issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 375 (2022)

06.12.2022

Judgments of 6 December 2022

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments¹

five Chamber judgments are summarised below;

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

v. Estonia (application no. 14581/20), K.K. and Others v. Denmark (no. 25212/21), and Spasov

v. Romania (no. 27122/12);

three Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, can

be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.

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

Mnatsakanyan v. Armenia (application no. 2463/12)

The applicant, Samvel Mnatsakanyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1956 and lived in

Yerevan.

In July 2011 Mr Mnatsakanyan was removed from his position as a judge of the Avan and Nor Nork

District Court in Yerevan. One of his decisions had allegedly lacked proper reasoning and he had

allegedly not demonstrated the required level of professional competence. The case concerns the

court proceedings initiated by him against that decision, which were unsuccessful, as were the

appeals.

Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 14 (prohibition of

discrimination), of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12

(general prohibition of discrimination) to the European Convention, Mr Mnatsakanyan alleges, in

particular, that he was denied access to a court, that the dismissal infringed his freedom of

expression, and that the actions on the part of the authorities were discriminatory.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction:

non-pecuniary damage: 3,600 (euros) EUR to the applicant’s widow and daughter jointly

costs and expenses: EUR 1,300 to the applicant’s widow and daughter jointly

Pannon Plakát Kft and Others v. Hungary (no. 39859/14)

The applicants are seven companies based in Hungary. They are all involved in roadside advertising

hoardings.

The case concerns the introduction and amendment of the legislation governing roadside advertising

hoardings, in particular the Road Traffic Act, along with Government decrees, which had the effect

of heavily restricting the use of such hoardings and effectively banning the installation of new

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

hoardings outside built-up areas. That greatly limited the applicant companies’ activities, including

stopping use of up to 73% of hoardings and loss of up to 80% of revenue. Two of the companies

went bankrupt in the following years.

Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) to the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(protection of property), the applicant companies complain, in particular, of the loss of ability to

operate their previously installed advertising hoardings and the ban on the future installation of such

assets.

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: Details of the amounts awarded to the applicant companies for pecuniary and non-

pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, are appended to the judgment.

Scalzo v. Italy (no. 8790/21)*

The applicant, Maria Scalzo, was born in 1954 and lives in Sellia Marina (Italy).

The case concerns the applicant’s inability to bring an action to establish paternity on the part of her

alleged biological father, owing, firstly, to the fact that under Italian law no paternity action can be

brought until a final judgment has been delivered excluding paternity on the part of the putative

father, and, secondly, to the length of the proceedings to contest paternity.

Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)

of the Convention, the applicant complains of her inability to have her status as daughter recognised

owing to the length of the proceedings to contest paternity, which have been pending for over

12 years.

Violation of Article 8

Just satisfaction:

non-pecuniary damage: EUR: 10,000

costs and expenses: EUR 20,000

Kerimoğlu v. Türkiye (no. 58829/10)

The applicant, Alican Kerimoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul.

The case concerns the criminal proceedings against Mr Kerimoğlu, who was charged in connection

with a shooting over a property transaction.

Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman a degrading

treatment), Mr Kerimoğlu complains that his trial was unfair owing, in particular, to the courts’

failure to deliver a reasoned judgment, as was confirmed by the plenary Court of Cassation’s

decision to quash it six years after it had become final, and of the length of his detention and

sentence.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction:

pecuniary damage: EUR: 26,500

non-pecuniary damage: EUR: 12,500

costs and expenses: EUR 12,755

Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye (no. 3468/20 and 18 other applications)

The applicants are 19 Turkish nationals who were detained in various detention facilities at the time

of the events, either awaiting trial or appeal or who had been convicted of terrorism-related

offences in connection with the attempted coup of 15 July 2016.

The case concerns the refusal of the domestic authorities to grant the applicants permission to

receive visits from their school-age children during the weekends. Some of the applications also

concern the authorities’ decision to prohibit telephone calls during the weekends and the failure to

notify the applicants of the public prosecutor’s opinion during proceedings concerning those

restrictions.

Relying on Article 8, all the applicants complain that their right to respect for their private and family

life was violated as a result of the decisions of the national authorities to restrict their visiting rights

with their children, and the applicants in two of the applications further complain about the

restriction on making telephone calls at weekends.

Violation of Article 8 on account of the restrictions on visits in respect of all applicants

Violation of Article 8 on account of the restrictions on telephone calls in respect of the applicants

Barış Yaslan and Seyfettin Açıkgöz

Just satisfaction: Details of the amounts awarded to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary

damage, as well as costs and expenses, are appended to the judgment.

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.