issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 161 (2020)

09.06.2020

Judgments of 9 June 2020

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 16 judgments¹:

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

other Chamber judgments in the cases of Drašković v. Montenegro (application no. 40597/17) and

Erlich and Kastro v. Romania (nos. 23735/16 and 23740/16);

11 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 (*).

Nešić v. Montenegro (application no. 12131/18)

The applicant, Ilija Nešić, is a Serbian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Tivat (Montenegro).

The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about being deprived of land he owned on the coast

without compensation.

In 1980 Mr Nešić bought two plots of land from a private owner and was registered as the owner.

However, in 2006 the State instituted civil proceedings against the applicant, seeking that it be

recognised as the owner. In 2014 the courts ruled in favour of the State, finding that, under the

relevant legislation, the coastal zone, including its seashore, was a natural resource, which could

only be the property of the State. As it had been established during the proceedings that the plots of

land at issue were on the seashore, the applicant’s right to the land had ceased. All the applicant’s

subsequent appeals were unsuccessful, and the State was registered as the sole owner of the land.

Following further proceedings, the applicant was registered as the user of the land until such time as

he was dispossessed.

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

Human Rights, Mr Nešić complained about being deprived of his property without any prior

individual decision or any compensation.

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: Mr Nešić made no claim in respect of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage. The

Court awarded him 5,400 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses.

Arsimikov and Arsemikov v. Russia (no. 41890/12)*

The applicants, Mr Mayrbek Imranovich Arsimikov and Mr Ruslan Imranovich Arsemikov, are Russian

nationals who were born in 1969 and 1965 respectively. They are brothers and live in Grozny

(Chechen Republic). The case concerned the demolition of property belonging to the applicants, who

alleged that the local authorities had expropriated their houses, buildings and land.

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 1994 Mr Arsimikov and Mr Arsemikov purchased, by notarial deed, two individual houses and the

appurtenant land in the same street in Grozny. On an unspecified date (before 2004), the houses

were damaged during anti-terrorist operations carried out in the framework of the Chechen

campaigns. Following the enactment of Government Decree No. 404 of 4 July 2003 on the award of

compensation for loss of housing, they applied to the administrative board set up for the purpose.

On different dates in 2004 and 2008 they obtained awards in compensation.

As regards the first applicant’s property, on 6 May 2004 Mr Arsimikov sought compensation for the

loss of his housing under the Government Decree of 4 July 2003. The administrative board acceded

to the request, and the award was paid out shortly afterwards.

On 4 June 2010 a multidisciplinary board of Grozny Municipality officially decided that Mr

Arsimikov’s house posed an immediate danger and had to be demolished. The Grozny Municipal

Housing Board decided to allocate him an apartment in a tenement house in another part of the city,

to replace the house which was to be demolished. On 23 November 2011 Mr Arsimikov wrote to the

State Prosecutor of Chechnya to complain that the apartment allocated to him by the authorities

had no gas, electricity, water mains connections, inside doors or floors, and was consequently

uninhabitable. By judgment of 29 March 2012 the Leninski District Court in Grozny, acting at the

prosecutor’s request in the interests of the first applicant, declared the apartment insalubrious and

terminated the social housing tenancy.

On 12 October 2011 Mr Arsimikov brought a court action against Grozny Municipality complaining

that the local authorities had demolished his property and expropriated his land. By judgment of 10

May 2012 the Leninski District Court in Grozny dismissed Mr Arsimikov’s action on the grounds that

he had not provided concrete evidence to prove that Grozny Municipality had been involved in the

alleged acts.

Mr Arsimikov appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court of Chechnya, which dismissed

the appeal.

On 20 October 2015 the representative of the President of the Russian Federation noted that

according to the documents supplied by Grozny Municipality, the house had been demolished first

of all because of the immediate danger it had posed, and secondly as part of the effort to rebuild the

city.

Between 25 July 2011 and 16 October 2017 the authorities refused on eleven occasions to initiate a

criminal investigation for deliberate destruction of property and abuse of authority.

As regards the second applicant’s property, according to a certificate issued by the Bureau of

Technical Inventory, 69% of Mr Arsemikov’s house, including its roof, had been destroyed in 2006.

On 23 March 2004 Mr Arsemikov claimed lump-sum compensation for the loss of his home. On 20

November 2008 the administrative board decided to award him that compensation.

On 12 November 2008 Mr Arsemikov sent a letter to the public prosecutor of the Leninski District in

Grozny arguing that his house, which had been partially destroyed during the second Chechen

campaign, could have been rebuilt and complaining that instead, it had been completely demolished

two days previously. On 2 February 2012 Mr Arsemikov brought a court action against Grozny

Municipality. As he had done in the dispute with the first applicant, the municipal representative

replied that the municipality “had not expropriated the applicant ... and had caused him no

damage”.

By judgment of 14 May 2012, the Leninski District Court dismissed Mr Arsemikov’s action. The court

followed a line of reasoning similar to that of the judgment delivered on 10 May in the case of the

first applicant. On 7 August 2012 the Supreme Court of Chechnya upheld the judgment on appeal.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained of a

violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. They submitted that in 2011 and

2008 respectively the authorities had demolished their real property, in their view arbitrarily and

without providing compensation, and had taken possession of their land in the framework of the

reconstruction of the city of Grozny.

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 4,700 (pecuniary damage), EUR 6,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 900

(costs and expenses) to Mr Arsimikov

Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia (no. 63748/13)*

The applicants, Mr Pshibiyev and Mr Berov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1978 and 1981

respectively. They are detained in Kemerovo and Sverdlovsk. The case concerned the fact that the

applicants were unable to receive either short visits under properly substantiated procedures or long

visits from members of their families.

On 15 October 2005 a group of armed men attacked several State institutions in the city of Nalchik

in the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic. In the framework of the investigation into these incidents,

Mr Pshibiyev and Mr Berov were arrested and remanded in custody.

On 22 October and 24 October 2005 Mr Pshibiyev and Mr Berov were moved to remand prison

no. IZ-7/1 in Nalchik. During their detention on remand they received a number of short visits from

members of their families in the remand prison.

On 12 September 2011 Mr Pshibiyev and Mr Berov submitted requests to the Supreme Court of the

Kabardino-Balkarian Republic for long visits from members of their families. The Supreme Court of

the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic rejected the requests. Pursuant to section 18(3) of Law no. 103-FZ

of 15 July 1995 on the pre-trial detention of persons suspected or accused of criminal offences,

individuals held in a remand prison were only eligible for short family visits lasting no longer than

three hours, under the supervision of a prison guard.

In July 2012 Mr Pshibiyev and Mr Berov submitted fresh requests. The Supreme Court of the

Kabardino-Balkarian Republic once again rejected the requests on the same grounds.

On 14 September 2012 Mr Pshibiyev and Mr Berov appealed to the Constitutional Court of the

Russian Federation. On 7 February 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint.

On 23 December 2014 the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic sentenced Mr

Pshibiyev and Mr Berov to 17 and 15 years’ imprisonment respectively.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, the applicants

complained of the fact that they had been unable to receive long visits from members of their

families during their period of detention in the remand prison. They also criticised the practical

arrangements for the short visits which they had received.

Violation of Article 8

Just satisfaction: EUR 13,000 each to Mr Pshibiyev and Mr Berov in respect of non-pecuniary

damage, and EUR 3,000 to the applicants jointly in respect of 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_CEDH.