judgments in the cases of Buturugă v. Romania (application no. 56867/15),

Atamanchuk v. Russia (no. 4493/11), Vovk and Bogdanov v. Russia (no. 15613/10), and Özer

v. Turkey (no. 3) (no. 69270/12);

two 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 (*).

Šeiko v. Lithuania (application no. 82968/17)

The applicant, Galina Šeiko, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Kretinga

(Lithuania).

The case concerned her complaint that damages she had had to pay had been taken from her

old-age pension.

In December 2014 the Kretinga Region District Court gave the applicant a suspended prison

sentence of two and a half years and ordered her to pay approximately 5,900 euros (EUR) in

damages to the family who lived in the apartment above her own after she was found guilty of

harassing them. The domestic courts dismissed her appeals against that decision.

In order to cover the compensation bailiffs seized a small plot of land and arranged with the social

security department for payments of sums ranging from EUR 20 to EUR 24, to be withheld from her

monthly pension, which amounted to about EUR 123, between January 2017 and March 2019.

Ms Šeiko complained that reducing her pension by about a fifth in order to pay the damages had

been unlawful and had caused her considerable hardship. The Court examined Ms Šeiko’s complaint

under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human

Rights.

No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Galea and Pavia v. Malta (nos. 77209/16 and 77225/16)

The applicants, Michael Galea and Edward Pavia, are Maltese nationals who were born in 1935 and

1954 and live in St Julian’s and Tarxien (both in Malta) respectively.

The case concerned the applicants’ complaints about the excessive length of proceedings and the

lack of an effective remedy for that issue.

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 1983 they were accused of being involved in illegally importing alcohol into Malta and were

ultimately found guilty in 1998 at second instance of various related charges. They were given

suspended prison sentences of two years and fined.

They brought constitutional redress proceedings in 1999 to complain about the length of the

criminal proceedings against them. In 2015 the first-instance court found that 16 years to decide on

the criminal case against the applicants was excessively lengthy and that the court authorities and

police officials had mainly been responsible for the delay. The Constitutional Court upheld these

findings in 2016, but reduced the compensation originally awarded to 5,000 euros for each

applicant.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial/hearing within a reasonable time) of the European

Convention, the applicants complained that both the criminal and constitutional redress proceedings

had been excessively long, having spanned over 33 years in total. They also alleged under Article 13

(right to an effective remedy) that the remedy for the length of the criminal proceedings could not

be considered effective as they had not been awarded sufficient compensation and it had lasted as

long as the proceedings complained of.

Violation of Article 6 § 1 - in relation to the criminal proceedings

Violation of Article 6 § 1 - in relation to the constitutional redress proceedings

Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: to each of the applicants 17,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and

EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses

Marshall and Others v. Malta (no. 79177/16)

The applicants in this case are Mary Marshall a Maltese national, born in 1924, Marie Christiane

Ramsay Pergola, a British national born in 1948, and the estate of the late Marquis John Scicluna.

The case concerned complaints, among other things, of the ineffectiveness of constitutional redress

proceedings, in relation to both a breach of their property rights and to the length of proceedings

which had been upheld domestically.

The applicants own commercial property in Valletta whose lease was transferred to a

Government-owned bank, the Bank of Valletta, in 1974 by operation of law. The applicants objected

to the transfer as a breach of contract.

They began ordinary proceedings in 1989 to regain possession, which did not end until June 2010

when the Court of Appeal found that the ordinary courts were not the right forum to address the

applicants’ complaints.

In constitutional redress proceedings, which began in November 2010, the first-instance court found

in February 2016 that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention owing to the duration

of the civil proceedings and a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention owing to the

derisory rent they had received, awarding the applicants one million euros. On appeal, the

Constitutional Court upheld the first-instance judgment on the merits but reduced the compensation

to EUR 25,000.

The applicants complained of a lack of redress under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of

property), of overly lengthy proceedings under Article 6 § 1 (hearing within a reasonable time), and

of the absence of an effective remedy under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction

with both provisions.

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 500,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 16,000 for costs and expenses to the

applicants jointly

Baykin and Others v. Russia (no. 45720/17)*

The applicants, Stanislav Baykin, and his parents Anatoliy Baykin and Larisa Baykina, are Russian

nationals who were born in 1982, 1942, and 1950 respectively.

The case concerned a threat to demolish a house located near an underground pipeline and to evict

the occupants.

On 8 February 2014 the first applicant purchased a plot of land comprising a partially built house in

the village of Safonovskoye. On 22 September 2014, having completed the construction of the

house, he registered his property rights under a simplified procedure, consisting of submitting the

document of title over the plot of land. His parents, the second and third applicants, moved into the

house.

On 20 May 2015 the company which owned and operated the underground pipeline near the village

sent the first applicant an order to demolish the house because the minimum permissible distance

between the building and the pipeline had not been complied with. On 30 July 2015 the company

instituted proceedings against the applicant, seeking a court order for the demolition of the house.

The court ruled that the house, located at a distance of under 100 metres from the pipeline, was an

unlawful building, and ordered its demolition at the applicant’s expense. The first and second

applicants appealed against the judgment. On appeal the Regional Court found that the

“safety distances” had not been observed when the house had been built, and that it was therefore

in breach of urban planning and building standards. The court ruled that the house was an unlawful

building and ordered its demolition. All the applicants lodged appeals on points of law,

unsuccessfully.

On 21 April 2017 the Civic Chamber, a public advisory body, noted that there were disputes

concerning dwellings located near gas and oil pipelines in almost one third of all the Russian regions,

giving rise to social tension and civic mistrust of the authorities. In the vast majority of cases the

courts allowed the applications lodged by the companies operating the dangerous installations and

ordered the demolition of the houses in question. The owners were generally awarded no

compensation, an issue which diminished the efficacy of registering property rights in the central

land register. In their observations of 19 April 2019, the Government informed the Court that

Stanislav Baykin’s title to the house had not been forfeited, and on 24 July 2019 the applicants

informed the Court that their house had not been demolished.

The first applicant argued, in particular, that the courts’ designation of his house as an “unlawful

building” and the demolition order had amounted to an infringement of his right secured under

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage) to the first applicant.

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.