issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 051 (2023)  
16.02.2023  
Judgments and decisions of 16 February 2023  
The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of seven judgments1 and  
17 decisions2:  
four Chamber judgments are summarised below;  
a separate press release has been issued for a decision in the case of Taleski and Others v. North  
Macedonia (applications no. 77796/17, 80003/17, 81848/17, 81862/17, 11583/18, and 30884/18);  
three Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and  
the 16 other decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.  
The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).  
Ibrahimbeyov and Others v. Azerbaijan (application no. 32380/13)  
The applicants, Rustam Ibrahimbeyov, Shohrat Ibrahimbeyova, and Lala Afandiyeva are Azerbaijani  
nationals who were born in 1939, 1966, and 1941 respectively. Mr Ibrahimbeyov has since died; the  
remaining two live in Baku.  
The case concerns the alleged unlawful annulment of the applicants’ title to plots of land without  
compensation.  
Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Right and  
Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention, the applicants complain  
about their loss of land and that the domestic courts’ decisions did not provide any explanations.  
No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Ochigava v. Georgia (no. 14142/15)  
The applicant, Akaki Ochigava, is a Georgian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Tbilisi.  
The case concerns the applicant’s treatment whilst he was in Tbilisi Prison no. 8 (“Gldani Prison”)  
after being convicted of robbery.  
Relying on Article 3 (lack of effective investigation) (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or  
degrading treatment) of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was subjected to  
systematic acts of ill-treatment in Gldani Prison between June 2011 and August 2012, and that the  
competent domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation.  
Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment and investigation) on account of the applicant’s ill-treatment, the  
certain acts of which amounted to torture, and the lack of an effective criminal investigation thereof  
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.  
Just satisfaction:  
non-pecuniary damage: 20,000 euros (EUR)  
Perstner v. Luxembourg (no. 7446/21)*  
The case concerns the pre-trial detention in Schrassig, Luxembourg, of the applicant, Kevin Perstner,  
a French national who was born in 1990.  
On suspicion of having robbed an elderly couple in 2015, Mr Perstner was surrendered to the  
Luxembourg authorities by their French counterparts in 2019. After being remanded in custody he  
made three bail applications, which were refused. In 2021 he was convicted and sentenced to seven  
years’ imprisonment.  
Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, he complains that he was held  
on remand for too long and that his detention was unreasonable. He argues that the decisions  
refusing him bail were inadequately reasoned.  
No violation of Article 5 § 3  
Hubert Nowak v. Poland (no. 57916/16)  
The applicant, Hubert Nowak, is a Polish national who was born in 1986 and lives in Warsaw.  
The case concerns a serious car accident that left Mr Nowak with brain damage and tetraplegic, and  
the allegedly inadequate first aid provided to him. He was initially pronounced dead by an  
ambulance doctor and no medical attention was given to him for two hours.  
Relying principally on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant complains that the authorities failed both  
to protect his right to life and to carry out an effective and thorough investigation into his allegation  
of medical negligence.  
No violation of Article 2 (right to life)  
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)  
Just satisfaction:  
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 26,000  
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