issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 005 (2023)

12.01.2023

Judgments and decisions of 12 January 2023

The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of 36 judgments¹and

87 decisions²:

four Chamber judgments are summarised below;

a separate press release has been issued for a decision in the case of Cömert and Others v. Türkiye

(application no. 17231/17);

32 Committee judgment, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and the

86 other decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.

The judgments summarised below are available only in English.

Kılıc v. Austria (application no. 27700/15)

The applicants, Selma Kılıc and Mürsel Kılıc, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1975 and 1974

respectively and live in Vienna.

The case concerns the placement of the applicants’ children with foster families following their

removal from the applicants’ care due to allegations of neglect. The domestic courts ruled,

ultimately, that returning the children to their parents would put them in danger.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 9 (freedom of thought,

conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain of

the refusal to return their children to their care and that the children’s placement in foster families

did not reflect their religious or ethnic background.

No violation of Article 8

Pařízek v. the Czech Republic (no. 76286/14)

The applicant, Josef Pařízek, is a Czech national who was born in 1975 and lives in Olešnice

(Czech Republic).

The case concerns the increase of Mr Pařízek’s rent on his flat following its sale. He had been living

there since 1999 under a rent-control scheme. It also concerns the court proceedings that followed.

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

Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, Mr Pařízek complains, in particular, of the court

decisions that led to his rent being increased retroactively, and that the courts did not respond to his

arguments concerning the case-law of the Supreme Court in similar cases.

No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

No violation of Article 6 § 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.

Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.

Potoczká and Adamčo v. Slovakia (no. 7286/16)

The applicants, Anita Potoczká and Branislav Adamčo, are a couple. They are both Slovak nationals

and were born in 1980 and 1978, respectively. Ms Potoczká lives in Veľké Kapušany, while

Mr Adamčo is detained in Leopoldov (Slovakia).

The case concerns telephone tapping in 2004 in the context of criminal proceedings for extortion

against Mr Adamčo. The tapped mobile phone belonged to Ms Potoczká, but was – according to the

authorities – being used by Mr Adamčo.

Relying in particular on Articles 8 (right to respect for private life) and 13 (right to an effective

remedy) of the Convention, the applicants complain that the court warrant authorising the tapping

did not give any reasons; nor did it identify the issuing judge or monitor whether there were

continued grounds for the tapping. They also allege under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) that the

dismissal of their constitutional complaint was unfair as it had been based on the police’s

observations without giving them the opportunity to comment.

Violation of Article 8

Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8

Just satisfaction:

non-pecuniary damage: 5,000 euros (EUR) to each applicant

costs and expenses: EUR 2,500 jointly to the applicants

Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine (nos. 27276/15 and 33692/15)

The applicants, Vyacheslav Ovcharenko and Mykhaylo Kolos, are two Ukrainian nationals who were

born in 1957 and 1953 respectively.

In 2006 they were appointed as judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. The case concerns

their dismissal as judges from that Court for their participation in a judgment, which the authorities

interpreted as an unlawful act restoring a previous version of the Constitution which had led to the

usurpation of power by the then President of Ukraine.

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

18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention, they complain that their dismissal

was unjustified and allege that there was an ulterior motive behind it.

Violation of Article 8

Violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the right to an independent and impartial tribunal and the right

to a reasoned judgment

Just satisfaction: The Court decided that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just

satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.

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)