issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 276 (2021)

21.09.2021

Judgments of 21 September 2021

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

six Chamber judgments are summarised below;

separate press releases have been issued for two Chamber judgments in the cases of: Dareskizb Ltd

v. Armenia (application no. 61737/08) and Carter v. Russia (no. 20914/07);

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 judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).

Barseghyan v. Armenia (application no. 17804/09)

The applicant, Levon Barseghyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Gyumri.

The case concerns the police preventing the applicant from holding a political protest in Theatre

Square in central Gyumri on 2 March 2008, the day after a state of emergency had been declared in

Yerevan following clashes between protestors and law enforcement. The clashes had occurred in the

context of nationwide rallies alleging election irregularities after the February 2008 presidential

election. The applicant refused to leave the area, and he was arrested and later fined in

administrative proceedings.

Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the

applicant argues that the ban on his protest was not justified as there had been no violence or

uncontrollable emergency situation in Gyumri; in reality the police had cordoned off the square and

no one could enter.

Violation of Article 11

Just satisfaction:

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

Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 66249/16 and six other applications)

The applicants are seven Azerbaijani nationals who all live in Baku.

The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that the domestic courts failed to award them

additional compensation, provided for under domestic law, for flats they owned in the Sabail District

of Baku which had been expropriated in 2011 and early 2012 in order to expand a highway.

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

Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, the applicants allege that the authorities

had told them that additional compensation would only be possible after they had sold their flats to

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

the State and that the domestic courts’ refusal to make such awards contradicted other similar cases

involving individuals living in the same neighbourhood.

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: for details of the amounts awarded please see the operative part of the judgment

Willems and Gorjon v. Belgium (nos. 74209/16 and three other applications)*

The applicants, Ms C. Willems and Mr Y. J. Gorjon, are Belgian nationals who were born in 1971 and

1966 respectively and live in Gesves. Together with other defendants, they were tried before the

Namur Criminal Court on various charges of avoiding value-added tax and were convicted in criminal

proceedings.

The two initial applications (nos. 74209/16 and 75662/16) concern the alleged formalism arising

from the Belgian Court of Cassation’s refusal, in a judgment of 1 June 2016, to accept appeals on

points of law lodged by the applicants against the judgments convicting them. The two other

applications (nos. 19431/19 and 19653/19) concern the refusal by the Court of Cassation to reopen

the criminal proceedings in spite of the Belgian Government’s unilateral declaration, on the basis of

which the Court had struck the applications out of its list of cases.

The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: the Court rejected the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Bērziņš and Others v. Latvia (no. 73105/12)

The applicants are three Latvian nationals who live in Katlakalns and Riga, Latvia.

The case concerns the applicants’ complaints that they have not been able to access their plot of

land in the parish of Garkalne since 2005 because of decisions designating the property as a

protected water zone.

Relying on Article 1 Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain that they have

not been able to access and use their property, without compensation or offer of a comparable plot

of land.

Violation of Article 1 Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: no request for just satisfaction made within the set time-limit

Milosavljević v. Serbia (no. 2) (no. 47274/19)

The applicant, Ranko Milosavljević, is a Serbian national who was born in 1960 and lives in

Kragujevac (Serbia).

The application concerns a civil defamation case brought against Svetlost, a weekly news magazine

based in Kragujevac, and the applicant, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, following publication in 2009

of an article alleging corruption in the management of the city’s cemetery. The domestic courts

found that the article had damaged the honour and reputation of the cemetery’s director and

ordered the applicant and the other defendants to pay compensation plus costs in the amount of

approximately 1,241 euros.

Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains about being sanctioned for

the article’s publication, arguing that it contributed to a debate on a matter of public interest,

namely the functioning of a public burial company.

No violation of Article 10

Kerem Çiftçi v. Turkey (no. 35205/09)

The applicant, Kerem Çiftçi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Batman (Turkey).

The case concerns an arrest warrant against the applicant and his police custody for, among other

things, being a member of a terrorist organisation (the PKK – Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal

armed organisation), attacking security forces using stones, sticks and Molotov cocktails and causing

damage to public and private property. He was detained for approximately an hour and half in

January 2007.

Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he alleges that his detention was unlawful as the

arrest warrant had already been withdrawn one month earlier. He also alleges under Article 5 § 5

(enforceable right to compensation) that the domestic courts dismissed his compensation claim for

unlawful detention.

Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5

Just satisfaction:

non-pecuniary damage: EUR 1,000

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

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)

Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)

Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)

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.