issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 281 (2022)  
13.09.2022  
Judgments of 13 September 2022  
The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of three judgments1:  
the three Chamber judgments are summarised below;  
The judgments summarised below are available only in English  
Gilanov v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 44719/10)  
The applicant, Michael Gilanov, is a Georgian national who was born in 1959 and is currently under  
the supervision of the courts in Chişinău.  
Mr Gilanov came to Moldova in 2000 and obtained a residence permit, officially leaving in 2006. In  
2007 an investigation was opened into his alleged fraud and his detention was ordered. The case  
concerns his extradition from Belarus and detention.  
Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), and  
Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the European  
Convention on Human Rights, Mr Gilanov complains, in particular, that his detention was carried out  
on the basis of an expired court order, that the order was not adequately reasoned, and it was  
decided without a lawyer of his own choosing being present.  
No violation of Article 5 § 1  
Violation of Article 5 § 3  
Violation of Article 5 § 4  
Just satisfaction:  
non-pecuniary damage: 3,000 euros (EUR)  
costs and expenses: EUR 650  
Timur Sharipov v. Russia (no. 15758/13)  
The applicant, Timur Rustambekovich Sharipov, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives  
in Moscow.  
The case concerns Mr Sharipov’s removal from a polling station where he was working as an election  
observer during the parliamentary elections of 2011. The decision to remove had been on the basis  
of his conduct while filming in the polling station, and was later adjudged to have been well-founded  
by the domestic courts.  
He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention and Article 3 of Protocol  
No. 1 (right to free elections).  
Violation of Article 10  
1
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  
Just satisfaction:  
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,000  
Başer and Özçelik v. Türkiye (nos. 30694/15 and 30803/15)  
The applicants, Mustafa Başer and Metin Özçelik, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1969 and  
1970 respectively.  
At the time of the events in question, the applicants were judges in the criminal courts in Istanbul.  
The case concerns their pre-trial detention while being held on suspicion of, among other charges,  
attempting to overthrow the Government and membership of an illegal armed organisation. They  
had been involved in the decisions to release suspects allegedly connected to the Fetullahist  
Terrorist Organisation/Parallel State Structure (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması).  
The applicants were ultimately found guilty of membership of an armed terrorist organisation and  
abuse of power only in 2017.  
Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of  
detention decided speedily by a court), Article 7 (no punishment without law), and Article 10  
(freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicants complain, in particular, that their pre-trial  
detention was in breach of the law and was not adequately justified by the courts, that their  
challenge to that decision was hindered by lack of access to the case files, that their detention was  
overly long, and that the courts failed to respond to their arguments and interpreted the law in an  
arbitrary manner.  
Violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the unlawfulness of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention  
for lack of prior authorisation for initiating a criminal investigation  
No violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the unlawfulness of the applicants’ initial pre-trial  
detention insofar as the applicants complained about the lack of jurisdiction of the 2nd Bakırköy  
Assize Court to decide on their detention  
Violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) on account of the lack of reasonable suspicion, at the time of the  
applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, that they had committed an offence  
Just satisfaction:  
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 5,000 to each applicant  
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  
We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email.  
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.  
2