issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 309 (2023)  
14.11.2023  
Judgments of 14 November 2023  
The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of 15 judgments1:  
Five Chamber judgments are summarised below;  
a separate press release has been issued for the judgment in the case of Nika v. Albania (application  
no. 1049/17);  
nine 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 below is indicated with an asterisk (*).  
C.Y. v. Belgium (application no. 19961/17)*  
The applicant, C.Y., is a Belgian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Belgium, where he is a  
self-employed nurse who performs home-care services.  
The case concerns the imposition of an administrative fine on the applicant for having claimed  
payment from the compulsory health insurance and benefits scheme, in 2005 and 2006, for care  
services he had failed to provide or that had not been in compliance with Belgian law.  
Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant in which he was tried for forgery, using  
forged documents with intent to defraud and fraud. Following those proceedings, the Brussels Court  
of Appeal acquitted him in 2015, finding that his intent to defraud, fraudulent practices or use of  
false qualifications had not been made out. Administrative proceedings were also brought against  
him, which resulted in his being ordered to repay 113,048.48 euros for wrongly paid-out claims and  
a fine totalling 1,200 euros.  
Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) to the European  
Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleges that he was the victim of a violation of the ne bis  
in idem principle as a result of being ordered to reimburse the undue payments and to pay an  
administrative fine despite his having been acquitted of criminal charges by the Brussels Court of  
Appeal.  
No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7  
Vukušić v. Croatia (no. 37522/16)  
The applicant, Zoran Vukušić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Zagreb.  
The case notably concerns the applicant’s complaints about his confinement in a so-called “rubber  
cell” (gumenjara) in Split Prison, for two periods in 2012 amounting in total to 17 days. A gumenjara  
is a specially secured cell, padded with rubber or other soft material to prevent self-harm.  
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.  
He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention,  
alleging in particular that prison guards had placed him in the specially secured cell both times naked  
and with the lights on at all times, and the second time also with handcuffs and belts restraining his  
hands and ankles.  
Also relying on Article 3 he makes complaints about the conditions of his detention between 2011  
and 2013 in Zagreb and Split Prisons, particularly on account of overcrowding.  
Violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s placement in the specially secured cell in Split  
Prison  
Violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s conditions of detention in Zagreb and Split  
Prisons  
Just satisfaction:  
non-pecuniary damage: 15,000 euros (EUR)  
costs and expenses: EUR 4,000  
Janakieski v. North Macedonia (nos. 57325/19 and 16291/20)  
The applicant, Mile Janakieski, is a Macedonian /citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia who was  
born in 1978 and lives in Skopje. He is a former Minister of Transport.  
The case concerns two sets of criminal proceedings against Mr Janakieski, the first for terrorist  
threat to constitutional order and security, and the second for abuse of office, during which he was  
deprived of liberty by decisions of the domestic courts.  
Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, Mr Janakieski complains of  
alleged unlawfulness and arbitrariness, lack of relevant and sufficient reasons and lack of a speedy  
review of his deprivation of liberty.  
Violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the lack of sufficient reasons for the applicant’s deprivation  
of liberty  
Violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the lack of a “speedy” review of the applicant’s deprivation  
of liberty  
Just satisfaction:  
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,900  
costs and expenses: EUR 2,200  
Canavcı and Others v. Türkiye (nos. 24074/19, 44839/19, and 9077/20)  
The case concerns lawyer-client confidentiality in the aftermath of the attempted coup d’état of  
15 July 2016.  
The applicants are three Turkish nationals: Mehmet Ali Canavcı, Ramazan Çaylı and Harun Altun.  
All three applicants were placed in pre-trial detention in 2016: the first two for membership of the  
FETÖ/PDY and for attempting to overthrow the Government of the Republic of Türkiye or preventing  
it wholly or partly from performing its duties; and, the third for membership of an armed terrorist  
organisation.  
Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective  
remedy), the applicants complain about the monitoring and recording of their meetings with their  
lawyers while they were in prison, pursuant to a legislative decree which had been adopted under  
the state of emergency declared in the aftermath of the attempted coup d’état.  
Violation of Article 8  
2
Just satisfaction:  
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 9,750 to each applicant  
costs and expenses: EUR 2,000 to the first applicant, EUR 4,942 to the second applicant and  
EUR 2,184 to the third applicant  
Cangı and Others v. Türkiye (no. 48173/18)  
The applicants are six Turkish nationals who were born between 1939 and 1964.  
The case concerns a court-appointed expert examination procedure within administrative  
proceedings taken by the applicants, concerning the extraction of gold using cyanide leaching at a  
mine situated in the city of Uşak.  
Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) the applicants complain of, within the proceedings, not being  
able to put their own questions to experts, that the documents assessed by those experts, including  
other expert opinions, had not been forwarded to them for comments, and that the national courts  
had not responded to their arguments around those expert opinions.  
No violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of inability to put questions to the experts  
Violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the non-communication of documents in the case-file  
Just satisfaction: The Court rejected the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction  
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.  
3