issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 327 (2023)
28.11.2023
Judgments of 28 November 2023
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments1:
two Chamber judgments are summarised below;
separate press releases have been issued for four other Chamber judgments in the cases of
Krachunova v. Bulgaria (application no. 18269/18), Tadić v. Croatia (no. 25551/18), Associations de
copropriété forestière Porceni Pleșa et Piciorul Bătrân Banciu (Obștea de Pădure Porceni Pleșa și
Composesoratul Piciorul Bătrân Banciu) v. Romania (nos. 46201/16 and 47379/18), and Alekhina and
Others v. Russia (no. 10299/15).
Five Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can
be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgments summarised below are available only in English.
Schmidt and Šmigol v. Estonia (applications nos. 3501/20, 45907/20, and
43128/21)
The applicant Allan Schmidt is an Estonian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Narva
(Estonia). The applicant Ilja Šmigol is a stateless person who was born in 1993 and lives in Tallinn.
The case concerns consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments against the applicants when
they were serving sentences in Viru Prison. This resulted in their spending protracted periods in
conditions that effectively amounted to solitary confinement.
The applicants complain that the periods they spent in solitary confinement violated their rights
under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on
Human Rights.
Violation of Article 3
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 12,500 euros (EUR) to the first applicant and EUR 8,300 to the second
applicant
costs and expenses: EUR 1,900 to the second applicant
The applicants, Nadir Yıldırım, Selma Irmak, Besime Konca, Alican Önlü, Dirayet Taşdemir and Ahmet
Yıldırım are six Turkish nationals who were born between 1967 and 1982 and live in Ankara,
Diyarbakır, Kocaeli, Tunceli and Siirt (all Turkey).
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
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
