issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 149 (2021)

18.05.2021

Judgments of 18 May 2021

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 21 judgments¹:

four Chamber judgments are summarised below;

Four separate press releases have been issued for six other Chamber judgments in the cases of:

Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v. Iceland (application no. 71552/17), OOO Informatsionnoye

Agentstvo Tambov-Inform v. Russia (no. 43351/12), Sedat Doğan v. Turkey (no. 48909/14), Naki and

AMED Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği v. Turkey (no. 48924/16) and İbrahim Tokmak v. Turkey

(no. 54540/16), and Öğreten and Kanaat v. Turkey (nos. 42201/17 and 42212/17);

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 (*).

Manzano Diaz v. Belgium (application no. 26402/17)*

The applicant, Edmundo Manzano Diaz, is a Spanish national who was born in 1957. Three orders for

his compulsory confinement were issued by the relevant courts in June and December 2004 and

October 2007. He has been in detention continuously since the most recent order.

The case concerns the proceedings brought by Mr Manzano Diaz in the Court of Cassation

challenging the decision to extend his compulsory confinement adopted by the Higher Social

Protection Board (Commission supérieure de défense sociale – “the CSDS”).

In 2016 Mr Manzano Diaz, alleging irregularities in the proceedings leading to the successive

compulsory confinement orders, requested the Social Protection Board (Commission

de défense sociale – “the CDS”) to make an urgent ruling that his detention was unlawful and to

order his immediate discharge. In the alternative, he sought permission to go on outings. The CDS

held that it did not have authority to examine the lawfulness or appropriateness of the compulsory

confinement orders, and extended the applicant’s detention. That decision was upheld on appeal.

Mr Manzano Diaz lodged an appeal on points of law, alleging a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the

Convention among other provisions. The appeal was dismissed.

Mr Manzano Diaz alleges, in particular, a breach of the equality-of-arms principle and the adversarial

principle in the proceedings before the Court of Cassation, on account of the notification of the

reporting judge’s draft decision to the advocate-general but not to the applicant and of exchanges

between the advocate-general and the Court of Cassation, or at least the reporting judge. He relies

in that connection on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court decided to examine the complaints under Article 5 § 4.

No violation of Article 5 § 4

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: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution - _blank

M.K. v. Luxembourg (no. 51746/18)*

The applicant, M.K., is a national of Luxembourg who was born in 1931 and lives in that State.

The case concerns the applicant’s placement under ordinary supervision by the Luxembourg courts.

In 2017 the Court of Appeal decided that administrative acts carried out with regard to the

applicant’s real-estate property required the agreement of a supervisor. That decision was upheld by

the Court of Cassation in May 2018.

The applicant considers that her placement under supervision amounts to an interference with her

right to respect for private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.

No violation of Article 8

Berestov v. Russia (no. 17342/13)

The applicant, Yevgeniy Berestov, is a Russian national who was born in 1986 and lives in Samara

(Russia).

The case concerns the domestic courts’ alleged failure to adequately ensure that proceedings were

served on the applicant in civil proceedings against him following an accident in which a pedestrian

had been knocked over by the car he had been driving. The applicant’s application to the first-

instance court to have the decision that had been made in his absence quashed was dismissed, as

was a later appeal.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) that he was not duly informed of

hearings in civil proceedings against him.

Violation of Article 6 1 (on account of the applicant’s absence from hearings in civil proceedings

against him)

Just satisfaction:

Non-pecuniary damage: 1,500 euros (EUR)

Costs and expenses: EUR 240

Bişar Ayhan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 42329/11 and 47319 /11)

The applicants are ten Turkish nationals born between 1956 and 2009 who live in Van (Turkey).

The case concerns an incident in March 2009 when, following recent reports of terrorist groups

illegally crossing from Iran into Turkey, soldiers fired mortars on a group of people on horseback who

were illegally crossing the border into Turkey in what had recently been designated as a prohibited

military zone. The first applicant, Mr Bişar Ayhan, was seriously injured and Mr Murat Yılmaz, who

was a relative of the remaining applicants, died.

Relying, in particular, on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complain that the authorities used

excessive force and failed to conduct an effective investigation into the wounding of the first

applicant (application no. 42329/11) and the death of the relative of the remaining applicants

(application no. 47319/11). The applicants in the latter application further allege that their relative

died due to the negligence of the authorities in not promptly transferring him to a hospital.

Violation of Article 2 (right to life and investigation)

Just satisfaction:

Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 65,000 to the first applicant (application no. 42329/11)

Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 65,000 jointly to the applicants (application no. 47319/11)

Costs and expenses: EUR 1,000 to the first applicant