issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 093 (2022)
17.03.2022
Judgments and decisions of 17 March 2022
The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of six judgments1 and 57
decisions2:
two Chamber judgments are summarised below;
a separate press release has been issued for two decisions in the cases of Voiculescu v. Romania
(application no. 493/15) and Camelia Rodica Voiculescu and Others v. Romania (nos. 502/15,
1559/15, 2836/15, and 2839/15);
four Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and
The judgments summarised below are available only in English.
FU QUAN, s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic (application no. 24827/14)
The applicant, Fu Quan, s.r.o., is a Czech limited liability company based in Prague.
The case concerns the seizure of property amounting to nearly 2.4 million euros belonging to the
applicant company in the course of a tax evasion investigation and trial. It was held for five years.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on
Human Rights, Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the
European Convention, the applicant company claims that it was wrongfully deprived of its property,
and that the State Liability Act was interpreted in an excessively formalistic way.
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Just satisfaction:
pecuniary damage: 12,000,000 Czech korunas (CZK)
Normantowicz v. Poland (no. 65196/16)
The applicant, Rafał Normantowicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1983. He has a long criminal
record and is currently detained in Szczytno Prison.
The case concerns his complaints about inadequate medical care in detention and the authorities’
review of whether he was fit for prison given his multiple ailments.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention,
Mr Normantowicz alleges that the authorities failed to ensure that he had surgery for his spinal
problems, which led to him being confined to a wheelchair.
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a 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.
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
