issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 026 (2012)
24.01.2012
Judgments
1
concerning Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia and
Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten
judgments, none of which are final.
One length-of-proceedings case (Medeni Uğur v. Turkey), with the Court’s main finding
indicated, can be found at the end of the press release. The judgments available only in
French are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Brega and Others v. Moldova (application no. 61485/08)
The applicants, Ghenadie Brega, Anatolie Hristea-Stan, Gheorghe Lupusoru and Vasile
Costiuc, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1975, 1953, 1969 and 1981,
respectively. They are all members of Hyde Park, a Chişinău-based non-governmental
organisation which lobbies for freedom of expression and the right to free assembly.
Relying in particular on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 11
(freedom of assembly and association), they complained about their arrests during a
number of protests at various well-known spots in Chişinău between March 2008 and
February 2009. Arrested for insulting the police and resisting arrest, they were released
within hours and subsequently acquitted of all charges against them. The applicants
submitted video footage of each arrest to show that the accusations against them were
false.
Violation of Article 5 § 1
Violation of Article 11
Just satisfaction
: 10,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) to Mr Brega, EUR
5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) to Mr Hristea-Stan, Mr Lupusoru and Mr Costiuc, each;
and EUR 1,600 (costs and expenses) jointly to all applicants.
Feraru v. Moldova (no. 55792/08)
The applicant, Mihai Feraru, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1974 and lives in
Migieşti (Moldova). He is a tradesman specialised in installing roof drainage systems. He
was arrested on 29 September 2008 on charges of insulting a police officer and, a few
days later, was charged with defrauding a client. He spent six nights in the local police
station in Chişinău before being transferred to the General Police Department where he
was detained until his release on 11 November 2008. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4
(right to liberty and security), he complained that he had been arrested in the absence
of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime, that the courts then had not
given relevant and sufficient reasons for ordering and continuing his detention and that a
witness had not been heard when deciding on the need to detain him pending trial.
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
Further relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he also
complained about the conditions of his detention in both facilities where he had been
held, notably as concerned severe overcrowding, lack of furniture and food as well as no
or very poor sanitary facilities.
Violation of Article 3
No violation of Article 5 § 1
Violation of Article 5 § 3
Violation of Article 5 § 4
Just satisfaction
: EUR 7,000 (non-pecuniary damage)
Miażdżyk v. Poland (no. 23592/07)
The applicant, Edmond Miażdżyk, is a French national who was born in 1950 and lives in
Poznań (Poland). In November 2004 he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on
charges of running an organised criminal group, which involved fraud, stealing cars and
handling stolen goods. Released in November 2005, he was banned indefinitely from
leaving Poland. Relying on Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement), he
complained that the ban had not been lifted until five years and two months later,
despite his family – including his three children – friends and business being based in
France. The criminal proceedings against him in Poland are still pending.
Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4
Just satisfaction
: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (costs and
expenses)
Just satisfaction
Costăchescu v. Romania (no. 37805/05)*
The case concerned the Romanian authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in
favour of the applicant, Viorica Costăchescu. In a
judgment of 29 September 2009
, the
Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
as a result of the local authorities’ refusal to enforce the judgment of the Bucharest
Court of First Instance. It reserved the question of application of Article 41 (just
satisfaction). In today’s judgment, the Court held that Romania was to pay the applicant
EUR 6,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
Toma v. Romania (no. 1051/06)
The applicant, Mihai Toma, is a Romanian national who was born in 1948 and lives in
Târgu-Jiu (Romania). Relying in particular on Article 7 (no punishment without law), he
complained that his driving licence was annulled in 2004, almost ten years after he had
been stopped for drink-driving and in application of a law that did not exist at the time of
his offence.
Violation of Article 7
Just satisfaction
: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)
Dmitriyev v. Russia (no. 13418/03)
The applicant, Nikolay Dmitriyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in
St Petersburg (Russia). The case concerned his allegation that he had been punched and
3
kicked on 8 December 2001 by two local policemen who had come to his family’s flat to
serve a summons on him following a complaint that he had beaten up a neighbour.
Forcibly arrested and taken to the local police station, he was released two days’ later.
He was subsequently convicted in October 2002 of affray in connection with the incident
involving his neighbour. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading
treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained about the police
brutality to which he had been subjected on 8 December 2001 and the fact that the
authorities had failed to properly investigate this complaint. Further relying on Article 5
(right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life),
he also alleged that the police had failed to follow domestic procedure when entering his
home and forcing the door to his room and that his ensuing arrest and detention from 8
to 10 December had been unlawful.
No violation of Article 3
(treatment)
Violation of Article 3
(investigation)
Violation of Article 5
(on account of the applicant’s arbitrary arrest and detention
between 8 and 10 December 2001)
Violation of Article 8
(on account of the unlawful entry by the policemen to the
applicant’s room on 8 December 2001)
Just satisfaction
: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 100 (costs and
expenses)
Mitrokhin v. Russia (no. 35648/04)
The applicant, Aleksandr Mitrokhin, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and is
serving a prison sentence for various offences, including murder and robbery, in the Altai
Region (Russia). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment),
he complained that he had been detained in appalling conditions pending investigation
and trial in the criminal case opened against him in October 2001.
Violation of Article 3
Just satisfaction
: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage)
Nechto v. Russia (no. 24893/05)
The applicant, Andrey Nechto, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and is
currently serving a prison sentence in the town of Nerchinsk, the Chita Region (Russia).
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 6 (right
to a fair trial), he complained that he had been beaten by the police after his arrest in
October 2002 on suspicion of robbery, that he had not been able to examine some
prosecution witnesses during the criminal trial against him, that he had not had a lawyer
during the pre-trial investigation and that the Russian courts had not correctly assessed
the evidence in his case.
Violation of Article 3
(investigation)
No violation of Article 3
(treatment)
Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1
Violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) taken together with Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction
: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage)
Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia (no. 57541/09)
The applicant, Valeriy Samoylov, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and is
detained in Russia. A retired Moscow district prosecutor, he was accused in March 2008
4
of large-scale embezzlement and abuse of power committed by an organised criminal
group which involved public officials. He was arrested in April 2008 in a hospital where
he was being treated and his subsequent detention pending trial was authorised by the
courts. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)
and Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), he complained about inadequate
medical care in detention as well as the unlawfulness of his arrest and the excessive
length of his detention pending the investigation and trial against him.
No violation of Article 3
Violation of Article 5 § 3
Just satisfaction
: EUR 2,500 (non-pecuniary damage)
Length-of-proceedings case
In the following case, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length
of criminal proceedings against him as a member of an illegal armed organisation, and of
the lack of a domestic remedy in respect of that complaint.
Medeni Uğur v. Turkey
(no. 49651/06)*
Violation of Article 5 § 3
(length of provisional detention)
Violation of Article 6
Violation of Article 13
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 to the
Court’s
RSS feeds
.
Press contacts
echrpress@echr.coe.int
| tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08
Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)
Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 90 21 58 77)
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
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.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |