issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 186 (2021)

15.06.2021

Judgments of 15 June 2021

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

three Chamber judgments are summarised below;

two separate press releases have been issued for two other Chamber judgments in the cases of

Melike v. Turkey (application no. 35786/19) and Ömür Çağdaş Ersoy v. Turkey (no. 19165/19);

16 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 summarised below are available only in English.

Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia (application no. 13610/12)

The applicant, Vardan Martirosyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1984 and, at the time

of the application, was detained at Nubarashen Remand Prison in Yerevan.

The case concerns the applicant’s detention during criminal proceedings against him on account of

alleged attempted drug smuggling, and repeated extensions of that detention on the grounds that

he might abscond and obstruct the proceedings by suppressing evidence and exerting unlawful

influence on those involved in the proceedings. It concerns the decisions taken by the courts during

the pre-trial and the trial proceedings, and the dismissal of the applicant’s appeals.

Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5 (right to liberty and security) respectively of the European

Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains of the alleged unlawfulness of his detention

during the court proceedings, the alleged failure of the domestic courts to provide relevant and

sufficient reasons for his continued detention and the alleged absence of an enforceable right to

compensation. Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a

court) of the European Convention, the applicant complains of the alleged lack of equality of arms at

a detention hearing before the appeal court. Under Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the

Convention, he alleges that his right to be presumed innocent was violated by the decisions taken by

the courts during the pre-trial and the trial proceedings.

Violation of Article 5 § 1

Violation of Article 5 § 3

Violation of Article 5 § 4

Violation of Article 5 § 5

No violation of Article 6 § 2 as regards the decisions of 28 October and 28 December 2011

Violation of Article 6 § 2 as regards the decision of 27 March 2012

_________________________________________________________

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

Just satisfaction:

Non-pecuniary damage: 5,200 euros (EUR)

Costs and expenses: EUR 3,000

Barovov v. Russia (no. 9183/09)

The applicant, Vadim Kurbanovich Barovov, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in

Irkutsk (Russia).

The case concerns the alleged lack of an effective investigation into the applicant’s ill-treatment in

police custody during questioning for allegedly handling a counterfeit banknote. The injuries

suffered by the applicant included rupture of the spleen, internal bleeding, rib fractures, brain injury,

concussion and severe bruising. After almost 12 years, a preliminary investigation and criminal

proceedings by the authorities ended with the conviction of two police officers for having subjected

the applicant to ill-treatment. However, they were exempted from serving their sentences under

one applicable provision of the Criminal Code due to expiration of the ten-year statutory time-limit,

and received suspended terms of imprisonment under another applicable provision of the Criminal

Code. No disciplinary measures were taken against them.

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the

applicant complains that the investigation into his ill-treatment in police custody was not effective,

and that he did not have an effective criminal-law remedy in regard to his allegations of torture by

the police. He alleges that the police officers’ punishment was not commensurate to the suffering he

had endured as a result of his ill-treatment.

Violation of Article 3

Just satisfaction:

Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 11,000

Costs and expenses: EUR 943

Y.S. and O.S. v. Russia (no. 17665/17)

The applicants, Y.S. and O.S., are both Russian and Ukrainian nationals who live in Nakhodka,

Primorye Region (Russia). They were born in 1976 and 2006 respectively. The first applicant is the

second applicant’s mother.

The case concerns a court order for O.S. to be returned to live with her father in Donetsk (Ukraine).

In 2001 the first applicant married a Ukrainian national, A.S., and settled in Donetsk. After the birth

of O.S. in 2006, the marriage broke down and in 2011 Y.S. moved to Nakhodka. There she

successfully applied for a temporary and subsequently permanent residence permit. The second

applicant remained in Donetsk.

In 2014 civil unrest broke out in Eastern Ukraine. An illegal secessionist movement, the “Donetsk

People’s Republic”, took control of Donetsk. The first applicant tried to have the second applicant

moved to Russia, but was prevented from doing so by A.S. So, in January 2016 she went to Donetsk

and took her daughter to Nakhodka anyway. She applied for Russian citizenship for both of them.

In March 2016, A.S. began renting a flat outside of the conflict zone.

A.S. lodged an application before the Russian courts for the child’s return to Ukraine under the

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which was allowed by the

Tsentralniy District Court of Khabarovsk and on appeal by the Khabarovsk Regional Court, despite

the first applicant’s arguments concerning the risk to the second applicant of harm if returned to a

conflict zone.

Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 2 (right to life) and/or 3 (prohibition

of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain that the court judgment ordering the

second applicant’s return to Donetsk interfered with their family life, and that if enforced, the

second applicant would run the risk of physical harm in that State.

Violation of Article 8

Just satisfaction:

Non-pecuniary damage: the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for

the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants;

Costs and expenses: EUR 4,150

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.

Press contacts

During the current public-health crisis, journalists can continue to contact the Press Unit via

echrpress@echr.coe.int.

Tracey Turner-Tretz

Denis Lambert

Inci Ertekin

Neil Connolly

Jane Swift

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.