issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 034 (2023)

02.02.2023

Judgments and decisions of 2 February 2023

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

14 decisions²:

four Chamber judgments are summarised below;

four Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and

the 14 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.

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

Akshin Garayev v. Azerbaijan (application no. 30352/11)

The applicant, Akshin Gara oglu Garayev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1953 and lives in

Baku. He is the owner of a company called Maksima.

The case concerns the retention by the authorities since 1997 of property belonging to Maksima –

specifically 28 gas turbines – which was evidence in a criminal case concerning embezzlement.

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

Human Rights and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention, the

applicant complains of the ongoing and lengthy retention of his property and of a lack of a legal

remedy in that regard.

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction:

The Court held that the respondent State should ensure that the 28 gas turbines be returned to the

applicant or, should such return be impossible on account of any damage, destruction or loss of the

turbines, that their value be reimbursed to the applicant. It further held that the respondent State

was to pay the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and

expenses.

Janáček v. the Czech Republic (no. 9634/17)

The applicant, Ladislav Janáček, is a Czech national who was born in 1957 and lives in Říčany u Prahy

(Czech Republic).

The case concerns court proceedings around the division of property following Mr Janáček’s divorce.

The case was heard in the Zlin District Court, whose verdict was appealed against by Mr Janáček to

the Brno Regional Court. He lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court in 2016,

which was unsuccessful. In 2017 bailiffs organised an auction of Mr Janáček’s property.

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.

Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, Mr Janáček alleges that he did not receive

the written observations of the general courts and so was unable to comment on them in

submissions before the Constitutional Court.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

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

satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It further held that the

respondent State was to pay the applicant EUR 1,389 for costs and expenses.

Rocchia v. France (no. 74530/17)*

The applicant, Patricia Rocchia, is a French national who was born in 1961 and lives in Antibes.

Her husband lodged an appeal on her behalf against a two-year prison sentence that had been

imposed on her. However, this appeal was declared inadmissible on the grounds that he had not

submitted a special authority to act, although it was clear from the information on the notice of

appeal that he had power of attorney.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant submits that the refusal to declare her

appeal admissible amounted to a disproportionate interference with her right of access to a court,

and complains of excessive formalism.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction:

non-pecuniary damage: EUR 15,000

costs and expenses: EUR 6,000

Alhowais v. Hungary (no. 59435/17)

The applicant, Abdullah Mohamed Alhowais, is a Syrian national who was born in 1996 and lives in

Leipzig (Germany).

On 1 June 2016 Mr Alhowais, along with his brother and some other individuals including an Iraqi

family, crossed the Tisza River from Serbia to Hungary by boat, with the aid of smugglers.

Mr Alhowais alleges that Hungarian border guards forced them to turn back towards Serbia. His

brother was later found drowned.

Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment),

Mr Alhowais complains of the death of his brother and of the conduct of the police in returning him

to Serbia. He also complains of a lack of an effective investigation into these allegations.

Violation of Articles 2 and 3 (investigation)

Violation of Article 2 (right to life)

No violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment)

Just satisfaction:

non-pecuniary damage: EUR 34,000

costs and expenses: EUR 5,600

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.